Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to (1) implement the findings of the Civil Justice Council's Review of Litigation Funding (2 June 2025), and (2) legislate in response to R (PACCAR Inc and Others) v. Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28, and by when.

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

As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:

We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.

We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.

We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.

The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.

The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of increased third-party funded collective actions on (1) court capacity, (2) judicial workload, and (3) case duration.

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

As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:

We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.

We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.

We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.

The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.

The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to publish data on the total costs of third-party funded collective actions to the public sector.

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

As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:

We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.

We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.

We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.

The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.

The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what steps what they are taking to ensure that any policy they have on litigation funding does not lead to any inappropriate use of court time or resources.

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

As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:

We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.

We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.

We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.

The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.

The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of (1) sentencing guidelines, and (2) penalties, for offences related to waste crime and illegal waste disposal.

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

Sentencing guidelines are developed by the Sentencing Council, in fulfilment of its statutory duty to do so. The Council has issued guidelines on environmental offences for individuals and organisations which capture offences involving the unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal of waste as well as illegal discharges to air, land and water. The guidelines are designed to increase consistency and transparency in sentencing for these offences.

In 2024, following consultation, the Council updated the guideline for individuals to provide for greater use of community orders (over fines) across the sentence tables included within the guideline, in recognition of the seriousness of this offending. Further information is available on the Council’s website: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/crown-court/

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the reply by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage on 24 March (HL Deb col 1357), what data they hold on the caseload of the First-tier Tribunal regarding rent appeals specifically; and what plans they have to make it publicly accessible.

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

Currently, HM Courts and Tribunals Services (HMCTS) publishes quarterly data on the Residential Property Chamber. The latest data is attached but can also be found via the following link: Tribunals statistics quarterly: January to March 2025 - GOV.UK.

HMCTS is reviewing the data captured, drawn and published from the supporting systems for the Tribunal as part of preparations for the Renters’ Rights Act.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer from Baroness Levitt on 24 March (HL15657), for what reason the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements does not record the cost of individual inquiries.

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

The Independent Monitoring Authority (IMA) is operationally independent from the Ministry of Justice. The IMA’s inquiry work is, like its other functions, delivered within its overall allocated budget.

This means that, unlike a stand-alone statutory or public inquiry which is established with dedicated funding and resource, no additional or dedicated funds are allocated to individual IMA inquiries.

The IMA does not charge inspection fees to any relevant public authority involved in an inquiry. As a result, unit costs for individual inquiries have not been developed.

The overall costs of the IMA are published in its Annual Report and Accounts, which details all staffing costs and administrative costs.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his department has assessed the extent to which water companies, as statutory undertakers with statutory monopolies, will fall within the scope of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.

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

The legal framework for the provision of water and sewage services varies significantly across the UK. In England and Wales, services are delivered by private companies (including not-for-profit organisations), whilst in Scotland and Northern Ireland services are delivered by publicly owned companies. The Bill is drafted so that the duty of candour and offence of misleading the public apply to all water companies when they exercise public functions. The Code of Conduct provisions would apply to the publicly owned water companies in Scotland and Northern Ireland and their workers, but not private companies in England and Wales.

In relation to the Misconduct in Public Office offences at Part 3 of the Bill, Schedule 4 sets out a definitive list of roles which make someone a “public office holder” for the purposes of these offences. Most roles are listed specifically in the Schedule, paragraph 22 is more general. It captures “Other public bodies and offices” who fulfil three criteria: (a) the body or office is established by statute, a Minister, government department, or under the Royal Prerogative; (b) appointments to the office are made by the Crown, a Minister, or government department, or (in the case of a body) appointments to the body are wholly or mainly made in that way; and (c) in that office or body they are exercising functions of a public nature.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the level of access small rural communities have to legal advice services.

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

Supporting access to justice for everyone in England and Wales is a key objective for this Government.

We recognise that accessing legal services can be more challenging in some areas than others, and that some people are digitally excluded and will require access to in-person provision. We support a mix of legal aid service provision including face-to-face, telephone and remote support for eligible people. People can use the ‘Find a legal aid adviser’ tool on GOV.UK to locate nearby solicitors or call the Civil Legal Advice helpline for advice on housing, debt, education and discrimination. Where local provision is limited, we signpost users to providers able to support clients remotely. Through our legal support grants and online advice services such as Advice Now, the Ministry of Justice is supporting delivery of in-person and online legal support for people with social welfare problems in England and Wales.

