Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent discussions he has had with HM Courts and Tribunals Service on reducing the backlog of criminal cases in Lincolnshire.

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

Lincoln Crown Court has continued to reduce outstanding workloads through the creation of a fourth Crown Court room in May 2021, utilising all Crown Court sitting day allocations for this financial year. To mitigate delays in setting trial dates, Lincoln actively identifies cases that are too large to be heard within Lincoln, moving these within the East Midlands in agreement with relevant parties.

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. Investment alone is not enough - that is why this Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the Civil Justice Council report entitled Review of Litigation Funding - Final Report.

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

The Government recognises the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in access to justice and is committed to ensuring it works fairly for all. That is why we intend to introduce legislation to enact the two primary recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s review when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, my officials will consider the remaining recommendations in more detail.

New legislation will mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages Based Agreements, with prospective effect. Furthermore, the Government intends to introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.

Further details can be read in the Written Ministerial Statement issued on 17 December 2025: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-12-17/hcws1192.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take steps to compensate legal aid providers for disruption caused by the cyberattack on the Legal Aid Agency in April 2025.

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

I refer the honourable Member to the answer I gave on 10 November to Question 87407.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of court mandated mediation for larger businesses.

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

The Government recognises the benefits of mediation in resolving disputes swiftly and consensually. We are piloting mandatory mediation for small money claims (under £10,000) as part of the county court process. This pilot runs until May 2026 and will be evaluated before decisions on further mandatory use across civil law.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many Employment Tribunal awards remain unpaid in each of the last three years.

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

The Government does not collect or publish data on the outcomes of employment tribunal enforcement actions; however we do publish data on the value of awards from the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal and discrimination claims.

The Department of Business and Trade will collect additional updated data on payment outcomes through the Survey of Employment Tribunal Applications in 2026.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of administering Employment Tribunal cases in which awards are subsequently not paid.

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

The information requested is not held centrally by HM Courts and Tribunals service.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ascertain the position of Chartered Institute of Legal Executives practitioners who qualified through work-based routes, following the judgement in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341.

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

The Ministry of Justice recognises that the Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 judgement and its potential implications have created concern and uncertainty within parts of the legal profession, particularly among Chartered Institute of Legal Executive (CILEX) professionals.

Whilst the legal profession and its regulators operate independently of government, I have been proactively engaging with frontline regulators and representative bodies on the judgement’s implications and the action being taken in response. I convened a meeting with the Legal Services Board (LSB) and relevant frontline regulators to discuss the judgement, its implications, and the steps taken and underway. I have also met members of CILEX’s senior leadership team to discuss the judgement and attended the recent CILEX conference.

CILEx Regulation (CRL) has issued updated guidance, arranged webinars for practitioners, and secured approval from the LSB to allow standalone litigation practice rights. It has also been ensuring readiness for practice rights applications and working with partners to support practitioners. CILEX has been providing regular updates to its members on these actions, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Law Society have also published guidance to support professionals. The LSB is also reviewing how regulators ensured information and guidance provided to the profession on conducting litigation was accurate and reliable. It has published the scope and timings for this review on its website. Separately from these steps, CILEX has also been granted permission to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal.

While I am satisfied that appropriate practical steps are being taken to address the issues raised by the judgement and provide clarity and support for affected CILEX professionals, we will continue to work closely with the LSB, frontline regulators, and representative bodies to monitor whether further action is required.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of current mechanisms for enforcing Employment Tribunal awards where employers refuse to pay compensation.

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

The Government is committed to tackling the issue of unpaid employment tribunal awards. The civil courts in England and Wales offer several different enforcement methods that a judgment creditor may apply for to recover money or property owed on a court order or judgment. These processes are individually designed to address different financial circumstances; and collectively they aim to make it as difficult as possible for judgment debtors to avoid their responsibilities. This also includes the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) and Employment Tribunal Fast Track enforcement scheme whereby a claimant can instruct a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO) to act on their behalf.

We recognise the challenges associated with enforcing employment awards. We are therefore strengthening enforcement options through the Employment Tribunal Penalty scheme which will move to the Fair Work Agency (FWA) once established. The proposed powers of the FWA are set out in the Employment Rights Bill and we are committed to ensuring that it has the appropriate resources to discharge its responsibilities. The FWA will work closely with HMRC, the Insolvency Service and other relevant enforcement bodies to do this as effectively as possible. This will include considering how to use existing powers to tackle misuse of phoenix companies.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans he has to monitor data on (a) conviction rates, (b) sentencing patterns and (c) appeals arising from cases affected by the removal of the right to elect a jury trial; and whether that data will be published.

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

We will continue to monitor conviction rates, sentencing outcomes and appeals volumes as part of our ongoing assessments of the criminal justice system.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions and sentencing outcomes for a wide range of offences and by defendant characteristics, in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics. The Department will continue to publish this data quarterly.

The Ministry of Justice also publishes data on appeals but does not have access to the reasons for appeal, beyond whether a sentence or verdict has been appealed. Data on appeals volumes can be found as part of the Criminal Courts Statistics release: Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has received representations concerning allegations of misleading or inaccurate citation of case law in a recent Employment Tribunal judgment; and what processes exist for referring such allegations to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.

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

In the event that the Ministry of Justice receives a complaint about the handling or outcome of a particular case the correspondent would be advised to seek advice regarding any right of appeal and, if the complaint is about the conduct of a member of the judiciary, provided with information about the relevant complaints process. This is because the judiciary are entirely independent and must be free to decide the outcome of cases without fear of interference from Government or its administration.

Decisions of the Employment Tribunal can be appealed on a point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Complaints about the conduct of an Employment Judge sitting in England must be made to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office: https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/

For an Employment Judge sitting wholly or mainly in Scotland, complaints must be made to the President of the Employment Tribunal (Scotland): https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/rulesandregulations/Employment%20Tribunal%20(Scotland)%20%E2%80%93%20Making%20a%20complaint%20of%20Judicial%20Misconduct%20about%20an%20Employment%20Judge

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information he holds on the number of British-qualified judges sit on the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong.

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

The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal publishes the names of its non-permanent judges on its website.

The list is available at https://www.hkcfa.hk/en/about/who/judges/npjs/index.html.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, for what reason the Legal Aid Agency's Sign in to Legal Aid Services implementation has been delayed; what specific security issues have arisen; and when updates on its postponed launch will be made available.

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

The Department has worked around the clock to ensure that digital services were restored as swiftly and safely as possible. There has been no delay to implementation of the new secure single sign-in tool for LAA online services (SiLAS), which went live on 11 August following a period of testing with providers

Since then, we have worked closely with providers to test functionality before bringing providers back onto our systems in a careful, phased approach. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many firms have ceased being legal aid providers since 23 April 2025.

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

This data breach was the result of serious criminal activity but it was enabled by the fragility of the LAA’s IT systems as a result of the long years of neglect and mismanagement of the justice system under the last Conservative Government. Upon taking office, I was shocked to see how fragile our legal aid systems were. The previous Government knew about the vulnerabilities of the Legal Aid Agency digital systems, but failed to invest. By contrast, since taking office, this Government has prioritised work to rebuild the LAA digital systems. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services as we build back better in response to this attack. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services currently available via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.

This is an evolving situation but to date the total operational and digital costs of the incident are forecast to be £22 million for this financial year.

All providers have been able to access payment for work carried out whilst systems have been offline.

For some types of legal aid this meant adjusting the way in which providers submitted their claim for payment to the LAA. From 19 May, providers have been able to claim their usual payments for Legal Help, Crime Lower & Mediation work via a contingency process. Due to previous investment, the criminal legal aid systems were more modern, and internal access was restored more quickly. This enabled the LAA to resume paying Crown Court bills from early June.

It was necessary to agree a payment contingency for Civil Representation work with HM Treasury. This led to the implementation of the Average Payment Scheme on 27 May. The Average Payment Scheme enables providers to opt in to receive a temporary average payment for Civil Representation work that would otherwise be due, or where the value of their outstanding work varies from this, to apply for a specific payment to meet the cost of that work. Payments are made on a weekly basis. The weekly average payment is based on previous payments made to that provider over the 3 month period preceding the cyber incident.  Some providers have not opted in to receive payment in this way and wait for the restoration of the systems, but payments are there should they need it. We are unable to quantify the number of legal aid providers who have not opted in to receive an average payment in each of the weeks it has been available.

Providers are obligated to act in the best interests of their clients both by their own SRA regulatory requirements and by their LAA Contracts. In circumstances where a legal aid provider is unable to continue providing representation in an ongoing case, for whatever reason, they have a professional and contractual obligation toward their client to assist them in finding alternative representation.

We have not seen any evidence of legal aid providers leaving the market directly as a result of the cyber-attack. Since April 2023 there has been a net increase in the number of providers contracted to deliver legal aid services.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an estimate of the costs incurred by Department as a result of the Legal Aid Agency data breach on 23 April 2025.

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

This data breach was the result of serious criminal activity but it was enabled by the fragility of the LAA’s IT systems as a result of the long years of neglect and mismanagement of the justice system under the last Conservative Government. Upon taking office, I was shocked to see how fragile our legal aid systems were. The previous Government knew about the vulnerabilities of the Legal Aid Agency digital systems, but failed to invest. By contrast, since taking office, this Government has prioritised work to rebuild the LAA digital systems. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services as we build back better in response to this attack. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services currently available via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.

This is an evolving situation but to date the total operational and digital costs of the incident are forecast to be £22 million for this financial year.

All providers have been able to access payment for work carried out whilst systems have been offline.

For some types of legal aid this meant adjusting the way in which providers submitted their claim for payment to the LAA. From 19 May, providers have been able to claim their usual payments for Legal Help, Crime Lower & Mediation work via a contingency process. Due to previous investment, the criminal legal aid systems were more modern, and internal access was restored more quickly. This enabled the LAA to resume paying Crown Court bills from early June.

It was necessary to agree a payment contingency for Civil Representation work with HM Treasury. This led to the implementation of the Average Payment Scheme on 27 May. The Average Payment Scheme enables providers to opt in to receive a temporary average payment for Civil Representation work that would otherwise be due, or where the value of their outstanding work varies from this, to apply for a specific payment to meet the cost of that work. Payments are made on a weekly basis. The weekly average payment is based on previous payments made to that provider over the 3 month period preceding the cyber incident.  Some providers have not opted in to receive payment in this way and wait for the restoration of the systems, but payments are there should they need it. We are unable to quantify the number of legal aid providers who have not opted in to receive an average payment in each of the weeks it has been available.

Providers are obligated to act in the best interests of their clients both by their own SRA regulatory requirements and by their LAA Contracts. In circumstances where a legal aid provider is unable to continue providing representation in an ongoing case, for whatever reason, they have a professional and contractual obligation toward their client to assist them in finding alternative representation.

We have not seen any evidence of legal aid providers leaving the market directly as a result of the cyber-attack. Since April 2023 there has been a net increase in the number of providers contracted to deliver legal aid services.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) barristers, and (b) solicitors have not been paid by the Legal Aid Agency since the data breach of 23 April 2025.

