Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent on 24 March (HL15443), what steps the Ministry of Justice has taken in the last year to meet its legal duty to keep under review the question of when uncommenced legislation that falls within its area of responsibility should be brought into force.

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

Relevant teams keep the commencement and implementation of past Acts under review in light of operational readiness, wider priorities and with consideration to developments across the justice system.

This is conducted alongside established post legislative scrutiny processes where appropriate.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the automatic release of Standard Determinate Recall prisoners under the Sentencing Act 2026 on public protection; and if he will publish the (a) criteria used to determine exemptions from automatic release and (b) number of prisoners expected to be released in each tranche between 31 March and 12 May 2026; and what safeguards are in place to manage cases involving people assessed as presenting a high risk of serious harm.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

An Impact Assessment, published on 1 September 2025, set out the expected effects of the automatic release following the implementation of the recall provisions in the Sentencing Act 2026, including their implications for public protection. Eligible offenders will be released from prisons across England and Wales; the precise number of offenders released via each tranche will be known once individual cases are processed. Details of changes to the recall population are published regularly in Offender Management Statistics.

Public protection remains paramount. We have gone further than the Independent Sentencing Review recommended by excluding offenders assessed as posing a greater risk, including those managed at the higher levels of Multi‑Agency Public Protection Arrangements. Furthermore, over 17,000 prisoners are serving sentences that will not be affected by these reforms: this includes those serving Extended Determinate Sentences, along with Life and Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences.

Additionally, the Secretary of State can convert a fixed‑term recall to a standard recall in exceptional circumstances, where an offender is assessed as presenting a high risk of serious harm at the end of their recall period, according to the specific criteria outlined in the legislation.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Probation Service's current workload on processing casework; and what steps his Department is taking to support recruitment and retention, and staff morale.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Probation Service continues to face capacity and workload pressures. The Probation Service uses management information to support local and national oversight of workloads.

The Government recognises the pressures created by increased demand and is determined to bring probation capacity into balance with caseloads. We are doing so through sustained recruitment of probation officers, improving staff retention, and reducing workloads through the Our Future Probation Service (OFPS) Programme, with a target to have released 25% additional capacity by April 2027.

The Government is committed to investing significant funds to improve the Probation Service and has announced a new commitment to onboard at least 1,300 additional new trainee probation officers in 2026/27. This is on top of the 1,000 brought in in 2024/25 and the 1,300 committed to for 2025/26.

There is a comprehensive approach by HMPPS to tackle retention challenges across both the Probation and Prison Services. Central to this effort is the Retention Framework, which sets out how data, research and insight should be used to understand local and national drivers of attrition, guide targeted interventions, and embed retention as a core, ongoing workforce priority aligned to the People Strategy.

We recognise the ongoing workload pressures across our services, and that supporting staff wellbeing is critical. To address this, a comprehensive wellbeing support offer has been established across HMPPS, with Staff Support and Wellbeing Leads in place to drive wellbeing priorities consistently across both prison and probation areas.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions he has had with local authorities, including Somerset Council, on strengthening sentencing to tackle fly tipping in rural areas such as Yeovil constituency.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Waste crime blights communities, harms the environment, and undermines legitimate businesses.

The Government is clear, penalties for waste crime must match the harm it causes. As part of the Waste Crime Action Plan, published on 20 March, the Ministry of Justice has committed to work closely with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs to explore what more can be done to further ensure that those who commit these types of offences are appropriately punished. This would aim to reinforce the effectiveness of current systems and strengthen our overall approach to tackling illegal behaviour.

Sentencing decisions in individual cases are a matter for the independent judiciary and it would therefore not be right for the Ministry of Justice to engage with individual local authorities on sentencing decisions in specific local areas. Parliament has provided the courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders, and the courts take into account any aggravating and mitigating factors in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council.

In 2014, the Council issued guidelines on environmental offences for individuals and organisations which capture offences involving the unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal of waste as well as illegal discharges to air, land and water. The guidelines are designed to increase consistency and transparency in sentencing for these offences. In 2016, it published an assessment of the impact of the guideline on sentencing trends.