We are taking steps to improve access to and availability of legal support and legal aid. We have announced nearly £20 million of multi-year grant funding up to March 2029, for the delivery of legal support. In December 2025, we announced uplifts to immigration and housing legal aid fees in civil legal aid – the first major uplift since 1996. This will inject an additional £20 million into the civil legal aid sector each year once fully implemented. We are also providing additional funding of up to £34 million a year for criminal legal aid advocates, alongside a commitment to match-fund a number of criminal barrister pupillages. This is on top of the £92 million a year of additional funding for solicitors which we have recently introduced.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department issues guidance to coroners on investigating potential cardiac causes in unexplained deaths of young people.

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

Coroners are independent judges and the Chief Coroner is responsible for providing national guidance and training. In 2014, the Chief Coroner issued joint guidance for coroners regarding investigations into potential cardiac causes of deaths in young people: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/joint-guidance-for-coroners-and-coroners-officers-sudden-cardiac-death-inherited-heart-conditions/.

This guidance was developed in conjunction with the British Heart Foundation, Cardiac Risk in the Young, the Department for Health and Social Care and NHS England.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what progress the Government has made on strengthening the operation, consistency and availability of Out‑of‑Court Disposals, further to the recommendations on OOCDs set out by Sir Brian Leveson in Part 1 of his Review of Efficiency in Criminal Proceedings; and what assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the analysis that a more effective OOCD framework could improve outcomes for racialised communities.

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

This Government is committed to improving early intervention and proportionality in the justice system, and Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts has been an important part of shaping that direction.

The Independent Review highlights the significant potential of Out of Court Resolutions to secure better outcomes by addressing the underlying causes of crime before offending can escalate. This subsequently benefits the community as it reduces the risk of reoffending, preventing future crime, and delivers quicker justice for victims.

We are working with the Home Office as we consider the best options for strengthening the use of Out of Court Resolutions and will respond to the recommendations in the Review in due course.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what evaluation his Department has undertaken of the effectiveness of digital court reform programmes in ensuring timely, fair and transparent case management for small claims.

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

The Department published its evaluation of the Online Civil Money Claims service on 11 September 2025, available on GOV.UK at: HM Courts & Tribunals Service Reform: Digital Services Evaluation - GOV.UK. This evaluation included assessments of case timeliness, equality outcomes and perceptions of fairness, and user experiences of and trust in case management.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment has he made of the reliability of the Online Civil Money Claims system in recording and processing defendants’ submissions, including defences and responses to court directions.

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

There were more than 1.9 million civil claims issued in the County Court in 2025. County Court claims can be made via HMCTS’ modern digital services (Online Civil Money Claims and Damages Claims services), older digital services (Money Claims Online and Possession Claims Online) or on paper.

HMCTS keeps the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) service under routine operational monitoring.

No assessment has been undertaken specifically on the reliability of recording and processing defendants’ submissions. Issues identified through live running have been limited in number and resolved promptly and have not indicated a need for a wider assessment.

In 2025, of incidents and complaints received by HMCTS relating to civil claims, 342 complaints were classified as ‘documents or information went missing’, 222 complaints classified as ‘my documents were not filed’; 92 data incidents recorded as ‘loss or theft of paper documents inside HMCTS premises’ and 31 data incidents recorded as ‘loss or theft of paper documents outside HMCTS premises’. There will be further instances of lost or unprocessed documents which have not been recorded, for example because they have not caused a complaint or data incident.

HMCTS is reducing the risk of administrative errors in civil claims though work to digitalise processes. The OCMC and Damages Claims services enable parties to manage a civil claim digitally from start to finish, including the ability to upload evidence, make applications and view judicial orders online. A digital Possession Service is being developed. The Deputy Prime Minister has announced further modernisation of the Civil Courts with an over £50 million investment to continue digitalising the County Court. HMCTS is also improving internal electronic document management and replacing paper-based and email processes with a digital, centrally stored case file, reducing reliance on manual handling and physical transfer of documents between teams and courts.

