Ministry of Justice

We continue to invest in Probation to ensure workloads are manageable and the changes from the Independent Sentencing Review are sustainable.

The Probation and community services budget will increase by up to £700 million (a 45% rise) by 2028/2029.

An initial £8 million will be invested in technology to reduce administration and free up officers to focus on managing risk and reducing reoffending.

The Ministry of Justice holds data on child arrangements that might help answer the questions relating to:

• The number of custody arrangements ordered by family courts that resulted in the father being granted equal or majority care of the child in the last five years.

• The average waiting time for fathers seeking access to their children through the family courts after a separation.

• The number of fathers prevented from seeing their children following court proceedings in each of the last five years.

The information requested is not held centrally.  It may be held in court records, but to determine that and obtain it would incur disproportionate costs

The Ministry of Justice is not able to estimate the average cost to fathers of making child arrangements in court as this data is not available.

We are committed to ensuring that the family justice system supports all parents – including fathers – and children and reflects the realities of modern family life, and we recognise the importance of ensuring that both parents have the opportunity to maintain meaningful relationships with their children where it is safe and appropriate to do so.

The Children Act 1989 requires the court to have the child’s welfare as its paramount consideration when making a decision about the child’s upbringing. Any decisions the family courts make about the future arrangements for children are based on this fundamental principle. There is no automatic assumption of shared custody, as decisions about whom a child is to live or spend time with are based on the child’s best interests. This principle applies equally to mothers and fathers.

The Government is already taking steps to ensure that financial hardship does not prevent parents from engaging with the family court system. To support access to justice, the Help with Fees scheme provides full or partial remission of court and tribunal fees for those who cannot otherwise afford them. This includes applications made in the family courts such as applications for child arrangements orders.

We are also working to reduce backlogs and improve timeliness, so that children – and the parents seeking to support them – can access the support and stability they need without unnecessary delay. This includes the agreement of system-wide targets by the Family Justice Board for 2025/26, with a continued focus on tackling delay and reducing outstanding caseloads. In public law proceedings relating to children (such as care proceedings), this involves a renewed emphasis on the procedure set out in the Public Law Outline; and in private law proceedings relating to children (such as applications for child arrangements orders), areas delivering the new Pathfinder model have made significant progress in addressing delays.

The Government does not have any plans to commission a cross-departmental review as suggested, and we have committed to long-term reform of the family courts to deliver better outcomes for families.

The Ministry of Justice holds data on child arrangements that might help answer the questions relating to:

• The number of custody arrangements ordered by family courts that resulted in the father being granted equal or majority care of the child in the last five years.

• The average waiting time for fathers seeking access to their children through the family courts after a separation.

• The number of fathers prevented from seeing their children following court proceedings in each of the last five years.

The information requested is not held centrally.  It may be held in court records, but to determine that and obtain it would incur disproportionate costs

The Ministry of Justice is not able to estimate the average cost to fathers of making child arrangements in court as this data is not available.

We are committed to ensuring that the family justice system supports all parents – including fathers – and children and reflects the realities of modern family life, and we recognise the importance of ensuring that both parents have the opportunity to maintain meaningful relationships with their children where it is safe and appropriate to do so.

The Children Act 1989 requires the court to have the child’s welfare as its paramount consideration when making a decision about the child’s upbringing. Any decisions the family courts make about the future arrangements for children are based on this fundamental principle. There is no automatic assumption of shared custody, as decisions about whom a child is to live or spend time with are based on the child’s best interests. This principle applies equally to mothers and fathers.

The Government is already taking steps to ensure that financial hardship does not prevent parents from engaging with the family court system. To support access to justice, the Help with Fees scheme provides full or partial remission of court and tribunal fees for those who cannot otherwise afford them. This includes applications made in the family courts such as applications for child arrangements orders.

We are also working to reduce backlogs and improve timeliness, so that children – and the parents seeking to support them – can access the support and stability they need without unnecessary delay. This includes the agreement of system-wide targets by the Family Justice Board for 2025/26, with a continued focus on tackling delay and reducing outstanding caseloads. In public law proceedings relating to children (such as care proceedings), this involves a renewed emphasis on the procedure set out in the Public Law Outline; and in private law proceedings relating to children (such as applications for child arrangements orders), areas delivering the new Pathfinder model have made significant progress in addressing delays.