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

This data breach was the result of serious criminal activity but it was enabled by the fragility of the LAA’s IT systems as a result of the long years of neglect and mismanagement of the justice system under the last Conservative Government. Upon taking office, I was shocked to see how fragile our legal aid systems were. The previous Government knew about the vulnerabilities of the Legal Aid Agency digital systems, but failed to invest. By contrast, since taking office, this Government has prioritised work to rebuild the LAA digital systems. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services as we build back better in response to this attack. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services currently available via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.

This is an evolving situation but to date the total operational and digital costs of the incident are forecast to be £22 million for this financial year.

All providers have been able to access payment for work carried out whilst systems have been offline.

For some types of legal aid this meant adjusting the way in which providers submitted their claim for payment to the LAA. From 19 May, providers have been able to claim their usual payments for Legal Help, Crime Lower & Mediation work via a contingency process. Due to previous investment, the criminal legal aid systems were more modern, and internal access was restored more quickly. This enabled the LAA to resume paying Crown Court bills from early June.

It was necessary to agree a payment contingency for Civil Representation work with HM Treasury. This led to the implementation of the Average Payment Scheme on 27 May. The Average Payment Scheme enables providers to opt in to receive a temporary average payment for Civil Representation work that would otherwise be due, or where the value of their outstanding work varies from this, to apply for a specific payment to meet the cost of that work. Payments are made on a weekly basis. The weekly average payment is based on previous payments made to that provider over the 3 month period preceding the cyber incident.  Some providers have not opted in to receive payment in this way and wait for the restoration of the systems, but payments are there should they need it. We are unable to quantify the number of legal aid providers who have not opted in to receive an average payment in each of the weeks it has been available.

Providers are obligated to act in the best interests of their clients both by their own SRA regulatory requirements and by their LAA Contracts. In circumstances where a legal aid provider is unable to continue providing representation in an ongoing case, for whatever reason, they have a professional and contractual obligation toward their client to assist them in finding alternative representation.

We have not seen any evidence of legal aid providers leaving the market directly as a result of the cyber-attack. Since April 2023 there has been a net increase in the number of providers contracted to deliver legal aid services.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many legal aid cases have been dropped since 23 April 2025.

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

This data breach was the result of serious criminal activity but it was enabled by the fragility of the LAA’s IT systems as a result of the long years of neglect and mismanagement of the justice system under the last Conservative Government. Upon taking office, I was shocked to see how fragile our legal aid systems were. The previous Government knew about the vulnerabilities of the Legal Aid Agency digital systems, but failed to invest. By contrast, since taking office, this Government has prioritised work to rebuild the LAA digital systems. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services as we build back better in response to this attack. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services currently available via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.

This is an evolving situation but to date the total operational and digital costs of the incident are forecast to be £22 million for this financial year.

All providers have been able to access payment for work carried out whilst systems have been offline.

For some types of legal aid this meant adjusting the way in which providers submitted their claim for payment to the LAA. From 19 May, providers have been able to claim their usual payments for Legal Help, Crime Lower & Mediation work via a contingency process. Due to previous investment, the criminal legal aid systems were more modern, and internal access was restored more quickly. This enabled the LAA to resume paying Crown Court bills from early June.

It was necessary to agree a payment contingency for Civil Representation work with HM Treasury. This led to the implementation of the Average Payment Scheme on 27 May. The Average Payment Scheme enables providers to opt in to receive a temporary average payment for Civil Representation work that would otherwise be due, or where the value of their outstanding work varies from this, to apply for a specific payment to meet the cost of that work. Payments are made on a weekly basis. The weekly average payment is based on previous payments made to that provider over the 3 month period preceding the cyber incident.  Some providers have not opted in to receive payment in this way and wait for the restoration of the systems, but payments are there should they need it. We are unable to quantify the number of legal aid providers who have not opted in to receive an average payment in each of the weeks it has been available.

Providers are obligated to act in the best interests of their clients both by their own SRA regulatory requirements and by their LAA Contracts. In circumstances where a legal aid provider is unable to continue providing representation in an ongoing case, for whatever reason, they have a professional and contractual obligation toward their client to assist them in finding alternative representation.

We have not seen any evidence of legal aid providers leaving the market directly as a result of the cyber-attack. Since April 2023 there has been a net increase in the number of providers contracted to deliver legal aid services.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to tackle family court backlogs in London.

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

This Government remains committed to reducing the outstanding caseload within the Family Court and is working closely with system partners to drive forward a cross-cutting programme of work to achieve this. At a national level the Family Justice Board has agreed system-wide targets for 2025/26, with a continued focus on reducing delay.

In London, a dedicated Family Justice Strategy has been implemented, which brings together key partners across the three London Family Court areas. This work has included targeted investment over 2025/26 to tackle the outstanding private law caseload by providing additional court capacity and ensuring that courts follow the Public Law Outline, with clear arrangements for overseeing performance. These measures have already delivered a reduction in delays and the London model is being evaluated with a view to applying lessons learned in other regions.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many prisoners serving (1) determinate, and (2) indeterminate, sentences were granted compassionate release from prison on the grounds of ill health in 2023 and 2024.

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

The Secretary of State may release a serving prisoner at any point in the sentence if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the prisoner’s release on compassionate grounds.

The following table shows the number of prisoners released early on compassionate grounds for reasons of ill health, in 2023 and 2024, broken down by sentence type.

1. The figures in these tables have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Public protection remains the priority and prisoners will be released early on compassionate grounds only if exceptional circumstances can be evidenced and if they are assessed to be safely manageable in the community.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Timpson on 10 December (HL12375), what assessment they have made of the planned level of tuition for young offenders by the Shaw Trust compared to the number of hours delivered.

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

Shaw Trust is programming the required learning hours; delivery is affected by restrictions on mixing between certain children, which limit the number of learners who can be accommodated in a classroom at any one time. These restrictions arise from conflicts that have transferred into custody from the community. The establishment is actively addressing this by working to resolve these conflicts, enabling greater classroom integration and maximising access to education.

The action plan prepared in response to the joint Ofsted/HMIP thematic report The Quality of Education in Young Offender Institutions was published on 15 November 2024.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Timpson on 10 December (HL12375), what action they are taking at Feltham Prison and Young Offenders Institution to increase the number of hours of tuition delivered by the Shaw Trust.

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

Shaw Trust is programming the required learning hours; delivery is affected by restrictions on mixing between certain children, which limit the number of learners who can be accommodated in a classroom at any one time. These restrictions arise from conflicts that have transferred into custody from the community. The establishment is actively addressing this by working to resolve these conflicts, enabling greater classroom integration and maximising access to education.

The action plan prepared in response to the joint Ofsted/HMIP thematic report The Quality of Education in Young Offender Institutions was published on 15 November 2024.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether the youth custody service improvement plan has been published.

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

Shaw Trust is programming the required learning hours; delivery is affected by restrictions on mixing between certain children, which limit the number of learners who can be accommodated in a classroom at any one time. These restrictions arise from conflicts that have transferred into custody from the community. The establishment is actively addressing this by working to resolve these conflicts, enabling greater classroom integration and maximising access to education.

The action plan prepared in response to the joint Ofsted/HMIP thematic report The Quality of Education in Young Offender Institutions was published on 15 November 2024.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many Palestine Action protestors are (1) in prison, (2) in prison awaiting trial, (3) serving prison sentences, (4) on hunger strike and awaiting trial, and (5) on hunger strike and serving prison sentences.

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

As of 12 December, 29 Palestine Action protestors are in prison; seven are on hunger strike and awaiting trial. None are serving prison sentences. Six are currently being tried and the remainder are awaiting trial.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Answer of 8 December 2025 to Question 97022, how much and what proportion of his Department's expenditure on Microsoft Software licenses and services was allocated to (a) new service implementations and (b) renewal or maintenance of existing system; and how this compares to the previous year’s expenditure in each category.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The information requested is not held centrally.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many (1) men, and (2) women, were detained in prisons as a place of safety in the last 12 months.

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

I refer the noble Lord to the answer I gave to question HL12779 to Baroness Chakrabarti on 16 December 2025.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many (1) males and (2) females, aged (a) 15 to 17, (b) 18 to 20, (c) 21 to 24, (d) 25 to 29, (e) 30 to 39, (f) 40 to 49, (g) 50 to 59, (h) 60 to 69, (i) 70 to 79 and (j) 80 and over, are currently in prison, categorised by offence.

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

The answer to this question has been provided as an attachment alongside this response. Table 1 contains the number of male prisoners broken down by alleged/proven offence groups and age bands, as at 30 September 2025, England and Wales. Table 2 contains the number of female prisoners broken down by alleged/proven offence groups and age bands, as at 30 September 2025, England and Wales.

The figures presented are based on the total prison population and therefore include those held on remand, those sentenced and non-criminals.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what operational and legal actions the Government and Crown Prosecution Service will take to ensure that high-profile national security prosecutions do not fail for similar procedural reasons as the China spy case.

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

National security is of the utmost importance to this Government.

On 16 October 2025, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy launched a formal inquiry into the issues surrounding the case to which this question refers. On 3 December 2025, the Joint Committee published its report on Espionage cases and the Official Secrets Acts. The Government is carefully considering the Joint Committee’s conclusions and recommendations and will respond in due course.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to prevent financial abuse through the misuse of lasting power of attorney.

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

When the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) registers a lasting power of attorney (LPA), it provides attorneys with access to the Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice and supporting guidance which includes information on their legal duties and responsibilities. If someone believes an attorney has breached these duties, they can report it to OPG. Under Section 58 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, OPG has the power to deal with complaints or representations about the way in which an attorney is exercising their powers. Where necessary, OPG refers cases to the Court of Protection and other agencies such as local authorities or the police.

The Government’s modernising lasting power of attorney project will further increase safeguards. It will strengthen the process for witnessing the donor signing the LPA, introduce identity verification and create a clearer process for objecting to the registration of an LPA, so it can be used by a wider group of people and organisations. Where cases of abuse or misuse still arise, OPG’s existing powers to consider concerns about attorneys’ actions will remain.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the answer of 1 December 2025 to question 94597, what information his Department holds on the proportion of the 80,000 families affected by locked Child Trust Funds who will have gained access to those funds within the next three years.

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

The Ministry of Justice does not hold this information. Capacity to manage financial affairs is decision-specific and cannot be determined simply by reference to any disability or condition a person may have. Capacity can also fluctuate over time.

Using the current legal processes, all Child Trust Funds, where the account holder lacks mental capacity, can be accessed by a parent or carer who obtains legal authority to manage those funds. This can be done by making an application to the Court of Protection. Authority can be obtained in advance of the account holder reaching age 18, and in many cases no court fee will be payable.

A toolkit for parents and carers Making Financial decisions for young people who lack capacity Making financial decisions for young people who lack capacity: A toolkit for parents and carers - GOV.UK was published in June 2023 and explains the process.

The Ministry of Justice is considering what further steps could be taken to raise awareness of the current law and improving the court process while maintaining necessary safeguards.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has recently considered measures to improve the accountability of CAFCASS.

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

As a Non-Departmental Public Body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, the oversight and assurance arrangements for Cafcass are carried out in accordance with the Arms-Length Body Code of Practice. Specific areas of oversight are also covered in the Framework Document between the Ministry of Justice and Cafcass, which sets out the sponsorship governance arrangements, financial management and performance reporting. The Framework Document is reviewed and updated at least once every three years unless exceptional circumstances arise. The next scheduled review of the framework is due to be undertaken by December 2026.

