Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Free access to sentencing remarks for all victims, published on 19 January 2026, whether his Department has considered the potential merits of including free access for victims to judges' remarks on cases that result in acquittal.

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

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data on (a) the amounts victims of crime have paid to obtain sentencing remarks, (b) the number of victims who have withdrawn their request, or (c) the reasons for any withdrawal.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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to his Department’s press release entitled ‘Free access to sentencing remarks for all victims’ published on 19 January 2026, whether his Department has any plans to extend free access for victims to judge's remarks to cases heard in magistrates courts.

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

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information his Department holds on the number of victims of crime who withdrew their request for a copy of a judge's sentencing remarks due to the cost since 2020.

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

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many victims of crime paid (a) £40 and (b) more than £40 to access sentencing remarks since 2020.

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

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the protections available to consumers who seek compensation via class action lawsuits offered by lawyers and litigation funders.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many civil servants employed by their Department work in roles primarily focused on (a) transgender policy, (b) diversity, (c) equity and (d) inclusion; and at what annual salary cost.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much their Department has spent on X and xAI since July 2024.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the news story from the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales entitled The evolving response to ethnic disproportionality in youth justice, published on 19 December 2025, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of Islington’s change to pre-sentencing reports to include statements on local over-representation data and adultification on local reoffending rates.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the potential financial impact on publicly funded bodies of an increase in collective or mass claims as a result of introducing legislation to reverse the effect of R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the potential economic impact of introducing legislation to reverse the effect of R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28, including the impact on business confidence and investment in the UK.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the frequency of late delivery of prisoners to court by contractors Serco and GEOAmey.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many fines of up to £625 for each 15-minute delay caused by the late delivery of a prisoner to court have been levied on contractors Serco and GEOAmey.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the financial stability of the litigation funding sector, and whether introducing legislation to reverse the effect of R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28 will increase systemic financial risk and volatility within that sector.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what safeguards they plan to introduce alongside legislation to reverse the effect of R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28 to prevent speculative or disproportionate litigation that could negatively impact economic growth.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the cost of defending and settling increased volumes of funder-backed litigation against public bodies.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the news story from the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales entitled The evolving response to ethnic disproportionality in youth justice, published on 19 December 2025, what recent assessment he has made of the trends in the level of adultification bias within youth justice decision making.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential implication for his policies of the news story from the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales entitled The evolving response to ethnic disproportionality in youth justice, published on 19 December 2025.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government (1) how many, and (2) what proportion of, prisoner leavers who were assessed as posing high or very high risk of harm were classed as homeless or rough sleeping at release between April 2024 to March 2025.

Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for government’s most important contracts, Data for July to September 2025, published on 25 December 2025, if he will provide a hyperlink to the contract performance information for the (a) Provision of Custodial Services and (b) PFI Contracted Estate Prison contracts.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government, for the period from April 2022 to March 2023, what proportion of people released from prison went on to reoffend; how many repeat offences were committed per reoffender on average; what was the total number of repeat offences; and what was the total number of repeat offences by custodial sentence length for (1) men, and (2) women.

Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many people of each ethnic group were in prison as of 30 September 2025 by religion.

Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to his Department's press release entitled Battlefield tactics to inspire UK fight against prison drones, published on 16 January 2026, what proportion of the 1,712 drone incidents referenced resulted in prison officers intercepting and seizing contraband.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to his Department's press release entitled Battlefield tactics to inspire UK fight against prison drones, published on 16 January 2026, whether his Department have had discussions with private drone companies to consult on anti-drone measures in prisons.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to his Department's press release entitled Battlefield tactics to inspire UK fight against prison drones, published on 16 January 2026, what proportion of the 1,712 drone incidents at prisons were related to (a) drug and (b) weapons smuggling.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how the Legal Aid Agency monitors whether legally aided housing cases are being actively resolved.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average cost to the Legal Aid Agency was per housing dispute in each of the last five years.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what guidance is issued to Legal Aid providers on the appropriate use of public funds for disputes that do not materially affect housing safety or security.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what checks and balances are in place to ensure that Legal Aid funding in housing disputes is used proportionately.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to help reduce intimidation and harassment of members of the legal profession.