The Council keeps its guidelines under regular review. In 2024, following consultation and after carefully considering representations from those concerned with prosecuting fly-tipping offences, the Council updated the guideline for individuals to provide for greater use of community orders (over fines) in recognition of the seriousness of this offending. Further information is available on the Council’s website: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/crown-court/.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether possession of Gender Recognition Certificates affects prison placement decisions for offenders convicted of (a) stalking and (b) harassment; and whether this was a factor in the placement of Vivienne Taylor.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We have interpreted these Parliamentary Questions as relating to transgender women in the prison estate.

Transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of sexual or violent offences – including individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate – cannot be held in the general women’s estate other than in exceptional circumstances, where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.

Placement decisions for transgender prisoners are determined by a Complex Case Board (CCB) - a multidisciplinary panel of experts. Whilst possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate is a consideration, it is one of a range of risk and vulnerabilities that are considered - including offending history and mental health conditions - and does not take precedence. CCBs assess both risk that the individual may face to and from others.

The very small number of transgender women who fail to meet the high-risk threshold we have set for being accommodated in the general women’s estate, but who are too vulnerable to be held in the men’s estate are housed on E Wing at HMP/YOI Downview. They are accommodated completely separately to biological women, in a discrete building behind a gated fence. Despite being on the site of HMP/YOI Downview, E Wing is not part of the general women’s estate, and E Wing prisoners can only access the prison's wider regime under supervision, and where a local risk assessment deems this appropriate.

As of 1 April 2026, fewer than five transgender women were being held in the general women's prison estate. None of these has convictions for sexual or stalking offences. We cannot comment on individual cases.

There have been no assaults or sexual assaults committed by transgender women in the general women's estate in the last five years. The number of safeguarding alerts involving transgender prisoners placed in the women’s estate over the last five years can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

We are working through the implications of the 2025 Supreme Court ruling on the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010, and the Government is considering the draft updated Code of Practice produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Once this process has been completed, we will confirm any updates to the transgender prisoner allocation policy.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what safeguarding measures are in place to protect female prisoners from transgender offenders who present a risk due to (a) mental‑health conditions, (b) obsessive behaviour and (c) previous offending patterns.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We have interpreted these Parliamentary Questions as relating to transgender women in the prison estate.

Transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of sexual or violent offences – including individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate – cannot be held in the general women’s estate other than in exceptional circumstances, where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.

Placement decisions for transgender prisoners are determined by a Complex Case Board (CCB) - a multidisciplinary panel of experts. Whilst possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate is a consideration, it is one of a range of risk and vulnerabilities that are considered - including offending history and mental health conditions - and does not take precedence. CCBs assess both risk that the individual may face to and from others.

The very small number of transgender women who fail to meet the high-risk threshold we have set for being accommodated in the general women’s estate, but who are too vulnerable to be held in the men’s estate are housed on E Wing at HMP/YOI Downview. They are accommodated completely separately to biological women, in a discrete building behind a gated fence. Despite being on the site of HMP/YOI Downview, E Wing is not part of the general women’s estate, and E Wing prisoners can only access the prison's wider regime under supervision, and where a local risk assessment deems this appropriate.

As of 1 April 2026, fewer than five transgender women were being held in the general women's prison estate. None of these has convictions for sexual or stalking offences. We cannot comment on individual cases.

There have been no assaults or sexual assaults committed by transgender women in the general women's estate in the last five years. The number of safeguarding alerts involving transgender prisoners placed in the women’s estate over the last five years can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

We are working through the implications of the 2025 Supreme Court ruling on the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010, and the Government is considering the draft updated Code of Practice produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Once this process has been completed, we will confirm any updates to the transgender prisoner allocation policy.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he plans to review the Prison Service Instruction governing the management of transgender prisoners.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We have interpreted these Parliamentary Questions as relating to transgender women in the prison estate.

Transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of sexual or violent offences – including individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate – cannot be held in the general women’s estate other than in exceptional circumstances, where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.

Placement decisions for transgender prisoners are determined by a Complex Case Board (CCB) - a multidisciplinary panel of experts. Whilst possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate is a consideration, it is one of a range of risk and vulnerabilities that are considered - including offending history and mental health conditions - and does not take precedence. CCBs assess both risk that the individual may face to and from others.

