The Justice Committee has issued a call for evidence to inform its scrutiny of the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to promote the use of long-acting injectable buprenorphine (LAIB) in i) sentencing decisions in cases involving opioid abuse ii) prison-release pathways in Hampshire.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Treatment and clinical prescribing decisions are the responsibility of services commissioned by NHS in prisons and local authority service providers in the community.

Responsibility for continuity of care for prison leavers, including access to medications and clinical care rests with prison drug and alcohol treatment providers liaising with community treatment providers.

The promotion of one medicine over another is strictly regulated in England and Wales.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what conversations he has had with the Department of Health and Social Care about the Human Tissue Authority’s role in regulating the care of corpses throughout the death pathway including in funeral homes.

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

The Government is considering the full range of options to strengthen and improve standards to safeguard the security and dignity of the deceased, particularly in the context of a full response to the Fuller Inquiry Phase 2 report which will be provided by summer 2026.

Our consideration has included discussions about a potential role for a relevant partner organisation such as the Human Tissue Authority.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to fund domestic abuse support programmes in i) Hampshire ii) Gosport.

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

The Ministry of Justice provides all Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales with core grant funding for victims of all crime types, which can be used to commission restorative justice and domestic abuse services. In addition, they receive ring-fenced funding for domestic and sexual abuse services. PCCs are best placed to assess local need and commission services based on the needs of the population in the local area. Restorative justice services should be targeted to the most appropriate cases, where we have clear evidence for the benefits of that approach and should only take place when both the victim and the offender agree, and it is considered safe.

The Ministry of Justice is investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date. We will be increasing funding for victim support services year on year, from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery. I have protected dedicated VAWG victims spending in the department by maintaining 2024-25 funding levels for ringfenced sexual violence and domestic abuse support this year.

Last November, the Government announced the abolition of PCCs, the first in a series of reforms that were set out in the recent Police Reform White Paper. In light of this announcement, we are exploring changes to the delivery of victims funding to ensure this is delivered in the best way in the future. We recognise the important work PCCs and Mayors do to commission vital support services for victims and witnesses, including restorative justice and domestic abuse services. Ensuring ongoing support to victims is a key priority for this Government.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to fund restorative justice programmes in i) Hampshire ii) Gosport.

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

The Ministry of Justice provides all Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales with core grant funding for victims of all crime types, which can be used to commission restorative justice and domestic abuse services. In addition, they receive ring-fenced funding for domestic and sexual abuse services. PCCs are best placed to assess local need and commission services based on the needs of the population in the local area. Restorative justice services should be targeted to the most appropriate cases, where we have clear evidence for the benefits of that approach and should only take place when both the victim and the offender agree, and it is considered safe.

The Ministry of Justice is investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date. We will be increasing funding for victim support services year on year, from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery. I have protected dedicated VAWG victims spending in the department by maintaining 2024-25 funding levels for ringfenced sexual violence and domestic abuse support this year.

Last November, the Government announced the abolition of PCCs, the first in a series of reforms that were set out in the recent Police Reform White Paper. In light of this announcement, we are exploring changes to the delivery of victims funding to ensure this is delivered in the best way in the future. We recognise the important work PCCs and Mayors do to commission vital support services for victims and witnesses, including restorative justice and domestic abuse services. Ensuring ongoing support to victims is a key priority for this Government.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Answer of 2 February 2026 to Question 109196, how many people have been convicted of common assault and battery; and how many of these people did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted for a violence against the person offence, and where that offence was common assault or battery, where the number of occasions was 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9+ previous convictions.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The data requested is provided in the attached excel table. The table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on the number of offenders who were convicted of common assault and battery offences who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence; separated by the number of previous occasions the offender had been convicted for a violence against the person offence where that offence was common assault and battery.

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, whether his Department received any representations on the replacement of Justice Chamberlain as the judge presiding over the judicial review of Palestine Action’s proscription.

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

The Government has no role in the process for assigning judges to cases, and it has not received any representations on the composition of the bench for the judicial review of Palestine Action’s proscription.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when he plans to respond to emails sent by the Rt Hon. Member for Godalming and Ash dated 18 November 2025 and 20 January 2026 concerning a case relating to a Magistrate.

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

A response was sent on 24 February and the Department apologises for the significant delay in replying. We recognise that, on this occasion, the delay falls short of expected standards.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of the Crown Court backlog comprises the cohort of up to three years’ imprisonment cases and would go before a Judge only court under proposed reforms.

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

The Ministry of Justice publishes information about cases in the open caseload at both the magistrates’ courts and at the Crown Court. This includes breakdowns of volumes and durations as part of the Crown Court open caseload published as part of Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly: Criminal court statistics quarterly.  
 
The Ministry of Justice does not publish data relating to the progression of cases or defendant elections in the open caseload. As such we cannot provide volume or timeliness estimates regarding the decision of the defendant to elect mode of trial within the disproportionate costs limit.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of cases in the Crown Court backlog are either way cases that would be no longer eligible for jury trial under proposed reforms.

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

The Ministry of Justice publishes information about cases in the open caseload at both the magistrates’ courts and at the Crown Court. This includes breakdowns of volumes and durations as part of the Crown Court open caseload published as part of Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly: Criminal court statistics quarterly.  
 
The Ministry of Justice does not publish data relating to the progression of cases or defendant elections in the open caseload. As such we cannot provide volume or timeliness estimates regarding the decision of the defendant to elect mode of trial within the disproportionate costs limit.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department holds information on the median age of cases yet to elect mode of trial.

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

The Ministry of Justice publishes information about cases in the open caseload at both the magistrates’ courts and at the Crown Court. This includes breakdowns of volumes and durations as part of the Crown Court open caseload published as part of Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly: Criminal court statistics quarterly.  
 
The Ministry of Justice does not publish data relating to the progression of cases or defendant elections in the open caseload. As such we cannot provide volume or timeliness estimates regarding the decision of the defendant to elect mode of trial within the disproportionate costs limit.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of cases in the court backlog are pending the decision of the defendant to elect mode of trial.

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

The Ministry of Justice publishes information about cases in the open caseload at both the magistrates’ courts and at the Crown Court. This includes breakdowns of volumes and durations as part of the Crown Court open caseload published as part of Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly: Criminal court statistics quarterly.  
 
The Ministry of Justice does not publish data relating to the progression of cases or defendant elections in the open caseload. As such we cannot provide volume or timeliness estimates regarding the decision of the defendant to elect mode of trial within the disproportionate costs limit.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the number of either-way cases in the Crown Court backlog yet to elect mode of trial.

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

The Ministry of Justice publishes information about cases in the open caseload at both the magistrates’ courts and at the Crown Court. This includes breakdowns of volumes and durations as part of the Crown Court open caseload published as part of Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly: Criminal court statistics quarterly.  
 
The Ministry of Justice does not publish data relating to the progression of cases or defendant elections in the open caseload. As such we cannot provide volume or timeliness estimates regarding the decision of the defendant to elect mode of trial within the disproportionate costs limit.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of restricting access to trial by jury in England and Wales on public confidence in the judicial system.

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

The Courts and Tribunals Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 25 February 2026. Alongside the Bill, an impact assessment of our proposed justice reforms was published: Courts and Tribunals Bill - GOV.UK. This includes an assessment of the proposed changes in the threshold for who can access a jury trial.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his department is taking to ensure that publicly available court information is not fragmented or incomplete, in the context of the deletion of the court desk archive.

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

There has been no deletion of the Courtsdesk archive of courts lists. Courtdesk does not hold courts records. We recognise that the ability for journalists to access and search courts lists in a single place is helpful. We are doing three things to improve the way in which magistrates’ and Crown court lists are made available. First, we have launched a market engagement exercise for new providers to apply to reuse our data under a new licensing regime (which would be open to Courtsdesk to apply for). Second, we have met Courtsdesk with a view to potentially re-establishing their service, provided they can demonstrate they will comply with data protection requirements. Third, by the end of March we will be expanding the Court and Tribunal Hearings (CaTH) service, an online portal which allows journalists, professional users and the public to access and search court-related information, to include magistrates’ and Crown court lists alongside the civil, family and tribunal hearing lists already published.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many cases exceeded the statutory time limit of six months for summary offences in each year since 2020, broken down by (a) offence, and (b) police force.

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

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on the number of cases that exceeded the statutory time limit of six months for summary offences. We are unable to exclude cases from our timeliness data that are exempt from the time limit and cases that have been reopened.

Timeliness estimates from offence to charge for defendants dealt with in summary only cases at the magistrates’ courts are available in Table T3 of the published Criminal Courts Statistics release available at the following link: Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many serving Magistrates there are in a) Newcastle-under-Lyme and b) Staffordshire.

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

Magistrates are appointed to a Local Justice Area (LJA). Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire both fall under the Staffordshire LJA, and we are unable to separate them as Magistrates are able to sit across all courts within this area. As of 01 April 2025, the number of serving magistrates in the Staffordshire Local Justice Area was 217.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if his Department will provide an estimate of the total cost of legal aid for foreign nationals in the last 5 years.

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

This information requested is not held centrally.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department hold data on the number of foreign nationals who have received legal aid.

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

This information requested is not held centrally.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made with the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the cost to the public purse of prosecutions brought under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in relation to members and supporters of Palestine Action, broken down by the costs to (a) the Crown Prosecution Service, (b) the HM Courts and Tribunal Service including (i) the costs of sittings and (ii) ancillary costs including training additional magistrates to hear terrorism cases and (c) counter terrorism police to attend court; and how many court sessions have been held to hear these cases.

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

Between 5 July 2025 and 20 February 2026 a total of 629 defendants were received at magistrates’ courts in cases flagged as related to the Palestine Action Group. Of these, 562 have had a first hearing at a magistrates’ court, with those hearings taking place over 23 calendar days. It is not possible to identify the exact number of court sittings or to calculate the court sitting costs associated with these specific cases because multiple hearings for other offences and defendants may take place within the same court session or sitting day.

It is not possible to identify the ancillary costs to HM Courts and Tribunals Service that specifically relate to these cases. Information on costs incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service and by police forces is not held by the Ministry of Justice.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether there are mechanisms in place to prevent a company director stopping high court enforcement by resigning as a director of that company during enforcement.

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

There are a number of different court procedures for enforcing High Court judgments, and the most appropriate method will depend on the circumstances of individual cases and the liability of the company and its director(s). Creditors should seek independent legal advice before deciding how to proceed.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what conversations has she had with colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs regarding the potential impact of court delays on the a) financial health and b) kennel capacity of i) local authorities and ii) dog homes in England and Wales due to requirements to seize animals under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

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

The Ministry of Justice and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs work closely at official level, alongside other Departments and operational partners, on matters relating to animal welfare and the functioning of the justice system.

The average waiting time for section 20 hearings in the last five years is set out in the table below. Listing is a judicial function administered by HMCTS on judicial direction. The Ministry of Justice recognises that delays in court proceedings can have wider operational and financial impacts on partner organisations, including local authorities and animal welfare providers, and continues to focus on reducing court backlogs through its court reform programme, which is why on 25 February 2026, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Courts and Tribunals Bill, aiming to deliver faster, fairer justice for all. These reforms are designed to progress cases more quickly through the criminal courts.

Magistrates Court: Average wait time for Section 20 hearing under the Animal Welfare Act 2006

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps is he taking to accelerate the scheduling of Section 20 hearings for animals seized under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

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

The Ministry of Justice and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs work closely at official level, alongside other Departments and operational partners, on matters relating to animal welfare and the functioning of the justice system.

The average waiting time for section 20 hearings in the last five years is set out in the table below. Listing is a judicial function administered by HMCTS on judicial direction. The Ministry of Justice recognises that delays in court proceedings can have wider operational and financial impacts on partner organisations, including local authorities and animal welfare providers, and continues to focus on reducing court backlogs through its court reform programme, which is why on 25 February 2026, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Courts and Tribunals Bill, aiming to deliver faster, fairer justice for all. These reforms are designed to progress cases more quickly through the criminal courts.

Magistrates Court: Average wait time for Section 20 hearing under the Animal Welfare Act 2006

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average waiting time was for a Section 20 hearing under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 in each of the last five years.

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

The Ministry of Justice and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs work closely at official level, alongside other Departments and operational partners, on matters relating to animal welfare and the functioning of the justice system.

The average waiting time for section 20 hearings in the last five years is set out in the table below. Listing is a judicial function administered by HMCTS on judicial direction. The Ministry of Justice recognises that delays in court proceedings can have wider operational and financial impacts on partner organisations, including local authorities and animal welfare providers, and continues to focus on reducing court backlogs through its court reform programme, which is why on 25 February 2026, the Deputy Prime Minister announced the Courts and Tribunals Bill, aiming to deliver faster, fairer justice for all. These reforms are designed to progress cases more quickly through the criminal courts.