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

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has conducted research into the potential merits of retrospectively abolishing Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 14 March 2025 to Question 37323 on Prison Sentences, how many people serving imprisonment for public protection sentences in Category A prisons on 1 January 2026 were classified as Category (a) A, (b) B, and (c) C prisoners.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Data on the prison population are published as part of the Department’s Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) release. The most recent publication includes prison population data as at 30 September 2025.

The information requested—relating to the prison population as at 1 January 2026—cannot be provided at this time, as doing so would provide an early indication of the data underpinning a future iteration of these Accredited Official Statistics, scheduled for publication on 30 April 2026.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to increase the number of probation officers.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Government recognises the vital role probation officers play in protecting the public and reducing reoffending. Recruitment and retention continue to be a priority and through these efforts we are starting to see the positive impact of a centralised recruitment process as a large number of qualified probation officers come through the pipeline.

In 2024/25, we exceeded our commitment to onboard 1,000 trainee probation officers, successfully onboarding 1,057. We are now going further, having committed to onboard a total of 1,300 trainee probation officers in 2025/26. Probation officer numbers have increased over both the last quarter and the last year. The Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP) 20 recruitment campaign, which went live on the 19^th of January, will further support our efforts to maintain strong recruitment momentum and sustain the pipeline of future probation officers.

A retention toolkit has been developed, informed by research into the drivers of attrition. This toolkit supports local, regional, and national interventions and is used alongside structured exit interviews which were introduced to gather feedback and shape future actions. It is positive that we are seeing a continued reduction in Probation Service attrition.

Both probation officer numbers in post and leaving rates can be found at HM Prison and Probation Service workforce quarterly: September 2025 - GOV.UK

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has conducted research into the potential impacts on long-term rehabilitation of Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Section 67 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish an annual report about the steps taken to support the rehabilitation of IPP and Detention for Public Protection (DPP) offenders and their progress towards release from prison or licence termination and lay the report before Parliament.

Although there has not been research conducted in this area the Government published its latest IPP Annual Report on 17 July 2025, which included a commitment for HMPPS Psychology Services to complete a review of the Never Released IPP cohort. The review aims to ensure the current barriers to IPP progression are considered and services reviewed relating to these findings to support IPP progression. We will report on the outcome of this review in our next Annual Report, which is due to be published this summer.

The 2025 Annual Report also contained a refreshed version of the IPP Action Plan, which includes measurable targets to ensure transparency and accountability.

Through the IPP Action Plan we have significantly improved support for those serving the IPP sentence, with greater access to rehabilitation and mental health support.

Changes we have made in the Sentencing Act 2026 will provide IPP offenders with an earlier opportunity for licence termination, whilst allowing suitable time for support and rehabilitation in the community and ensuring victims and the public are best protected from harm.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if his Department will consider the potential merits of retrospectively abolishing Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

It is right that the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence was abolished. Public protection will always be the top priority and abolishing the IPP sentence retrospectively would result in prisoners being released whom the independent Parole Board has determined are too dangerous. This would pose an unacceptable risk of harm to victims and the public.

We are determined to support those serving IPP sentences, but not in a way that undermines public protection. This is why the Government made changes in the Sentencing Act 2026 to provide IPP offenders with an earlier opportunity for licence termination, whilst allowing suitable time for support and rehabilitation in the community and ensuring victims and the public are best protected from harm

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps her Department is taking to ensure the timely processing of domestic abuse cases in courts; and what additional resources have been allocated to minimise case backlogs.

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

Whilst judges already prioritise cases involving vulnerable victims and witnesses, including domestic abuse, we know that victims who cases are heard at the Crown Court are waiting too long for justice.

That is why this Government commissioned Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. After considering the recommendations made in Part 1 of this report, we have announced our intention to take forward a bold package of structural reforms, designed to improve timeliness in the Crown Court and speed up justice for all victims, including victims of domestic abuse. This financial year we also funded 111,250 Crown Court sitting days – an all-time high.