The Government does not have any plans to commission a cross-departmental review as suggested, and we have committed to long-term reform of the family courts to deliver better outcomes for families.

The Ministry of Justice holds data on child arrangements that might help answer the questions relating to:

• The number of custody arrangements ordered by family courts that resulted in the father being granted equal or majority care of the child in the last five years.

• The average waiting time for fathers seeking access to their children through the family courts after a separation.

• The number of fathers prevented from seeing their children following court proceedings in each of the last five years.

The information requested is not held centrally.  It may be held in court records, but to determine that and obtain it would incur disproportionate costs

The Ministry of Justice is not able to estimate the average cost to fathers of making child arrangements in court as this data is not available.

We are committed to ensuring that the family justice system supports all parents – including fathers – and children and reflects the realities of modern family life, and we recognise the importance of ensuring that both parents have the opportunity to maintain meaningful relationships with their children where it is safe and appropriate to do so.

The Children Act 1989 requires the court to have the child’s welfare as its paramount consideration when making a decision about the child’s upbringing. Any decisions the family courts make about the future arrangements for children are based on this fundamental principle. There is no automatic assumption of shared custody, as decisions about whom a child is to live or spend time with are based on the child’s best interests. This principle applies equally to mothers and fathers.

The Government is already taking steps to ensure that financial hardship does not prevent parents from engaging with the family court system. To support access to justice, the Help with Fees scheme provides full or partial remission of court and tribunal fees for those who cannot otherwise afford them. This includes applications made in the family courts such as applications for child arrangements orders.

We are also working to reduce backlogs and improve timeliness, so that children – and the parents seeking to support them – can access the support and stability they need without unnecessary delay. This includes the agreement of system-wide targets by the Family Justice Board for 2025/26, with a continued focus on tackling delay and reducing outstanding caseloads. In public law proceedings relating to children (such as care proceedings), this involves a renewed emphasis on the procedure set out in the Public Law Outline; and in private law proceedings relating to children (such as applications for child arrangements orders), areas delivering the new Pathfinder model have made significant progress in addressing delays.

The Government does not have any plans to commission a cross-departmental review as suggested, and we have committed to long-term reform of the family courts to deliver better outcomes for families.

The Ministry of Justice holds data on child arrangements that might help answer the questions relating to:

• The number of custody arrangements ordered by family courts that resulted in the father being granted equal or majority care of the child in the last five years.

• The average waiting time for fathers seeking access to their children through the family courts after a separation.

• The number of fathers prevented from seeing their children following court proceedings in each of the last five years.

The information requested is not held centrally.  It may be held in court records, but to determine that and obtain it would incur disproportionate costs

The Ministry of Justice is not able to estimate the average cost to fathers of making child arrangements in court as this data is not available.

We are committed to ensuring that the family justice system supports all parents – including fathers – and children and reflects the realities of modern family life, and we recognise the importance of ensuring that both parents have the opportunity to maintain meaningful relationships with their children where it is safe and appropriate to do so.

The Children Act 1989 requires the court to have the child’s welfare as its paramount consideration when making a decision about the child’s upbringing. Any decisions the family courts make about the future arrangements for children are based on this fundamental principle. There is no automatic assumption of shared custody, as decisions about whom a child is to live or spend time with are based on the child’s best interests. This principle applies equally to mothers and fathers.

The Government is already taking steps to ensure that financial hardship does not prevent parents from engaging with the family court system. To support access to justice, the Help with Fees scheme provides full or partial remission of court and tribunal fees for those who cannot otherwise afford them. This includes applications made in the family courts such as applications for child arrangements orders.

We are also working to reduce backlogs and improve timeliness, so that children – and the parents seeking to support them – can access the support and stability they need without unnecessary delay. This includes the agreement of system-wide targets by the Family Justice Board for 2025/26, with a continued focus on tackling delay and reducing outstanding caseloads. In public law proceedings relating to children (such as care proceedings), this involves a renewed emphasis on the procedure set out in the Public Law Outline; and in private law proceedings relating to children (such as applications for child arrangements orders), areas delivering the new Pathfinder model have made significant progress in addressing delays.