Magistrates Court: Average wait time for Section 20 hearing under the Animal Welfare Act 2006

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the comments by the Minister for Youth Justice in the Sunday Times on 15 February 2026, by what date he plans to establish the advisory panel on preventative analytics for youth justice.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Government is in the process of establishing a Preventative Analytics for Youth Justice Advisory Panel. As the Panel has not yet been established, no recommendations have been made on specific data sources or the sharing of data with youth justice partners for the purposes of support and safeguarding.

At this early stage, we are not able to state the specific datasets which will be accessed. Exploratory work is required to identify what data would be useful for the purposes of prevention, where it is held, and how to use it responsibly, ethically, and legally. However, it is anticipated that the programme will draw on data already held by government departments, local youth justice services, and local authorities. This may include information about a child’s contact with the youth justice system, education, health services, social care, or other relevant services.

Where data is shared between public authorities, we expect this will take place under established legal gateways for example the Digital Economy Act or the UK General Data Protection Regulation. Where additional permissions are required (e.g. due to the terms of a privacy notice), then such permissions will be sought. The Department will ensure appropriate governance arrangements are made and documented (e.g. through Data Protection Impact Assessments and Data Sharing Agreements).

At this stage, we are not able to describe how the data will be used in the sense of defining specific processing techniques. The purpose of the advisory panel is to guide the development of these techniques in an effective, ethical, and legal manner. That said, the programme will not make automated decisions about individual children or replace professional judgement; rather it will provide evidence-based insights to help practitioners identify where interventions may be most effective. Strong safeguards will be sought to ensure fairness, transparency and protection against bias.

The Government intends to establish the Advisory Panel on preventative analytics for youth justice by spring. Work is already underway and further details will be set out in due course.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to implement the findings of the Sullivan Review.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We have reviewed the recommendations of the Sullivan Review and examined how sex and gender data are currently collected across the main Ministry of Justice data systems. Currently, there is variation in terminology and approaches across these different systems.

We are therefore taking forward work to improve consistency in data collection. In doing so, we will align our approach to the Office for National Statistics’ ongoing harmonisation work on sex and gender data to ensure that our data collection is robust, comparable and consistent.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the comments by the Minister for Youth Justice in the Sunday Times on 15 February 2026, what permissions do the Government require in order to access personal data for use in preventative analytics “to identify children who need targeted interventions to stop them falling into a life of crime”.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Government is in the process of establishing a Preventative Analytics for Youth Justice Advisory Panel. As the Panel has not yet been established, no recommendations have been made on specific data sources or the sharing of data with youth justice partners for the purposes of support and safeguarding.

At this early stage, we are not able to state the specific datasets which will be accessed. Exploratory work is required to identify what data would be useful for the purposes of prevention, where it is held, and how to use it responsibly, ethically, and legally. However, it is anticipated that the programme will draw on data already held by government departments, local youth justice services, and local authorities. This may include information about a child’s contact with the youth justice system, education, health services, social care, or other relevant services.

Where data is shared between public authorities, we expect this will take place under established legal gateways for example the Digital Economy Act or the UK General Data Protection Regulation. Where additional permissions are required (e.g. due to the terms of a privacy notice), then such permissions will be sought. The Department will ensure appropriate governance arrangements are made and documented (e.g. through Data Protection Impact Assessments and Data Sharing Agreements).

At this stage, we are not able to describe how the data will be used in the sense of defining specific processing techniques. The purpose of the advisory panel is to guide the development of these techniques in an effective, ethical, and legal manner. That said, the programme will not make automated decisions about individual children or replace professional judgement; rather it will provide evidence-based insights to help practitioners identify where interventions may be most effective. Strong safeguards will be sought to ensure fairness, transparency and protection against bias.

The Government intends to establish the Advisory Panel on preventative analytics for youth justice by spring. Work is already underway and further details will be set out in due course.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the comments by the Minister for Youth Justice in the Sunday Times on 15 February 2026, what personal data will be accessed by the Ministry of Justice preventative analytics programme “to identify children who need targeted interventions to stop them falling into a life of crime”.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Government is in the process of establishing a Preventative Analytics for Youth Justice Advisory Panel. As the Panel has not yet been established, no recommendations have been made on specific data sources or the sharing of data with youth justice partners for the purposes of support and safeguarding.

At this early stage, we are not able to state the specific datasets which will be accessed. Exploratory work is required to identify what data would be useful for the purposes of prevention, where it is held, and how to use it responsibly, ethically, and legally. However, it is anticipated that the programme will draw on data already held by government departments, local youth justice services, and local authorities. This may include information about a child’s contact with the youth justice system, education, health services, social care, or other relevant services.

Where data is shared between public authorities, we expect this will take place under established legal gateways for example the Digital Economy Act or the UK General Data Protection Regulation. Where additional permissions are required (e.g. due to the terms of a privacy notice), then such permissions will be sought. The Department will ensure appropriate governance arrangements are made and documented (e.g. through Data Protection Impact Assessments and Data Sharing Agreements).

At this stage, we are not able to describe how the data will be used in the sense of defining specific processing techniques. The purpose of the advisory panel is to guide the development of these techniques in an effective, ethical, and legal manner. That said, the programme will not make automated decisions about individual children or replace professional judgement; rather it will provide evidence-based insights to help practitioners identify where interventions may be most effective. Strong safeguards will be sought to ensure fairness, transparency and protection against bias.

The Government intends to establish the Advisory Panel on preventative analytics for youth justice by spring. Work is already underway and further details will be set out in due course.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the comments by the Minister for Youth Justice in the Sunday Times on 15 February 2026, how will individual’s personal data be used in preventative analytics “to identify children who need targeted interventions to stop them falling into a life of crime”.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Government is in the process of establishing a Preventative Analytics for Youth Justice Advisory Panel. As the Panel has not yet been established, no recommendations have been made on specific data sources or the sharing of data with youth justice partners for the purposes of support and safeguarding.

At this early stage, we are not able to state the specific datasets which will be accessed. Exploratory work is required to identify what data would be useful for the purposes of prevention, where it is held, and how to use it responsibly, ethically, and legally. However, it is anticipated that the programme will draw on data already held by government departments, local youth justice services, and local authorities. This may include information about a child’s contact with the youth justice system, education, health services, social care, or other relevant services.

Where data is shared between public authorities, we expect this will take place under established legal gateways for example the Digital Economy Act or the UK General Data Protection Regulation. Where additional permissions are required (e.g. due to the terms of a privacy notice), then such permissions will be sought. The Department will ensure appropriate governance arrangements are made and documented (e.g. through Data Protection Impact Assessments and Data Sharing Agreements).

At this stage, we are not able to describe how the data will be used in the sense of defining specific processing techniques. The purpose of the advisory panel is to guide the development of these techniques in an effective, ethical, and legal manner. That said, the programme will not make automated decisions about individual children or replace professional judgement; rather it will provide evidence-based insights to help practitioners identify where interventions may be most effective. Strong safeguards will be sought to ensure fairness, transparency and protection against bias.

The Government intends to establish the Advisory Panel on preventative analytics for youth justice by spring. Work is already underway and further details will be set out in due course.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Times Radio interview with preventative analytics advisory panel lead Professor Mark Mon Williams at 0727 on 16 February 2026, what children’s health data will be shared with a) schools and b) police forces as part of the preventatives analytics programme.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Government is in the process of establishing a Preventative Analytics for Youth Justice Advisory Panel. As the Panel has not yet been established, no recommendations have been made on specific data sources or the sharing of data with youth justice partners for the purposes of support and safeguarding.

At this early stage, we are not able to state the specific datasets which will be accessed. Exploratory work is required to identify what data would be useful for the purposes of prevention, where it is held, and how to use it responsibly, ethically, and legally. However, it is anticipated that the programme will draw on data already held by government departments, local youth justice services, and local authorities. This may include information about a child’s contact with the youth justice system, education, health services, social care, or other relevant services.

Where data is shared between public authorities, we expect this will take place under established legal gateways for example the Digital Economy Act or the UK General Data Protection Regulation. Where additional permissions are required (e.g. due to the terms of a privacy notice), then such permissions will be sought. The Department will ensure appropriate governance arrangements are made and documented (e.g. through Data Protection Impact Assessments and Data Sharing Agreements).

At this stage, we are not able to describe how the data will be used in the sense of defining specific processing techniques. The purpose of the advisory panel is to guide the development of these techniques in an effective, ethical, and legal manner. That said, the programme will not make automated decisions about individual children or replace professional judgement; rather it will provide evidence-based insights to help practitioners identify where interventions may be most effective. Strong safeguards will be sought to ensure fairness, transparency and protection against bias.

The Government intends to establish the Advisory Panel on preventative analytics for youth justice by spring. Work is already underway and further details will be set out in due course.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many cases exceeded the statutory time limit of six months for summary offences because of misclassification in each year since 2020.

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

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on the number of cases that exceeded the statutory time limit of six months for summary offences. This is because we are unable to identify all cases that exceed six months that would be exempt from the statutory time limits in our caseload data.

Timeliness estimates from offence to charge for defendants dealt with in summary only cases at the magistrates’ courts are available in Table T3 of the published Criminal Courts Statistics release available at the following link:  Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure improved monitoring of serious offenders post-release by the probation service.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Probation Service closely supervises serious offenders released from custody to protect the public and manage risk. The Government is investing in expanded monitoring and introducing new restrictive licence conditions to further strengthen probation’s ability to monitor and manage serious offenders in the community.

Electronic Monitoring (EM) is available for the Parole Board and probation to apply to individuals serving Extended Determinate Sentences or life sentences on release. In addition, we are significantly expanding the post‑custody use of EM. Recent policy changes, including the presumption to apply EM to Short Determinate Sentence leavers, mean thousands more offenders will be tagged in the community over the coming years as part of the Government’s plan to strengthen supervision, manage risk, and keep the public safe.

Whilst tagging is an important tool for probation, it is only one element of a wider range of measures used to monitor and manage individuals in the community. These include risk assessments, curfews, mandatory appointments, behavioural requirements, and where necessary, enforcement action.

Probation supervision is tailored to an offender’s risk and offence type, with licence conditions used to manage their risk in the community. Under our reforms, the highest risk offenders will continue to be supervised by Probation until the end of their sentence, to manage risk of harm and protect the public. They will face the toughest supervision – including GPS tracking, curfews, and exclusion zones.

Those convicted of sexual offending and subject to the notification requirements, serious violent offenders where the custodial term is 12 months or more, and those convicted of terrorism offences, fall to be managed under the statutory Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). Under MAPPA, the Police, Probation and Prison Services must work together, with input from other agencies as necessary, to assess and manage the risks posed by such offenders. The Probation Service will supervise such offenders until they have completed their sentence, including for any period of licensed supervision in the community, in order to protect the public.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information their Department holds on (a) the proportion of tyres procured that were re-tread tyres for (i) Department-operated and (ii) commercially contracted heavy vehicle fleets, including lorries, buses and refuse vehicles and (b) the volume of tyres procured for those fleets that were single-use imported tyres in the last 12 months; and whether such information is held centrally or by individual contractors.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice does not hold or collate the information requested centrally.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his press release entitled Every child caught with a knife to get tailored support, published on 11 February 2026, if he will set out how the £320 million Youth Justice Services funding package will be allocated across England and Wales; and what proportion of that funding is new money.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Over the next three financial years, the Ministry of Justice will allocate £281 million for youth justice grants and a further £46 million of funding for the extension of the Turnaround grant programme.

This is a continuation of funding levels from previous years but the Department has provided multi-year funding to youth justice services. This will give youth justice services the stability to retain staff, plan effectively with partners, and commission services more efficiently - ultimately strengthening their ability to tackle knife possession and other offences committed by children.

Funding will be allocated to Youth Justice Services across England and Wales using same distribution method that has been applied for the past 13 years. We recognise that the current method for allocating youth justice funding needs updating and later this year we will undertake a consultation about long-term funding and oversight arrangements for youth justice services.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of staff in his Department have (a) office-based, (b) hybrid and (c) remote-working contracts.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice does not offer remote or hybrid working contracts at the point of recruitment, with all employees having one of the Department’s offices or properties as a contractual base location.

Hybrid working is an informal, non-contractual arrangement that does not involve changes to pay, terms and conditions, or one’s contractual workplace.

Remote working may be agreed through a flexible working request, or as a reasonable adjustment. In some exceptional circumstances, employees have transferred into the Ministry of Justice on protected terms that include homeworking. Records of this, as well as flexible working and workplace adjustments records, are held locally and are not centrally accessible. This information could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were convicted of murdering a police officer by year of conviction for the period 2020-2024.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions for a wide range of offences, including murder in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK.