We have also published our Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy - ‘Freedom from Violence and Abuse’ - setting out the Government’s approach to tackling domestic abuse and other offences perpetrated against women and girls. We are already acting by:

• Investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years.
• Repealing the Children Act’s presumption of parental involvement and expanding the Private Law Pathfinder pilot.
• Making trauma-informed training available to all criminal court staff by spring 2026 to improve how courts support victims.
• And exploring the expansion of Specialist Domestic Abuse Courts.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he plans to hold discussions with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on his comments of December 2025 on the treatment of hunger-striking prisoners.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

No discussions are planned. We are confident that the measures in place to ensure proper care for prisoners who refuse food are in accordance with the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people have been prosecuted under section 25 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in each of the last five years, broken down by the recorded ethnicity of the defendant.

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

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on prosecutions and convictions for a wide range of criminal offences including those under section 25 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in England and Wales within the Outcomes by Offences data tool. This can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics. Data within the published tool can be disaggregated by ethnicity and sex.

The data specific to offences under section 25 of The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is available by selecting the HO offence filter and using the following codes

• 02304 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged 18 or over – penetration
• 02305 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged 18 or over – penetration
• 02306 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged under 18 - no penetration
• 02307 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged under 18 - no penetration
• 02314 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged under 13 - offender aged 18 or over – penetration
• 02315 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged under 13 - offender aged 18 or over – penetration
• 02316 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged under 13 - offender aged under 18 - no penetration
• 02317 - Sexual activity with a male child family member - offender not 18 or over at time of offence and victim under 13
• 02322 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration
• 02323 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration
• 02324 – Sexual activity with a female child family member aged under 13 – offender aged 18 or over – no penetration
• 02325 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration
• 02330 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged under 13 - offender aged under 18 – penetration
• 02331 - Sexual activity with a male child family member under 13 - offender under 18 - penetration of anus, vagina or mouth by penis or other part of body
• 02332 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged under 18 - penetration of anus, vagina or mouth by penis or other part of body
• 02333 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged under 18 - penetration of anus, vagina or mouth by penis or other part of body

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many convictions for incest under section 25 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 have been recorded in each of the last five years, disaggregated by the ethnicity and gender of the offender.

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

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on prosecutions and convictions for a wide range of criminal offences including those under section 25 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in England and Wales within the Outcomes by Offences data tool. This can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics. Data within the published tool can be disaggregated by ethnicity and sex.

The data specific to offences under section 25 of The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is available by selecting the HO offence filter and using the following codes

• 02304 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged 18 or over – penetration
• 02305 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged 18 or over – penetration
• 02306 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged under 18 - no penetration
• 02307 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged under 18 - no penetration
• 02314 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged under 13 - offender aged 18 or over – penetration
• 02315 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged under 13 - offender aged 18 or over – penetration
• 02316 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged under 13 - offender aged under 18 - no penetration
• 02317 - Sexual activity with a male child family member - offender not 18 or over at time of offence and victim under 13
• 02322 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration
• 02323 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration
• 02324 – Sexual activity with a female child family member aged under 13 – offender aged 18 or over – no penetration
• 02325 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged under 13 - offender aged 18 or over - no penetration
• 02330 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged under 13 - offender aged under 18 – penetration
• 02331 - Sexual activity with a male child family member under 13 - offender under 18 - penetration of anus, vagina or mouth by penis or other part of body
• 02332 - Sexual activity with a female child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged under 18 - penetration of anus, vagina or mouth by penis or other part of body
• 02333 - Sexual activity with a male child family member aged 13 to 17 - offender aged under 18 - penetration of anus, vagina or mouth by penis or other part of body

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment has he made of the financial cost to parents of attendance at child contact centres.

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

The Government values the vital role that child contact centres play in supporting safe, positive relationships between children and their parents, particularly at times of family difficulty.

The Government is not responsible for setting the fees charged by child contact centres. Child contact centres operate independently and are responsible for setting their own pricing structures, which may vary according to the type of contact provided, the centre’s funding arrangements, staffing requirements and geographical location. As such, the Ministry of Justice has not made an assessment of the financial cost to parents of attending a child contact centre.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had a) one, b) two, c) three, d) four and e) five or more prior convictions for violence against the person in each of the past 5 years.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

• The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, and

• The number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.