Cafcass is subject to regular inspections by Ofsted, At the most recent full inspection, conducted in January 2024, Cafcass was rated as “outstanding”, the key finding of the Ofsted report are available here. Ofsted also undertook a ‘focused visit’ between 21 and 23 October 2025, which considered Cafcass’s work in relation to private law proceedings where domestic abuse is a factor. Ofsted’s letter of findings is available here.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many prisoners serving an Imprisonment for Public Protection sentence have been held for 15 years or more beyond their original tariff.

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

The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data in Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) on the number of unreleased prisoners serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences that are over tariff, broken down by time spent over tariff.

As of 30 September 2025, there were 233 IPP prisoners that were 15 years or more over their tariff. The latest data published can be found in Table 1.Q.18: prison-population-30-Sept-2025.ods

Data on the number of recalled IPP prisoners by tariff length are not collated centrally.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to increase the powers of the Office of the Public Guardian to investigate abuse of lasting power of attorney.

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

When the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) registers a lasting power of attorney (LPA), it provides attorneys with access to the Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice and supporting guidance which includes information on their legal duties and responsibilities. If someone believes an attorney has breached these duties, they can report it to OPG. Under Section 58 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, OPG has the power to deal with complaints or representations about the way in which an attorney is exercising their powers. Where necessary, OPG refers cases to the Court of Protection and other agencies such as local authorities or the police.

The Government’s modernising lasting power of attorney project will further increase safeguards. It will strengthen the process for witnessing the donor signing the LPA, introduce identity verification and create a clearer process for objecting to the registration of an LPA, so it can be used by a wider group of people and organisations. Where cases of abuse or misuse still arise, OPG’s existing powers to consider concerns about attorneys’ actions will remain.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of safeguards in the lasting power of attorney process.

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

When the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) registers a lasting power of attorney (LPA), it provides attorneys with access to the Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice and supporting guidance which includes information on their legal duties and responsibilities. If someone believes an attorney has breached these duties, they can report it to OPG. Under Section 58 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, OPG has the power to deal with complaints or representations about the way in which an attorney is exercising their powers. Where necessary, OPG refers cases to the Court of Protection and other agencies such as local authorities or the police.

The Government’s modernising lasting power of attorney project will further increase safeguards. It will strengthen the process for witnessing the donor signing the LPA, introduce identity verification and create a clearer process for objecting to the registration of an LPA, so it can be used by a wider group of people and organisations. Where cases of abuse or misuse still arise, OPG’s existing powers to consider concerns about attorneys’ actions will remain.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has recently assessed the potential merits of reviewing the weighting given to a child's views in child arrangement orders in cases where there is an unresolved disagreement between parents.

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

The Government does not have any plans to undertake a formal assessment of the efficacy of child arrangement orders. However, we have recently published a review of the courts’ application of the presumption of parental involvement that explored the impact of decisions about child arrangements on child welfare. The Review found a high incidence of orders for direct contact between children and parents, even in cases where a parent has caused or posed a risk of harm. The evidence from the review suggested this could have long term negative impacts for children.

The Government is continually working with stakeholders to ensure that the family justice system delivers outcomes that work for children and families. The Government recently announced its intention to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 when parliamentary time allows, alongside a wider package of family court reforms. A Child Arrangements Order may be made by the court in private family law cases to determine whom a child is to live with, spend time with or otherwise have contact with. Child Maintenance calculations are carried out by the Child Maintenance Service and are based on HM Revenues and Customs data. The calculation represents an amount of money that is broadly equal to the amount that a paying parent would spend on the child if they were still living with them, irrespective of the income or assets of the receiving parent.

The Children Act 1989 states that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in family proceedings. The welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989 requires decision-makers to consider the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, and the Government has no plans to change this.

The Government believes that children’s voices must be central to family court proceedings and is delivering a new approach to private family law proceedings, known as Pathfinder. Under the Pathfinder model, a far greater proportion of children are engaged by Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru compared with the Child Arrangements Programme, and the court process puts a greater emphasis on the voice of the child through the ordering of a Child Impact Report (Report), which contains clear recommendations from the social worker, taking into account the child’s wishes and feelings.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has considered changes to child arrangement orders that would affect child maintenance requirements for parents without custody.

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

The Government does not have any plans to undertake a formal assessment of the efficacy of child arrangement orders. However, we have recently published a review of the courts’ application of the presumption of parental involvement that explored the impact of decisions about child arrangements on child welfare. The Review found a high incidence of orders for direct contact between children and parents, even in cases where a parent has caused or posed a risk of harm. The evidence from the review suggested this could have long term negative impacts for children.

The Government is continually working with stakeholders to ensure that the family justice system delivers outcomes that work for children and families. The Government recently announced its intention to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 when parliamentary time allows, alongside a wider package of family court reforms. A Child Arrangements Order may be made by the court in private family law cases to determine whom a child is to live with, spend time with or otherwise have contact with. Child Maintenance calculations are carried out by the Child Maintenance Service and are based on HM Revenues and Customs data. The calculation represents an amount of money that is broadly equal to the amount that a paying parent would spend on the child if they were still living with them, irrespective of the income or assets of the receiving parent.

The Children Act 1989 states that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in family proceedings. The welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989 requires decision-makers to consider the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, and the Government has no plans to change this.

The Government believes that children’s voices must be central to family court proceedings and is delivering a new approach to private family law proceedings, known as Pathfinder. Under the Pathfinder model, a far greater proportion of children are engaged by Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru compared with the Child Arrangements Programme, and the court process puts a greater emphasis on the voice of the child through the ordering of a Child Impact Report (Report), which contains clear recommendations from the social worker, taking into account the child’s wishes and feelings.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 10 November 2025 to Question 87077 on Children: Custody, what estimate he has made of the number of families reached by the Family Mediation Voucher Scheme in a) Norfolk and b) North West Norfolk constituency.

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

Since my response to PQ 87077 on 10 November 2025, uptake of the Mediation Voucher Scheme has continued to grow. The scheme has now helped over 51,000 families access mediation services since its launch.

Decisions on the continuation or expansion of the Mediation Voucher Scheme beyond March 2026 form part of the ongoing funding allocations discussion for the three-year Spending Review period. Any decisions on if and how the scheme could be expanded will be taken once the allocations process has concluded, should the scheme continue.

Local authority-level reporting on voucher take-up is something we are working towards. Our new client survey now collects location data, which will allow us to provide more detailed insights in the future.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 10 November 2025 to Question 87077 on Children: Custody, whether his Department has made a recent assessment of the potential merits of expanding the Family Mediation Voucher Scheme.

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

Since my response to PQ 87077 on 10 November 2025, uptake of the Mediation Voucher Scheme has continued to grow. The scheme has now helped over 51,000 families access mediation services since its launch.

Decisions on the continuation or expansion of the Mediation Voucher Scheme beyond March 2026 form part of the ongoing funding allocations discussion for the three-year Spending Review period. Any decisions on if and how the scheme could be expanded will be taken once the allocations process has concluded, should the scheme continue.

Local authority-level reporting on voucher take-up is something we are working towards. Our new client survey now collects location data, which will allow us to provide more detailed insights in the future.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 10 November 2025 to Question 87080 on Child Arrangement Orders, if he will make such an assessment.

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

The Government does not have any plans to undertake a formal assessment of the efficacy of child arrangement orders. However, we have recently published a review of the courts’ application of the presumption of parental involvement that explored the impact of decisions about child arrangements on child welfare. The Review found a high incidence of orders for direct contact between children and parents, even in cases where a parent has caused or posed a risk of harm. The evidence from the review suggested this could have long term negative impacts for children.

The Government is continually working with stakeholders to ensure that the family justice system delivers outcomes that work for children and families. The Government recently announced its intention to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 when parliamentary time allows, alongside a wider package of family court reforms. A Child Arrangements Order may be made by the court in private family law cases to determine whom a child is to live with, spend time with or otherwise have contact with. Child Maintenance calculations are carried out by the Child Maintenance Service and are based on HM Revenues and Customs data. The calculation represents an amount of money that is broadly equal to the amount that a paying parent would spend on the child if they were still living with them, irrespective of the income or assets of the receiving parent.

The Children Act 1989 states that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in family proceedings. The welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989 requires decision-makers to consider the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, and the Government has no plans to change this.

The Government believes that children’s voices must be central to family court proceedings and is delivering a new approach to private family law proceedings, known as Pathfinder. Under the Pathfinder model, a far greater proportion of children are engaged by Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru compared with the Child Arrangements Programme, and the court process puts a greater emphasis on the voice of the child through the ordering of a Child Impact Report (Report), which contains clear recommendations from the social worker, taking into account the child’s wishes and feelings.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 10 November 2025 to Question 87077 on Children: Custody, what plans his Department has to fund the Family Mediation Voucher Scheme beyond March 2026.

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

Since my response to PQ 87077 on 10 November 2025, uptake of the Mediation Voucher Scheme has continued to grow. The scheme has now helped over 51,000 families access mediation services since its launch.

Decisions on the continuation or expansion of the Mediation Voucher Scheme beyond March 2026 form part of the ongoing funding allocations discussion for the three-year Spending Review period. Any decisions on if and how the scheme could be expanded will be taken once the allocations process has concluded, should the scheme continue.

Local authority-level reporting on voucher take-up is something we are working towards. Our new client survey now collects location data, which will allow us to provide more detailed insights in the future.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will introduce the prioritisation of cases involving rape and sexual offences in the court lists.

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

Decisions on listing are a matter for the independent judiciary, which already prioritises cases involving vulnerable complainants and witnesses, including those relating to sexual offences. These cases are listed at the earliest opportunity.

The record allocation of sitting days this financial year will mean more rape and other sexual offence cases can be heard – delivering swifter justice for victims of such crimes. We also commissioned Sir Brian’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts and have announced a package of reforms designed to improve timeliness in the Crown Court and speed up justice for all victims, including victims of rape.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he has made an assessment of the potential impact of the removal of the right of appeal escalatory route from the Family Court judges to the High Court on judicial oversight accountability.

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

The Government has no plans to remove any rights of appeal route from family court judges to the High Court, nor has it made an assessment of the potential impact of such a change on judicial oversight and accountability.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of serving magistrates are under the age of 40.

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

The breakdown of magistrates in post by age bands is provided in table 3.6 of the annual official Diversity of the Judiciary statistics (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2025-statistics).

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate his Department has made of the duration of hearings required to determine whether an offence is likely to attract a custodial sentence of three years or more.

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

Criminal cases will continue to start in the magistrates’ court and will be sent to the Crown Court by magistrates where the seriousness or complexity of the case means it is more suitable for trial on indictment.

Post reforms, to determine whether a triable either-way case is eligible for trial in the Crown Court Bench Division, a Crown Court judge will assess whether the case is likely to attract a custodial sentence of three years or less. The process for allocations in the Crown Court will be similar to the existing approach used in the magistrates’ courts. We have full confidence in our judiciary to apply the Sentencing Guidelines appropriately when deciding the mode of trial. Eligibility for the Crown Court Bench Division will be assessed at the first opportunity a defendant has to enter a plea – normally the plea and trial preparation hearing where the judge will consider mode of trial among other case management factors to ensure the case is ready for trial.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which (a) court and (b) judicial body will determine whether an offence is likely to attract a custodial sentence of three years or more for the purposes of allocating the mode of trial.

