Ministry of Justice

As set out in the 10-Year Prison Capacity Strategy, published in December 2024, we are delivering an additional 14,000 prison places, and aim to do so by 2031, having already delivered c.2,600 since taking office. The following table provides a breakdown of the places to be delivered in each region by new prison places, permanent cells at existing prisons and rapid deployment cells (RDCs), with each number rounded to the nearest 50 places. Due to rounding, total places may not align to the other categories.

This breakdown represents current projections which may vary when compared to previous projections due to changes in programme scope or our delivery approach, as well as the inclusion in the original response of temporary additional places used in private prisons (which are not covered in the questions above).

Due to rounding, and contingency within the programmes, our delivery total exceeds the 14,000 place commitment.

As set out in the 10-Year Prison Capacity Strategy, published in December 2024, we are delivering an additional 14,000 prison places, and aim to do so by 2031, having already delivered c.2,600 since taking office. The following table provides a breakdown of the places to be delivered in each region by new prison places, permanent cells at existing prisons and rapid deployment cells (RDCs), with each number rounded to the nearest 50 places. Due to rounding, total places may not align to the other categories.

This breakdown represents current projections which may vary when compared to previous projections due to changes in programme scope or our delivery approach, as well as the inclusion in the original response of temporary additional places used in private prisons (which are not covered in the questions above).

Due to rounding, and contingency within the programmes, our delivery total exceeds the 14,000 place commitment.

As set out in the 10-Year Prison Capacity Strategy, published in December 2024, we are delivering an additional 14,000 prison places, and aim to do so by 2031, having already delivered c.2,600 since taking office. The following table provides a breakdown of the places to be delivered in each region by new prison places, permanent cells at existing prisons and rapid deployment cells (RDCs), with each number rounded to the nearest 50 places. Due to rounding, total places may not align to the other categories.

This breakdown represents current projections which may vary when compared to previous projections due to changes in programme scope or our delivery approach, as well as the inclusion in the original response of temporary additional places used in private prisons (which are not covered in the questions above).

Due to rounding, and contingency within the programmes, our delivery total exceeds the 14,000 place commitment.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 November 2025 to Question 87997.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 November 2025 to Question 87997.

We recognise that there are significant concerns regarding the sentencing framework in relation to domestic murders and the importance of ensuring that sentencing in these cases delivers justice for victims and their families. We have taken action by implementing further recommendations made by Clare Wade KC in the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review. Legislation introducing statutory aggravating factors for murders involving strangulation and those connected with the end of a relationship came into force in October 2025. While it is for the judge to determine the appropriate weight to be given to the aggravating factors in each case, we expect that these measures, along with Clare Wade KC’s recommendations that have already been implemented, will have a significant impact on the custodial terms given to the perpetrators in these cases.

We know that there is more to be done. That is why the Government has asked the Law Commission to undertake a wholesale review of homicide law and sentencing, which will completely reconsider and make recommendations for a new sentencing framework for murder. It is important the Law Commission is able to consider all issues relating to homicide law and sentencing holistically. The Law Commission closed a call for evidence on 31 October 2025. They are reviewing the responses ahead of a public consultation due to be published in 2026.

The Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review made 17 recommendations for reform. Of these, eight fall within the remit of the Ministry of Justice, five of which were accepted. The previous Government introduced a statutory aggravating factor for murders involving ‘overkill’, and a statutory aggravating factor and a statutory mitigating factor for murder in relation to controlling or coercive behaviour, which came into force in February 2024. This Government introduced statutory aggravating factors for murders connected with the end of a relationship, and for those involving strangulation, which came into force in October 2025.

The Ministry of Justice rejected three recommendations, including the recommendation to disapply the 25-year starting point in domestic murder cases. Implementing this recommendation would lead to significant inconsistency between domestic and non-domestic murders where a weapon has been taken to the scene. The Government rejected the Review’s recommendation to exclude sexual infidelity as mitigation and to exclude the use of a weapon as aggravation in domestic murder cases because the framework currently in place already enables judges to consider and account for the varied facts of each case.

Two of the recommendations fall within the remit of other Government Departments. The review recommended establishing a system for collecting data relevant to domestic homicides. The Home Office, in partnership with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, created a central library for all Domestic Homicide Reviews. The recommendation to create mandatory training for lawyers and judges on coercive control is not within Government’s remit, so the previous Government wrote to the judiciary and regulatory bodies for solicitors and barristers to offer support with any potential review of training. The CPS already provides a comprehensive training package on domestic abuse and coercive or controlling behaviour.

The remaining seven recommendations fall under the remit of the independent Sentencing Council. In April 2024, following consultation, the Sentencing Council made changes to the manslaughter sentencing guidelines relating to strangulation and coercive control.