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.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people who were (a) convicted and (b) cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had (i) one, (ii) two, (iii) three, (iv) four and (iv) five or more prior convictions for a violent offence in each of the last five years.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

• The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, and

• The number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.

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.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had a) one, b) two, c) three, d) four and e) five or more prior convictions for theft or robbery in each of the past 5 years.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

• The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, and

• The number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.

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.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

Found: through a Freedom of Information request to HM Courts & Tribunals Service, handled by the Ministry of Justice

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: Alex Davies-Jones MP Minister for Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Ministry of Justice

Found: However, performance of the service in England and Wales has worsened since the Ministry of Justice

Found: Allow me now to turn to your questions: Integrity of data being supplied to the Ministry of Justice

Found: to the Committee, you stated that you would check whether the Post Office is supplying data to the MOJ

Found: In November 2021, the MoJ consulted on a “Small Payments Scheme” that would allow families and carers

Found: Mental Health and Capacity fall within the jurisdiction of both the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) and the

Found: The Ministry of Justice has also consulted on how to legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to ensure

Found: sector as well as other government departments, including but not limited to the Home Office, Ministry of Justice

Found: The Department for Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Justice, the Cabinet Office, the Department for

Found: maintaining the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines for England and Wales on behalf of the Ministry of Justice

Found: for shared ownership, coordination or accountability beyond the Treasury, including key roles of the MoJ

Found: Provision) Regulations 2025 Instruments not reported 5 Annex 5 Appendix 1: Memorandum from the 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: She also highlighted Scotland’s recent introduction of a consolidated 126 Ministry of Justice, Report

Found: Human Rights Commission, Hate crime and hate speech: UK Government action, 29 January 2025 126 Ministry of Justice

Found: Letter to the Permeant Secretary of the Ministry of Justice regarding TM - Improving family court services

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

Found: This figure was obtained via a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ)

Found: services in areas with high levels of Black homelessness. 8.5 The Committee may wish to ask the Ministry of Justice

Found: the non-profit which operates the Register of Judgments, Orders, and Fines on behalf of the Ministry of Justice

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

Found: the policymakers in other departments, particularly in the Home Office and to some extent in the MoJ

Found: The Home Office has improved its working arrangements with the Ministry of Justice but, seven months

Found: Farhad Chikhalia: I am the director for finance strategy and partnerships at the Ministry of Justice

Found: The Ministry of Justice, whose accounts the accounts of the National Offender Management Service were

Found: Lord Hanson of Flint: If I am totally honest, a lot of that lies with MoJ and other departments.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (i) prosecutions and (ii) convictions there were for the use of a mobile phone while driving in each of the last five years.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on prosecutions and convictions for a wide range of criminal offences including using a mobile phone when driving in England and Wales within the Outcomes by Offences data tool.

This can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page available at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/criminal-justice-statistics.

Question to the Department for Education:

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, how many and what proportion of parents who have been prosecuted for their child's non-attendance at school have a child that has (a) Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) and (b) special educational needs and does not have a EHCP in each quarter of the last five years.

Answered by Olivia Bailey - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Education) (Equalities)

Data for prosecution of offences in England, including offences for non-attendance, is collected by the Ministry of Justice. The Department for Education does not collect data on the protected characteristics of the children of individuals who have been prosecuted for an offence related to their child’s non-attendance at school.

Nevertheless, we recognise that pupils with special educational needs and disabilities may face more complex barriers to school attendance and guidance requires schools to take a ’support first’ approach to tackling non-attendance for these pupils.

Our guidance makes clear that legal intervention, including prosecution, should only be considered where support has been exhausted, not engaged with or, in the cases of term-time holidays, not appropriate. We expect schools to work with these children and their families to remove any barriers to attendance and building strong and trusting relationships.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what guidance the Government provides to police forces to (a) help deal with racially aggravated sexual assault and (b) support victims of those crimes.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

Police are operationally independent and work in line with College of Policing guidance to respond to hate crime and sexual offences.

However, the Government expects the police to fully investigate each and every assault and work with the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure perpetrators are brought to justice.