HMCTS has processes to reduce the risk of default judgment being entered where a defence has been submitted but not yet processed. Defences provided by paper are prioritised and judgment requests returned; Money Claims Online (MCOL) applies a buffer to check for paper responses; and responses provided on paper to claims made via OCMC are processed on receipt, with functionality to set aside judgments where a response and judgment request coincide.

“Properly processed” means received and recorded by the court. Where a defence has not been received, default judgment cannot be prevented, but urgent set-aside processes are in place where court error is identified.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what mechanisms exist for individuals or businesses to seek redress or compensation when court administrative errors result in financial loss or procedural disadvantage.

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

When administrative errors result in financial loss or procedural disadvantage, individuals or businesses can seek redress through the HMCTS administrative complaints process. The aim of the complaints process is to put the complainant back to the position they were in before any error occurred. HMCTS will consider making goodwill (ex-gratia) offers to cover any direct financial losses that have occurred, and to recognise the impact the error has had.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many instances of lost or unprocessed documents have been recorded by County Courts in the last 12 months; and what steps his Department is taking to reduce administrative errors in civil claims.

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

There were more than 1.9 million civil claims issued in the County Court in 2025. County Court claims can be made via HMCTS’ modern digital services (Online Civil Money Claims and Damages Claims services), older digital services (Money Claims Online and Possession Claims Online) or on paper.

HMCTS keeps the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) service under routine operational monitoring.

No assessment has been undertaken specifically on the reliability of recording and processing defendants’ submissions. Issues identified through live running have been limited in number and resolved promptly and have not indicated a need for a wider assessment.

In 2025, of incidents and complaints received by HMCTS relating to civil claims, 342 complaints were classified as ‘documents or information went missing’, 222 complaints classified as ‘my documents were not filed’; 92 data incidents recorded as ‘loss or theft of paper documents inside HMCTS premises’ and 31 data incidents recorded as ‘loss or theft of paper documents outside HMCTS premises’. There will be further instances of lost or unprocessed documents which have not been recorded, for example because they have not caused a complaint or data incident.

HMCTS is reducing the risk of administrative errors in civil claims though work to digitalise processes. The OCMC and Damages Claims services enable parties to manage a civil claim digitally from start to finish, including the ability to upload evidence, make applications and view judicial orders online. A digital Possession Service is being developed. The Deputy Prime Minister has announced further modernisation of the Civil Courts with an over £50 million investment to continue digitalising the County Court. HMCTS is also improving internal electronic document management and replacing paper-based and email processes with a digital, centrally stored case file, reducing reliance on manual handling and physical transfer of documents between teams and courts.

HMCTS has processes to reduce the risk of default judgment being entered where a defence has been submitted but not yet processed. Defences provided by paper are prioritised and judgment requests returned; Money Claims Online (MCOL) applies a buffer to check for paper responses; and responses provided on paper to claims made via OCMC are processed on receipt, with functionality to set aside judgments where a response and judgment request coincide.

“Properly processed” means received and recorded by the court. Where a defence has not been received, default judgment cannot be prevented, but urgent set-aside processes are in place where court error is identified.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what safeguards are in place to prevent default judgments being issued where a defendant has submitted a defence that has not been properly processed by the court.

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

There were more than 1.9 million civil claims issued in the County Court in 2025. County Court claims can be made via HMCTS’ modern digital services (Online Civil Money Claims and Damages Claims services), older digital services (Money Claims Online and Possession Claims Online) or on paper.

HMCTS keeps the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) service under routine operational monitoring.

No assessment has been undertaken specifically on the reliability of recording and processing defendants’ submissions. Issues identified through live running have been limited in number and resolved promptly and have not indicated a need for a wider assessment.

In 2025, of incidents and complaints received by HMCTS relating to civil claims, 342 complaints were classified as ‘documents or information went missing’, 222 complaints classified as ‘my documents were not filed’; 92 data incidents recorded as ‘loss or theft of paper documents inside HMCTS premises’ and 31 data incidents recorded as ‘loss or theft of paper documents outside HMCTS premises’. There will be further instances of lost or unprocessed documents which have not been recorded, for example because they have not caused a complaint or data incident.