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

Criminal cases will continue to start in the magistrates’ court and will be sent to the Crown Court by magistrates where the seriousness or complexity of the case means it is more suitable for trial on indictment.

Post reforms, to determine whether a triable either-way case is eligible for trial in the Crown Court Bench Division, a Crown Court judge will assess whether the case is likely to attract a custodial sentence of three years or less. The process for allocations in the Crown Court will be similar to the existing approach used in the magistrates’ courts. We have full confidence in our judiciary to apply the Sentencing Guidelines appropriately when deciding the mode of trial. Eligibility for the Crown Court Bench Division will be assessed at the first opportunity a defendant has to enter a plea – normally the plea and trial preparation hearing where the judge will consider mode of trial among other case management factors to ensure the case is ready for trial.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he will take steps to ensure that individuals seeking a divorce are automatically eligible for legal aid in cases where evidence demonstrates that a child of the family has been subjected to abuse.

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

This Government recognises that legal aid – a vital part of the justice system – supports the ability of individuals to access publicly funded legal assistance to uphold their legal rights.

Legal aid is available for private family proceedings, such as divorce and financial remedy proceedings, if an adult is a victim of domestic abuse or at risk of being abused. Funding is subject to providing the required evidence of domestic abuse and passing the means and merits tests. The Government recognises that abuse may include behaviour directed at a third party, for example the victim’s child, to influence the victim. In May 2025, we amended the legislation to explicitly reflect this definition of domestic abuse; it now reflects the definition of domestic abuse from the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and it clarifies that behaviour, violence or abuse between individuals may consist of or include behaviour, violence or abuse directed at another individual.

Legal aid is available for individuals for some private family orders, such as child arrangement orders or prohibited steps orders, if the child who is the subject of the order is a victim of child abuse or at risk of abuse. This is subject to providing evidence of child abuse and passing the means and merits tests.

The Government monitors legal aid provision and is carefully considering the criteria that govern financial eligibility for legal aid.

Where an issue falls outside the scope of legal aid, eligible individuals may be able to obtain Exceptional Case Funding where they can show that, without the provision of legal aid, there is a risk that their human rights may be breached.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the availability of free or pro-bono legal support for leaseholders involved in disputes with property management agents or freeholders.

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

There are a range of options available for leaseholders involved in disputes with property management agents or freeholders. Advice organisations, such as Citizens Advice and Shelter, may be able to provide advice or signpost to further support, and leaseholders may be able to get support from organisations that specialise in leasehold issues, such as the Leasehold Advisory Service. Alternatively, ombudsman services may be able to provide support with resolving a dispute. Leaseholders may choose to seek pro bono advice via organisations such as LawWorks or Advocate.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the process for assigning judges to cases involving legal challenges to Government decisions.

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

Under section 7(2)(c) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Lady Chief Justice is responsible for the maintenance of appropriate arrangements for the deployment of the judiciary and the allocation of work within courts. Accordingly, the Government has no role in the process for assigning judges to cases.

This is consistent with the important principle of judicial independence, which shields judges from external pressures and gives the public confidence that cases will be decided fairly and in accordance with the law.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government on how many occasions pelargonic acid vanillylamide (PAVA) incapacitant spray has been (1) drawn, and (2) drawn and deployed in prisons in 2024 and 2025; and what was the (a) ethnicity, (b) religion, and (c) disability status of the prisoner involved in each case.

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

Data relating to the use of PAVA broken down by disability comes from internal management information that is under development. It is not quality assured and does not meet the standard required for publication.

The table below provides information on the use of PAVA broken down ethnicity and religion.

Please note that the 2025 figures represent data to 30 November this year. Figures include each time a prisoner is impacted by a PAVA incident. This means each time PAVA is drawn and used/drawn not used, multiple prisoners may be counted. In addition, the same prisoner may be counted more than once if involved in multiple incidents.

Figures provided have been drawn from HMPPS Management Information which has not passed through the quality assurance processes usually associated with official statistics published on gov.uk and may contain incomplete or, on rare occasions, inaccurate data.

Pelargonic acid vanillylamide incapacitant (PAVA) spray is made available to protect staff and prisoners in the event of serious violence, or where there is an imminent risk of serious violence. Clear guidance has been issued to staff, to ensure it is used only where appropriate. Our hardworking prison officers are brave public servants doing exceptionally difficult jobs, this Government will do everything we can to keep them safe.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an assessment of the potential impact of the (a) discontinuement and (b) funding freeze of the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund on waiting lists.

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

My Department is committed to the Government’s pledge to halve Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) in a decade. We have committed £550 million to victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date.

On 1 December 2025, all recipients of the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund (RASASF) received confirmation that their Ministry of Justice grants will be extended for two years until March 2028, with a 2% year-on-year uplift. Given this, there will be no impacts on waiting lists as funding has not been discontinued or frozen.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when her department plans to confirm allocations for the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund for 2026/27.

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

My Department is committed to the Government’s pledge to halve Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) in a decade. We have committed £550 million to victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date.

On 1 December 2025, all recipients of the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund (RASASF) received confirmation that their Ministry of Justice grants will be extended for two years until March 2028, with a 2% year-on-year uplift. Given this, there will be no impacts on waiting lists as funding has not been discontinued or frozen.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people have been convicted of spiking in each of the last five years.

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

Incidents of spiking may be prosecuted under various criminal offences. These offences encompass a broad spectrum of criminal behaviours, not all of which constitute spiking.

The Ministry of Justice does not currently collate statistics which show the number of individuals who are charged and subsequently prosecuted and convicted of offences which relate to incidents of spiking. The Government is, however, considering options to improve the way spiking crimes are recorded and collated with the aim of capturing better data to help advise preventative strategies for spiking where needed.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of providing long-term funding for specialist sexual violence and abuse services.

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

My Department is committed to the Government’s pledge to halve Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) in a decade. We have committed £550 million to victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date.

The 42 Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales receive annual grant funding from the Department’s victim and witness budget to commission local practical, emotional, and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types. This includes services for victims of sexual abuse. In addition, MoJ provides funding through the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund to over 60 specialist organisations, supporting victims of all ages to cope with their experiences and move forward with their lives.

On 1 December 2025, all PCCs and RASASF recipients received confirmation that their grants will be extended for two years until March 2028, with a 2% year-on-year uplift.

In light of the announcement to abolish the PCC function in May 2028, we have held back confirmation of year three funding. This enables us to explore changes to the longer-term delivery of victims funding to ensure this is delivered in the best way in the future. This will include extensive engagement with partners, including PCCs and RASASF recipients, to ensure we can continue to provide the right support to victims.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment has been made of the potential impact on victim support arising from the announced reduction, by nearly half, in funding for the West Mercia Police Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre; and in light of these funding cuts, how will the Department ensure that all survivors of sexual violence referred to this centre continue to receive the timely and high‑quality support they deserve.

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

My Department is committed to the Government’s pledge to halve Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) in a decade. We have committed £550 million to victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date.

On 1 December 2025, all Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and recipients of the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund (RASASF) received confirmation that their Ministry of Justice grants will be extended for two years until March 2028, with a 2% year-on-year uplift. This includes the grants the Ministry of Justice holds with West Mercia Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre (WMRSASC) and with West Mercia PCC, who will make decisions on which organisations to fund locally, based on their assessment of need.

The grant the Department holds with WMRSASC has been unchanged since August 2023 when the RASASF was recompeted via an open competition.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many and what proportion of people arriving into custody were assessed for additional support due to neurodiversity in each prison and Young Offender Institution in England over each of the last two years.

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

On 01 October 2025 we introduced a requirement and new tool for Governors to ensure all prisoners receive a screening for additional learning needs within 30 days of reception into custody. Young people entering the youth estate are screened within 10 days of arrival.

The new screening requirement built on an earlier process (since 2023) of carrying out an initial rapid screening for learning difficulties and/or disabilities and more in-depth screening which formed part of the initial education induction.

Data is collected and used locally, however, there is no routine centralised collection of validated data in relation to the numbers undertaking screening and assessment in either the adult estate or in Young Offender Institutions.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many prisoners sentenced to Imprisonment for Public Protection who have been recalled to prison have been released by the Secretary of State under section 32ZZA of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997.

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

29 prisoners serving a sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection were released by the Secretary of State under section 32ZZA of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 between 1 November 2024 (when the power became available) and 1 June 2025. We are determined to make progress towards safe and sustainable releases for those in prison, but not in a way that undermines public protection.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many male-born sex offenders have been granted gender recognition certificates in each of the last five years.

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

The information requested is not held centrally.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he plans to introduce a sunset clause for proposals to limit jury trials.

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

There has been no major reform of the criminal courts since the establishment of the Crown Court in 1971, despite Lord Auld making similar recommendations to Sir Brian Leveson in 2001.

Sir Brian’s report found that jury trials are taking twice as long as they were in 2000 - one of the reasons is increased complexity in modern cases, the density of evidence deployed to establish them, and the increased efforts made to provide support and guidance to jurors.

We are working within a system built for a different age and even with record investment, the Crown Court caseload will continue to rise. We need generational structural reform, investment, and modernisation.

Everyone has, and will always have, the right to a fair trial. But there is no right to trial by jury in England and Wales and the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted – fairly, without a jury – in the magistrates’ courts. Jury trials will nevertheless remain for the most serious cases - these reforms are designed to ensure a more proportionate use of overall resource in our criminal courts to ensure we are best serving the needs of both victims and defendants, to deliver better, swifter outcomes.

There is no quick fix - it will take time to tackle an issue which has been years in the making, but we must act before the caseload becomes irretrievable. There are no plans to introduce sunset clauses for all proposals.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent topics has he discussed with external bodies when considering the potential impacts of proposals to reduce jury trials.

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

In developing his recommendations, Sir Brian Leveson and his expert advisers, including Professor David Ormerod, engaged with several external bodies with invaluable expertise of our Criminal Justice System including criminal legal organisations, charities, academics, and members of the judiciary. A full list is at Annex C of his report.

When considering Sir Brian’s recommendations and developing our proposals, I have engaged regularly with stakeholders and relevant sectors over the last 12 months including representatives from the legal sector (Law Society, Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association), victims and victims representatives (the Victims Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Rape Crisis), judiciary (Circuit leaders, Judicial leadership), magistracy (Magistrates’ Association, Magistrates’ Leadership Executive), non-governmental organisations (Appeal, JUSTICE, Transform Justice), court staff in criminal courts around the country (Wood Green, Snaresbrook) and similar international jurisdictions. For example, I met judges and visited courts in Canada, which uses types of judge-only trial.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which external bodies has he recently spoken to about the potential impacts of proposals to reduce jury trials.

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

In developing his recommendations, Sir Brian Leveson and his expert advisers, including Professor David Ormerod, engaged with several external bodies with invaluable expertise of our Criminal Justice System including criminal legal organisations, charities, academics, and members of the judiciary. A full list is at Annex C of his report.