It is not possible to identify individual characteristics of murder victims, including their profession. This information may be held in court records but to examine individual court records would be of disproportionate costs.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he plans to issue updated guidance on the use of recall in line with the recommendations of the Independent Sentence Review.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Government accepted the Independent Sentencing Review’s recommendations on recall in principle. Further work is underway within the Department to consider how these recommendations should be implemented in practice, including decisions on whether it is appropriate to update guidance on the use of recall. These decisions will be taken over the coming months as part of our wider work to ensure that recall is used proportionately and supports both public protection and rehabilitation.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to help reduce the number of prison recalls following implementation of the Sentencing Act 2026.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Further work is underway to understand how best we can support practitioners in safely managing risk in the community. This will inform future options to ensure recall continues to be used proportionately, to support both public protection and rehabilitation.

We are also looking at our approach to recall across the prison estate, including how the 56-day recall period can be used more purposefully in custody, alongside gathering learning from regional initiatives to safely reduce recalls and strengthen pre-release and release-day support. This work will support our cross-government commitment to halve the proportion of offenders on probation who become homeless on their first night out of prison; and shape future options for a more consistent, end-to-end, and evidence-based approach to recall across the estate.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment has been made of the potential impact of the use of enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks in roles where such checks are not legally required on (a) access to employment and (b) reoffending rates, particularly for people with historic conviction.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The criminal record regime aims to strike a balance between providing employers with the information they need to make safer recruitment decisions, while enabling ex-offenders to rebuild their lives. This is why Enhanced DBS checks are intended for roles involving a high degree of public trust or specific safeguarding responsibilities—including work with children or vulnerable adults. The roles and activities that are eligible for enhanced criminal record checks are set out in legislation.

We recognise that disclosure of a criminal record can have a significant impact on an individual’s employment opportunities and ability to reintegrate into society, and we are committed to helping those people to overcome barriers and turn away from reoffending. This includes having introduced Regional Employment Councils, which bring together prisons, probation and the Department of Work and Pensions along with businesses, to help support people with convictions out into the community.

The Deputy Prime Minister also confirmed that the Government will consider opportunities to simplify the criminal records regime to ensure it is clear and proportionate, particularly in relation to childhood offences. The Home Office and Ministry of Justice are working together to consider next steps.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of systemic factors such as housing, mental health and employment on fixed term recalls.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Department recognises that systemic factors such as access to stable housing, mental‑health support and employment opportunities all play an important role in people’s ability to comply with licence conditions and avoid recall. We continue to work to improve support in these areas, for example by working to embed strong joint partnership working between prisons, probation, and across Government to improve accommodation outcomes for prison leavers.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that heating failures on the secure estate are fixed promptly.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We continue to work with prison Governors to ensure appropriate contingency measures are in place to mitigate the impact of heating and hot water systems at a prison becoming inoperative.

Contingency plans are in place with the Ministry of Justice’s Facilities Management providers to enable them to respond to any incidents that impact upon heating, hot water, or loss of critical services to site as a priority and these plans are regularly reviewed.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if his Department will work with prison governors to implement appropriate contingency plans for inmate wellbeing in the event of heating failures.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We continue to work with prison Governors to ensure appropriate contingency measures are in place to mitigate the impact of heating and hot water systems at a prison becoming inoperative.

Contingency plans are in place with the Ministry of Justice’s Facilities Management providers to enable them to respond to any incidents that impact upon heating, hot water, or loss of critical services to site as a priority and these plans are regularly reviewed.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to increase the number of available prison spaces.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

As set out in the December 2024 10-Year Prison Capacity Strategy, this Government is committed to delivering an additional 14,000 prison places and aims to do so by 2031. Our build programme consists of the construction of four new prisons, including HMP Millsike delivered in March 2025, as well as the expansion and refurbishment of the existing estate. We broke ground at the site of the new prison HMP Welland Oaks in Leicestershire in November 2025.

This Government has invested £4.7 billion over the spending review period (2026/27 to 2028/29) to enable the delivery of these additional prison places at pace, and we have already delivered c.3,100 since taking office. We are also committed to undertaking critical maintenance work and the ambition to acquire more land for future prisons, should they be required.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to ensure the safety of inmates at HMP Holme House when the heating is not functioning.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice treats any disruption to the heating and hot water supply to any prison as a priority and implements contingency measures to rectify incidents that occur as soon as practically possible.

Safety and decency remained the primary focus throughout the recent disruption of the heating system at HMP Holme House, with staff instructed to monitor residential conditions closely and escalate any concerns immediately.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his taking to help reduce violent reoffending.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Reducing violent reoffending is a central priority for this Government. We are strengthening the Probation Service, enhancing supervision of high-risk offenders, and delivering evidence-based interventions to address the drivers of violent crime.

We are investing in probation to ensure robust supervision and effective risk management of offenders in the community, including expanding electronic monitoring, and strengthening frontline capability. Supervision is tailored to risk and offence type, with licence conditions used to manage behaviour and protect the public. Under our reforms, high-risk offenders will continue to be supervised until the end of their sentence. They will face the toughest measures, including GPS tagging, curfews, exclusion zones, and new restriction zones where appropriate. We also make full use of recall powers where risk escalates, or licence conditions are breached.

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) are central to managing serious violent and sexual offenders. Under MAPPA, probation, police and prisons work together to assess and manage risk through coordinated plans which can include enhanced supervision, regular multi-agency reviews, information sharing, and targeted risk management measures. High-risk offenders are subject to closer monitoring and oversight to ensure swift action where risk escalates.

Alongside enforcement, HMPPS delivers accredited offending behaviour programmes and wider rehabilitative support, including access to education, employment, accommodation, and substance misuse treatment. Building Choices, based on the latest international evidence on “What Works” to reduce reoffending, is an accredited cognitive-behavioural intervention designed to address attitudes, thinking patterns and behaviours linked to violent and other serious offending. It completed national rollout at the end of 2025 and is now available across England and Wales.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department provided funding to boxing programmes to help prevent crime amongst young people.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

In the financial year 2022/2023, the Ministry of Justice invested £5 million in sports-related projects across England and Wales, to use sport to enhance positive outcomes for vulnerable young people at-risk of criminality (the ‘Youth Justice Sport Fund’). Around 50% of the 220 organisations funded through this programme provided boxing support to young people.

Youth justice funding now takes a more flexible approach. Local authorities receive funding to deliver youth justice services, including through the Turnaround early intervention programme. Local authorities can use this funding to commission activities that were previously supported by Youth Justice Sports Fund such as boxing.

An independent evaluation of the Turnaround programme published earlier this month highlighted that boys taking part in boxing reported improved physical and mental health.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to improve probation services.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

A package of measures has been announced to continue rebuilding the Probation Service, reflecting the Government’s commitment to strengthening probation services and improving public protection. By the final year of the spending review period, funding for probation and community services will increase by up to £700 million, an increase of around 45%.

Recruitment and training of staff remain high priorities, to ensure we have a sufficient workforce to safely supervise and manage people in the community. And we are recruiting more probation officers. The Probation Service exceeded our 2024-25 trainee target of 1,000, successfully onboarding 1,057 trainees and we have committed to onboarding a further 1,300 trainees in 2025/26.

Through the Our Future Probation Service (OFPS) Programme we will address the imbalance between capacity and workload, by reducing probation workloads by 25% by April 2027. We will achieve this by streamlining processes, reducing administrative tasks, and ensuring staff time is focused where it can have the greatest impact.

We are developing better digital tools to reduce the administrative burden at multiple stages of the probation journey, allowing probation practitioners to focus on public protection and rehabilitation. For example, we have developed Justice Transcribe, an AI-powered tool that takes meeting audio and turns into an accurate summary. This is done in minutes, and it cuts the time spent on writing up notes by more than 70%. Practitioners have reported reduced stress, increased confidence and more time to focus on people on probation, public safety and decision-making rather than administration.

Probation will prioritise supervision in the critical period after release – when offenders are most likely to reoffend – and focus resources on those who pose the highest risk. The Sentencing Act 2026 introduces several measures to streamline processes and enable probation to focus their efforts where they matter most to protect the public. The Government is also investing in expanded monitoring and introducing new restrictive licence conditions to further strengthen probation’s ability to monitor and manage serious offenders in the community.

Commissioned Rehabilitative Services (CRS) are specialist interventions delivered in partnership with private, voluntary and community organisations to support individuals under probation supervision, or on license following release from custody. They address key rehabilitative needs that, if unmet, increase the risk of reoffending and are designed to complement and improve access to mainstream services such as housing, healthcare, and local authority support. New contracts will go live in summer 2027 (Men) and Autumn 2028 (Women) which will further enhance the service offering including person-centred, strengths-based services with enhanced community links to connect offenders to new opportunities and social networks; enhanced custodial delivery; and greater focus on outcomes including distance-travelled.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were (a) convicted of theft from a shop and (b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, broken down by (i) year of conviction in each of the past five years, and (ii) the number of previous occasions the offender had been convicted of theft from a shop.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a child sex offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous occasions where the offender was convicted of a child sex offence.

- The number of offenders who were convicted of an indictable offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions (between 7-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a theft offence who did not receive immediate custody, by number of previous convictions (between 3-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders convicted of theft from a shop who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous convictions for the same offence.

As set out in previous responses, 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.

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, with reference to his Answer of 2 February 2026 to Question 109199, how many unique offenders were convicted for a theft offence and did not receive immediate custody in 2024 with 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 previous convictions for a theft offence, broken down by individual number of previous convictions.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a child sex offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous occasions where the offender was convicted of a child sex offence.

- The number of offenders who were convicted of an indictable offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions (between 7-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a theft offence who did not receive immediate custody, by number of previous convictions (between 3-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders convicted of theft from a shop who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous convictions for the same offence.

As set out in previous responses, 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.

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 a) convicted for child sexual offences and b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted for child sexual offences for the period 2020-2024.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a child sex offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous occasions where the offender was convicted of a child sex offence.

- The number of offenders who were convicted of an indictable offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions (between 7-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a theft offence who did not receive immediate custody, by number of previous convictions (between 3-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders convicted of theft from a shop who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous convictions for the same offence.

As set out in previous responses, 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.

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, with reference to his Answer of 6 February 2026 to Question 109201, how many unique offenders were convicted for an indictable offence and did not receive immediate custody in 2024 with 7, 8, 9 and 10 previous convictions.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a child sex offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous occasions where the offender was convicted of a child sex offence.

- The number of offenders who were convicted of an indictable offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions (between 7-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders who were convicted of a theft offence who did not receive immediate custody, by number of previous convictions (between 3-10 previous convictions).

- The number of offenders convicted of theft from a shop who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous convictions for the same offence.

As set out in previous responses, 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.

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, if he will set out the oversight mechanisms in place to hold private custody and prisoner transport providers accountable for delays in delivering prisoners to court.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (PECS) are performing strongly, despite continuing pressures across the criminal justice system. In 2025, overall criminal justice system delivery to court was timely in 98.19% of cases; PECS suppliers met contractual expectations by delivering prisoners to court on time in 99.91% of cases.

HM Prison & Probation Service’s Contract Management Team (CMT) provides rigorous oversight through a clear contractual and governance framework, applying commercial levers where delays are attributable to provider actions. The CMT works closely with stakeholders through quarterly Strategic Partnership Boards and monthly Contract Management Boards to drive improvement, address system-wide challenges, and ensure suppliers are held fully to account. If a contractor’s performance falls below the required standard, financial service credits will be applied, in accordance with the contract mechanism. Any persistent or systemic issues can trigger formal improvement notices, rectification plans or other contractual remedies.

We are assessing the potential impact of current reform policies on delivery timeliness, to ensure that the system remains resilient and effective.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many cases under the Early Removal Scheme where the removal may undermine confidence in the scheme or criminal justice system were referred to the Chief Executive of HMPPS for decision in each of the last five years; and what was the outcome in each case.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We do not collate information on how many cases are referred to the Chief Executive of HMPPS under the Early Removal Scheme or the outcome of such referrals.

Guidance to Prison Governors, and all those involved in administering the scheme including the Chief Executive, is contained in the Prison Service Instruction: The Early Removal Scheme and Release of Foreign National Prisoners (PSI 04/2013) which was last updated on 23 September 2025 and is available at the following link: Early removal scheme and release of foreign national prisoners.

This gives information on the circumstances where removal might undermine the Scheme or public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what guidance is provided to Prison Governors considering authorising the removal of foreign national offenders to assess the potential impact on public confidence in the Early Removal Scheme or the criminal justice system.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We do not collate information on how many cases are referred to the Chief Executive of HMPPS under the Early Removal Scheme or the outcome of such referrals.

Guidance to Prison Governors, and all those involved in administering the scheme including the Chief Executive, is contained in the Prison Service Instruction: The Early Removal Scheme and Release of Foreign National Prisoners (PSI 04/2013) which was last updated on 23 September 2025 and is available at the following link: Early removal scheme and release of foreign national prisoners.

This gives information on the circumstances where removal might undermine the Scheme or public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average officer to prisoner ratio was across all male prisons as of February 2026.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The number of full-time equivalent band 3-5 prison officers in each public sector prison is published quarterly as part of the “HM Prison and Probation Service workforce statistics” publication. The latest data, for staff in post on 31st December 2025, is available in Table 15 of this spreadsheet: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/699d794d07d7bff3604d6be2/hmpps-workforce-statistics-tables-dec-2025_final_file.ods.