HMCTS is reducing the risk of administrative errors in civil claims though work to digitalise processes. The OCMC and Damages Claims services enable parties to manage a civil claim digitally from start to finish, including the ability to upload evidence, make applications and view judicial orders online. A digital Possession Service is being developed. The Deputy Prime Minister has announced further modernisation of the Civil Courts with an over £50 million investment to continue digitalising the County Court. HMCTS is also improving internal electronic document management and replacing paper-based and email processes with a digital, centrally stored case file, reducing reliance on manual handling and physical transfer of documents between teams and courts.

HMCTS has processes to reduce the risk of default judgment being entered where a defence has been submitted but not yet processed. Defences provided by paper are prioritised and judgment requests returned; Money Claims Online (MCOL) applies a buffer to check for paper responses; and responses provided on paper to claims made via OCMC are processed on receipt, with functionality to set aside judgments where a response and judgment request coincide.

“Properly processed” means received and recorded by the court. Where a defence has not been received, default judgment cannot be prevented, but urgent set-aside processes are in place where court error is identified.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

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

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

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

We want the Government to review Extended Determinate Sentences (EDS) and allow sentence reductions for prisoners who demonstrate sustained good behaviour and rehabilitation. Any changes should apply to those currently serving EDS as well as future sentences.

We want courts to be able to order those convicted of killing a parent through drink driving, drug driving, dangerous driving or hit-and-run offences to pay ongoing financial support for the child. This could be known as "Butler’s Law".

We believe that to some it's become acceptable that police officers get verbally abused and are considered too hardened to experience Harassment, Alarm of Distress for Public Order Act offences. They are public servants worthy of protection from abuse. Make it an offence to verbally abuse officers.

Currently, the maximum penalty for leaving the scene of an accident is only six months’ imprisonment. Offenders are often given a fine, points, or community service. We feel this is not strong enough punishment and should be increased.

Require mortgage lenders to introduce stronger safeguards for victims of domestic abuse in joint mortgages, including mandatory communication with all borrowers and protections where vulnerability markers are present.

Create a law to trigger a review of parental rights if a parent named on a birth certificate does not actively participate in raising the child 50/50. Appropriate limits on parental rights and responsibilities could then be imposed.

We call on Government to review and make it easier for victims of sexual abuse and domestic violence to appeal 'not guilty' verdicts when significant new evidence emerges or procedural failures occurred.

Legislate to make any form of trespass on commercial estates a criminal offence to safeguard the property right of the business and to advocate the investment in United Kingdom.

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

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

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

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

Found: MoJ estimates that the economic and social cost of reoffending across adult offenders is around £20.9

Found: MoJ estimates that the economic and social cost of reoffending across adult offenders is around £20.9

Found: MoJ estimates that the economic and social cost of reoffending across adult offenders is around £20.9

Found: MoJ estimates that the economic and social cost of reoffending across adult offenders is around £20.9

Found: MoJ estimates that the economic and social cost of reoffending across adult offenders is around £20.9

Found: MoJ estimates that the economic and social cost of reoffending across adult offenders is around £20.9

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

Question to the Department for Transport:

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

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

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

Question to the Department for Transport:

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

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

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

Question to the Department for Transport:

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

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

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

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

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

Question to the Home Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government what support is in place to help (1) victims of technology-facilitated abuse, and (2) the police, to secure evidence of victims' past reporting of such abuse from the relevant technology companies.

Answered by Lord Hanson of Flint - Minister of State (Home Office)

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is investing £550 million over the next three years for victim and witness support services.

The 42 Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) across England and Wales receive annual grant funding from the Ministry of Justice’s victim and witness budget to commission local support services for victims of all crimes, including victims of technology-facilitated abuse. PCCs allocate funding for victim services at their discretion, based on their assessment of local need.

In addition, the Ministry of Justice provides Victim Support with grant funding to deliver a 24/7 Live Chat and My Support Space service, providing free online support to victims across England and Wales.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the outcomes of the ministerial round table on achieving gender equality and the empowerment of older women at the 70th Session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.

Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)

Equalities Minister Baroness Jacqui Smith led the UK delegation at the 70th Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), alongside UK Special Envoy for Women and Girls Harriet Harman, HRH the Duchess of Edinburgh and Ministry of Justice Victims Minister Alex Davies-Jones.