When considering Sir Brian’s recommendations and developing our proposals, I have engaged regularly with stakeholders and relevant sectors over the last 12 months including representatives from the legal sector (Law Society, Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association), victims and victims representatives (the Victims Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Rape Crisis), judiciary (Circuit leaders, Judicial leadership), magistracy (Magistrates’ Association, Magistrates’ Leadership Executive), non-governmental organisations (Appeal, JUSTICE, Transform Justice), court staff in criminal courts around the country (Wood Green, Snaresbrook) and similar international jurisdictions. For example, I met judges and visited courts in Canada, which uses types of judge-only trial.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many people in prison or a Young Offender Institution self-describe their ethnicity as (1) black, (2) mixed-race, (3) Asian, and (4) white; and for each of these groups how many are aged (a) 15-17, (b) 18-20, (c) 21-24, (d) 25-29, (e) 30-39, (f) 40-49, (g) 50-59, (h) 60-69, and (i) 70 and over.

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

The answer to this question has been provided as an Excel document alongside this response.

The table provided was published as part of the Offender Management chapter of the 2024 ‘Ethnicity and the Criminal Justice System’ publication. (This series is published every other year.)

The figures presented are based on the total prison population and therefore include those held on remand, those sentenced and non-criminals.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate his Department has made of the time required for a single judge to prepare written judgments in criminal cases tried without a jury.

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

Post-reforms, any judge sitting alone in the Crown Court will give a reasoned judgment for their verdict in open court. This will increase transparency over how decisions to convict or acquit are reached as juries do not currently give reasons for their judgments.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what his planned timetable is for Crown Court judges to produce written judgments in cases tried by a single judge sitting alone.

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

Post-reforms, any judge sitting alone in the Crown Court will give a reasoned judgment for their verdict in open court. This will increase transparency over how decisions to convict or acquit are reached as juries do not currently give reasons for their judgments.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of his Department's progress on increasing the processing capacity of the court system.

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

The Government has made significant progress in increasing the processing capacity of the courts and tribunals system and remains committed to reducing backlog.

In the Crown Court for this financial year, we have allocated 111,250 sitting days - the highest number of sitting days on record and over 5,000 more than the previous Government funded for the last financial year.

In the Family Courts, reforms are already delivering results. Courts operating under the private law Pathfinder model are achieving some of the lowest case durations nationally, in South East Wales, for example, average duration fell from 37 weeks to 12 weeks on average. In addition, the Department for Education invested £10 million in 2024/25 to fund pilots aimed at reducing delays in family proceedings, with evaluation due to conclude in 2026.

Across the tribunals system, we are taking a comprehensive approach to improve productivity. Sitting day capacity has been set at or close to the maximum deliverable level. We are also promoting early dispute resolution to reduce unnecessary demand, including judicial Alternative Dispute Resolution pilots in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Lady Chief Justice continue discussions on allocation for 2025-26 and we will say more in due course.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether they consider (1) the European Court of Human Rights, and (2) the International Criminal Court, to be foreign courts.

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

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and International Criminal Court (ICC) are international courts based respectively in France and the Netherlands. The UK is a State Party to both the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Rome Statute, the international treaties which established the ECtHR and ICC respectively. It is also a founding member of both instruments.

The Human Rights Act 1998 and the ICC Act 2001 give effect to the UK's obligations under the ECHR and Rome Statute. We respect the independence of both courts.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he has taken to consider increasing the number of sitting days at [a] Leicester Crown Court [b] Coventry Combined Court Centre and [c] Warwick Crown Court.

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

The Government is committed to bearing down on the backlog. In the Crown Court for this financial year, we have allocated 111,250 sitting days - the highest number of sitting days on record and over 5,000 more than the previous Government funded for the last financial year.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Lady Chief Justice continue discussions on the allocation for 2025-26 as part of the Concordat process and we will say more in due course.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to tackle the backlog of court cases in Cheshire.

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

Chester Crown Court has been allocated an additional 232 sitting days in-region to increase hearing capacity and improve throughput of cases. Additional Legal Advisor recruitment is underway to facilitate an increase in court hearing capacity in Cheshire Magistrates’ Courts.

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. Investment alone is not enough - that is why this Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans he has to publish recordings made of trials heard without a jury; and what safeguards will govern the use of those recordings for (a) scrutiny and (b) appeals.

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

Transcription services are available for all Crown Court cases. We are exploring the potential use of AI to produce transcripts more quickly and cost effectively.

As recommended by Sir Brian Leveson in his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, the Government will introduce audio recording equipment in magistrates’ courts. This measure supports our changes to the appeals process in magistrates’ courts, to mirror the current process in the Crown Court, which will ensure that victims and witnesses are no longer required to go through the trauma of a full re-hearing.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent steps his Department has taken to help reduce levels of reoffending in the West Midlands.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

HMPPS Area Executive Directors (AEDs) are responsible for leading a joined-up approach to prisons and probation in their region, alongside working with criminal justice partners such as the police and local authorities to address the causes of offending and to make sure that those released from prison do not reoffend.

For those who persistently break the law, we are building 14,000 new prison places to make sure they are removed from the streets. Whilst in prison they will be expected to take part in education or learn new skills to make them more useful contributors to society after release.

Anyone released from prison is subject to strict licence conditions, including exclusion zones where appropriate. If found to have breached these conditions they can be returned to prison.

The Probation Service puts in place services aimed at reducing re-offending by supporting the needs of people on probation in the West Midlands. These include providing support in obtaining and maintaining suitable accommodation, help with drug and alcohol dependency issues, assistance with personal wellbeing needs and a holistic service addressing all needs for women.

In the Midlands, we have introduced an area Reducing Reoffending lead who will lead on projects working with Prison and Probations across the Midlands to help in reducing reoffending.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many full-time equivalent staff in his Department have been employed for the purpose of making social media content in each of the past three years.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Due to the difficulty of disaggregating the number of staff who are employed to produce social media content from staff who are employed to work on a broader digital communications, it is not possible to report exact figures in response to this question.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what data he holds on the reoffending rates of individuals convicted of offences relating to illegal entry into the UK.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Providing this would incur disproportionate costs.

More broadly the Government is tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans he has to publish data on convictions and sentencing outcomes for immigration offences.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data on prosecutions, convictions and sentencing at criminal courts in England and Wales in the Outcomes by Offences data tool. This tool includes convictions and sentencing for immigration offences and can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to improve prisoner rehabilitation in (a) Surrey and (b) Surrey Heath constituency.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

HM Prison and Probation Service rehabilitation services take many forms, ranging from accredited programmes and interventions that are aimed at giving people skills to change their attitudes, thinking and behaviour, to enabling a person to access education, healthcare, substance misuse support, suitable accommodation, and the means to earn a living pro-socially.

Some rehabilitative activity is delivered in-house, and some via our partner organisations. We keep our work under constant review to ensure we are acting in line with the available evidence whilst also meeting the rehabilitative needs of the people we work with.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of parole board hearings on victims and their families in Surrey Heath constituency.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We recognise that parole hearings can be distressing for victims and their families, which is why dedicated Victim Liaison Officers provide support throughout the process. Victims can explain the effect of the offence, and the ongoing impact it has on them, through a Victim Personal Statement, which may be read aloud during the hearing. They can also request specific licence conditions are put forward for the Parole Board to consider applying if an offender is released.

Since April, we have made it possible for victims to apply to observe hearings if they wish, to help them understand how the Parole Board considers evidence and assesses risk. We understand how challenging this process can be and we want to ensure that victims and their families are given the support, information and opportunities they need to help them through it.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to improve safety in prisons in (a) Hampshire and (b) Surrey.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Safety in prisons is a key priority, and we are working hard to make prisons as safe as possible for those who live and work in them. We are providing targeted support to a number of prisons to improve safety, security and substance misuse processes, and the join-up between them, to strengthen safety outcomes.

There are a number of local initiatives taking place to improve safety in prisons in Surrey and Hampshire. These include but are not limited to; using peer mentoring and restorative justice to promote conflict resolution and personal growth, encouraging positive relationships between staff and prisoners to bolster prisoner wellbeing and specific projects designed to support young adults and neurodiverse individuals in custody. Sites are also upskilling staff in safety related tasks, implementing improvements in the physical environment, and utilising Substance Free Living Units.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of whether the discretion for courts to depart from sentencing guidelines in the interests of justice affects the (a) consistency and (b) effectiveness of sentencing outcomes.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

All sentencing courts in England and Wales must follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the offender’s case, unless it is in the interests of justice not to do so (by virtue of section 59 of the Sentencing Code).

Whilst there is a high bar for departing from the guidelines, it is necessary, in the interests of justice, that courts retain the discretion to do so, where the individual case and circumstances warrant it. If a court departs from the guidelines, it must give reasons for doing so.

As mentioned in my previous response, the Sentencing Council has a statutory duty to monitor and evaluate all definitive guidelines to assess their impact on sentencing outcomes and ensure they operate as intended. Analysis conducted by the Council between 2010 and 2015 demonstrated that the vast majority of sentences imposed for offences for which there were offence-specific guidelines were within the sentence range set out in the guidelines. The findings are presented in the Council’s annual reports for 2010/11 through 2014/15 which are available on its website. As part of its ongoing monitoring of the use of guidelines, the Council conducts quantitative and qualitative research to determine how the guidelines are being used and the effect they are having on sentencing practice. These evaluations will highlight any issues if departures from guidelines are commonplace for a particular offence(s) or aspect of sentencing.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to Answer of 9th December 2025 to Question 96041, on Reoffenders: Sentencing, what assessment he has made of how frequently courts depart from sentencing guidelines on the basis that it is in the interest of justice to do so.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

All sentencing courts in England and Wales must follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the offender’s case, unless it is in the interests of justice not to do so (by virtue of section 59 of the Sentencing Code).

Whilst there is a high bar for departing from the guidelines, it is necessary, in the interests of justice, that courts retain the discretion to do so, where the individual case and circumstances warrant it. If a court departs from the guidelines, it must give reasons for doing so.

As mentioned in my previous response, the Sentencing Council has a statutory duty to monitor and evaluate all definitive guidelines to assess their impact on sentencing outcomes and ensure they operate as intended. Analysis conducted by the Council between 2010 and 2015 demonstrated that the vast majority of sentences imposed for offences for which there were offence-specific guidelines were within the sentence range set out in the guidelines. The findings are presented in the Council’s annual reports for 2010/11 through 2014/15 which are available on its website. As part of its ongoing monitoring of the use of guidelines, the Council conducts quantitative and qualitative research to determine how the guidelines are being used and the effect they are having on sentencing practice. These evaluations will highlight any issues if departures from guidelines are commonplace for a particular offence(s) or aspect of sentencing.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of prisoners have been released with a resettlement passport in each month since their introduction.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Government is committed to ensuring individuals have plans in place before release, identifying needs early, and linking people to the right support, such as housing, employment, and health services, to help reduce reoffending. No prisoners have left with a resettlement passport as formal introduction of a digital tool is yet to take place. However, development work has marked important progress in testing approaches to improve pre-release planning across the estate.