The number of prisoners in each prison is published as part of the “Offender management statistics quarterly” publication. The latest data, also for 31st December 2025, is available in Table 1_Q_13: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6978d8c475d4437096552064/prison-population-31-Dec-2025.ods.

The list of each prison, their function and whether they are male only is available at this link: Prisons in England and Wales - GOV.UK.

These publicly available resources can be used to calculate the average prison officer to prisoner ratio for male prisons.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what guidance is provided to the Chief Executive of HMPPS regarding assessing the potential impact on public confidence in the Early Removal Scheme or the criminal justice system of a decision to authorise removal of a foreign national offender.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We do not collate information on how many cases are referred to the Chief Executive of HMPPS under the Early Removal Scheme or the outcome of such referrals.

Guidance to Prison Governors, and all those involved in administering the scheme including the Chief Executive, is contained in the Prison Service Instruction: The Early Removal Scheme and Release of Foreign National Prisoners (PSI 04/2013) which was last updated on 23 September 2025 and is available at the following link: Early removal scheme and release of foreign national prisoners.

This gives information on the circumstances where removal might undermine the Scheme or public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many foreign national offenders in UK prisons have been sentenced for causing the death of one or more people.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

As of 30 June 2025, there were 989 Foreign National Offenders (FNOs) in prison in England and Wales serving a sentence for a principal offence involving ‘causing death’.

All FNOs who receive a prison sentence in the UK are referred for deportation at the earliest opportunity including via the Early Removal Scheme for eligible determinate sentenced prisoners, Tariff Expired Removal Scheme for those serving indeterminate sentences, or via Prisoner Transfer Agreement where one is in place and the offender meets the relevant requirements. In all cases they will be barred from ever returning to the UK.

Deportations of FNOs, including murderers and rapists, are up 32%, with more than 8,700 deported since this Government came into power.

Returns of FNOs in the year-ending December 2025 are higher than any levels of returns observed since 2018.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department's press release entitled Tech challenge launched to counter drone threats in prisons, published on 4 November 2025, on what date is the 12-week Counter-Drone Challenge due to end.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We have recently launched a new innovation challenge with His Majesty’s Government Communications Centre (HMGCC) Co-Creation aimed at combatting the growing threat of drones around prisons.

The Counter-Drone Challenge competition closed on 4 December 2025. Selected industry partners will receive up to £60,000 funding to develop proof-of-concept systems over a 12-week period.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made, if any, of whether the use of generative AI tools for drafting by claimants is a contributing factor to the increase in employment tribunal cases; and what steps they are taking to ensure that employment tribunal processes are efficient and resilient.

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

The Government is aware of the increased use of generative AI. Some stakeholders have reported that some potential Employment Tribunal claimants are using generative AI to provide a view on the strengths of their potential claim or to help with drafting elements of their claim. While no formal assessment has been made of the impact of generative AI on the caseload, to acknowledge changing behaviour, HMCTS has developed its own ‘Responsible AI Principles’ guidance to ensure use of AI in the courts and tribunals is appropriate, safe and controlled.

The Government is taking steps to increase the efficiency and resilience of the Employment Tribunal through the recruitment of additional judges, deploying Legal Officers actively to manage cases, the development of modern case management systems and the use of remote hearing technology. We continue to monitor demand in the Employment Tribunal and will consider any further actions needed to manage this.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to review the use of transparency orders in the Court of Protection to ensure that such orders do not prevent families from seeking public accountability in cases where they allege that visiting rights have been disproportionately restricted by local authorities or private providers.

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

Court of Protection proceedings involve personal, sensitive matters and enable decisions to be made in the best interests of the person, who lacks the mental capacity to make those decisions themselves. The Government has no plans to review the use of transparency orders in the Court of Protection.

A transparency order in the Court of Protection restricts the publication and communication of information from proceedings. They support the principle of open justice by allowing Court of Protection hearings to be heard in public whilst protecting the privacy of vulnerable individuals.

The use of transparency orders is a matter for the judiciary. If the recipient believes an order is unfair, too restrictive, or no longer needed, they can apply to the court to vary it.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the 12-week Prison Office Entry Level Training in teaching new prison officers security procedures and de-escalation and rehabilitation techniques to deal with complex environments in our prison system.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Foundation Prison Officer training is designed to ensure that all new prison officers are supported and feel competent in their roles. All new entrants undertake a minimum of ten weeks of training, beginning with a ten-day induction process to familiarise them with the prison environment, including meeting line managers and colleagues and learning key security procedures. This is followed by either seven weeks in the male estate, eight weeks in the female estate, or nine weeks in the Youth Custody Service, delivered through face-to-face training at a central or local learning venue. Officers then return to their establishment for a final week of consolidation and shadowing.

The foundation training package develops verbal communication and interpersonal skills, ensuring new officers are able to identify vulnerable prisoners, support them appropriately, and defuse potential conflict. This includes training in de-escalation techniques and, where the use of force is necessary, instruction on how to do so in line with organisational procedures and the law.

Foundation training also equips officers with the skills required to maintain and update documentation, records and supporting systems, alongside the knowledge of security procedures, including searching techniques and the management and use of keys.

Additionally, the Enable Programme is redeveloping the current foundation training for new entry prison officers into a 12-month modular package, reinforcing the principle of continuous professional development. It positions training as an evolving journey rather than a discrete, front-loaded phase at the start of a career, building on knowledge and application of that through their probationary period.

The revised training aims to support the development of compassionate, competent and confident prison officers, able to deliver a wide range of operational and interpersonal skills underpinned by relational practice and rehabilitative working. The work is strongly aligned with that of Lord Timpson’s Review of Foundation Training Delivery for Prison Officers which focused on improving the learner experience with enhanced support, pride and greater rigour being applied; establishing an operating model with the right people, venues, curriculum, and standards in place; and encouraging a continuous learning environment with clear channels of accountability.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what progress has he made with the Secretary of State for the Home Department in apprehending Daniel Boakye following his abscondment.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

A formal investigation has been commissioned into the circumstances surrounding the escape from custody. Additional management checks are also being undertaken in relation to all operational staff who may be called upon to undertake escort duty.

Public safety is the Government’s priority. Following a joint operation by the Metropolitan Police, the National Crime Agency and the French authorities, we have received confirmation that Daniel Boakye has now been detained in France. Arrangements are being made to secure his return to the UK.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information his Department holds on the factors that led to the abscondment of Daniel Boakye.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

A formal investigation has been commissioned into the circumstances surrounding the escape from custody. Additional management checks are also being undertaken in relation to all operational staff who may be called upon to undertake escort duty.

Public safety is the Government’s priority. Following a joint operation by the Metropolitan Police, the National Crime Agency and the French authorities, we have received confirmation that Daniel Boakye has now been detained in France. Arrangements are being made to secure his return to the UK.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many applications for judicial review relating to NHS service reconfiguration decisions in England were lodged in each year since 2015; and in how many of those cases permission to proceed was granted.

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

Data on the number of judicial review applications relating to NHS service reconfiguration decisions in England — and the number in which permission to proceed was granted— is included within the official Judicial Review statistics published on the Civil Justice Statistics webpage: Civil justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK.

These statistics are presented in broad categories and do not separately identify cases concerning NHS service reconfiguration.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what offences will have the right to elect restricted by the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

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

The Bill removes a defendants’ right to elect Crown Court trial for all triable either-way offences. The venue will be determined by the magistrates’ courts, which will send cases they consider outside of their jurisdiction to the Crown Court.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) prison and (b) probation workers have made complaints through the new independent reporting channel in HMPPS.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

On 10 November 2025, as part of the work to implement the reforms recommended in the Rademaker Review, His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) instituted an interim grievance process through which members of staff can raise complaints about bullying, harassment, discrimination or victimisation outside of their management line. This complements the existing grievance policy. For the period up to 26 February 2026, 5 complaints were received from staff working in Headquarters, 79 from probation staff and 188 from prison staff.

On 26 January 2026, a new Independent Review, Resolution and Investigations Service (IRRIS) was launched in HMPPS, subsuming the work of the former Tackling Unacceptable Behaviours Unit (TUBU). IRRIS will provide a fully independent route for bullying, harassment, discrimination and victimisation complaints within HMPPS, operating entirely outside line management structures. It will build upon TUBU’s strong work over the last five years, continuing to provide all the existing TUBU services while significantly enhancing its role.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made an assessment of the risks that private prosecutions in the United Kingdom may be used by well‑resourced organisations to (a) target and (b) intimidate individuals associated with pro‑Palestinian advocacy.

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

Any individual or organisation in England and Wales has the right to bring a private prosecution where a criminal offence has been committed.

The Government expects all organisations that bring private prosecutions to do so where there is sufficient evidence that the defendant has committed an offence, and where the prosecution is in the public interest.

The Ministry of Justice held a consultation on the regulation of private prosecutors – to ensure consistency, accountability, and transparency in private prosecutions – last year and the Government will set out its next steps shortly.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average wait is for a tribunal date to be set to appeal decisions made by the Department for Work and Pensions.

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

The information requested is not held centrally.

Waiting times are calculated from receipt of the appeal to the final disposal decision. The final outcome of any appeal is not necessarily achieved at its first listed hearing so we are unable to extract data about waiting times for tribunal hearing dates.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what offences will be reclassified by the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

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

The Courts and Tribunals Bill does not reclassify offences - it changes allocation and mode of trial arrangements within the existing classification framework.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many defendants elected trial by jury in either-way cases in each of the last a) three years and b) five years.

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

The Ministry of Justice published data on those electing for jury trials in either-way cases covering periods from 2014 up to the first quarter of 2023. This information is published in the Criminal Courts Statistics release in Table_AC10: Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2023 - GOV.UK

At present, around 15% of either-way receipts into the Crown Court have an unknown reason for sending recorded in HMCTS reporting systems. Work is underway to reduce this rate of unknowns so that robust data can be published in future releases.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the longest wait has been for a tribunal date to be set to appeal decisions made by the Department for Work and Pensions.

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

The information requested is not held centrally.

Waiting times are calculated from receipt of the appeal to the final disposal decision. The final outcome of any appeal is not necessarily achieved at its first listed hearing so we are unable to extract data about waiting times for tribunal hearing dates.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what progress he has made on the new independent reporting channel in HMPPS.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

On 10 November 2025, as part of the work to implement the reforms recommended in the Rademaker Review, His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) instituted an interim grievance process through which members of staff can raise complaints about bullying, harassment, discrimination or victimisation outside of their management line. This complements the existing grievance policy. For the period up to 26 February 2026, 5 complaints were received from staff working in Headquarters, 79 from probation staff and 188 from prison staff.

On 26 January 2026, a new Independent Review, Resolution and Investigations Service (IRRIS) was launched in HMPPS, subsuming the work of the former Tackling Unacceptable Behaviours Unit (TUBU). IRRIS will provide a fully independent route for bullying, harassment, discrimination and victimisation complaints within HMPPS, operating entirely outside line management structures. It will build upon TUBU’s strong work over the last five years, continuing to provide all the existing TUBU services while significantly enhancing its role.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Written Statement of 22 January 2026 on Response to Legal Aid Agency cyber attack, HCWS1265, how much funding will be allocated to the transformation programme for Legal Aid Agency digital services.

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

The amount of funding which will be allocated to the transformation programme for Legal Aid Agency digital services is subject to final budget allocation decisions, which are currently ongoing.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what offences will be eligible for trial without jury by the Crown Court Bench Division proposal in the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

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

The Courts and Tribunals Bill introduces judge-only trials for triable either-way offences where the courts assess that the likely custodial sentence, applying the relevant sentencing guidelines to the alleged facts and any appropriate representations, is three years imprisonment or less. Indictable-only offences are excluded and will not be eligible for this mode of trial, described as the Crown Court Bench Division.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether (a) his Department and (b) the arms length bodies sponsored by his Department are compliant with the Supreme Court ruling in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025].

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We have set out our expectation that all duty bearers, including Departments and arm’s-length bodies, follow the law as clarified by the Supreme Court ruling and seek specialist legal advice where necessary. The Prime Minister has underlined this recently.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has submitted a draft Code of Practice on services, public functions and associations to Ministers, and we are reviewing it with the care it deserves. This will provide further guidance to duty bearers.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many staff within his Department are reliant on a visa for employment.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information his Department holds on the average length of time it takes for a court case to be processed and concluded in (a) Basildon, (b) Essex, and (c) England.

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

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the time taken ‘at court’ in the magistrates’ courts and Crown Court for Essex in the ‘Magistrates’ courts timeliness tool’ and the ‘End-to-end timeliness tool’ (Crown Court).

Magistrates ‘at court’ time refers to the number of days from first listing to completion at the magistrates’ court and for the Crown Court it refers to the time from first listing at the magistrates’ court to completion at the Crown Court.