We were pleased to host an event during CSW in partnership with Age International, which highlighted the voices, experiences and specific needs of older women in relation to violence against women and girls. We were regrettably unable to be represented at the Ministerial Roundtable on Older Women due to other commitments during CSW, but we look forward to the chair's summary and will carefully consider any agreed findings and actions in our domestic and international work.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government what contributions their delegation made to promoting the rights of older women at the 70th Session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.

Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)

Equalities Minister Baroness Jacqui Smith led the UK delegation at the 70th Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), alongside UK Special Envoy for Women and Girls Harriet Harman, HRH the Duchess of Edinburgh and Ministry of Justice Victims Minister Alex Davies-Jones.

We were pleased to host an event during CSW in partnership with Age International, which highlighted the voices, experiences and specific needs of older women in relation to violence against women and girls. We were regrettably unable to be represented at the Ministerial Roundtable on Older Women due to other commitments during CSW, but we look forward to the chair's summary and will carefully consider any agreed findings and actions in our domestic and international work.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether the UK was represented at the ministerial round table of the 70th Session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women; and if not, why not.

Answered by Baroness Chapman of Darlington - Minister of State (Development)

Equalities Minister Baroness Jacqui Smith led the UK delegation at the 70th Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), alongside UK Special Envoy for Women and Girls Harriet Harman, HRH the Duchess of Edinburgh and Ministry of Justice Victims Minister Alex Davies-Jones.

We were pleased to host an event during CSW in partnership with Age International, which highlighted the voices, experiences and specific needs of older women in relation to violence against women and girls. We were regrettably unable to be represented at the Ministerial Roundtable on Older Women due to other commitments during CSW, but we look forward to the chair's summary and will carefully consider any agreed findings and actions in our domestic and international work.

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

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Levitt on 2 March (HL Dec col 1066), what milestones they have established for the joint departmental team tasked with developing the delivery plan for online and offline pornography parity to ensure that the plan is published within six months of the Crime and Policing Bill receiving Royal Assent.

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

The Government recognises that there is a clear and urgent need for greater parity between the treatment of harmful pornography online and offline. Following Baroness Bertin’s independent review, a joint team, formed by the Home Office, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, Ministry of Justice, and Department for Culture, Media and Sport, will examine the evidence to inform the Government’s approach to pornography policy, including consideration of how best to achieve parity between online and offline pornography. This evidence will include the effectiveness of existing regulatory regimes, such as the on-demand programme services regulatory framework. The Government has committed to publishing a delivery plan within six months of the Crime and Policing Bill receiving Royal Assent, and further information regarding the delivery plan will be set out in due course.

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

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Levitt on 2 March (HL Deb col 1066), what assessment they have made of the existing regulatory framework for on-demand programme services as a model to deliver regulatory parity between online and offline pornography.

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

The Government recognises that there is a clear and urgent need for greater parity between the treatment of harmful pornography online and offline. Following Baroness Bertin’s independent review, a joint team, formed by the Home Office, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, Ministry of Justice, and Department for Culture, Media and Sport, will examine the evidence to inform the Government’s approach to pornography policy, including consideration of how best to achieve parity between online and offline pornography. This evidence will include the effectiveness of existing regulatory regimes, such as the on-demand programme services regulatory framework. The Government has committed to publishing a delivery plan within six months of the Crime and Policing Bill receiving Royal Assent, and further information regarding the delivery plan will be set out in due course.

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

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

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

Found:

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

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

Found: absolutely unavoidable and I observe that she has written to the Youth Justice Policy Unit at the Ministry of Justice

Found: for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Home Office Ministry of Justice

Found: This is being delivered by the YEF with support from the Department for Education, the Ministry of Justice

Found: Ministry of Justice Digital and Technology: How communities of practice support implementation of the

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

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

Found: Ministry of Justice Digital and Technology: How communities of practice support implementation of the

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

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

Found: The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) will work with the Home Office

Found: See CrimPR 3.9(3)(b), R v Cox, R (OP) v Ministry of Justice [2014] EWHC 1944 (Admin) and R v Rashid

Found: Instead, it can be viewed on the Criminal Procedure Forms page of the Ministry of Justice website, at

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

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

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