The Government does not have any plans to commission a cross-departmental review as suggested, and we have committed to long-term reform of the family courts to deliver better outcomes for families.

The Ministry of Justice holds data on child arrangements that might help answer the questions relating to:

• The number of custody arrangements ordered by family courts that resulted in the father being granted equal or majority care of the child in the last five years.

• The average waiting time for fathers seeking access to their children through the family courts after a separation.

• The number of fathers prevented from seeing their children following court proceedings in each of the last five years.

The information requested is not held centrally.  It may be held in court records, but to determine that and obtain it would incur disproportionate costs

The Ministry of Justice is not able to estimate the average cost to fathers of making child arrangements in court as this data is not available.

We are committed to ensuring that the family justice system supports all parents – including fathers – and children and reflects the realities of modern family life, and we recognise the importance of ensuring that both parents have the opportunity to maintain meaningful relationships with their children where it is safe and appropriate to do so.

The Children Act 1989 requires the court to have the child’s welfare as its paramount consideration when making a decision about the child’s upbringing. Any decisions the family courts make about the future arrangements for children are based on this fundamental principle. There is no automatic assumption of shared custody, as decisions about whom a child is to live or spend time with are based on the child’s best interests. This principle applies equally to mothers and fathers.

The Government is already taking steps to ensure that financial hardship does not prevent parents from engaging with the family court system. To support access to justice, the Help with Fees scheme provides full or partial remission of court and tribunal fees for those who cannot otherwise afford them. This includes applications made in the family courts such as applications for child arrangements orders.

We are also working to reduce backlogs and improve timeliness, so that children – and the parents seeking to support them – can access the support and stability they need without unnecessary delay. This includes the agreement of system-wide targets by the Family Justice Board for 2025/26, with a continued focus on tackling delay and reducing outstanding caseloads. In public law proceedings relating to children (such as care proceedings), this involves a renewed emphasis on the procedure set out in the Public Law Outline; and in private law proceedings relating to children (such as applications for child arrangements orders), areas delivering the new Pathfinder model have made significant progress in addressing delays.

The Government does not have any plans to commission a cross-departmental review as suggested, and we have committed to long-term reform of the family courts to deliver better outcomes for families.

The Government does not recognise the concept of “parental alienation” syndrome and does not think it is capable of diagnosis and has therefore not undertaken an assessment of the prevalence of “parental alienation” or its impact on fathers’ ability to maintain a relationship with their children.

The Government does recognise the important role that fathers play in their children’s lives and supports a father’s involvement in their child’s lives where that involvement is safe, meaningful and positive. The family court must make decisions in the child’s best interests; this includes having particular regard to the factors set in the ‘welfare checklist’ in the Children Act 1989, such as the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in light of their age and understanding), the impact on the child of any change in circumstances, and how capable each parent is of meeting the child’s needs.

In December 2024, the Family Justice Council published guidance on “responding to a child’s unexplained reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent and allegations of alienating behaviour”. The guidance provides a comprehensive overview of the reasons a child may reject a parent, including harmful parenting, and provides a clear framework for assessing whether alienating behaviours are present. Where alienating behaviours are found the guidance provides clear next steps.

Of the 1026 devices lost, 317 were laptops (30.9%), and 709 were mobile phones (69.1%). There were 0 authentication devices.

All of these devices were secured to HMG standards, using encryption and other methods to ensure that data on them remains inaccessible if the device is lost or stolen.

The requested data is not held centrally and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

HMPPS uses translation services provided under contract. These services provide translation by phone and do not require translators to physically come onto the prison estate. There may be specific occasions where in person translators are required but we do not hold a central record for these and to collect the information would incur disproportionate cost.

Since his appointment in September, HMP Pentonville and HMP Manchester are not prisons the Secretary of State for Justice has visited although he has been to HMP Belmarsh and HMP Gartree. Ministers visit prisons regularly and in recent months this has included both HMP Manchester and HMP Pentonville.