This testing, carried out in ten prisons and four probation regions, has gathered valuable insight and learning throughout, including a comprehensive understanding of current practice and identification of gaps and opportunities in service delivery. It has also provided insight relevant to ARNS (Assess, Risks, Needs and Strengths), supporting its development as part of HMPPS’s wider digital transformation strategy. ARNS is designed to modernise offender assessments by moving towards a more dynamic, collaborative, and strength-based approach to resettlement planning, offender management, and risk assessment.

These findings will feed into work to improve the operational processes to support preparation for release, to support delivery of recommendations from the Independent Review of Sentencing.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what progress has been made to introduce resettlement passports for prison leavers.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Government is committed to ensuring individuals have plans in place before release, identifying needs early, and linking people to the right support, such as housing, employment, and health services, to help reduce reoffending. No prisoners have left with a resettlement passport as formal introduction of a digital tool is yet to take place. However, development work has marked important progress in testing approaches to improve pre-release planning across the estate.

This testing, carried out in ten prisons and four probation regions, has gathered valuable insight and learning throughout, including a comprehensive understanding of current practice and identification of gaps and opportunities in service delivery. It has also provided insight relevant to ARNS (Assess, Risks, Needs and Strengths), supporting its development as part of HMPPS’s wider digital transformation strategy. ARNS is designed to modernise offender assessments by moving towards a more dynamic, collaborative, and strength-based approach to resettlement planning, offender management, and risk assessment.

These findings will feed into work to improve the operational processes to support preparation for release, to support delivery of recommendations from the Independent Review of Sentencing.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of government guidance regarding the statutory time limit of six months for summary offences.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Proceedings for summary-only offences must be commenced within six months of the date of the offence. The Government is satisfied that that this time limit, as set out in Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, is an important safeguard which ensures that less serious offences are dealt with promptly. The limit applies to both criminal and civil proceedings, supporting the efficient operation of the courts and maintaining fairness for all parties.

Reviews are done for specific offences and exceptions have been carved out in statute where appropriate, for example for the common assault offence in domestic abuse cases. Where there is a clear need for flexibility, the Government has acted and will continue to act to introduce targeted exceptions, such as recent amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, which extend the time limit for intimate image abuse. These changes recognise the particular challenges victims face in reporting such offences and ensure that perpetrators can still be brought to justice.

The Government’s Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, published on 18 December 2025, includes a commitment to exploring options to improve access to justice for victims of domestic abuse, including reviewing the time limits for charging domestic abuse-related summary offences.

The Government is confident that the existing legislation clearly outlines when these limits apply. As a result, the Government does not intend to introduce further guidance at this time.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will review the statutory time limit of six months for summary offences.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Proceedings for summary-only offences must be commenced within six months of the date of the offence. The Government is satisfied that that this time limit, as set out in Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, is an important safeguard which ensures that less serious offences are dealt with promptly. The limit applies to both criminal and civil proceedings, supporting the efficient operation of the courts and maintaining fairness for all parties.

Reviews are done for specific offences and exceptions have been carved out in statute where appropriate, for example for the common assault offence in domestic abuse cases. Where there is a clear need for flexibility, the Government has acted and will continue to act to introduce targeted exceptions, such as recent amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, which extend the time limit for intimate image abuse. These changes recognise the particular challenges victims face in reporting such offences and ensure that perpetrators can still be brought to justice.

The Government’s Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, published on 18 December 2025, includes a commitment to exploring options to improve access to justice for victims of domestic abuse, including reviewing the time limits for charging domestic abuse-related summary offences.

The Government is confident that the existing legislation clearly outlines when these limits apply. As a result, the Government does not intend to introduce further guidance at this time.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, who is the Chief Risk Officer for national security risks relating to the work of their Department.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Secretaries of State and Accounting Officers are ultimately responsible for all risks a Department owns. Each risk in the National Risk Register (NRR) has a designated Risk Owner, working within the Lead Government Department which is responsible for designated risk areas.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what data his Department holds on the length of time spent in detention without trial by defendants charged under the Terrorism Act 2000 for (a) supporting or (b) being a member of Palestine Action.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

No-one is being detained under the Terrorism Act 2000 for supporting, or being a member of, Palestine Action.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the compatibility of early releases with the principles of justice.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We must ensure that there are always sufficient prison places for dangerous offenders and those who pose a risk to the public. We are building 14,000 prison places and will have more prisoners by the time of the next election than the last. We take every possible step to mitigate risk, working in collaboration with partners across the Criminal Justice System. The introduction of the Sentencing Bill will bring an end to temporary early release measures and put the system back on a sustainable footing, ensuring sentences are served in a way that balances punishment, rehabilitation, and public safety.

We also recognise the importance of maintaining confidence in the justice system for victims and their families when designing these reforms and will continue to assess these impacts throughout implementation. Ministers and policy officials have been pleased to meet with victims’ stakeholders through a mix of individual meetings, roundtables and sector-wide engagement groups. We remain committed to continuing to engage with the victim sector to understand the impact of these changes.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the impact of early releases on (a) victims and (b) victims' families.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We must ensure that there are always sufficient prison places for dangerous offenders and those who pose a risk to the public. We are building 14,000 prison places and will have more prisoners by the time of the next election than the last. We take every possible step to mitigate risk, working in collaboration with partners across the Criminal Justice System. The introduction of the Sentencing Bill will bring an end to temporary early release measures and put the system back on a sustainable footing, ensuring sentences are served in a way that balances punishment, rehabilitation, and public safety.

We also recognise the importance of maintaining confidence in the justice system for victims and their families when designing these reforms and will continue to assess these impacts throughout implementation. Ministers and policy officials have been pleased to meet with victims’ stakeholders through a mix of individual meetings, roundtables and sector-wide engagement groups. We remain committed to continuing to engage with the victim sector to understand the impact of these changes.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what was the rate of compliance for people fitted with an alcohol monitoring device after their release from prison, in each year since 2021.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We are unable to provide compliance rates by year for those released from custody and subject to alcohol monitoring. However, our published research for this cohort has shown around four out of five prison leavers with an alcohol monitoring condition added to their licence during 2023 did not violate their order. Of those who did violate their order, most only received a single violation. The Department’s published research can be found here - AML: Process and Interim Impact Evaluation.

The compliance rate of alcohol monitoring imposed by the court as part of a Community Order or Suspended Sentence Order, which imposes a total ban on drinking alcohol for up to 120 days, showed from the introduction of the technology in October 2020 through to 6 June 2025, the devices did not register a tamper or alcohol alert for 97.3% of the days worn. Anyone who does break the rules, risks being returned to custody.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisons and Young Offender Institutions currently have (a) an Incentivised Substance Free Living Unit operating, (b) a Drug Recovery Wing operating, and (c) a Drug Strategy Lead in post.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

HM Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) has funded Incentivised Substance Free Living Units in 85 prisons, and six currently have abstinence-based Drug Recovery Wings. To support delivery of HMPPS’ Drug and Alcohol Strategy, 54 prisons have a dedicated Drug Strategy Lead. All remaining prisons, including Young Offender Institutions, have a designated point of contact for Drug and Alcohol Strategy work.

In addition, HMPPS has recruited 17 Group Drug and Alcohol Leads providing regional leadership, assurance, and co-ordination of drug and alcohol work for all the establishments in their Prison Group. They align activity at establishment level with national drug and alcohol strategy and policies which aim to restrict supply, reduce demand and support recovery. They also support local and regional partnerships with healthcare providers to support a range of issues including continuity of care on release.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisons and Young Offender Institutions have (a) an ID and Banking Administrator and (b) an Employment Lead currently in post.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Prison Employment Leads (PELs) and ID and Banking Administrators (IDBAs) were introduced to 93 prisons across the estate in 2022 and have been effective in supporting prisoners to prepare for their reintegration into the community since then. Whilst these roles are supported nationally, they are managed and recruited to locally, so numbers of vacancies are not held centrally.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, regarding the cyber attack in April 2025 on the Legal Aid Agency (LAA), other than the information on the LAA’s website, what steps have been taken to notify legal aid applicants that their confidential data has been accessed.

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

We take the security of people’s personal data extremely seriously.

Firstly, to ensure transparency about the cyber- attack and that we reached as many potentially impacted individuals as possible, the Ministry of Justice published a notice shortly after it became aware of the criminal cyber-attack at 08:15 on 19 May on GOV.UK

The notice provided information about the cyber-attack and directed concerned members of the public to the National Cyber Security Centre’s webpage, which contained information on how to protect against the impact of a data breach.

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also set up dedicated Customer Services support via a telephone line and email for providers and clients who had concerns regarding the data breach. We did not write to all clients, to all the addresses that we had, because some of those addresses would no longer be current, and that would potentially create another data breach in itself.

The published statement referred to above sets out information about who may have been impacted and the nature of the information which may have been accessed. As far as we are aware, no data has been shared or put out in the public domain. An injunction has been put in place to prohibit sharing of this data. Anyone who does so could be sent to prison. If it is identified that a specific individual is at risk, action will be taken to try to contact them.

In the interests of security, we cannot confirm the method by which unauthorised access was gained to the LAA’s online digital systems or details about specific steps taken or measures implemented to protect LAA systems against any future cyber-attacks.

Security of the new systems has been paramount as we have rebuilt the LAA’s digital systems following the attack. The compromised digital portal has been replaced by a new, secure single sign-in tool for LAA online services (SiLAS). SiLAS has been designed and built in line with UK government and industry best practice for secure development. Security has been included from the ground up, including multi factor authentication, with independent testing activities to validate that the appropriate security controls are in place.

A dedicated team will monitor and update the service to ensure it evolves to remain resilient to emerging threats and is supported by a security operations capability. While no system can be entirely risk free, we are confident that we have taken the right steps to protect the service and its users.

Responsibility for disaster recovery planning for digital systems lies with Justice Digital rather than the LAA. Prior to the cyber- attack there was no digital disaster recovery plan in place. However, had we had a fully funded disaster recovery system, any immediate restoration would have simply restored the systems without resolving the vulnerabilities that enabled the cyber- attack to occur. Justice Digital now have a new Service Owner structure in place where clear Service Standards will be defined and monitored. This will include digital disaster recovery plans for each digital product.

Prior to the cyber- attack the LAA had in place prepared business continuity plans for business-critical processes and services to ensure that access to justice could be maintained in the event of a system outage. These plans were tried and tested, and we were confident that the measures would be effective for our initial response. These measures gave us sufficient time to design and implement longer term measures to meet the specific needs of the incident that were introduced in June 2025.

At every stage, we have acted to protect public access to justice and to support providers in delivering legal aid. We have achieved this without affecting court backlogs or police station activity.

Our business continuity planning was effective in maintaining access to justice from the outset of the attack and the need to have longer term options in place is one of the lessons that we have taken from this incident.

A formal lessons learned approach will systematically analyse lessons from the Ministry of Justice’s and LAA’s preparation for and response to the cyber-attack. This work will cover pre-incident risk management and the response to the incident itself. This will inform future resilience planning, governance improvement and risk mitigation strategies across the Ministry of Justice and its agencies.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, after the April 2025 data breach of the Legal Advice Agency, what specific steps have been taken, and what further measures are planned, to ensure that a similar security breach does not occur again.

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

We take the security of people’s personal data extremely seriously.