Ministry of Justice officials have engaged officials in the Northern Ireland Executive in relation to a range of Bill measures and amendments that apply in Northern Ireland, including on sentences with a fixed licence period.

A Legislative Consent Motion is not required with respect to Northern Ireland.

It is not possible to provide the information requested as this data is not held by the Ministry of Justice. This is because a lack of mental capacity cannot be inferred simply from a person’s disability or condition. Capacity is decision-specific and timebound.

Many disabled young adults are able to manage their own finances, including accessing their matured Child Trust Fund (CTF), with appropriate support where needed. An application to the Court of Protection to access a CTF is only required where the account holder lacks mental capacity to make decisions about their property and affairs and does not have an existing court order or court appointed deputy in place. A deputy may be appointed to manage a range of assets, including any CTF, or the court can make a one-off order for CTF access.

The Government recognises that the transition to adulthood can be a challenging time for young disabled people and their families. To support them, guidance has been published on GOV.UK in the form of a toolkit, “Making financial decisions for young people who lack capacity”, which raises awareness on the arrangements that they need to have in place.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on prosecutions and convictions in criminal courts in England and Wales in the Outcomes by Offences data tool. This includes offences under section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and section 63(7)(d) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. They can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics.

The following tables provide the number of prosecutions and convictions for the offences under section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and section 63(7)(d) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

Table 1: Number of prosecutions and convictions for offences under section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in criminal courts, England and Wales, year ending June 2021 to year ending June 2025[note 1][note 2]

Source: Court Proceedings Database

Table 2: Number of prosecutions and convictions for Possession of extreme pornographic images - a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive) (bestiality) in criminal courts, England and Wales, year ending June 2021 to year ending June 2025[note 1][note 2]

Source: Court Proceedings Database

Note 1: Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

Note 2: These figures are presented on a principal-offence basis - ie. reporting information relating to the most serious offence that a defendant was dealt with for. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

There are arrangements in place for cross-agency information sharing in the criminal justice system. All offenders subject to Notification Requirements will be managed under Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). MAPPA is a process through which the Police, Probation and Prison Services work with other agencies to assess and manage the risks posed by individuals convicted of serious violent, sexual and terrorism offences living in the community. This can include those who have committed the section 69 offence.

Where there is a conviction that is domestic abuse related but does not automatically qualify for MAPPA, practitioners are required to consider discretionary MAPPA management.

The Government is committed to protecting animals and holding those who abuse animals to account.

We keep the criminal law under review, including reviewing relevant or emerging information, such as any evidence of correlation between animal sexual abuse, child sexual abuse and domestic abuse.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on prosecutions and convictions in criminal courts in England and Wales in the Outcomes by Offences data tool. This includes offences under section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and section 63(7)(d) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. They can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics.

The following tables provide the number of prosecutions and convictions for the offences under section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and section 63(7)(d) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

Table 1: Number of prosecutions and convictions for offences under section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in criminal courts, England and Wales, year ending June 2021 to year ending June 2025[note 1][note 2]

Source: Court Proceedings Database

Table 2: Number of prosecutions and convictions for Possession of extreme pornographic images - a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive) (bestiality) in criminal courts, England and Wales, year ending June 2021 to year ending June 2025[note 1][note 2]

Source: Court Proceedings Database

Note 1: Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.

Note 2: These figures are presented on a principal-offence basis - ie. reporting information relating to the most serious offence that a defendant was dealt with for. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.

There are arrangements in place for cross-agency information sharing in the criminal justice system. All offenders subject to Notification Requirements will be managed under Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA). MAPPA is a process through which the Police, Probation and Prison Services work with other agencies to assess and manage the risks posed by individuals convicted of serious violent, sexual and terrorism offences living in the community. This can include those who have committed the section 69 offence.

Where there is a conviction that is domestic abuse related but does not automatically qualify for MAPPA, practitioners are required to consider discretionary MAPPA management.

The Government is committed to protecting animals and holding those who abuse animals to account.

We keep the criminal law under review, including reviewing relevant or emerging information, such as any evidence of correlation between animal sexual abuse, child sexual abuse and domestic abuse.

Release inaccuracy is yet another symptom of the prison system crisis inherited by this Government. While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, we are bearing down on those errors that do occur, and this includes releases in error from prisons.

On 11 November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a five-point action plan setting out initial steps, which includes strengthening release checks across prisons and an independent inquiry, which will report its recommendations to prevent further inaccuracies.