The very small number of transgender women who fail to meet the high-risk threshold we have set for being accommodated in the general women’s estate, but who are too vulnerable to be held in the men’s estate are housed on E Wing at HMP/YOI Downview. They are accommodated completely separately to biological women, in a discrete building behind a gated fence. Despite being on the site of HMP/YOI Downview, E Wing is not part of the general women’s estate, and E Wing prisoners can only access the prison's wider regime under supervision, and where a local risk assessment deems this appropriate.

As of 1 April 2026, fewer than five transgender women were being held in the general women's prison estate. None of these has convictions for sexual or stalking offences. We cannot comment on individual cases.

There have been no assaults or sexual assaults committed by transgender women in the general women's estate in the last five years. The number of safeguarding alerts involving transgender prisoners placed in the women’s estate over the last five years can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

We are working through the implications of the 2025 Supreme Court ruling on the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010, and the Government is considering the draft updated Code of Practice produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Once this process has been completed, we will confirm any updates to the transgender prisoner allocation policy.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many transgender prisoners are held in women’s prisons; and how many of these individuals have convictions for (a) violent, (b) sexual and (c) stalking offences.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We have interpreted these Parliamentary Questions as relating to transgender women in the prison estate.

Transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of sexual or violent offences – including individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate – cannot be held in the general women’s estate other than in exceptional circumstances, where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.

Placement decisions for transgender prisoners are determined by a Complex Case Board (CCB) - a multidisciplinary panel of experts. Whilst possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate is a consideration, it is one of a range of risk and vulnerabilities that are considered - including offending history and mental health conditions - and does not take precedence. CCBs assess both risk that the individual may face to and from others.

The very small number of transgender women who fail to meet the high-risk threshold we have set for being accommodated in the general women’s estate, but who are too vulnerable to be held in the men’s estate are housed on E Wing at HMP/YOI Downview. They are accommodated completely separately to biological women, in a discrete building behind a gated fence. Despite being on the site of HMP/YOI Downview, E Wing is not part of the general women’s estate, and E Wing prisoners can only access the prison's wider regime under supervision, and where a local risk assessment deems this appropriate.

As of 1 April 2026, fewer than five transgender women were being held in the general women's prison estate. None of these has convictions for sexual or stalking offences. We cannot comment on individual cases.

There have been no assaults or sexual assaults committed by transgender women in the general women's estate in the last five years. The number of safeguarding alerts involving transgender prisoners placed in the women’s estate over the last five years can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

We are working through the implications of the 2025 Supreme Court ruling on the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010, and the Government is considering the draft updated Code of Practice produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Once this process has been completed, we will confirm any updates to the transgender prisoner allocation policy.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what criteria are used when determining whether a transgender offender with a history of (a) violent, (b) sexual and (c) stalking behaviour may be placed in a women’s prison.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We have interpreted these Parliamentary Questions as relating to transgender women in the prison estate.

Transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of sexual or violent offences – including individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate – cannot be held in the general women’s estate other than in exceptional circumstances, where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.

Placement decisions for transgender prisoners are determined by a Complex Case Board (CCB) - a multidisciplinary panel of experts. Whilst possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate is a consideration, it is one of a range of risk and vulnerabilities that are considered - including offending history and mental health conditions - and does not take precedence. CCBs assess both risk that the individual may face to and from others.

The very small number of transgender women who fail to meet the high-risk threshold we have set for being accommodated in the general women’s estate, but who are too vulnerable to be held in the men’s estate are housed on E Wing at HMP/YOI Downview. They are accommodated completely separately to biological women, in a discrete building behind a gated fence. Despite being on the site of HMP/YOI Downview, E Wing is not part of the general women’s estate, and E Wing prisoners can only access the prison's wider regime under supervision, and where a local risk assessment deems this appropriate.

As of 1 April 2026, fewer than five transgender women were being held in the general women's prison estate. None of these has convictions for sexual or stalking offences. We cannot comment on individual cases.