Data for the Essex Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) can be found using the ‘geographic area’ filter - Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK

LCJB is the lowest geographic level of our published Accredited Official Statistics for timeliness. Our published timeliness metrics are produced at a sufficiently 'high' level to reduce the volatility and fluctuations associated with low volumes of cases i.e. using court level data. As a result, we are unable to provide timeliness data for individual courts in Basildon.

The publication provides data for ‘England and Wales’ but does not contain a breakdown for England alone. When looking at data for England, the median time spent ‘at court’ across magistrates’ courts was 0 days for the year ending September 2025. This is due to the high proportion of Single Justice Procedure cases which commence and conclude on the same day. For the Crown Court, the median time spent ‘at court’ was 172 days for the same period.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information his Department holds on the current number of court cases awaiting hearings in (a) Essex and (b) Basildon.

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

The Ministry of Justice publishes information on the number of open criminal cases at the Crown Court for Essex in the ‘Crown Court receipts, disposals and open cases tool’ and for the magistrates’ courts in the ‘Magistrates’ courts receipts, disposals and open cases tool’. Essex can be selected under Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB).

Data is published for Basildon Crown Court in the Crown Court tool under the Crown Court filter - Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK

Data is not published at court level for the magistrates’ courts. The open caseload for the Basildon magistrates’ court was 1,700 as of the end of September 2025.

The open caseload reflects the workload in the courts at a given time. It will never be zero, as it reflects the volume of cases that are active in the courts at a particular point, including those recently received, those close to being disposed, those which are complex and take time to complete, and those that may be awaiting further hearings.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to page 92 of the Strategic Defence Review, published on 2 June 2025, how many (a) public engagements and (b) private meetings Ministers in their Department have undertaken related to the national conversation on defence and security.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Ministers have regular discussions with officials, external experts and ministerial colleagues on a range of issues, including national security, defence and resilience, and associated public communications.

As set out in the Strategic Defence Review, the national conversation will be a multi-year engagement designed to embed a whole-of-society approach, where Government, businesses, and the public all play a part in strengthening our resilience. This addresses the risks we face, including threats below and above the threshold of an armed attack.

The Ministry of Justice is actively supporting this work.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the median waiting time was between a request for a registered intermediary and allocation in each of the last three years; and what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of these waiting times on the (a) wellbeing of victims and (b) the progress of their cases.

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

The table below sets out the proportion of requests for a registered intermediary that were successfully matched, as well as those that could not be matched, were cancelled by the police or CPS, or where matching was still in progress at the end of the calendar year. This is broken down for victims, prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses for the calendar years 2022-2024 (the most recent years for which published data is available through the Witness Intermediary Scheme annual report):

Unmatched cases include those where:

• A Registered Intermediary (RI) could not be assigned to a case because the Witness Intermediary Team could not provide a RI within the timeframe specified by the end user,
• A RI initially accepted the case but then withdrew,
• the court agreed to adjourn a case and a new request reflecting the new trial date was generated.

Therefore, not all unmatched requests indicate that the individual did not have a RI for their case.

The National Crime Agency, who administer the Witness Intermediary Scheme on behalf of the Ministry of Justice does not collect waiting times between the making of a request for a Registered Intermediary, so no data is available on the number of cases that were delayed due to capacity constraints.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on the waiting time between the request for a registered intermediary and matching of the intermediary. The allocation of a Registered Intermediary in each case will be dependent on a number of requirements including the availability of the witness and the investigation officer as well the availability and skillset of the registered intermediary. Where a case is flagged as urgent, the National Crime Agency will endeavour to prioritise the case, including seeking registered intermediary support out of hours or at the weekend.

The Ministry of Justice recruits and trains Registered Intermediaries on an ongoing basis to meet growing demand. These are informed by annual gap analyses to ascertain where demand is growing. In the 3 years to 2024, we have recruited 88 additional RIs to the Scheme.

The table below sets out the rate at which requests for a Registered Intermediary (from both the police and CPS) in each police force area were matched in 2024. We do not hold data on waiting times for intermediaries. We also do not hold data broken down by Crown Court circuit.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of vulnerable (a) victims and (b) witnesses assessed as requiring a registered intermediary under the Witness Intermediary Scheme were allocated one in each of the last three years; and how many requests were (i) refused and (ii) delayed due to availability constraints.

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

The table below sets out the proportion of requests for a registered intermediary that were successfully matched, as well as those that could not be matched, were cancelled by the police or CPS, or where matching was still in progress at the end of the calendar year. This is broken down for victims, prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses for the calendar years 2022-2024 (the most recent years for which published data is available through the Witness Intermediary Scheme annual report):

Unmatched cases include those where:

• A Registered Intermediary (RI) could not be assigned to a case because the Witness Intermediary Team could not provide a RI within the timeframe specified by the end user,
• A RI initially accepted the case but then withdrew,
• the court agreed to adjourn a case and a new request reflecting the new trial date was generated.

Therefore, not all unmatched requests indicate that the individual did not have a RI for their case.

The National Crime Agency, who administer the Witness Intermediary Scheme on behalf of the Ministry of Justice does not collect waiting times between the making of a request for a Registered Intermediary, so no data is available on the number of cases that were delayed due to capacity constraints.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on the waiting time between the request for a registered intermediary and matching of the intermediary. The allocation of a Registered Intermediary in each case will be dependent on a number of requirements including the availability of the witness and the investigation officer as well the availability and skillset of the registered intermediary. Where a case is flagged as urgent, the National Crime Agency will endeavour to prioritise the case, including seeking registered intermediary support out of hours or at the weekend.

The Ministry of Justice recruits and trains Registered Intermediaries on an ongoing basis to meet growing demand. These are informed by annual gap analyses to ascertain where demand is growing. In the 3 years to 2024, we have recruited 88 additional RIs to the Scheme.

The table below sets out the rate at which requests for a Registered Intermediary (from both the police and CPS) in each police force area were matched in 2024. We do not hold data on waiting times for intermediaries. We also do not hold data broken down by Crown Court circuit.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the registered intermediary allocation (a) rates and (b) waiting times are in each (i) police force area and (ii) Crown Court circuits; and what steps his Department is taking to help ensure that all vulnerable victims have access to intermediaries.

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

The table below sets out the proportion of requests for a registered intermediary that were successfully matched, as well as those that could not be matched, were cancelled by the police or CPS, or where matching was still in progress at the end of the calendar year. This is broken down for victims, prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses for the calendar years 2022-2024 (the most recent years for which published data is available through the Witness Intermediary Scheme annual report):

Unmatched cases include those where:

• A Registered Intermediary (RI) could not be assigned to a case because the Witness Intermediary Team could not provide a RI within the timeframe specified by the end user,
• A RI initially accepted the case but then withdrew,
• the court agreed to adjourn a case and a new request reflecting the new trial date was generated.

Therefore, not all unmatched requests indicate that the individual did not have a RI for their case.

The National Crime Agency, who administer the Witness Intermediary Scheme on behalf of the Ministry of Justice does not collect waiting times between the making of a request for a Registered Intermediary, so no data is available on the number of cases that were delayed due to capacity constraints.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on the waiting time between the request for a registered intermediary and matching of the intermediary. The allocation of a Registered Intermediary in each case will be dependent on a number of requirements including the availability of the witness and the investigation officer as well the availability and skillset of the registered intermediary. Where a case is flagged as urgent, the National Crime Agency will endeavour to prioritise the case, including seeking registered intermediary support out of hours or at the weekend.

The Ministry of Justice recruits and trains Registered Intermediaries on an ongoing basis to meet growing demand. These are informed by annual gap analyses to ascertain where demand is growing. In the 3 years to 2024, we have recruited 88 additional RIs to the Scheme.

The table below sets out the rate at which requests for a Registered Intermediary (from both the police and CPS) in each police force area were matched in 2024. We do not hold data on waiting times for intermediaries. We also do not hold data broken down by Crown Court circuit.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information his Department holds on the link between individuals holding a criminal record and (a) unemployment and (b) PIP claimants.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice does not hold specific information on the link between having a criminal record and (a) unemployment or (b) Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants.

We know that employment can reduce the likelihood of reoffending by up to nine percentage points in the year following release. This is why the Government has committed to supporting ex-offenders into work, including through launching regional Employment Councils, which bring businesses together with prisons, probation and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to support offenders in the community.

We recognise that having a criminal record can impact on someone’s employment opportunities, but it should not be an automatic barrier to employment. The criminal records disclosure framework is designed to balance rehabilitation with maintaining safeguarding and public protection principles. Our guidance for employers makes clear that recruitment decisions should be based on a balanced assessment of relevance, context, and risk.

DWP also does not hold data on the criminal record of claimants to PIP as this, together with their employment status, does not form part of the eligibility criteria for the benefit. We continue to work across Government to improve data-sharing and build a clearer picture of people’s employment support needs.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what guidance he has issued on engagement between his Department and the legal representatives of prisoners undertaking prolonged hunger strikes.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Under the Prison Rules and Prison Service Instruction 49/2011 Prisoner Communication Services, prisoners are entitled to confidential access to their legal advisers, including by telephone, in person legal visits, and written correspondence, all of which must take place without being monitored except in exceptional, legally defined circumstances. Prisons must facilitate reasonable opportunities for legal contact, such as providing access to visit rooms, scheduling telephone calls, and ensuring that mail to and from legal representatives is handled promptly and without routine opening or interference.

On 24 December, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote in response to a letter from legal representatives of those who were refusing food. He offered to facilitate a meeting between senior representatives of the healthcare provider and the prisoners’ solicitors. This offer was accepted on 8 January, and the meeting took place on 9 January.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans his Department has to respond to the Law Commission’s consultation on New Funerary Methods.

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

It is anticipated that the Law Commission will publish a final report and draft Bill in relation to the New Funerary Methods project in Spring 2026.

We await the Commission’s findings and recommendations with interest and will respond in due course.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average length of time spent on remand in custody was in the most recent 12-month period for which data is available.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Information relating to the time spent on custodial remand is not centrally held by the Ministry of Justice. To obtain the data to answer this question would involve a manual interrogation of court records which would result in a disproportionate cost to the Department.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sport and Physical Activity in the Criminal Justice System’s report Physical Activity and Sport across the Children and Young People Secure Estate, and Adult Custodial Estate in England and Wales, published in December 2025.

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

We appreciate the considerable work that has gone into the inquiry.

His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) has been engaged with the work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group over many years, including in relation to this latest review. HMPPS will give careful consideration, in collaboration with other partners, to those recommendations in the report that are addressed to it.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure transparency in the use of statutory consultation in the appointment of judges.

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

The Lord Chancellor is committed to transparent and merit-based selection processes that maintain the quality of our judiciary.

Statutory consultation is provided for in legislation and requires the independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) to seek views from those with relevant experience, unless the appropriate authority agrees it is not required. It is one of a range of shortlisting and selection tools used by the JAC to ensure that candidates are of good character and have relevant capabilities for the role.

The JAC made changes to the operation of statutory consultation following an independent review in 2022 to provide clearer information about when and how statutory consultation is used. It has recently published an evaluation of those changes alongside updated guidance for candidates and consultees (https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/corp-publication/evaluation-on-the-revised-approach-to-statutory-consultation/).

Candidates can complain to the JAC and, if dissatisfied, to the independent Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman if they believe that their application for appointment has not been handled appropriately.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the forthcoming review of pornography regulation will consider any inconsistencies between online and offline regulation in restricting children’s access to sexually explicit material.

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

On 9 December 2025, during the House of Lords Committee Stage debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government announced that it would accept, in part, one of the recommendations from Baroness Bertin’s Independent Review on Pornography, namely recommendation 24 which says:

‘The current criminal justice response is ineffective in tackling illegal pornography online. Government should conduct its own legislative review of this regime to ensure that legislation and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance is fit-for-purpose in tackling illegal pornography in the online world.’

The Government will be reviewing the criminal law relating to pornography, which will give an opportunity to look at the criminal law in this area holistically and consider whether it is fit for purpose in an ever-developing online world. We have accepted in part because the Government cannot accept the recommendation to review CPS guidance. As the CPS is independent, whether to conduct a review of guidance would be a matter for them to decide.

The review will be conducted by the Ministry of Justice. As the review is focused on the criminal law on pornography, it will not appraise the effectiveness of age-verification, age-assurance methods or regulation, which are outside of the scope of the criminal legislation the Ministry of Justice will be reviewing. A Joint Team has been set up, across the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to rigorously examine the evidence to address the issues from the Pornography Review. It will examine the evidence to inform the Government’s approach to pornography policy.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the forthcoming review of the criminal law relating to pornography will assess the effectiveness of current a) age-verification and b) age-assurance measures in preventing children from accessing online pornography.