The latest data on releases in error from prisons, which we published exceptionally on 11 November, showed that there have been 91 releases in error from prisons from April 2025 to October 2025. Data on releases is based on the information available at the time. It may be the case in some circumstances that information on a case is brought to light that either confirms or disproves a release in error. Future release in error data will be published in the normal way through our regular statistics and Dame Lynne Owens will be looking at data and transparency as part of her independent investigation.

As a Non-Departmental Body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, the oversight and assurance arrangements for Cafcass are carried out in accordance with the Arms-Length Body Code of Practice. Specific areas of oversight are also covered in the Framework Document between the Ministry of Justice and Cafcass. Cafcass is subject to regular inspection by Ofsted; at the most recent inspection conducted in January 2024 Cafcass was rated as “outstanding”. The key findings of the Ofsted report are available here. Ofsted also carried out a ‘focused visit’ between 21 and 23 October 2025, which considered Cafcass’s work in relation to private law proceedings where domestic abuse is a factor. Ofsted’s findings are available here.

Cafcass Family Court Advisers complete mandatory domestic abuse training, including on using Cafcass’ Child Impact Assessment Framework which has guidance and tools for assessing when domestic abuse is a feature of the child’s case. Family Court Advisers are also trained to follow Cafcass’ Domestic Abuse Practice Policy which sets out the actions they must undertake when working with children and adults who have experienced domestic abuse.

This Government is determined to take action to improve the experience of those involved in family law children proceedings, including both adults and children who are victims of domestic abuse and other serious offences. With our partners across the family justice system, we are committed to long-term reform of the family courts and recognise the wide-ranging issues that can make the experience of private law proceedings difficult for vulnerable court users.

Where a claim under the Equality Act 2010 is upheld, courts and tribunals are able to award an appropriate remedy, including compensation. The Ministry of Justice has no plans to introduce turnover-based penalties for equality breaches.

As of 1 November, no biological males were being held at HMP Bronzefield.

This Government inherited prisons days from collapse. We have had no choice but to take decisive action to stop our prisons overflowing and keep the public safe.

The Ministry of Justice has published SDS40 release data alongside the quarterly Offender Management Statistics which includes figures on SDS40 releases by prison (Table 8) to June 2025: Standard Determinate Sentence 40 (SDS40): September 2024 to June 2025 - GOV.UK.

With the prison system routinely operating at 98% occupancy, central management of population movements is the only practical mechanism to ensure every legally committed prisoner is accommodated appropriately. This includes transferring prisoners from regions with deficits of prison places to regions with relative surpluses.

To put prison capacity on a sustainable footing, the Government launched an Independent Review of Sentencing on 22 October 2024, chaired by former Lord Chancellor, David Gauke. The review was published on 22 May this year and we are accepting, in principle, the following recommendations which will support effective crime prevention and rehabilitation:

• Release will be earned – and the most dangerous offenders excluded.

• Ramping up tagging and monitoring, with an up to £700 million uplift in annual probation budgets.

• Toughening up punishment outside of prison so offenders pay back their debt to society.

Responsibility for the accuracy of judgments rests with the independent judiciary.

Courts have established procedures to correct errors promptly when they come to light. For example, under the Civil Procedure Rules, judges can amend accidental slips or omissions at any time.

Substantive errors that may affect the meaning of the judgment may require a formal application to the court. Once corrected, the revised judgment replaces the original in official records and on the Find Case Law service, operated by the National Archives.

The Government is currently reviewing the law in two respects which will strengthen and update the rights of deceased persons (and assist their families and beneficiaries).

The first is in relation to responding to the Law Commission’s comprehensive report Modernising Wills Law, published earlier this year. The Government is giving careful consideration to the report and will be announcing next steps in the near future.

Secondly, the Law Commission is currently undertaking a wide-ranging project on the law of burials, cremations and new funerary methods. The final strand of this project, Rights and Obligations relating to Funerary Methods, Funerals and Remains, will commence in early 2026 and is expected to consider whether funeral wishes should be binding, who should have the right to make decisions about the funeral, and how to resolve disputes. The Government will respond to the Law Commission’s recommendations once they are available.

The Ministry of Justice recognises that the judgment and its potential implications have created concern and uncertainty within parts of the legal profession, particularly among Chartered Institute of Legal Executive (CILEX) professionals.

Whilst the legal profession and its regulators operate independently of government, I have been proactively engaging with frontline regulators and representative bodies on the judgment’s implications and the action being taken in response. On 27 October, I convened a meeting with the Legal Services Board (LSB) and relevant frontline regulators to discuss the judgment, its implications, and the steps taken and underway. I have also met members of CILEX’s senior leadership team to discuss the judgment’s impact and attended their recent conference to hear from CILEX members what the impact has been.