As the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 16 September, the innovative pilot of Medication to Manage Problematic Sexual Arousal for sex offenders will continue in the South West and will be expanded to two new regions – the North West and North East of England. This will extend the service across to twenty prisons in three regions, up from the current four, as the first step towards a national rollout.

We are continuing to work closely with our partners across health and justice agencies to inform our plans for implementation of the new pilot regions in 2026. We are also continuing to explore whether we might mandate this treatment in future.

I refer the Rt. Hon Member to the reply I gave to the hon Member for Fylde on 20 October 2025 to PQ 79110.

Around 17,000 prisoners are entirely excluded from the release point changes being brought forward in the Sentencing Bill. We are working across agencies to prepare and plan for implementation of the changes, and this Government is committed to ensuring that measures impacting sentencing and release are introduced safely, transparently and in a way that protects the public.

Release volumes will depend on the crimes committed, the sentences given by the Court and whether the prisoner is given added days for bad behaviour.

Pursuant to the answer of 20 October 2025 to Question 79734, new replacement contractors have been appointed on all the projects previously supplied by ISG and ESS across the Houseblocks and Refurbishments and Category D Expansion Programmes in line with contingency plans.

Work is underway to enable us to recommence delivery across these projects. We are committed to delivering an additional 14,000 prison places and are on track to do so by 2031, with places fully operational by 2032. We have already delivered c.2,600 of these since taking office.

Pursuant to the answer of 20 October 2025 to Question 79734, new replacement contractors have been appointed on all the projects previously supplied by ISG and ESS across the Houseblocks and Refurbishments and Category D Expansion Programmes in line with contingency plans.

Work is underway to enable us to recommence delivery across these projects. We are committed to delivering an additional 14,000 prison places and are on track to do so by 2031, with places fully operational by 2032. We have already delivered c.2,600 of these since taking office.

This Government inherited prisons days from collapse. We had no choice but to take decisive action to stop our prisons overflowing and keep the public safe. On 10 September 2024, the Government therefore took the unavoidable step to move the release point for certain standard determinate sentences from 50% to 40% (SDS40).

We have published SDS40 release data alongside the quarterly Offender Management Statistics, in line with the Lord Chancellor’s commitment to transparency. This includes data on the number of foreign national offenders released under SDS40.

Please find statistics on SDS40 releases by nationality group in Table 5: Standard Determinate Sentence 40 (SDS40) : September 2024 to June 2025 - GOV.UK.

Releases in error have been increasing for several years and are another symptom of the prison system crisis inherited by this Government.

While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, we are clamping down on those releases in error that do occur – including through improved staff training and establishing a new specialist unit. A joint protocol between HMPPS and NPCC is in place, to ensure effective and timely communication between partner agencies when an individual is released in error to rearrest them as quickly as possible.

We have gripped this chaos – by building more prison places, ending the last Government’s early release scheme, being transparent with the public, immediately making changes to sentences to ease pressure on the system and now, taking landmark reforms through our Sentencing Bill to make sure that prisons never run out of places again.

Totals for releases in error are published each July in the HMPPS Annual Digest, available via Prison and Probation Performance Statistics - GOV.UK, and provide data up to March 2025.

The number of people who have been released in error since April 2025 cannot be provided because it would form a subset of releases in error data which underpins future versions of these Official Statistics.

In the 12 months to 30 September, 134,536 prisoners were escorted to court from prison, 99.8% of whom were delivered on time by the Prisoner Escort and Custody Service (PECS) contractors. There were 2151 reported instances of delayed arrival in court. Of these, 832 (39%) were attributable to delays at the prison, and 1119 to the PECS contractor (in 814 of the PECS cases, no resulting trial delay was reported). The remaining 200 reported instances are attributable to wider system issues.

The vast majority of prison staff are hardworking and dedicated; however, HMPPS recognises the risk of corruption and is committed to tackling it at all levels. We have a range of physical security measures in place to reduce the conveyance of illicit items into prisons.

Airport-style Enhanced Gate Security, comprising of metal detectors and X-ray baggage scanners, is used in 54 high-risk prison sites (both private and public sector), enabling routine searching of prison officers.