There have been no assaults or sexual assaults committed by transgender women in the general women's estate in the last five years. The number of safeguarding alerts involving transgender prisoners placed in the women’s estate over the last five years can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

We are working through the implications of the 2025 Supreme Court ruling on the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010, and the Government is considering the draft updated Code of Practice produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Once this process has been completed, we will confirm any updates to the transgender prisoner allocation policy.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether ministerial approval is required for the transfer of transgender prisoners into the women’s estate.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We have interpreted these Parliamentary Questions as relating to transgender women in the prison estate.

Transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of sexual or violent offences – including individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate – cannot be held in the general women’s estate other than in exceptional circumstances, where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.

Placement decisions for transgender prisoners are determined by a Complex Case Board (CCB) - a multidisciplinary panel of experts. Whilst possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate is a consideration, it is one of a range of risk and vulnerabilities that are considered - including offending history and mental health conditions - and does not take precedence. CCBs assess both risk that the individual may face to and from others.

The very small number of transgender women who fail to meet the high-risk threshold we have set for being accommodated in the general women’s estate, but who are too vulnerable to be held in the men’s estate are housed on E Wing at HMP/YOI Downview. They are accommodated completely separately to biological women, in a discrete building behind a gated fence. Despite being on the site of HMP/YOI Downview, E Wing is not part of the general women’s estate, and E Wing prisoners can only access the prison's wider regime under supervision, and where a local risk assessment deems this appropriate.

As of 1 April 2026, fewer than five transgender women were being held in the general women's prison estate. None of these has convictions for sexual or stalking offences. We cannot comment on individual cases.

There have been no assaults or sexual assaults committed by transgender women in the general women's estate in the last five years. The number of safeguarding alerts involving transgender prisoners placed in the women’s estate over the last five years can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

We are working through the implications of the 2025 Supreme Court ruling on the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010, and the Government is considering the draft updated Code of Practice produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Once this process has been completed, we will confirm any updates to the transgender prisoner allocation policy.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what sentences have been imposed to date on ISIS members convicted in the UK; how many of those convicted are still serving their sentences and what steps they have taken to ensure that ISIS members convicted in the UK do not pose any continuing threat to their victims or society.

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

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the number of convictions across England and Wales for a wide range of offences in the Outcomes by Offences data tool available at: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK.

However, data centrally held does not contain information on specific terrorist organisation affiliation.

Data published by the Home Office in relation to the operation of police powers under TACT 2000, shows that, as of 31 December 2025, there were 267 prisoners in custody for terrorism or terrorism‑connected offences in England and Wales. Of these, 58% (155) were assessed as holding an Islamist ideology, 29% (77) an Extreme Right‑Wing ideology, and 13% (35) were categorised as holding other ideologies.

The Government takes robust action to manage the risks posed by terrorist offenders. In custody, the most dangerous and influential radicalisers can be held in Separation Centres, away from the mainstream prison population, while Close Supervision Centres are used to manage the most physically violent prisoners. Upon release, terrorists are subject to strict licence conditions which severely limit their activity. These can include extended periods of electronic monitoring, accommodation in Approved Premises and polygraph testing. HMPPS, Counter Terrorism Policing and the Security Service work jointly to manage the risk of terrorism-related releases.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) chaplains, (b) rabbis, (c) imams, (d) other religious ministers have been attached to each prison in England and Wales in each year since 2010.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) recognises that faith and belief can support rehabilitation and may act as a protective factor in reducing re-offending.

The statutory duties of prison chaplains are set out in the Prison Act 1952 and reflected in the Prison Rules 1999 and Young Offender Institution Rules 2000. They include visiting prisoners on reception; when held in segregation or residential healthcare; and before release.

HMPPS does not hold a complete historical record, by establishment and year, of the number of chaplains since 2010, as there is no operational requirement to do so. Chaplaincy provision is arranged locally according to operational need, and includes employed, sessional and voluntary chaplains, totalling over 1,200 people.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many civil servants in their Department were found to have broken the Civil Service Code in (a) 2024 and (b) 2025.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Civil Servants are appointed on merit on the basis of fair and open competition and are expected to carry out their role with dedication and a commitment to the Civil Service and its core values: integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many departmental employees were on performance management plans in (a) 2023, (b) 2024 and (c) 2025.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice is committed to thorough performance management and has in place robust processes to ensure that those who fall below the expected standards are supported to improve in a timely manner.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

Those who cannot improve their performance, despite this additional support, may be dismissed.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the answer of 24 March 2024 to question 122048 on Prisoners' Release: Reoffenders, what proportion of those recalls were attributed to the introduction of the a) Fixed-Term Recall Statutory Instrument (FTR-SI) and the b) Standard Determinate Sentences 40% (SDS40).