Firstly, to ensure transparency about the cyber- attack and that we reached as many potentially impacted individuals as possible, the Ministry of Justice published a notice shortly after it became aware of the criminal cyber-attack at 08:15 on 19 May on GOV.UK

The notice provided information about the cyber-attack and directed concerned members of the public to the National Cyber Security Centre’s webpage, which contained information on how to protect against the impact of a data breach.

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also set up dedicated Customer Services support via a telephone line and email for providers and clients who had concerns regarding the data breach. We did not write to all clients, to all the addresses that we had, because some of those addresses would no longer be current, and that would potentially create another data breach in itself.

The published statement referred to above sets out information about who may have been impacted and the nature of the information which may have been accessed. As far as we are aware, no data has been shared or put out in the public domain. An injunction has been put in place to prohibit sharing of this data. Anyone who does so could be sent to prison. If it is identified that a specific individual is at risk, action will be taken to try to contact them.

In the interests of security, we cannot confirm the method by which unauthorised access was gained to the LAA’s online digital systems or details about specific steps taken or measures implemented to protect LAA systems against any future cyber-attacks.

Security of the new systems has been paramount as we have rebuilt the LAA’s digital systems following the attack. The compromised digital portal has been replaced by a new, secure single sign-in tool for LAA online services (SiLAS). SiLAS has been designed and built in line with UK government and industry best practice for secure development. Security has been included from the ground up, including multi factor authentication, with independent testing activities to validate that the appropriate security controls are in place.

A dedicated team will monitor and update the service to ensure it evolves to remain resilient to emerging threats and is supported by a security operations capability. While no system can be entirely risk free, we are confident that we have taken the right steps to protect the service and its users.

Responsibility for disaster recovery planning for digital systems lies with Justice Digital rather than the LAA. Prior to the cyber- attack there was no digital disaster recovery plan in place. However, had we had a fully funded disaster recovery system, any immediate restoration would have simply restored the systems without resolving the vulnerabilities that enabled the cyber- attack to occur. Justice Digital now have a new Service Owner structure in place where clear Service Standards will be defined and monitored. This will include digital disaster recovery plans for each digital product.

Prior to the cyber- attack the LAA had in place prepared business continuity plans for business-critical processes and services to ensure that access to justice could be maintained in the event of a system outage. These plans were tried and tested, and we were confident that the measures would be effective for our initial response. These measures gave us sufficient time to design and implement longer term measures to meet the specific needs of the incident that were introduced in June 2025.

At every stage, we have acted to protect public access to justice and to support providers in delivering legal aid. We have achieved this without affecting court backlogs or police station activity.

Our business continuity planning was effective in maintaining access to justice from the outset of the attack and the need to have longer term options in place is one of the lessons that we have taken from this incident.

A formal lessons learned approach will systematically analyse lessons from the Ministry of Justice’s and LAA’s preparation for and response to the cyber-attack. This work will cover pre-incident risk management and the response to the incident itself. This will inform future resilience planning, governance improvement and risk mitigation strategies across the Ministry of Justice and its agencies.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what is the determined method by which unauthorised access was gained to the Legal Aid Agency's online digital systems during the April 2025 data breach.

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

We take the security of people’s personal data extremely seriously.

Firstly, to ensure transparency about the cyber- attack and that we reached as many potentially impacted individuals as possible, the Ministry of Justice published a notice shortly after it became aware of the criminal cyber-attack at 08:15 on 19 May on GOV.UK

The notice provided information about the cyber-attack and directed concerned members of the public to the National Cyber Security Centre’s webpage, which contained information on how to protect against the impact of a data breach.

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also set up dedicated Customer Services support via a telephone line and email for providers and clients who had concerns regarding the data breach. We did not write to all clients, to all the addresses that we had, because some of those addresses would no longer be current, and that would potentially create another data breach in itself.

The published statement referred to above sets out information about who may have been impacted and the nature of the information which may have been accessed. As far as we are aware, no data has been shared or put out in the public domain. An injunction has been put in place to prohibit sharing of this data. Anyone who does so could be sent to prison. If it is identified that a specific individual is at risk, action will be taken to try to contact them.

In the interests of security, we cannot confirm the method by which unauthorised access was gained to the LAA’s online digital systems or details about specific steps taken or measures implemented to protect LAA systems against any future cyber-attacks.

Security of the new systems has been paramount as we have rebuilt the LAA’s digital systems following the attack. The compromised digital portal has been replaced by a new, secure single sign-in tool for LAA online services (SiLAS). SiLAS has been designed and built in line with UK government and industry best practice for secure development. Security has been included from the ground up, including multi factor authentication, with independent testing activities to validate that the appropriate security controls are in place.

A dedicated team will monitor and update the service to ensure it evolves to remain resilient to emerging threats and is supported by a security operations capability. While no system can be entirely risk free, we are confident that we have taken the right steps to protect the service and its users.

Responsibility for disaster recovery planning for digital systems lies with Justice Digital rather than the LAA. Prior to the cyber- attack there was no digital disaster recovery plan in place. However, had we had a fully funded disaster recovery system, any immediate restoration would have simply restored the systems without resolving the vulnerabilities that enabled the cyber- attack to occur. Justice Digital now have a new Service Owner structure in place where clear Service Standards will be defined and monitored. This will include digital disaster recovery plans for each digital product.

Prior to the cyber- attack the LAA had in place prepared business continuity plans for business-critical processes and services to ensure that access to justice could be maintained in the event of a system outage. These plans were tried and tested, and we were confident that the measures would be effective for our initial response. These measures gave us sufficient time to design and implement longer term measures to meet the specific needs of the incident that were introduced in June 2025.

At every stage, we have acted to protect public access to justice and to support providers in delivering legal aid. We have achieved this without affecting court backlogs or police station activity.

Our business continuity planning was effective in maintaining access to justice from the outset of the attack and the need to have longer term options in place is one of the lessons that we have taken from this incident.

A formal lessons learned approach will systematically analyse lessons from the Ministry of Justice’s and LAA’s preparation for and response to the cyber-attack. This work will cover pre-incident risk management and the response to the incident itself. This will inform future resilience planning, governance improvement and risk mitigation strategies across the Ministry of Justice and its agencies.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what types of personal and sensitive data were compromised in the April 2025 cyber attack on the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) including whether the breach included information on vulnerable individuals such as victims of domestic abuse and asylum seekers.

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

We take the security of people’s personal data extremely seriously.

Firstly, to ensure transparency about the cyber- attack and that we reached as many potentially impacted individuals as possible, the Ministry of Justice published a notice shortly after it became aware of the criminal cyber-attack at 08:15 on 19 May on GOV.UK

The notice provided information about the cyber-attack and directed concerned members of the public to the National Cyber Security Centre’s webpage, which contained information on how to protect against the impact of a data breach.

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also set up dedicated Customer Services support via a telephone line and email for providers and clients who had concerns regarding the data breach. We did not write to all clients, to all the addresses that we had, because some of those addresses would no longer be current, and that would potentially create another data breach in itself.

The published statement referred to above sets out information about who may have been impacted and the nature of the information which may have been accessed. As far as we are aware, no data has been shared or put out in the public domain. An injunction has been put in place to prohibit sharing of this data. Anyone who does so could be sent to prison. If it is identified that a specific individual is at risk, action will be taken to try to contact them.

In the interests of security, we cannot confirm the method by which unauthorised access was gained to the LAA’s online digital systems or details about specific steps taken or measures implemented to protect LAA systems against any future cyber-attacks.

Security of the new systems has been paramount as we have rebuilt the LAA’s digital systems following the attack. The compromised digital portal has been replaced by a new, secure single sign-in tool for LAA online services (SiLAS). SiLAS has been designed and built in line with UK government and industry best practice for secure development. Security has been included from the ground up, including multi factor authentication, with independent testing activities to validate that the appropriate security controls are in place.

A dedicated team will monitor and update the service to ensure it evolves to remain resilient to emerging threats and is supported by a security operations capability. While no system can be entirely risk free, we are confident that we have taken the right steps to protect the service and its users.

Responsibility for disaster recovery planning for digital systems lies with Justice Digital rather than the LAA. Prior to the cyber- attack there was no digital disaster recovery plan in place. However, had we had a fully funded disaster recovery system, any immediate restoration would have simply restored the systems without resolving the vulnerabilities that enabled the cyber- attack to occur. Justice Digital now have a new Service Owner structure in place where clear Service Standards will be defined and monitored. This will include digital disaster recovery plans for each digital product.

Prior to the cyber- attack the LAA had in place prepared business continuity plans for business-critical processes and services to ensure that access to justice could be maintained in the event of a system outage. These plans were tried and tested, and we were confident that the measures would be effective for our initial response. These measures gave us sufficient time to design and implement longer term measures to meet the specific needs of the incident that were introduced in June 2025.

At every stage, we have acted to protect public access to justice and to support providers in delivering legal aid. We have achieved this without affecting court backlogs or police station activity.

Our business continuity planning was effective in maintaining access to justice from the outset of the attack and the need to have longer term options in place is one of the lessons that we have taken from this incident.

A formal lessons learned approach will systematically analyse lessons from the Ministry of Justice’s and LAA’s preparation for and response to the cyber-attack. This work will cover pre-incident risk management and the response to the incident itself. This will inform future resilience planning, governance improvement and risk mitigation strategies across the Ministry of Justice and its agencies.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the the Legal Advice Agency data breach in April 2025, whether his Department and the LAA had a prepared disaster recovery plan prior to the breach.

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

We take the security of people’s personal data extremely seriously.

Firstly, to ensure transparency about the cyber- attack and that we reached as many potentially impacted individuals as possible, the Ministry of Justice published a notice shortly after it became aware of the criminal cyber-attack at 08:15 on 19 May on GOV.UK

The notice provided information about the cyber-attack and directed concerned members of the public to the National Cyber Security Centre’s webpage, which contained information on how to protect against the impact of a data breach.

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also set up dedicated Customer Services support via a telephone line and email for providers and clients who had concerns regarding the data breach. We did not write to all clients, to all the addresses that we had, because some of those addresses would no longer be current, and that would potentially create another data breach in itself.

The published statement referred to above sets out information about who may have been impacted and the nature of the information which may have been accessed. As far as we are aware, no data has been shared or put out in the public domain. An injunction has been put in place to prohibit sharing of this data. Anyone who does so could be sent to prison. If it is identified that a specific individual is at risk, action will be taken to try to contact them.

In the interests of security, we cannot confirm the method by which unauthorised access was gained to the LAA’s online digital systems or details about specific steps taken or measures implemented to protect LAA systems against any future cyber-attacks.

Security of the new systems has been paramount as we have rebuilt the LAA’s digital systems following the attack. The compromised digital portal has been replaced by a new, secure single sign-in tool for LAA online services (SiLAS). SiLAS has been designed and built in line with UK government and industry best practice for secure development. Security has been included from the ground up, including multi factor authentication, with independent testing activities to validate that the appropriate security controls are in place.

A dedicated team will monitor and update the service to ensure it evolves to remain resilient to emerging threats and is supported by a security operations capability. While no system can be entirely risk free, we are confident that we have taken the right steps to protect the service and its users.