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

On 9 December 2025, during the House of Lords Committee Stage debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government announced that it would accept, in part, one of the recommendations from Baroness Bertin’s Independent Review on Pornography, namely recommendation 24 which says:

‘The current criminal justice response is ineffective in tackling illegal pornography online. Government should conduct its own legislative review of this regime to ensure that legislation and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance is fit-for-purpose in tackling illegal pornography in the online world.’

The Government will be reviewing the criminal law relating to pornography, which will give an opportunity to look at the criminal law in this area holistically and consider whether it is fit for purpose in an ever-developing online world. We have accepted in part because the Government cannot accept the recommendation to review CPS guidance. As the CPS is independent, whether to conduct a review of guidance would be a matter for them to decide.

The review will be conducted by the Ministry of Justice. As the review is focused on the criminal law on pornography, it will not appraise the effectiveness of age-verification, age-assurance methods or regulation, which are outside of the scope of the criminal legislation the Ministry of Justice will be reviewing. A Joint Team has been set up, across the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to rigorously examine the evidence to address the issues from the Pornography Review. It will examine the evidence to inform the Government’s approach to pornography policy.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure transparency in the appointment of judges.

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

The Lord Chancellor is committed to transparent and merit-based selection processes that maintain the quality of our judiciary. I refer the hon. Member for Wrekin, Mark Pritchard to the answer I gave on 1 May 2025 to Question 47182 (https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-04-23/47182).

In January 2026, the independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) relaunched its website which includes detailed information about the new Judicial Skills and Abilities Framework, and updated guidance about statutory consultation. In addition, the Ministry of Justice works with the JAC and the judiciary to produce the annual Diversity of the Judiciary statistics, with detailed data about judicial appointments.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions he has had with the Judicial Appointment Commission on its use of resources to challenge Freedom of Information requests.

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

The independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) is designated as a public body under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The JAC is responsible for meeting its statutory obligations under the FOIA and the Data Protection Act 2018, including ensuring requests are handled in line with the relevant legislation. Decisions on the responses to individual Freedom of Information requests, including any associated legal consideration, are for the JAC.

The JAC as a non-departmental public body is responsible for managing its own resources including in relation to meeting its statutory obligations. The governance and accountability arrangements between the Ministry of Justice and the JAC are set out in the framework document agreed in line with HM Treasury’s Managing Public Money, including in relation to governance and financial matters

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, what steps he is taking to ensure that blitz courts do not lead to prolonged waits for trials for other types of cases.

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

The Government is committed to reducing outstanding caseloads in the Crown Court while maintaining progress across all case types.

Targeted initiatives, sometimes referred to as “blitz” courts, are carefully planned and time-limited exercises designed to make best use of available courtrooms, judicial capacity and sitting days. They are intended to increase overall throughput rather than divert resources from other cases. The plan is for London to use two courts at the Central Criminal Court specifically to accommodate the blitz courts.

Listing decisions in the Crown Court are a matter for the independent judiciary. HMCTS works closely with the judiciary to monitor waiting times and operational pressures across the system to ensure that targeted activity in one area does not lead to unintended delays elsewhere.

We continue to fund increased Crown Court sitting days and for 2026/27 we have removed the financial limits on how many days Crown Courts can sit in order to improve timeliness for all court users.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, which additional local authorities plan to adopt the scheme allowing prisoner transport vans to use bus lanes.

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

We agree with Sir Brian’s Leveson’s recommendation in the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts that Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (PECS) should be enabled to use bus lanes when transporting prisoners. However, these decisions are ultimately for local authorities.

PECS vehicles already use bus lanes in Manchester, Bristol, Salford and Nottingham. We are currently engaging with local authorities across the country to expand this, and will work with the Department for Transport to ensure that local authorities are aware of the role they can play in reducing prisoner delays. For example, in London we are working closely with Transport for London to pilot a scheme that retimes traffic signals to prioritise PECS vans on three routes in the capital. Around 300 traffic lights will be adjusted so that PECS vehicles are more likely to receive green lights on their journey to court.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, how many blitz court sittings are planned from April 2026; and what offences will be prioritised after assaults on emergency workers.

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

Blitz courts in London will initially focus on assault on emergency workers and will be listed at Central Criminal Court from April. A total of 500 days have been allocated for this first blitz initiative. After prioritising assaults on emergency workers, we will consider other case types including sentencing cases, breaches and trials with no civilian witnesses.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, whether blitz courts will be delivered through new additional capacity.

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

Blitz courts have been trialled previously and have shown positive results in reducing case backlog. The announcement of uncapped sitting days in the Crown Court in 2026/27 will enable more blitz initiatives to take place. The two court rooms which will be used are part of the existing London Crown Court Cluster.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, what estimate he has made of the cost of rolling out the proposed AI courts assistant across HMCTS.

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

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) is progressing work to expand the use of AI to support court and tribunal operations across a range of use cases. The Department has not published a single estimate of the cost of rolling out AI across HMCTS, as costs and benefits depend on the specific use case, scope and implementation approach. Any decision to deploy AI-enabled tools more widely would be subject to appropriate evaluation and the development of approved business cases, including affordability and value for money in accordance with HMCTS governance and standards.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, what criteria will be used to evaluate the success of the AI-assisted listing pilot within HMCTS.

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

HMCTS will evaluate the pilot of AI-enabled support for listing against criteria that will include expected:

• reductions in administrative effort associated with listing;

• improved timeliness and consistency of listing activity;

• the impact on listing accuracy and associated rework; and

• the effect on effective use of court capacity.

This will be considered alongside feedback from operational users and the judiciary on usability and confidence. Findings from this stage of the evaluation will inform decisions on any wider deployment. If we proceed, we will design an evaluation approach in line with Government Social Research standards that we would expect to publish as part of the programme of work.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, whether any blitz courts are planned to be opened in Essex.

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

At this current time there are no plans to operate blitz courts in Essex.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, whether he has conducted an equality impact assessment on the expanded use of AI within courts and tribunals.

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

The Department and HMCTS have due regard to their obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty when developing and implementing policy and operational changes. Equality considerations are taken into account as part of the design and evaluation of service changes, and appropriate equality analysis has informed, and will continue to inform, decisions on the adoption and scaling of AI-enabled tools and services within courts and tribunals. This is undertaken on a use-case-by-use-case basis, rather than through a single blanket assessment.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, what steps he is taking to ensure that AI court assistance does not lead to listing errors.

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

HMCTS is developing and piloting AI-enabled support for operational activity such as listing in a way that retains appropriate human oversight and accountability for decisions. In line with HMCTS Responsible AI principles, any work to scale AI-enabled tools will include robust processes for how issues and errors will be identified, challenged and corrected. Lessons learned from pilots in courts such as Preston and Isleworth, and subsequent evaluation will inform what safeguards are required for any future wider deployment. All of these have been subject to human oversight and are there to assist decision making in accordance with a new national listing framework to be introduced.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, what estimate he has made of the time savings from the use of AI to transcribe hearings across the court system.

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

HMCTS is progressing work to expand AI-enabled transcription to support courts and tribunals. The Department has not published an estimate of time savings from the use of AI to transcribe hearings across the court system. It is worth noting that transcription of hearings is one of several use cases for AI assisted transcription. The main driver for hearing transcription is to make justice more open and transparent.

In line with HMCTS Responsible AI principles, decisions on scaling AI-enabled transcription will be informed by evaluation, including impacts on efficiency, quality and user experience, and will include robust processes for how errors will be identified, challenged and corrected.

Found: State for Business and Trade, who has proposed a collaboration between Blind Justice and the Ministry of Justice

Found: and Trade, has supported our work and proposed collaboration between Blind Justice and the Ministry of Justice

Found: The MoJ are restricted in providing data which forms a subset of any future

Found: (MoJ) letter of 23 January 2026 provided in response to the questions put to them by the Committee

Found: Grade DWP Annual Salary (Min) MoD Annual Salary (Min) MoJ Annual Salary (Min) HMRC Annual Salary

Found: A recent report commissioned by the Ministry of Justice indicates that the sector has grown by 200%

Found: sustainability of children’s care homes HC 1233 60th DWP follow-up: Autumn 2025 HC 1447 59th 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: The Ministry of Justice should be represented on the Defending Democracy Taskforce at ministerial level

Found: The Ministry of Justice should be represented on the Defending Democracy Taskforce at ministerial level

Found: Home Office, Lucy Rigby KC MP, Solicitor General and Sarah Sackman KC MP, Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

Found: and member of numerous committees advising government departments, particularly within the Ministry of Justice

Found: The Ministry of Justice should be represented on the Defending Democracy Taskforce at ministerial level

Found: The Ministry of Justice should be represented on the Defending Democracy Taskforce at ministerial level

Found: It would be helpful for the Ministry of Justice to have a lead advisory role on any issues that may

Found: of the Bill is intended to encourage the MOD to work with other Departments, for example with the MOJ

Found: obtained on a police cooperation basis, particularly enquiries that require coercive means. 215 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: Judicial Appointments Commission and their pay and conditions are the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice

Found: . • Encourage cross-departmental coordination between the Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Justice and

Found: E03DD2384251/Gaza(IndependentPublicInquiry 4 Lib Dems call for Mandelson public inquiry | ITN 5 Ministry of Justice

Found: 0.8Budget Cover Transfer (NIO) relating to Northern Ireland Covid Recovery0.0220.022Budget Cover Transfer (MOJ

Found: The Committee asked how the Home Office intends to agree shared system objectives with MoJ, MHCLG and

Found: MHCLG) Integrated Settlement Skills Bootcamps Construction Budget 0 (1,200) (1,200) Ministry of Justice

Found: The relationship is now really quite strong both with the PSNI and the MoJ in Northern Ireland and

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she can list the (a) Ministerial responsibilities and (b) the responsibilities and reporting arrangements of any relevant cross-departmental units in relation to drugs policy.

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

The Joint Combating Drugs Unit (JCDU) is responsible for driving and co-ordinating efforts across Government to tackle drugs, working in close partnership with six departments – the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the Department for Education. JCDU comprises full-time civil servants who are seconded from key government departments.

Each department is responsible for delivery of their programmes and projects. Progress is overseen by the lead departmental ministers but also reported to me as the lead drugs Minister, while a lead Permanent Secretary fulfils the role of senior responsible owner at official level.

Illicit drug use affects the whole of society, and this Government is taking a collective response to deliver safer streets, improve health outcomes and contribute to opportunities and growth through reducing crime and saving lives.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether his Department plans to review its approach to employment disputes and whistleblowing complaints.

Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

National Health Service organisations are independent employers and have their own policies and procedures for resolving workplace disputes, including whistleblowing complaints, which should be aligned to current employment law and relevant Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service codes of practice or guidance.

The Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice have set up the Dispute Resolution System Taskforce to consider longer-term system reform of dispute resolution across all sectors.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask His Majesty's Government what consultations took place with young people in Young Offender Institutions as part of the development of the report Youth Matters: Your National Youth Strategy, published on 10 December 2025.

Answered by Baroness Twycross - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)

‘Youth Matters: Your National Youth Strategy’ and ‘Youth Matters: State of the Nation’ report are informed by the voices of over 14,000 young people. To ensure a broad and representative range of perspectives were included, my officials conducted deep dives with specific underrepresented cohorts, including with 50 young offenders at HMP Forest Bank in Manchester, supported by the Hope Collective. Our findings were shared with the Ministry of Justice.

Question to the Cabinet Office:

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what proportion of the Government estate is managed by the Government Property Agency; which departments, arm’s-length bodies or property portfolios lie within its direct management responsibilities; and what the Government Property Agency’s total expenditure was in 2024–25 on measuring, collecting, reporting or validating greenhouse gas emissions in respect of the parts of the estate for which it is responsible.

Answered by Anna Turley - Minister without Portfolio (Cabinet Office)

Fifty-three per cent (2023/24 53 per cent) of the central government office portfolio, covering c.1,100,000 sqm has been transferred to the Government Property Agency. The Agency provides portfolio services to the following Government departments:

• Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

• Attorney General’s Office

• Cabinet Office

• Care Quality Commission

• Companies House

• Crown Commercial Service

• Crown Prosecution Service

• Department for Business & Trade

• Department for Education

• Department for Energy, Security and Net Zero

• Department for Culture Media and Sport

• Department of Health & Social Care

• Government Actuary’s Department

• Ministry of Housing Communities & Local Government

• Disclosure & Barring Services

• Northern Ireland Office

• The Insolvency Service

• Foreign & Commonwealth Office

• HM Land Registry

• HM Treasury

• Food Standards Agency

• Great British Nuclear

• Ministry of Justice

• National Savings & Investments

• Office of the Public Guardian

• OfQual

The GPA calculates greenhouse gas emissions for office space occupied by GPA staff and provides utility consumption data for departments occupying other buildings within its managed estate. As this activity is performed by staff as part of their wider duties, the exact amount of time allocated to this specific activity is not centrally recorded.

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many prosecutions have been brought in relation to offences involving the persecution of birds of prey in each of the last five years.