In addition, local security strategies allow for routine and random rub-down searches of prison officers and other staff and visitors upon entry to, or within, prisons.

Prison security must be dynamic and be able to respond to shifting risks as they manifest. We regularly review our security countermeasures capabilities and use all the tools at our disposal. We will not hesitate to adjust our approach as needed.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold the data for hours sat as family sittings for both the County Court and the High Court are recorded in days. This data can be found in the Royal Courts of Justice Annual Tables, table 9.2 as below:

Notes:

1. These figures represent only the days sat in court or in chambers in the jurisdictions shown. Judges sit in other areas (for example, High Court hearings in regional County Courts are not currently included) and also undertake a range of other functions outside the courtroom that are not shown here.

2. Includes Private and other family figures including family: divorce sitting days.

HMCTS does not hold data on how many cases were heard in the Family Court and Family Division of the High Court. However, data on the total number of cases disposed of, which includes both hearings and out of court disposals are in table 1 of the Family Court Statistics as shown below:

Source: HMCTS FamilyMan and Core Case Data

The Ministry of Justice does not hold the data for hours sat as family sittings for both the County Court and the High Court are recorded in days. This data can be found in the Royal Courts of Justice Annual Tables, table 9.2 as below:

Notes:

1. These figures represent only the days sat in court or in chambers in the jurisdictions shown. Judges sit in other areas (for example, High Court hearings in regional County Courts are not currently included) and also undertake a range of other functions outside the courtroom that are not shown here.

2. Includes Private and other family figures including family: divorce sitting days.

HMCTS does not hold data on how many cases were heard in the Family Court and Family Division of the High Court. However, data on the total number of cases disposed of, which includes both hearings and out of court disposals are in table 1 of the Family Court Statistics as shown below:

Source: HMCTS FamilyMan and Core Case Data

The Government announced in July this year that legal aid fees for housing and immigration legal aid will be uplifted.

Following the criminal attack on the Legal Aid Agency’s digital systems, the Government’s priority has been to maintain access to justice through the rapid implementation of contingency measures and the restoration of critical systems.

We remain fully committed to introducing the fee uplifts as soon as it is operationally feasible.

The recruitment for salaried judges of the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) closed for applications in November 2024. The recruitment for fee-paid judges of the First-tier Tribunal closed for applications in June 2024. Both exercises included recruitment for judges to be assigned to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber (IAC), Social Entitlement Chamber (SEC), Health, Education and Social Care Chamber (HESC) and War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber (WPAFCC).

Following appointment, assignment to specific First-tier Tribunal Chambers is the responsibility of the Senior President of Tribunals. This process is still underway for both the salaried and fee-paid appointments and so we cannot confirm the final numbers. It is also not yet known how many judges will be assigned to the IAC from both the fee-paid and salaried exercises.

The independent Judicial Appointments Commission publishes updated data quarterly on applications and the number of selections made for appointment once recruitment is completed: Completed exercises 2022-2025 - Judicial Appointments Commission. Information on the number of judges in post, leavers, new appointments and promotions is published annually at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/judicial-diversity-statistics.

To increase IAC capacity, further specific recruitment for up to 70 IAC fee paid judges of the First-tier Tribunal recruitment is underway and recruitment for up to 30 IAC salaried judges of the First-tier Tribunal will commence shortly this calendar year.

The recruitment for salaried judges of the First-tier Tribunal (FtT) closed for applications in November 2024. The recruitment for fee-paid judges of the First-tier Tribunal closed for applications in June 2024. Both exercises included recruitment for judges to be assigned to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber (IAC), Social Entitlement Chamber (SEC), Health, Education and Social Care Chamber (HESC) and War Pensions and Armed Forces Compensation Chamber (WPAFCC).

Following appointment, assignment to specific First-tier Tribunal Chambers is the responsibility of the Senior President of Tribunals. This process is still underway for both the salaried and fee-paid appointments and so we cannot confirm the final numbers. It is also not yet known how many judges will be assigned to the IAC from both the fee-paid and salaried exercises.