Responsibility for disaster recovery planning for digital systems lies with Justice Digital rather than the LAA. Prior to the cyber- attack there was no digital disaster recovery plan in place. However, had we had a fully funded disaster recovery system, any immediate restoration would have simply restored the systems without resolving the vulnerabilities that enabled the cyber- attack to occur. Justice Digital now have a new Service Owner structure in place where clear Service Standards will be defined and monitored. This will include digital disaster recovery plans for each digital product.

Prior to the cyber- attack the LAA had in place prepared business continuity plans for business-critical processes and services to ensure that access to justice could be maintained in the event of a system outage. These plans were tried and tested, and we were confident that the measures would be effective for our initial response. These measures gave us sufficient time to design and implement longer term measures to meet the specific needs of the incident that were introduced in June 2025.

At every stage, we have acted to protect public access to justice and to support providers in delivering legal aid. We have achieved this without affecting court backlogs or police station activity.

Our business continuity planning was effective in maintaining access to justice from the outset of the attack and the need to have longer term options in place is one of the lessons that we have taken from this incident.

A formal lessons learned approach will systematically analyse lessons from the Ministry of Justice’s and LAA’s preparation for and response to the cyber-attack. This work will cover pre-incident risk management and the response to the incident itself. This will inform future resilience planning, governance improvement and risk mitigation strategies across the Ministry of Justice and its agencies.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of disaster recovery planning at the Legal Aid Agency prior to the cyber-attack of April 2025.

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

We take the security of people’s personal data extremely seriously.

Firstly, to ensure transparency about the cyber- attack and that we reached as many potentially impacted individuals as possible, the Ministry of Justice published a notice shortly after it became aware of the criminal cyber-attack at 08:15 on 19 May on GOV.UK

The notice provided information about the cyber-attack and directed concerned members of the public to the National Cyber Security Centre’s webpage, which contained information on how to protect against the impact of a data breach.

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also set up dedicated Customer Services support via a telephone line and email for providers and clients who had concerns regarding the data breach. We did not write to all clients, to all the addresses that we had, because some of those addresses would no longer be current, and that would potentially create another data breach in itself.

The published statement referred to above sets out information about who may have been impacted and the nature of the information which may have been accessed. As far as we are aware, no data has been shared or put out in the public domain. An injunction has been put in place to prohibit sharing of this data. Anyone who does so could be sent to prison. If it is identified that a specific individual is at risk, action will be taken to try to contact them.

In the interests of security, we cannot confirm the method by which unauthorised access was gained to the LAA’s online digital systems or details about specific steps taken or measures implemented to protect LAA systems against any future cyber-attacks.

Security of the new systems has been paramount as we have rebuilt the LAA’s digital systems following the attack. The compromised digital portal has been replaced by a new, secure single sign-in tool for LAA online services (SiLAS). SiLAS has been designed and built in line with UK government and industry best practice for secure development. Security has been included from the ground up, including multi factor authentication, with independent testing activities to validate that the appropriate security controls are in place.

A dedicated team will monitor and update the service to ensure it evolves to remain resilient to emerging threats and is supported by a security operations capability. While no system can be entirely risk free, we are confident that we have taken the right steps to protect the service and its users.

Responsibility for disaster recovery planning for digital systems lies with Justice Digital rather than the LAA. Prior to the cyber- attack there was no digital disaster recovery plan in place. However, had we had a fully funded disaster recovery system, any immediate restoration would have simply restored the systems without resolving the vulnerabilities that enabled the cyber- attack to occur. Justice Digital now have a new Service Owner structure in place where clear Service Standards will be defined and monitored. This will include digital disaster recovery plans for each digital product.

Prior to the cyber- attack the LAA had in place prepared business continuity plans for business-critical processes and services to ensure that access to justice could be maintained in the event of a system outage. These plans were tried and tested, and we were confident that the measures would be effective for our initial response. These measures gave us sufficient time to design and implement longer term measures to meet the specific needs of the incident that were introduced in June 2025.

At every stage, we have acted to protect public access to justice and to support providers in delivering legal aid. We have achieved this without affecting court backlogs or police station activity.

Our business continuity planning was effective in maintaining access to justice from the outset of the attack and the need to have longer term options in place is one of the lessons that we have taken from this incident.

A formal lessons learned approach will systematically analyse lessons from the Ministry of Justice’s and LAA’s preparation for and response to the cyber-attack. This work will cover pre-incident risk management and the response to the incident itself. This will inform future resilience planning, governance improvement and risk mitigation strategies across the Ministry of Justice and its agencies.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of his Department's progress towards its target of increasing prison capacity.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

This Government inherited a prison system in collapse. We have taken decisive action to put prison capacity on a sustainable footing and end the cycle of repeated crises.

We have committed to the largest expansion of the estate since the Victorians, investing £7 billion in building prison places between 2024/25 and 2029/30. We are on track to deliver 14,000 new prison places by 2031 with c. 2,900 delivered already under this Government.

On top of this, we have introduced landmark sentencing reforms to end our prisons crisis – and deliver punishment that cuts crime. On 2 September we introduced the Sentencing Bill to take forward most of the recommendations made by David Gauke’s Independent Sentencing Review, as well as the measures that go further to manage offenders in the community. The House of Lords committee stage was concluded on 3 December.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many foreign national offenders were in prison in England and Wales, by offence group as of 30 September 2025.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

A breakdown of Foreign National Offenders (FNOs) by offence group is published in the Annual prison population statistics and the most recent publication can be found here: prison-population-2025.ods. Please see Table_1_A_26, which shows the breakdown as of 30 June 2025.

As these statistics are published annually, we are not able to provide a breakdown as of September.

In the last year, we removed over 2,700 FNOs under the Early Removal Scheme, that is more than the number removed in the previous year, and a 74 percent increase compared to the same period in 2023. It will free up much-needed space in our prisons.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make it his policy to review the status of people held on remand in custody for more than six months to determine whether they should be considered for conditional release.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The decision to remand an individual in custody or to grant bail is solely a matter for the independent judiciary acting in accordance with the Bail Act 1976. With limited exceptions, the Bail Act creates a presumption in favour of bail for defendants involved in criminal proceedings. This recognises that a person should not be deprived of his/her liberty unless that is necessary for the protection of the public or the delivery of justice.

There is a well-established process that enables remanded prisoners to apply to the court for bail, and we have expanded the Bail Information Service over the last year to provide more support.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many Prison Transfer Agreements are currently in place.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The UK has Prisoner Transfer Agreements (PTAs) with over 110 countries. They allow for the transfer of Foreign National Offenders (FNOs) to their country of nationality to serve the remainder of their sentence, and the repatriation of British Citizens imprisoned overseas.

There are two types of PTA, compulsory meaning the FNO does not need to consent to transfer, and voluntary which means they do. In either case both countries must agree each transfer.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners are participating in higher education courses.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

According to the Open University, as of 18 December 2025, there are 1,486 students who are currently in custody enrolled on Open University higher education programmes for the 2025/26 academic year, and a further 413 on licence in the community, totalling 1,899.

Additionally, some prisoners are taking level 4 courses, with 1,524 prisoners currently studying a course funded by the Prisoners’ Education Trust.

Amend the Theft Act 1968 or introduce new legislation so that non payment for services is recognised as a criminal offence, equivalent to theft of goods. Ensure police have clear powers to investigate and act.

We wish for men to be allowed to relinquish themselves of all responsibility arising from imposed paternity.

The MoJ plans to remove the right to trial by jury for either-way cases with a likely sentence of three years or less. We believe it is an ancient right allowing us to be judged by our peers and this right must never be lost.

75% of 'child abductions' involve mothers. Most are taking their child back to their country of origin and have experienced Domestic Abuse (DA).

My sister Danielle died from asphyxiation during a domestic incident. She was locked in a property & died as result of being alone. There is currently no law requiring someone to take action when a life is at risk.

Require mothers to name the father on the birth certificate, if known and safe to do so, ensuring equal parental rights and responsibilities. Fathers with no criminal convictions or history of domestic violence should be granted equal parental rights from birth including 50/50 contact

I want the figures to be published on a twice-a-year basis. The announcement should be presented in layman's terms and categorised as to whether sexual or non-sexual.

Remove electronic games, Televisions and other entertainment technology. We think electronic devices should be removed they are in prison for the most heinous acts and deserve no such luxuries.

Make it mandatory for all unsupervised child contact to be paused while an investigation into allegations of abuse, violence or coercive control by a parent is ongoing. If the police or CPS decide to take no further action, a Family Court Finding of Fact Hearing should automatically follow.

We want the government to require all spas, salons and hotels to mandate a trained independent third-party disclosure officer in every venue.

Found: Article 4 – Right to a Fair Trial 1.17 The Ministry of Justice recently published the AI action plan

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

Found: Witnesses I: Lord Timpson OBE, Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, Ministry of Justice

Found: We have also been working closely with LawtechUK, which is supported and funded by the Ministry of Justice

Found: However, we will, with the Ministry of Justice, ensure that Ministers are appropriately briefed on every

Found: Dan Hobbs: The appeals system is a matter for the Ministry of Justice.

Found: That does not only involve the Home Office; that involves every other part of the system—the Ministry of Justice

Found: Elmore: I am not cutting across, but it might be helpful to mention obviously the Home Office, the MOJ

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

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, what recent discussions he has had with [i] Local Councils and [ii] third party charities and advice organisations to understand the potential challenges faced with [a] supporting people with council tax debts and [b] using bailiffs to collect unpaid council tax.

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

The government has recently consulted on the administration of council tax, including its collection and enforcement. As part of this consultation, my officials held direct engagement sessions with local councils and the debt advice sector on these issues. The government is currently considering all responses to the consultation and will publish its response in due course.

Separately, the Ministry of Justice has consulted on proposals to introduce independent statutory regulation of the enforcement sector. The government will publish its response to that consultation in due course.

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether the inquiry into the Child Maintenance Service will include a review of the REMO/MEBC.

Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)

The Government is conducting a review of the child maintenance calculation to make sure it is fit for purpose. This includes updating the underlying research and considering how to ensure the calculation reflects current and future societal trends.

The scope of the review does not include Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (REMO) or Maintenance Enforcement Business Centre (MEBC) processes. Responsibility for REMO falls within the Ministry of Justice, as it concerns the enforcement of maintenance orders across international jurisdictions that are subject to separate legislative frameworks.

Found: TOTAL AME DEPT AME Ministry of Justice X047A306 X047A306 - POLICY GROUP CORE AME VOTED D401

Found: I am particularly grateful to my counterpart, the Victims Minister in the Ministry of Justice, in her

Found: create a joint team, across the Home Office, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, Ministry of Justice

Found: This is a collaboration with the Department for Health and Social Care, the Ministry of Justice, the

Found: London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority [2018] UKEAT/0116/17/LA and McCloud and others v Ministry of Justice

Found: Each year the Parole Board is asked by the Ministry of Justice to review the risk of approximately 900

Found: dramatically underdiagnosed and even more dramatically not prevented - it’s not going to be the Ministry of Justice

Found: • We are also in regular communication with the Ministry of Justice and Department for Education

Found: including comprehensive engagement with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Ministry of Justice

Found: comprehensive and necessary engagement with the police, the Crown Prosecution Service or the Ministry of Justice