The Ministry of Justice will invest £550 million over the next three years to provide counselling, court guidance and children’s services for victims. This funding will be delivered via PCCs, who assess local need and are best placed to commission tailored services, including for victims with protected characteristics such as race.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask His Majesty's Government, with regard to the Road Safety Strategy, published on 7 January, what additional funding and resources they will allocate to (1) the police, (2) local authorities, and (3) other partners, to ensure a swift and effective post-crash response.

Answered by Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill - Minister of State (Department for Transport)

The Road Safety Strategy outlined a new safe system approach to road safety that includes consideration of any post-crash response. We’re continuing to recruit more police, with 3,000 more neighbourhood police officers on our streets by March and we are abolishing Police & Crime Commissioners – so much needed funding can go into frontline policing including post-crash responses. Also £2.7m is allocated to policing under the Roads Policing Innovation Programme this year and the next two. Ultimately however, it is up to local police forces to decide how best to deploy their resources and this funding.

Every road collision resulting in a fatality or serious injury leaves victims devastated so it is important that victims receive the support they need. This government will be increasing funding for victim support services year on year, from 2026 to 2029. In total, government will be investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date.

The Ministry of Justice has committed to reviewing the Victims’ Code, a practical statutory guide for victims of crime, including victims of road traffic offences. Under the Victims’ Code, all victims are entitled to be given information about and be referred to victim support services by the police to help them cope and recover from the impact of a crime. Further, the Office of the Victims’ Commissioner has undertaken work to commission additional research to explore the victim journey for road traffic collisions and support for victims.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what additional funding and resources he plans to allocate to local authorities to aid housing repairs.

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

All registered providers of social housing are required to deliver the outcomes of the regulatory standards set by the independent Regulator of Social Housing. This includes providing an effective, efficient, and timely repairs service for the homes and communal areas they are responsible for, including setting timescales for completion, and communicating these to tenants.

The government has introduced additional safety legislation to protect tenants from health and safety hazards through the introduction of Awaab's Law which came into force for damp, mould, and all emergency hazards on 27 October 2025.

On the 28 January the government also announced further measures to support local authorities in building and maintaining safe and decent social and affordable homes, including a new, modernised Decent Homes Standard. Details can be found in the Written Ministerial Statement (HCWS1283).

Finally, my Department launched a call for evidence with the Ministry of Justice on 4 December to hear from tenants, landlords, legal professionals and claims management companies about their experiences of housing disrepair claims. It can be found on gov.uk here. The exercise will allow us to gather further evidence on how the current process works, including the roles of companies and solicitors in these cases. We want to understand what doesn't work or is unclear so that we can make sure the process is as effective as possible. The call for evidence will be open for 12 weeks and close on 12 February 2026.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what the average turnaround time is for urgent and non-urgent repairs in social housing; and whether targets have been set for improvement.

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

All registered providers of social housing are required to deliver the outcomes of the regulatory standards set by the independent Regulator of Social Housing. This includes providing an effective, efficient, and timely repairs service for the homes and communal areas they are responsible for, including setting timescales for completion, and communicating these to tenants.

The government has introduced additional safety legislation to protect tenants from health and safety hazards through the introduction of Awaab's Law which came into force for damp, mould, and all emergency hazards on 27 October 2025.

On the 28 January the government also announced further measures to support local authorities in building and maintaining safe and decent social and affordable homes, including a new, modernised Decent Homes Standard. Details can be found in the Written Ministerial Statement (HCWS1283).

Finally, my Department launched a call for evidence with the Ministry of Justice on 4 December to hear from tenants, landlords, legal professionals and claims management companies about their experiences of housing disrepair claims. It can be found on gov.uk here. The exercise will allow us to gather further evidence on how the current process works, including the roles of companies and solicitors in these cases. We want to understand what doesn't work or is unclear so that we can make sure the process is as effective as possible. The call for evidence will be open for 12 weeks and close on 12 February 2026.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what steps his Department is taking to help reduce the turnaround time for repairs in social housing managed by local authorities.

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

All registered providers of social housing are required to deliver the outcomes of the regulatory standards set by the independent Regulator of Social Housing. This includes providing an effective, efficient, and timely repairs service for the homes and communal areas they are responsible for, including setting timescales for completion, and communicating these to tenants.