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data in Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) on licence recalls.

Further breakdowns of this information are not held by the Ministry of Justice.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the impact of the current sentencing regime on fly-tipping on rural areas in Yeovil constituency.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Waste crime blights communities, harms the environment, and undermines legitimate businesses.

The Government is clear, penalties for waste crime must match the harm it causes. As part of the Waste Crime Action Plan, published on 20 March, the Ministry of Justice has committed to work closely with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs to explore what more can be done to further ensure that those who commit these types of offences are appropriately punished. This would aim to reinforce the effectiveness of current systems and strengthen our overall approach to tackling illegal behaviour.

Sentencing decisions in individual cases are a matter for the independent judiciary and it would therefore not be right for the Ministry of Justice to engage with individual local authorities on sentencing decisions in specific local areas. Parliament has provided the courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders, and the courts take into account any aggravating and mitigating factors in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council.

In 2014, the Council issued guidelines on environmental offences for individuals and organisations which capture offences involving the unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal of waste as well as illegal discharges to air, land and water. The guidelines are designed to increase consistency and transparency in sentencing for these offences. In 2016, it published an assessment of the impact of the guideline on sentencing trends.

The Council keeps its guidelines under regular review. In 2024, following consultation and after carefully considering representations from those concerned with prosecuting fly-tipping offences, the Council updated the guideline for individuals to provide for greater use of community orders (over fines) in recognition of the seriousness of this offending. Further information is available on the Council’s website: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/crown-court/.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he plans to review the sentencing regime for fly tipping offences.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Waste crime blights communities, harms the environment, and undermines legitimate businesses.

The Government is clear, penalties for waste crime must match the harm it causes. As part of the Waste Crime Action Plan, published on 20 March, the Ministry of Justice has committed to work closely with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs to explore what more can be done to further ensure that those who commit these types of offences are appropriately punished. This would aim to reinforce the effectiveness of current systems and strengthen our overall approach to tackling illegal behaviour.

Sentencing decisions in individual cases are a matter for the independent judiciary and it would therefore not be right for the Ministry of Justice to engage with individual local authorities on sentencing decisions in specific local areas. Parliament has provided the courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders, and the courts take into account any aggravating and mitigating factors in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council.

In 2014, the Council issued guidelines on environmental offences for individuals and organisations which capture offences involving the unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal of waste as well as illegal discharges to air, land and water. The guidelines are designed to increase consistency and transparency in sentencing for these offences. In 2016, it published an assessment of the impact of the guideline on sentencing trends.

The Council keeps its guidelines under regular review. In 2024, following consultation and after carefully considering representations from those concerned with prosecuting fly-tipping offences, the Council updated the guideline for individuals to provide for greater use of community orders (over fines) in recognition of the seriousness of this offending. Further information is available on the Council’s website: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/crown-court/.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many safeguarding alerts have been recorded in the last five years involving transgender prisoners placed in the women’s estate.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We have interpreted these Parliamentary Questions as relating to transgender women in the prison estate.

Transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of sexual or violent offences – including individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate – cannot be held in the general women’s estate other than in exceptional circumstances, where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.

Placement decisions for transgender prisoners are determined by a Complex Case Board (CCB) - a multidisciplinary panel of experts. Whilst possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate is a consideration, it is one of a range of risk and vulnerabilities that are considered - including offending history and mental health conditions - and does not take precedence. CCBs assess both risk that the individual may face to and from others.

The very small number of transgender women who fail to meet the high-risk threshold we have set for being accommodated in the general women’s estate, but who are too vulnerable to be held in the men’s estate are housed on E Wing at HMP/YOI Downview. They are accommodated completely separately to biological women, in a discrete building behind a gated fence. Despite being on the site of HMP/YOI Downview, E Wing is not part of the general women’s estate, and E Wing prisoners can only access the prison's wider regime under supervision, and where a local risk assessment deems this appropriate.