Answered by Mary Creagh - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

Defra does not hold official data on the number of prosecutions that have been brought in relation to offences involving the persecution of birds of prey. The Ministry of Justice does publish data on prosecutions for a wide range of offences, including offences relating to birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, but this is not broken down to a level to identify prosecutions for offences specifically involving birds of prey.

Based on data published by the Ministry of Justice, in the last five years there have been 50 prosecutions for offences relating to birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Data relating to specific offences against wild birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 can be sourced using the Outcomes by Offences data tool on the Criminal Justice Statistics website: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK.

Question to the Ministry of Defence:

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 23 February 2026 to Question 112783 on Prisons: Unmanned Air Systems, what is the full scope of the challenge launched on behalf of the Ministry of Justice by UK Defence Innovation.

Answered by Luke Pollard - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)

This UK Defence Innovation (UKDI) competition is run on behalf of the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), the Home Office, the Police, Innovate UK, and wider UK security stakeholders.

It is seeking proposals that offer innovative, low-collateral solutions to counter or defeat hostile drones targeting secure sites and locations. Drones, or ‘uncrewed aerial systems’ (UAS), pose a growing challenge when used for contraband delivery, surveillance and disruption near prisons, sensitive sites or critical national infrastructure, including in congested urban areas.

The users for the solutions would include HMPPS security teams, MOD, police, law enforcement agencies, and operational staff, these groups need solutions to work alongside existing ‘last line of defence’ technology that are activated when other mitigation measures fail.

Technologies in this area are developing rapidly. UKDI is keen to understand how innovation can keep up with the pace of development while remaining legally and ethically compliant, fully considering operational constraints, and integrating easily into existing security frameworks such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), SAPIENT (Situational Awareness and Preparedness for Improved Operational Effectiveness and Efficiency), the Prison Act 1952, and the Police Act 1997. The calling notice can be found on GOV.UK.

Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:

To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, on what date the cross-departmental team established to address the findings of Baroness Bertin’s Independent Pornography Review formally commenced its work; and when is that team expected to provide its findings and recommendations.

Answered by Kanishka Narayan - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)

The ‘Freedom from Violence and Abuse: a cross-government strategy to build a safer society for women and girls’ committed to creating a joint team to address the issues in Baroness Bertin’s Review. The team is now established and is formed by the Home Office, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, Ministry of Justice, and Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The team is examining the evidence to inform the government’s approach to pornography policy carefully.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many and what proportion of asylum applicant initial refusals were reversed in the period between July 2024 and July 2025.

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

The Home Office publishes data on asylum appeals and latest outcomes in the ‘Immigration System Statistics Quarterly Release’.

Data on asylum appeals is published in table Asy_D06 and Asy_D07 of the ‘Asylum appeals lodged and determined detailed datasets’. The latest data relates to the year ending March 2023.

Data on latest asylum outcomes is published in table Asy_D04 of the ‘Asylum claims and decisions detail datasets’. Table Asy_D04 shows, for main applicants only, the number of asylum claims made each year and the initial and latest outcomes for those claims. Initial outcomes of an asylum claim are subject to change following an appeal or a reconsideration. The latest published data relates to claims made up to the end of 2024, with outcomes as at the point of data extraction in October 2025.

Information on how to use these datasets can be found in the ‘Notes’ page of the workbooks.

Please note that figures for immigration and asylum appeals at First-Tier Tribunal and subsequent stages are published by the Ministry of Justice as part of their Tribunal Statistics release. The latest data relates to July to September 2025.

Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:

To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, what estimate she has made of central government efficiency savings to be made from AI over the Spending Review period.

Answered by Ian Murray - Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology)

The Government is already investing heavily in AI to drive efficiency and productivity. In the recent Spending Review, we committed £1.2 billion of funding in digital and AI across public services.

Work undertaken by the Office for Value for Money at SR25 identified total annual efficiency gains of almost £14bn by 2028-29, of which the Government expects digital to contribute a substantial portion of this. Some individual departments have already set efficiency targets covering the Spending Review period. The Home Office has outlined efficiency gains of £533 million per year by 2028-29, partly driven through increased automation, whilst the Ministry of Justice targets £356 million per year by the same period through AI adoption and the use of technology for offender management in the community.

The Government Digital Service (GDS) will work with HM Treasury to measure central government departments’ contributions to this by tracking the digital efficiencies they’ve identified in their delivery plans by the end of the spending review period. GDS will also draw on productivity and efficiency information from across the public sector to understand how government is driving wider efficiency.

Question to the Scotland Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, how many directors with responsibility for human resources are employed across their department and its executive agencies; and how many of those directors hold professional HR qualifications from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or equivalent professional bodies.

Answered by Kirsty McNeill - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Scotland Office)

The Scotland Office has no Directors with responsibility for human resources.

It may be helpful to explain that the Scotland Office does not employ any staff directly. All staff that join, do so on an assignment, loan or secondment from other government departments, principally the Ministry of Justice and the Scottish Government. They remain the employers and provide HR services to their employees working in the Scotland Office.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether her Department has made an assessment of the potential impact of abolishing Police and Crime Commissioners on the provision of local victim support services.

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

We recognise the important work Police and Crime Commissioners do to commission vital support services for victims and witnesses of crime locally. We are working closely with the Ministry of Justice to establish how their existing victims’ responsibilities will operate within the new police governance system. Ensuring continuity of support for victims in the future arrangements is a key priority of our design work.

We have established transition working groups to refine the design and implementation of the future governance arrangements. One of these is specifically focused on partnerships and commissioning, including victims’ responsibilities.

Question to the Department for Education:

To ask the Secretary of State for Education, whether she is having discussions with the Chancellor on a cross-departmental approach to raising literacy rates among children and young people.

Answered by Josh MacAlister - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Education)

The department is working with other government departments, including the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), as well as the Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish devolved governments, to promote the National Year of Reading 2026. This aims to address long term declines in reading enjoyment through engaging new audiences, reshaping public attitudes and building the systems needed to embed lasting, meaningful change.

Cross sector support is vital in tackling the downward trend in reading for pleasure, which is why the Year is operating as a collective impact campaign allowing multiple agencies and partners to participate, including publishers, booksellers, brands, retailers and charities.

The National Year of Reading 2026 will involve activities and events across the UK. You can find more information about the campaign in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and in Wales here: https://goallin.org.uk/

The campaign aims for lasting impact. For example, my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced £5 million for secondary schools to purchase books and reading material to encourage reading for pleasure. The government has also committed over £10 million in funding to guarantee a library for every primary school by the end of this parliament, which will be delivered by DCMS.

Found: for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Ministry of Justice

Found: Orietta.Barbari@hmtreasury.gov.uk CC, Crown Estate Office, DBT, DEFRA, MHCLG, HM Land Registry, MoJ

Found: You can find more information at the Ministry of Justice website.

Found: (MOJ) Governance In the financial year 2024 to 2025, we have improved our departmental climate

Found: Data on releases only go up to September 2025, as these are the latest data published in the MoJ Offender

Found: Data on releases only go up to September 2025, as these are the latest data published in the MoJ Offender

Found: The returnship scheme will be piloted with Home Office and Ministry of Justice and will be open to any

Found: MoJ England and Wales48 Protecting What Matters: Towards a more confident, cohesive, and resilient United

Found: to year ending September 2025 (NFIB codes 51, 52, 53.4, 53.6, 53B.1, 53C, 53D, 53E, 53F) Source: MOJ

Found: to year ending September 2025 (NFIB codes 51, 52, 53.4, 53.6, 53B.1, 53C, 53D, 53E, 53F) Source: MOJ

Found: Ministry of Justice follow up: Autumn 2025 Introduction from the Committee MoJ is responsible

Found: Ministry of Justice follow up: Autumn 2025 Introduction from the Committee MoJ is responsible

Found: In addition, meetings with the Ministry of Justice and the Local Government Association have been positive

Found: In 2024/25 we offered the following: Mentoring Catapult is a mentoring scheme led by the Ministry of Justice

Found: amserlen sydd y tu hwnt i reolaeth uniongyrchol y pwyllgor neu reolaeth y Weinyddiaeth Gyfiawnder (MoJ

Found: The Civil Procedure Rule Committee is an independent, statutory body, sponsored by the Ministry of Justice

Found: This action plan is the HMPPS and MoJ response to the HM Inspectorate of Prisons inspection report for

Found: effectiveness of the work of probation, an d youth offending services across England and Wales to Ministry of Justice

Found: Neither the Committee, nor the Ministry of Justice can cover any costs incurred by public observers.

Found: It is a Non-Departmental Public Body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice.

Found: Prior to working at the Cabinet Office, Caroline spent nine years at the Ministry of Justice where she

Found: It draws on management information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and HMPPS, including: • Outcomes

Found: FROMTHELoRDGOVERNMENTWHIPS’OFFICE GOVERNMENTW}MOJ,HO,HOUSEOFLORDS 02072196802LONDONSW1AOPW Telephone020

Found: FROMTHELORDLEMOS:GOVERNMENTWHIPS’OFFICE MENTWHIPFCO,MOJ,HO,HOUSEOFLORDS 02072196802LONDONSW1AOPW Telephone020

Found: Sixth supplementary memorandum by the Home Office and Ministry of Justice. 40p. IV.

Found: Sixth supplementary memorandum by the Home Office and Ministry of Justice. 40p. IV.

Found: Sixth supplementary memorandum by the Home Office and Ministry of Justice. 40p. IV.

Found: Sixth supplementary memorandum by the Home Office and Ministry of Justice. 40p. IV.

Found: EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS   Seventh Supplementary Memorandum by the Home Office, Ministry of Justice

Found: Home Office / Ministry of Justice / Department of Science, Innovation and Technology 2 March 2026

Found: Frameworks and contracts such as those set up by the Scottish Government, Scotland Excel, the Ministry of Justice

Found: Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice have been combined since 2007, when the Ministry of Justice

Found: In parallel, the Scottish Government engaged with officials from the UK Government Ministry of Justice

Found: ’ • The MoJ published a review this year of what works evidence on reoffending and covered substance

Found: The Welsh Government submitted a Justice System Impact Identification Form to the Ministry of Justice

Found: The Bill is sponsored by the Home Office, Ministry of Justice and Department for Environment, Food and

Found: The Welsh Government submitted a Justice System Impact Identification Form to the Ministry of Justice

Found: The guidance from both Ministry of Justice and Welsh Government set out two key questions that must

Found: We completed and shared with the Ministry of Justice a Justice System Impact Identification Form, which

Found: government policy advisory group and ensure policy cohesion Regularly engage with Home Office, Ministry of Justice

Found: Research shows reporting rates differ by ethnicity (Ministry of Justice 2024), offence type and local

Question

How has the Welsh Government worked with the UK Government to deliver the recommendations of the Commission on Justice in Wales where they share joint responsibility, particularly those identified and agreed as priority areas?

Answered by Counsel General and Minister for Delivery

As the largest ever examination of the justice system in Wales, the Commission on Justice in Wales (Thomas Commission) report remains of course a very important contribution to public understanding of the condition of the justice system in Wales. Its key findings in relation to the structural failings underlying justice in Wales are as relevant as ever, hence the Welsh Government’s continuing support for the devolution of justice and policing. This position was of course supported by the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales. 

The Welsh Government has taken a very large number of actions in response to the recommendations of the Thomas Commission. A number of these are set out in Delivering Justice for Wales and the subsequent progress report published in 2024. Delivering Justice for Wales is the main summary of Welsh Government actions related to justice during this Senedd term.

While we accept there are areas where we have not met all our aspirations, notable advancements have been made, even if arguments may be made that the recommendations in question have not been wholly completed.

For instance, in response to Recommendation 35 that Family Drug and Alcohol Courts should be established in Wales, the Welsh Government and partners funded a pilot in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan, and the findings of that pilot are contributing to changes being rolled out across courts in Wales. Similarly, there has been

• a significant increase in the provision of legal apprenticeships in Wales (recommendation 40),
• considerable investment in legal technology (recommendation 43),
• activity to promote the Welsh legal sector (recommendation 44),
• greater transparency increased in procurement of legal services (recommendation 41), and
• significant progress towards tribunals reform, including the publication of a White Paper (recommendation 27)

The Welsh Government also took the lead on facilitating the creation of the Law Council for Wales (recommendation 65). However, once that process was concluded, it was for the members of the Council to determine its objectives, priorities and work programme. The Welsh Government is not a member of the Council, nor does it provide any funding to it, so there can be no questions about the Council’s independence. As an independent body, it is not for the Welsh Government to make an assessment of the extent to which it has fulfilled the functions envisaged by the Thomas Commission.

It remains the case that the significant majority of the Thomas Commission’s recommendations, including the most impactful, are ones which require the support and active participation of the UK Government. Although most of these recommendations focused primarily on the devolution of justice and how it might work, there were also suggestions that could have been implemented with UK Government support within the current devolution framework. Even on these, engagement from the previous UK Government was very disappointing, as highlighted in the progress report on Delivering Justice for Wales, where we noted that “it remains unclear whether the MoJ are intending to undertake any significant further activity [directly] as a result of the Thomas Commission discussions”.