The independent Judicial Appointments Commission publishes updated data quarterly on applications and the number of selections made for appointment once recruitment is completed: Completed exercises 2022-2025 - Judicial Appointments Commission. Information on the number of judges in post, leavers, new appointments and promotions is published annually at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/judicial-diversity-statistics.

To increase IAC capacity, further specific recruitment for up to 70 IAC fee paid judges of the First-tier Tribunal recruitment is underway and recruitment for up to 30 IAC salaried judges of the First-tier Tribunal will commence shortly this calendar year.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service holds the following data on how many stage (a) one and (b) two complaints were submitted in 2024 and 2025. For context, the annual HMCTS report published for the period 2024/5 reports states HMCTS received over 4.2 million cases.

*Data for 2025 is for the period 1 January – 30 September inclusive

The information requested is not centrally held. It may be held in court records, but to determine that and obtain it would incur disproportionate costs.

We recognise that the first few weeks after release for prison leavers are high-risk for relapse, overdose and reoffending, and we are determined to ensure prison leavers have a smooth transition into the community, with swift access to care and treatment to address this.

Lord Timpson, the Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending continues to engage with Baroness Merron and Minister Dalton, Minister for Public Health and Prevention in the Department for Health and Social Care, to discuss issues related to offender health and care and drive progress forward. The Drug and Alcohol Recovery Expert Panel (DAREP), chaired by Lord Timpson, was established to identify key areas for improvement in our current approach to tackling problematic drug and alcohol use in the criminal justice system in England and Wales, including consideration of continuity of care and resettlement. Minister Dalton is part of DAREP’s core membership.

Working closely with health partners, we have recruited over 50 Health and Justice Partnership Coordinators. These staff operate nationwide to strengthen links between prison, probation and treatment providers. NHS England’s RECONNECT service also supports prison leavers with vulnerabilities to engage with the right health services in the community through referrals and peer support. We are also improving information sharing between treatment providers and probation and enabling virtual pre-release appointments with community treatment providers via secure laptops.

The Pathfinder model is currently operating in six family court areas across England and Wales. Three further court areas will start the model on 11 November in the Black Country and Shropshire, Worcestershire and Herefordshire and in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire. Courts in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight will start the model in January next year.

Further expansion of the model will be considered during the allocations process which follows the latest Spending Review, and we are unable to pre-empt the outcome of this.

Following the Independent Sentencing Review’s recommendation to expand Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs – the UK equivalent of “problem solving courts”), the Ministry of Justice launched an Expression of Interest process to identify new areas for delivery. This process has now closed, and successful applicants are expected to be announced in the coming months. Earlier this year, the Department announced that a new women’s ISC will launch at Liverpool Magistrates’ Court, with implementation planned within the next year. Further expansion remains subject to funding allocations.

The Ministry of Justice works closely with NHS England and the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) to ensure that all offenders who need it have access to high-quality mental health, alcohol and substance misuse treatment. Responsibility for commissioning and delivery of substance misuse treatment in the community lies with Local Authorities. DHSC has made a targeted investment to support those referred by the criminal justice system, including funding 575 drug and alcohol workers with criminal justice specialisms who work closely with prisons, probation and in courts as well as the police to improve access to and quality of treatment. At a local level, Health and Justice Partnership Coordinators have been recruited across all probation regions in England and Wales to strengthen operational links between treatment providers and probation, bolstering support for those with Drug Rehabilitation Requirements and Alcohol Treatment Requirements. Our ongoing partnership with NHS England has also achieved an increase in the number of Mental Health Treatment Requirements with the number sentenced now more than five times higher than it was a decade ago, up from 960 in 2014 to 4,880 in 2024.

We remain committed to tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of interventions which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes, but is not limited to, education, employment and accommodation, alongside health services.

The Ministry of Justice publishes quarterly statistics on proven reoffending of offenders who were released from custody, received a non-custodial conviction at court, or received a caution or reprimand. These include reoffending rates by offender demographics, accommodation and employment status.