The government has introduced additional safety legislation to protect tenants from health and safety hazards through the introduction of Awaab's Law which came into force for damp, mould, and all emergency hazards on 27 October 2025.

On the 28 January the government also announced further measures to support local authorities in building and maintaining safe and decent social and affordable homes, including a new, modernised Decent Homes Standard. Details can be found in the Written Ministerial Statement (HCWS1283).

Finally, my Department launched a call for evidence with the Ministry of Justice on 4 December to hear from tenants, landlords, legal professionals and claims management companies about their experiences of housing disrepair claims. It can be found on gov.uk here. The exercise will allow us to gather further evidence on how the current process works, including the roles of companies and solicitors in these cases. We want to understand what doesn't work or is unclear so that we can make sure the process is as effective as possible. The call for evidence will be open for 12 weeks and close on 12 February 2026.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how much her Department spent on (a) legal advice and (b) other support services for migrants who arrived in the UK illegally who are in accommodation by contract in 2025.

Answered by Alex Norris - Minister of State (Home Office)

The Home Office does not hold the requested data on the provision of legal advice. Asylum seekers may be eligible for legal aid, which is administered by the Legal Aid Agency in the Ministry of Justice.

Regarding other services, the Asylum Accommodation and Support Contract (AASC) Statement of Requirements provides a detailed breakdown of all services that accommodation providers must deliver, along with the standards expected of them. The full document is available here:

http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedPapers/Files/DEP2018-1112/AASC_-_Schedule_2_-_Statement_of_Requirements.pdf

The Home Office publishes information on asylum expenditure, including services such as AASC and AIRE, within its Annual Report and Accounts. These can be found on GOV.UK here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/ho-annual-reports-and-accounts

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what modelling he has undertaken on the expected number of market rent determination applications following implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.

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 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.

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that local authorities follow best practice in commissioning domestic abuse services, including recognising the potential role of specialist community-based organisations.

Answered by Alison McGovern - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

The government is committed to support victims of domestic abuse. This is part of the government’s wider mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade as set out in the Freedom from Violence and Abuse strategy published on 18 December.

Since 2021, local authorities in England have a statutory duty to assess local need and commission safe accommodation-based support for victims and their children. To support delivery of this duty, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provided local authorities in England £160 million in 2025/26, a £30 million uplift from the previous year, and £499 million funding will be allocated to local authorities over the next three years.

Statutory guidance to local authorities is available on gov.uk here providing further details on how the duty should be delivered.

MHCLG continues to work closely with local authorities, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and sector partners to promote best practice, support delivery and drive continuous improvement in the commissioning of safe accommodation services.

Ensuring victims receive the right and timely support is also central to the Government’s mission. The Ministry of Justice will be investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years, and together with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners (APCC) has published guidance here to help local commissioners in their role of supporting victims of all crime, including domestic abuse, focusing on sharing best practice and effective collaboration.

Found: Investments Limited Ministry of Defence Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministry of Justice

We petition the Government to amend the law for landlords by instituting a 6-week expedited court process for Mandatory Grounds s8/7A (arrears/Anti-Social Behaviour), creating a registered-landlord database of court-evicted tenants, and raising the deposit cap to adequately cover severe damage.

Found: Current MoJ data shows the average eviction takes over 27 weeks (6+ months).

Found: It examines: • how well the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), HMPPS, Department of Health & Social Care (DHSC

Found: and social care, Prisons and probation Departments: Department of Health and Social Care, Ministry of Justice

Found: logo SESSION 2024–2026 04 FEBRUARY 2026 HC 1643 The costs of tackling drug harms in prisons Ministry of Justice

Found: sector bodies, including: • all government departments, for example Department for Transport, Ministry of Justice

Found: George [Madras] Ministry of Justice 2710 Charles King Seascape with Royal Naval Ships, c1943 Ministry

Found: Orchid; Opposing Forms Cabinet Office 12922 Victor Pasmore Metamorphosis (Linear Motifs) No.6 Ministry of Justice

Found: _cell">Insurance and Pensions Markets Team

Found: Design Services Dsit - Science, Innovation And Growth - Dsit - Government Office For Science Ministry Of Justice