As of 1 April 2026, fewer than five transgender women were being held in the general women's prison estate. None of these has convictions for sexual or stalking offences. We cannot comment on individual cases.

There have been no assaults or sexual assaults committed by transgender women in the general women's estate in the last five years. The number of safeguarding alerts involving transgender prisoners placed in the women’s estate over the last five years can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

We are working through the implications of the 2025 Supreme Court ruling on the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010, and the Government is considering the draft updated Code of Practice produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Once this process has been completed, we will confirm any updates to the transgender prisoner allocation policy.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many transgender prisoners are held in specialist units on the (a) male and (b) female estate; and what criteria determine those placements.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Transgender women who cannot be held safely in the male or female estate can be placed on E Wing, where this is approved by a multi-disciplinary panel of officials. E Wing is a separate unit for transgender women at HMP & YOI Downview: it is not part of the general women's prison estate. E Wing prisoners may only have access to the wider regime at Downview in limited circumstances, and only where this is supervised by staff and following a thorough risk assessment.

As of 1 April 2026, seven prisoners were being held on E Wing.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many hours per day the Crown Courts at (1) Liverpool, (2) Crown Square, and (3) Minshull Street, sat on average between (a) September and December 2024, and (b) September and December 2025; what was the average time taken at these courts from receipt of a case to its conclusion in (1) December 2024, and (2) December 2025; and what assessment they have made of the earliest date at which a trial of (1) 2 days, (2) 10 days, and (3) 6 weeks, would be heard at these courts as of March 2026.

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans his Department have to consult with young women and specialist women and girls’ organisations on the development of the Young Women's Strategy as recommended by the Women's Justice Board.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Women’s Justice Board report, published on 16 March 2026, sets out independent recommendations to reduce the number of women in prison, including a recommendation to develop a Young Women’s Strategy. The Government is carefully considering the report’s recommendations and how best to deliver reform in this area.

The Government has also established the Girls in Youth Justice Advisory Board, which is an independent advisory group focused on improving policy, practice and outcomes for girls who are under 18 in contact with the youth justice system.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the Women’s Justice Board’s recommendation to develop a Young Women’s Strategy including a focus on young women who have experienced VAWG.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Women’s Justice Board report, published on 16 March 2026, sets out independent recommendations to reduce the number of women in prison, including a recommendation to develop a Young Women’s Strategy. The Government is carefully considering the report’s recommendations and how best to deliver reform in this area.

The Government has also established the Girls in Youth Justice Advisory Board, which is an independent advisory group focused on improving policy, practice and outcomes for girls who are under 18 in contact with the youth justice system.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans does his Department have to develop a Young Women’s Strategy as recommended by the Women’s Justice Board’s report.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Women’s Justice Board report, published on 16 March 2026, sets out independent recommendations to reduce the number of women in prison, including a recommendation to develop a Young Women’s Strategy. The Government is carefully considering the report’s recommendations and how best to deliver reform in this area.

The Government has also established the Girls in Youth Justice Advisory Board, which is an independent advisory group focused on improving policy, practice and outcomes for girls who are under 18 in contact with the youth justice system.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The data requested can be found in the following table:

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables.

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables.

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables.

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many notifications transcription providers have made to HMCTS in each of the last five years under the bulk or systematic request provisions of the HMCTS transcription contracts; and what data HMCTS holds on the total number of transcript requests received by providers each year.

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

Transcription service providers are required, under the terms of their contracts to notify HMCTS where they receive bulk or systematic requests for transcripts and seek approval before continuing such supply. These notifications are made on a case-by-case as they arise.

HM Courts and Tribunal Service does not hold a centrally collated record of the total number of such notifications made by providers in each of the last five years.

Transcription requests are placed directly with providers by a range of customers, including HMCTS, other public bodies, legal representatives and members of the public. While providers are required to supply management information to HMCTS for contract assurance and performance monitoring purposes, HMCTS does not hold a record of the total number of transcript requests received by providers in each year.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, following notifications by transcription providers of bulk or systematic requests for court transcripts, which individuals or organisations have been (a) approved and (b) refused permission to continue receiving transcripts on that basis; and what reasons were given for any refusals.