Also, the Ministry of Justice’s recent Reducing Reoffending Evidence Synthesis (2025) provides a comprehensive overview of what works to reduce reoffending. The report identifies a range of factors that influence the likelihood of reoffending. This includes static factors (e.g., age, gender, criminal history) which cannot change and are among the strongest predictors of reoffending, and dynamic factors (e.g., substance misuse, employment status, family relationships) which can be addressed to reduce an individual’s risk of reoffending.

The evidence also shows that offender needs frequently overlap. Another Ministry of Justice report considered the identified needs of offenders serving both custodial sentences and community orders. This analysis included findings on multiple overlapping needs.

At present, there are no plans to commission a specific analysis of reoffending patterns among people experiencing multiple disadvantage.

Reoffending in England and Wales is estimated to cost taxpayers £22.7 billion per year (adjusted to 24/25 prices). That is why we are investing in interventions that help individuals move away from crime, including employment, accommodation and substance misuse treatment services.

Currently, we have not produced an estimate of the potential cost savings to the criminal justice system from a one per cent reduction in reoffending among repeat offenders.

The requested information is not centrally held.

We are committed to diverting vulnerable offenders with mental health and substance misuse needs away from prison or out of the criminal justice system altogether, where appropriate.

Many people who have committed low-level offences can be managed more effectively in the community, with the right treatment and support to tackle the health-related causes of their offending behaviour, than on short custodial sentences. In addition to addressing issues around substance misuse and mental health, community sentence treatment requirements can also help to improve social needs around housing, benefits and primary care for example.

In September 2024, the Institute for Public Safety Crime and Justice published the Community Sentence Treatment Requirement Multisite Report July 2020 to June 2024 with a focus on Mental Health Treatment Requirements (MHTRs). Overall, the results presented in this report showed that MHTR interventions had a statistically significant benefit in terms of mental distress, anxiety and depression. 76% of service users experienced a positive reliable change in terms of global distress, 60% experienced positive reliable change in terms of anxiety and 53% experienced a positive reliable change in terms of depression. Overall, for those who completed a MHTR, 82% experienced a positive reliable change in at least one of the psychometrics measured.

We are piloting Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs), diverting some offenders with complex needs away from short custodial sentences to enhanced community sentences aimed at addressing multiple needs linked to their offending. The process evaluation interim report found that some participants on ISCs reported reduced substance misuse, improved mental wellbeing and self-esteem, and improved relationships with their families.

The Pathfinder model is currently operating in six Designated Family Judge areas across England and Wales. Three further court areas - the Black Country and Shropshire, Worcestershire and Herefordshire, and Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire - will start the model on 11 November. Courts in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight will start the model in January next year.

This Government is delivering a package of reform to ensure that children and victims of domestic abuse continue to be safeguarded and supported in family court proceedings, Pathfinder is central to this. Monitoring metrics are positive and the feedback from operational teams and external stakeholders has identified a range of benefits. A process evaluation and initial financial analysis of the pilot was published in March 2025. Research participants involved in the evaluation reported that the Child Impact Report adopted in the pilots improved child engagement and the model provided better support for victims of domestic abuse. Management information from the two initial pilot court areas showed cases in the model were resolved 11 weeks quicker and the open caseload reduced by 50%.

Further expansion of the model will be considered during the allocations process which follows the latest Spending Review, and we are unable to pre-empt the outcome of this.

The Pathfinder programme is currently operating in six Designated Family Judge areas across England and Wales. Three further court areas - the Black Country and Shropshire, Worcestershire and Herefordshire and in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire - will start the model on 11 November.

Courts in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight will start the model in January next year.

Further expansion of the model will be considered during the allocations process which follows the latest Spending Review, and we are unable to pre-empt the outcome of this.

The Government has provided legal and workability advice to the Sponsors across the entire Bill.

Where the Government has provided advice to the Sponsors on specific amendments, Ministers have referred to this within their remarks at Committee and Report Stage in the House of Commons. Parliamentary Counsel has provided the technical drafting for the amendments tabled by the Sponsors.

All advice provided to the Sponsor in relation to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has been to ensure the coherence of the statute book, and to help ensure the Bill is workable. The Government has remained neutral on the matter of assisted dying, and will continue to take this approach through the Bill’s passage in the House of Lords.