Progress has though improved recently in these areas. For instance, in response to Recommendation 50, which sought improved Wales-specific data for evidence-based policymaking and research, we collaborated with the UK Government to secure the Ministry of Justice’s first annual Wales-specific data publication. The "Welsh Justice Data: Annual Release 2025" represents a significant milestone, providing detailed breakdowns—including prison statistics by home address origin (Welsh or English), prison establishment, local authority, offence type, age, ethnicity, religion, sentence type, and security category. This long-awaited dataset will now be routinely published on GOV.UK: Welsh Justice Data: Annual Release 2025, including an Excel file with detailed statistics.

Finally, in the second half of this Senedd we have focused increasingly on preparedness for hoped-for first steps in advancing the principal recommendations concerning the devolution of justice. Following considerable work with academics, experts and stakeholders within Wales, we have advanced this objective by working with the UK Government towards a memorandum of understanding on probation services, and in exploring the devolution of funding for youth justice services, and the related strategic oversight and governance arrangements.

Alongside this, we are working with the UK Government to establish new local police governance arrangements within Wales, following the UK Government’s announcement that the office of Police and Crime Commissioners would end at the end of their terms in May 2028. While the UK Government has ruled out devolution of policing at this time, they have acknowledged that a distinct model is needed for Wales. We are clear that this should be devolutionary in nature. We will advise the Senedd of the outcomes of these discussions shortly.

Question

What action has the Welsh Government taken in response to the Commission on Justice in Wales’s recommendations?

Answered by Counsel General and Minister for Delivery

As the largest ever examination of the justice system in Wales, the Commission on Justice in Wales (Thomas Commission) report remains of course a very important contribution to public understanding of the condition of the justice system in Wales. Its key findings in relation to the structural failings underlying justice in Wales are as relevant as ever, hence the Welsh Government’s continuing support for the devolution of justice and policing. This position was of course supported by the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales. 

The Welsh Government has taken a very large number of actions in response to the recommendations of the Thomas Commission. A number of these are set out in Delivering Justice for Wales and the subsequent progress report published in 2024. Delivering Justice for Wales is the main summary of Welsh Government actions related to justice during this Senedd term.

While we accept there are areas where we have not met all our aspirations, notable advancements have been made, even if arguments may be made that the recommendations in question have not been wholly completed.

For instance, in response to Recommendation 35 that Family Drug and Alcohol Courts should be established in Wales, the Welsh Government and partners funded a pilot in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan, and the findings of that pilot are contributing to changes being rolled out across courts in Wales. Similarly, there has been

• a significant increase in the provision of legal apprenticeships in Wales (recommendation 40),
• considerable investment in legal technology (recommendation 43),
• activity to promote the Welsh legal sector (recommendation 44),
• greater transparency increased in procurement of legal services (recommendation 41), and
• significant progress towards tribunals reform, including the publication of a White Paper (recommendation 27)

The Welsh Government also took the lead on facilitating the creation of the Law Council for Wales (recommendation 65). However, once that process was concluded, it was for the members of the Council to determine its objectives, priorities and work programme. The Welsh Government is not a member of the Council, nor does it provide any funding to it, so there can be no questions about the Council’s independence. As an independent body, it is not for the Welsh Government to make an assessment of the extent to which it has fulfilled the functions envisaged by the Thomas Commission.

It remains the case that the significant majority of the Thomas Commission’s recommendations, including the most impactful, are ones which require the support and active participation of the UK Government. Although most of these recommendations focused primarily on the devolution of justice and how it might work, there were also suggestions that could have been implemented with UK Government support within the current devolution framework. Even on these, engagement from the previous UK Government was very disappointing, as highlighted in the progress report on Delivering Justice for Wales, where we noted that “it remains unclear whether the MoJ are intending to undertake any significant further activity [directly] as a result of the Thomas Commission discussions”.

Progress has though improved recently in these areas. For instance, in response to Recommendation 50, which sought improved Wales-specific data for evidence-based policymaking and research, we collaborated with the UK Government to secure the Ministry of Justice’s first annual Wales-specific data publication. The "Welsh Justice Data: Annual Release 2025" represents a significant milestone, providing detailed breakdowns—including prison statistics by home address origin (Welsh or English), prison establishment, local authority, offence type, age, ethnicity, religion, sentence type, and security category. This long-awaited dataset will now be routinely published on GOV.UK: Welsh Justice Data: Annual Release 2025, including an Excel file with detailed statistics.

Finally, in the second half of this Senedd we have focused increasingly on preparedness for hoped-for first steps in advancing the principal recommendations concerning the devolution of justice. Following considerable work with academics, experts and stakeholders within Wales, we have advanced this objective by working with the UK Government towards a memorandum of understanding on probation services, and in exploring the devolution of funding for youth justice services, and the related strategic oversight and governance arrangements.

Alongside this, we are working with the UK Government to establish new local police governance arrangements within Wales, following the UK Government’s announcement that the office of Police and Crime Commissioners would end at the end of their terms in May 2028. While the UK Government has ruled out devolution of policing at this time, they have acknowledged that a distinct model is needed for Wales. We are clear that this should be devolutionary in nature. We will advise the Senedd of the outcomes of these discussions shortly.

Question

To what extent has the Law Council for Wales fulfilled the functions recommended by the Commission on Justice in Wales?

Answered by Counsel General and Minister for Delivery

As the largest ever examination of the justice system in Wales, the Commission on Justice in Wales (Thomas Commission) report remains of course a very important contribution to public understanding of the condition of the justice system in Wales. Its key findings in relation to the structural failings underlying justice in Wales are as relevant as ever, hence the Welsh Government’s continuing support for the devolution of justice and policing. This position was of course supported by the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales. 

The Welsh Government has taken a very large number of actions in response to the recommendations of the Thomas Commission. A number of these are set out in Delivering Justice for Wales and the subsequent progress report published in 2024. Delivering Justice for Wales is the main summary of Welsh Government actions related to justice during this Senedd term.

While we accept there are areas where we have not met all our aspirations, notable advancements have been made, even if arguments may be made that the recommendations in question have not been wholly completed.

For instance, in response to Recommendation 35 that Family Drug and Alcohol Courts should be established in Wales, the Welsh Government and partners funded a pilot in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan, and the findings of that pilot are contributing to changes being rolled out across courts in Wales. Similarly, there has been

• a significant increase in the provision of legal apprenticeships in Wales (recommendation 40),
• considerable investment in legal technology (recommendation 43),
• activity to promote the Welsh legal sector (recommendation 44),
• greater transparency increased in procurement of legal services (recommendation 41), and
• significant progress towards tribunals reform, including the publication of a White Paper (recommendation 27)

The Welsh Government also took the lead on facilitating the creation of the Law Council for Wales (recommendation 65). However, once that process was concluded, it was for the members of the Council to determine its objectives, priorities and work programme. The Welsh Government is not a member of the Council, nor does it provide any funding to it, so there can be no questions about the Council’s independence. As an independent body, it is not for the Welsh Government to make an assessment of the extent to which it has fulfilled the functions envisaged by the Thomas Commission.

It remains the case that the significant majority of the Thomas Commission’s recommendations, including the most impactful, are ones which require the support and active participation of the UK Government. Although most of these recommendations focused primarily on the devolution of justice and how it might work, there were also suggestions that could have been implemented with UK Government support within the current devolution framework. Even on these, engagement from the previous UK Government was very disappointing, as highlighted in the progress report on Delivering Justice for Wales, where we noted that “it remains unclear whether the MoJ are intending to undertake any significant further activity [directly] as a result of the Thomas Commission discussions”.

Progress has though improved recently in these areas. For instance, in response to Recommendation 50, which sought improved Wales-specific data for evidence-based policymaking and research, we collaborated with the UK Government to secure the Ministry of Justice’s first annual Wales-specific data publication. The "Welsh Justice Data: Annual Release 2025" represents a significant milestone, providing detailed breakdowns—including prison statistics by home address origin (Welsh or English), prison establishment, local authority, offence type, age, ethnicity, religion, sentence type, and security category. This long-awaited dataset will now be routinely published on GOV.UK: Welsh Justice Data: Annual Release 2025, including an Excel file with detailed statistics.

Finally, in the second half of this Senedd we have focused increasingly on preparedness for hoped-for first steps in advancing the principal recommendations concerning the devolution of justice. Following considerable work with academics, experts and stakeholders within Wales, we have advanced this objective by working with the UK Government towards a memorandum of understanding on probation services, and in exploring the devolution of funding for youth justice services, and the related strategic oversight and governance arrangements.

Alongside this, we are working with the UK Government to establish new local police governance arrangements within Wales, following the UK Government’s announcement that the office of Police and Crime Commissioners would end at the end of their terms in May 2028. While the UK Government has ruled out devolution of policing at this time, they have acknowledged that a distinct model is needed for Wales. We are clear that this should be devolutionary in nature. We will advise the Senedd of the outcomes of these discussions shortly.

Question

To what extent does the Commission on Justice in Wales’s report and its recommendations remain relevant as a basis for ongoing work to assess the condition of the justice system in Wales?

Answered by Counsel General and Minister for Delivery

As the largest ever examination of the justice system in Wales, the Commission on Justice in Wales (Thomas Commission) report remains of course a very important contribution to public understanding of the condition of the justice system in Wales. Its key findings in relation to the structural failings underlying justice in Wales are as relevant as ever, hence the Welsh Government’s continuing support for the devolution of justice and policing. This position was of course supported by the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales. 

The Welsh Government has taken a very large number of actions in response to the recommendations of the Thomas Commission. A number of these are set out in Delivering Justice for Wales and the subsequent progress report published in 2024. Delivering Justice for Wales is the main summary of Welsh Government actions related to justice during this Senedd term.

While we accept there are areas where we have not met all our aspirations, notable advancements have been made, even if arguments may be made that the recommendations in question have not been wholly completed.

For instance, in response to Recommendation 35 that Family Drug and Alcohol Courts should be established in Wales, the Welsh Government and partners funded a pilot in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan, and the findings of that pilot are contributing to changes being rolled out across courts in Wales. Similarly, there has been

• a significant increase in the provision of legal apprenticeships in Wales (recommendation 40),
• considerable investment in legal technology (recommendation 43),
• activity to promote the Welsh legal sector (recommendation 44),
• greater transparency increased in procurement of legal services (recommendation 41), and
• significant progress towards tribunals reform, including the publication of a White Paper (recommendation 27)

The Welsh Government also took the lead on facilitating the creation of the Law Council for Wales (recommendation 65). However, once that process was concluded, it was for the members of the Council to determine its objectives, priorities and work programme. The Welsh Government is not a member of the Council, nor does it provide any funding to it, so there can be no questions about the Council’s independence. As an independent body, it is not for the Welsh Government to make an assessment of the extent to which it has fulfilled the functions envisaged by the Thomas Commission.

It remains the case that the significant majority of the Thomas Commission’s recommendations, including the most impactful, are ones which require the support and active participation of the UK Government. Although most of these recommendations focused primarily on the devolution of justice and how it might work, there were also suggestions that could have been implemented with UK Government support within the current devolution framework. Even on these, engagement from the previous UK Government was very disappointing, as highlighted in the progress report on Delivering Justice for Wales, where we noted that “it remains unclear whether the MoJ are intending to undertake any significant further activity [directly] as a result of the Thomas Commission discussions”.

Progress has though improved recently in these areas. For instance, in response to Recommendation 50, which sought improved Wales-specific data for evidence-based policymaking and research, we collaborated with the UK Government to secure the Ministry of Justice’s first annual Wales-specific data publication. The "Welsh Justice Data: Annual Release 2025" represents a significant milestone, providing detailed breakdowns—including prison statistics by home address origin (Welsh or English), prison establishment, local authority, offence type, age, ethnicity, religion, sentence type, and security category. This long-awaited dataset will now be routinely published on GOV.UK: Welsh Justice Data: Annual Release 2025, including an Excel file with detailed statistics.

Finally, in the second half of this Senedd we have focused increasingly on preparedness for hoped-for first steps in advancing the principal recommendations concerning the devolution of justice. Following considerable work with academics, experts and stakeholders within Wales, we have advanced this objective by working with the UK Government towards a memorandum of understanding on probation services, and in exploring the devolution of funding for youth justice services, and the related strategic oversight and governance arrangements.

Alongside this, we are working with the UK Government to establish new local police governance arrangements within Wales, following the UK Government’s announcement that the office of Police and Crime Commissioners would end at the end of their terms in May 2028. While the UK Government has ruled out devolution of policing at this time, they have acknowledged that a distinct model is needed for Wales. We are clear that this should be devolutionary in nature. We will advise the Senedd of the outcomes of these discussions shortly.