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

Under the terms of HMCTS transcription contracts, transcription providers are required to notify HMCTS where they receive bulk or systematic requests for court transcripts and seek approval before continuing such supply. Any consideration of such notifications is undertaken on a case-by-case basis.

HMCTS does not hold a centrally collated record of the individuals or organisations that have been approved or refused permission to continue receiving transcripts following such notifications.

Decisions are taken having regard to the specific circumstances of each request, including compliance with reporting restrictions, data protection and security requirements. HMCTS does not record reasons for refusal.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the presumption of advancement on protection from discrimination.

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

Since section 199 of the Equality Act 2010 was enacted, no date has been set for this section to come into force. Section 199 relates to a longstanding common law presumption dating back centuries.

As part of its ongoing duty to consider equalities impacts, the Government considers that husbands and wives have equal access to financial remedy orders under Part II of the Matrimonial Causes Act (MCA) 1973.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the Government plans to bring section 199 of the Equality Act 2010 into force.

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

Since section 199 of the Equality Act 2010 was enacted, no date has been set for this section to come into force. Section 199 relates to a longstanding common law presumption dating back centuries.

As part of its ongoing duty to consider equalities impacts, the Government considers that husbands and wives have equal access to financial remedy orders under Part II of the Matrimonial Causes Act (MCA) 1973.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent discussions his Department has had with Prisoner Escort and Custody Services contractors who have escorted prisoners to court late and were attributable to trials being delayed.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

HMPPS holds regular contract management boards and strategic partnership boards with Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (PECS) suppliers to review performance, including any instances where late arrival at court has been attributed to supplier actions. These discussions are informed by assured Court Exception Report data from courts and focus on identifying root causes, agreeing corrective actions and applying contractual levers where appropriate. To strengthen system wide oversight, a Prisoner Delivery Oversight Board has been established, chaired by Lord Timpson and Minister Sackman, with representation from key Criminal Justice System partners, and will meet quarterly.

Evidence from recent performance reporting shows consistent levels of PECS Supplier delivery to court, with supplier attributable delays remaining low relative to overall court production volumes. In 2025, overall criminal justice system delivery to court was on time in 98.19% of cases; PECS suppliers met contractual expectations by delivering prisoners to court on time in 99.91% of cases. PECS supplier attributable delays represent a small proportion of overall court delays, which are approximately 8% as a whole.

The Department continually assesses the effectiveness of service credits within PECS contracts as part of its performance management framework. Service credits are applied where outcomes fall below contractual standards and act as an incentive to maintain high levels of punctuality and operational performance. Where performance concerns arise, service credits are accompanied by improvement plans and closer operational scrutiny to drive sustained improvement rather than relying on financial levers alone.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of service credits in contractual arrangements with Prisoner Escort and Custody Services suppliers on the punctuality of prisoner arrivals in court.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

HMPPS holds regular contract management boards and strategic partnership boards with Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (PECS) suppliers to review performance, including any instances where late arrival at court has been attributed to supplier actions. These discussions are informed by assured Court Exception Report data from courts and focus on identifying root causes, agreeing corrective actions and applying contractual levers where appropriate. To strengthen system wide oversight, a Prisoner Delivery Oversight Board has been established, chaired by Lord Timpson and Minister Sackman, with representation from key Criminal Justice System partners, and will meet quarterly.

Evidence from recent performance reporting shows consistent levels of PECS Supplier delivery to court, with supplier attributable delays remaining low relative to overall court production volumes. In 2025, overall criminal justice system delivery to court was on time in 98.19% of cases; PECS suppliers met contractual expectations by delivering prisoners to court on time in 99.91% of cases. PECS supplier attributable delays represent a small proportion of overall court delays, which are approximately 8% as a whole.