The information requested is provided below.

Table 1: Number of female prisoners on remand and sentenced on 30 September 2025

Table 2: Number of female prisoners serving determinate sentences broken down by sentence length on 30 September 2025(1)

Notes

1. The figures in this table exclude recalled prisoners, as well as non-criminal prisoners and those serving indeterminate sentences.

2. In order to provide complete data, this figure includes a prisoner serving more than 12 weeks but less than 3 months.

The information requested is provided below.

Table 1: Number of female prisoners on remand and sentenced on 30 September 2025

Table 2: Number of female prisoners serving determinate sentences broken down by sentence length on 30 September 2025(1)

Notes

1. The figures in this table exclude recalled prisoners, as well as non-criminal prisoners and those serving indeterminate sentences.

2. In order to provide complete data, this figure includes a prisoner serving more than 12 weeks but less than 3 months.

The Ministry of Justice continues to develop its understanding of how non-court processes support families to resolve post-separation issues, such as child arrangements.

Evidence from the Family Mediation Voucher Scheme suggests that these approaches can help families reach agreement without needing to go to court. Analysis of the first 7,200 cases completed under the scheme shows that 69% of participants reached a whole or partial agreement and did not need to go to court to resolve their issues. Since its launch, the scheme has supported over 49,000 families, and the Government has committed to continue funding it until at least March 2026.

The Government believes that helping parents reach agreement outside of court, including through mediation, reduces conflict and benefits children’s wellbeing, and continues to assess these approaches.

The Department has not made a recent assessment of the effectiveness of child arrangements orders or of the approach to cases where a parent breaches a court order. However, the Government is committed to long-term reform of the family courts, working with our partners across the family justice system to deliver better outcomes for families. This includes making progress on implementing the recommendations from 2020’s Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases, known as the Harm Panel report.

Child arrangement orders give clarity to parties on where their child will live and if and when they will spend time with each of the parties. If a person has failed to comply with a Child Arrangements Order, the court has a range of powers it may exercise. This could include referring the parties to a Planning Together for Children programme or recommending they undertake a form of non-court dispute resolution, such as mediation. The court may make a more defined child arrangements order, which could involve a reconsideration of the child’s living or contact arrangements. Depending on the circumstances, the court also has the power to make an enforcement or suspended enforcement order, or to issue a fine or commit an individual to prison for being in contempt of court for breaching the terms of an order.

The Department has not made a recent assessment of the effectiveness of child arrangements orders or of the approach to cases where a parent breaches a court order. However, the Government is committed to long-term reform of the family courts, working with our partners across the family justice system to deliver better outcomes for families. This includes making progress on implementing the recommendations from 2020’s Assessing Risk of Harm to Children and Parents in Private Law Children Cases, known as the Harm Panel report.

Child arrangement orders give clarity to parties on where their child will live and if and when they will spend time with each of the parties. If a person has failed to comply with a Child Arrangements Order, the court has a range of powers it may exercise. This could include referring the parties to a Planning Together for Children programme or recommending they undertake a form of non-court dispute resolution, such as mediation. The court may make a more defined child arrangements order, which could involve a reconsideration of the child’s living or contact arrangements. Depending on the circumstances, the court also has the power to make an enforcement or suspended enforcement order, or to issue a fine or commit an individual to prison for being in contempt of court for breaching the terms of an order.

The Government welcomes the publication of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report.

We are carefully considering the recommendations and will publish a full response by the end of the year.

The Parole Board plays a vital role in public protection. It can only direct release if it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the offender must remain in custody. To ensure each case can receive thorough scrutiny, once a case is referred to the Board there is no time limit in which a decision must be made. Each case is considered individually and the proceedings are managed according to the specific circumstances involved.

We recognise the uncertainty and distress that parole hearings will cause for victims. Prolonged reviews are regrettable but the nature of parole proceedings means that the Board’s panel will often need to direct additional information or specialist reports to complete their risk assessment and this must be the priority for public protection reasons.

Eligible victims registered with the Victim Contact Scheme are kept up to date during the parole review by dedicated Victim Liaison Officers.