Found: Corporate Services - Dsit - Matrix Directorate

Found: 1ew Vendor 21/02/2025 Business Rates Dsit - Corporate Services - Dsit - Matrix Directorate Ministry Of Justice

Found: Growth - Dsit - Government Office For Science

Found: Introduction This UKDI (UKDI) competition is run on behalf of Ministry of Justice (MOJ), His Majesty’

Found: Local Government MIRAS – Mortgage Interest Relief at Source MITR – Mortgage Interest Tax Relief MoJ

Found: Authorities referenced examples of large DWP/MOJ properties in town/city centre locations whereby t

Found: In the months ahead we will work with the Ministry of Justice and the Crown Prosecution Service (alongside

Found: illegal use of UAS around prisons and sensitive sites’ This competition is run on behalf of the Ministry of Justice

Found: The PTWR must, therefore, be read and applied consistently with the PTWD on that date (Ministry of Justice

Found: Jonathan has worked across government since 2002, with roles at the Home Office, Ministry of Justice

Found: Ms R Jones v Ministry of Justice: [2025] EAT 205

Found: Ms R Jones v Ministry of Justice: [2025] EAT 205

Found: no need to call Customer Services Team—simply submit your request via the MOJ form.

Found: Introduction This UKDI (UKDI) competition is run on behalf of Ministry of Justice (MOJ), His Majesty’

Found: Non-media enquiries Email: JODataAnalysis@judiciary.uk Copyright Crown copyright produced by the Ministry of Justice

Found: and Tribunals Portfolio HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice

Found: Accompanying files • Data tables Contact Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice

Found: enquiries Email: OMSQ-SiC-publications@justice.gov.uk Copyright Crown copyright Produced by the Ministry of Justice

Found: Contact Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office: https://www.gov.uk

Found: are published as part of the 'Offender Management Statistics Quarterly' publication by the Ministry of Justice

Found: Page 1 Guide to Offender Management Statistics England and Wales Ministry of Justice

Found: are published as part of the 'Offender Management Statistics Quarterly' publication by the Ministry of Justice

Found: are published as part of the 'Offender Management Statistics Quarterly' publication by the Ministry of Justice

Found: Pre-release list Offender Management Statistics are produced and handled by the Ministry of Justice’s (MOJ

Found: are published as part of the 'Offender Management Statistics Quarterly' publication by the Ministry of Justice

Found: are published as part of the 'Offender Management Statistics Quarterly' publication by the Ministry of Justice

Found: User Summary of main statistical needs MOJ Ministers Use the statistics to monitor the prison population

Found: tables are published as part of the Offender Management Statistics Quarterly publication by the Ministry of Justice

Found: Children and Young People Secure Estate statistics are produced and handled by the Ministry of Justice’s (MOJ

Found: Registration Service Act 2007. 21 Contact Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice

Found: found on the GOV.UK website via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice

Found: WalesTable 3.14Table 3.15: Notes on Data and MethodologyTable 3.15These tables are part of the Ministry of Justice

Found: WalesTable 2.14Table 2.15: Notes on Data and MethodologyTable 2.15These tables are part of the Ministry of Justice

Found: - 1 - Guide to Safety in Custody Statistics Ministry of Justice Statistics bulletin

Found: The bulletin is released by the Ministry of Justice and produced in accordance with arrangements approved

Found: found on the GOV.UK website via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice

Found: and Wales (ONS, 2025), and 22,649 conviction outcomes were recorded in calendar year 2024 (Ministry of Justice

Found: HMCTS is operationally independent of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and is the provider of support to

Found: statistics (annual) 2010 (MoJ, June 2012); Judicial and court statistics 2006 (MoJ, November 2007).

Found:  (MoJ), December 2025). 3 Source: HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS), Unpublished Management

Found: accidental releases in Scotland over recent years and comparing that figure to the 2024/25 stand-alone MOJ

Found: The Bill is sponsored by the Ministry of Justice. 8.

Found: This will inform ongoing engagement with the Ministry of Justice. 32.

Found: Identification JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee KAS Knowledge and Analytical Services MoJ

Found: The CPR, under which effect is given to access to justice, come under the remit of the Ministry of Justice