The Department continually assesses the effectiveness of service credits within PECS contracts as part of its performance management framework. Service credits are applied where outcomes fall below contractual standards and act as an incentive to maintain high levels of punctuality and operational performance. Where performance concerns arise, service credits are accompanied by improvement plans and closer operational scrutiny to drive sustained improvement rather than relying on financial levers alone.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were convicted for production, supply and possession with intent to supply Class A drugs for each year from 2020 to 2024, and how many people did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted for production, supply, or possession with intent to supply Class A drugs.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were convicted for stealing from the person of another for each year from 2020 to 2024; and how many people did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted for stealing from the person of another.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were convicted for possession of knives for each year from 2020 to 2024; and how many people did tot receive an immediate custodial sentence by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted for possession of knives.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were convicted for possession of firearms for each year from 2020 to 2024; and how many people did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted for possession of firearms.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were convicted for (a) criminal damage and (b) arson in each year from 2020 to 2024; and how many people did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted for (i) criminal damage and (ii) arson from 2020 to 2024.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

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

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

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

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

• Legal compliance

• Security and information assurance requirements

• Operational and reputational risk

• Lawful, proportionate and consistent with the original purpose

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

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

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

2023 = 1072

2024 = 1272

2025 = 1297

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found: survey with 235,000 responses from across multiple departments and public sector bodies (DSIT, DWP, MOJ

Found: Register is established by legislation and Registry Trust maintains the Register on behalf of the Ministry of Justice

Found: of the challenges was that the MoD publishes its conviction data per Defendant whereas the Ministry of Justice

Found: last year in a report on the family justice system and the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice

Question to the Home Office:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Home Office:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Home Office:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Home Office:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Home Office:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:

To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, how many civil servants in their Department were found to have broken the Civil Service Code in (a) 2024 and (b) 2025.

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

Five or fewer* civil servants were found to have broken the Civil Service Code in 2024

Six civil servants were found to have broken the Civil Service Code in 2025.

*Volumes which are five or fewer have been redacted to avoid potential identification of individuals.

The figures above represent concluded conduct and discipline cases in which DSIT line managers formally engaged HR Casework Services (provided by MoJ). The figures do not include any cases that were concluded informally by DSIT line managers, without engaging the HR Casework Service.

Civil Servants are appointed on merit on the basis of fair and open competition and are expected to carry out their role with dedication and a commitment to the Civil Service and its core values: integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, how many people were (a) prosecuted for and (b) convicted of railway trespass in each of the last ten years.

Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)

Prosecution and Conviction data are held by the Ministry of Justice from court records collected by HM Courts & Tribunals Service. The Department for Transport does not hold this data separately for railway trespass and it is not always recorded as its own offence category in national data sets.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what the sum of penalties for railway trespass has been in each of the last ten years.

Answered by Keir Mather - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Transport)

Information on the number of financial penalties imposed by the courts is held by the Ministry of Justice, from sentencing data recorded by HM Courts & Tribunals Service. The Department for Transport does not record the sum of penalties for railway trespass.

Question to the Department for Transport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what support is available to victims of road traffic collisions involving animals where no human fatality occurs; and whether he plans to review existing support mechanisms for people who are affected.

Answered by Lilian Greenwood - Government Whip, Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury

Where a road traffic offence is criminal, those affected by the offence can expect to receive the services set out in the Victims’ Code.

The Victim’s Code is a practical statutory guide for victims of crime, including victims of road traffic offences, to understand what they can expect from the criminal justice system, and outlines the minimum level of service they should receive.

The Ministry of Justice is the lead government department for the Victim’s Code and has committed to undertaking a review of it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Found: Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice Civil

Found:

Found: CICA), as well as the digital, data, transformation, AI, project delivery and security functions for MoJ

Found: This will sit alongside the £550 million investment in victims’ services provided by the Ministry of Justice

Found: This will sit alongside the £550 million investment in victims’ services provided by the Ministry of Justice

Found: Prison Education FrameworkFunding Body Grants: Other funding including Local Authority and schools: MoJ

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

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

Found: This survey will help ourselves and the Ministry of Justice develop a more detailed understanding of

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

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

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

Found:

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

Found: MoJ will work, including with ONS, to improve how our recording and reporting reflect the true position

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

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

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

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

Found: This could be achieved, for example, usi ng the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ) Data First initiative or

Found: FROMTHRLORDLEMOSGOVERNMENTWHIPS’OFFICE GOVERNMENTWHIPFCDO,MOJ,HO,HOUSEOFLORDS 02072196802LONDONSW1AOPW

Found: The Women’s Justice Blueprint is a joint Ministry of Justice and Welsh Government framework which focuses