While I am satisfied that appropriate steps are being taken to address the issues raised by the judgment, we will continue to work closely with the LSB, frontline regulators, and representative bodies to ensure clarity and consider whether further steps are required.

There are no legal aid providers with an office within the Ely and East Cambridgeshire constituency.

However, that does not mean that your constituents do not have access to legal aid and legal aid services both locally within the wider constituency or via national services provided on a remote basis.

As set out in the answer to Questions 86918 and 89265, the LAA does not commission services at constituency or individual town level. Services are commissioned and monitored at wider procurement area level. Constituents in Ely and East Cambridgeshire can access services locally within the wider procurement area which has more than the minimum number of contracts in each civil category. Additionally, the Cambridge Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service ensures that on the day emergency representation is available in respect of cases concerning eviction or loss of home is available to your constituents.

Local civil legal aid services are supplemented by national remote services such as Civil Legal Advice which provides access to free confidential advice on housing, debt, education and discrimination matters throughout England and Wales.

All duty slots on the Ely and East Cambridge duty solicitor scheme are covered. This means that anybody attending or arrested at a police station in your consituency will have access to a legally-aided solicitor.

The requested information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

This Government inherited a record and rising courts backlog. It is unacceptable that victims and witnesses are waiting years for justice. This has left tens of thousands of victims facing devastating delays for justice.

We are committed to creating a more sustainable justice system, in which victims and the public can have confidence. Upon taking office, the Deputy Prime Minister took immediate action to allocate additional Crown Court sitting days this financial year, taking the total to 111,250 sitting days.

However, demand is currently so high, it is indisputable that fundamental reform is needed. That is why this Government commissioned the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson, to propose once-in-a-generation reform to improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swift justice for victims. Part one of the report has now been published. We are carefully considering Sir Brian’s proposals and will respond in due course.

The Ministry of Justice provides funding for victim and witness support services, including community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence services. To ensure these services can continue to be delivered, we have protected dedicated Violence Against Women and Girls victims spending in the Department by maintaining 2024-25 funding levels for ringfenced sexual violence and domestic abuse support this year. The Ministry of Justice also funds the Homicide Service, which provides tailored support to families bereaved by domestic homicide.

The Government recognises the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in access to justice and is committed to ensuring it works fairly for all.

The Government welcomes the Civil Justice Council review of litigation funding, which will help inform the approach to potential reforms. We are considering the report carefully and will outline next steps in due course.

The Government cannot comment on individual legal cases, but we are committed to access to justice at proportionate cost. There are several mechanisms that can reduce the legal costs involved in pursuing a civil claim. Whether any are available to a claimant would depend on the specifics of the claim.

Claimants may be able enter into an agreement with a lawyer using a Conditional Fee Agreement or Damages Based Agreement, or with a third party funder using a Litigation Funding Agreement. Such agreements usually mean that a claimant will not have to pay all or part of their own legal costs unless they win their case.

Claimants may be able to take out Legal Expenses Insurance and After the Event insurance to mitigate some of the financial risks associated with litigation. Such insurance would usually cover adverse legal costs, where the losing party in a claim is ordered to pay the legal costs of the other side.

Fixed Recoverable Costs are also applicable to most civil cases in the Fast and Intermediate Tracks. These allow parties to know in advance what adverse costs they would be liable for if they lose a case. This can help claimants make an informed decision about whether or not to pursue litigation.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) is preparing the First -Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for the implementation of the measures in the Renters’ Right Act 2025. Work is ongoing to ensure that there is sufficient capacity to meet the anticipated additional demand.

HMCTS is working on plans for improvements to the data we capture and draw from the supporting systems for the Tribunal as part of our preparations for the Renters’ Rights Act.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service does not hold specific information for rent appeal cases. Published data is published on residential property, which will include rent appeal cases: Main_Tables_Q4_2024_25.ods.

The Government is committed to implementing Section 18 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which introduces an automatic restriction on the exercise of parental responsibility where one parent has been convicted and sentenced for the murder or voluntary manslaughter of the other. The provision will come into force on a day appointed via regulations made by the Secretary of State, following the development of the necessary procedural and legislative frameworks to support its effective delivery.

Officials are working with key delivery partners including Local Authorities, the Crown Prosecution Service, the National Police Chiefs Council and HMCTS across the criminal and family justice systems, to ensure effective implementation. This includes considering potential consequential amendments to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and Criminal Procedure Rules 2020, as well as supporting Practice Directions and statutory guidance.

The Government recognises the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in access to justice and in the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction to resolve disputes. Whilst we have not carried out a formal assessment of its precise economic contribution, we are seized of its importance to growth and the attractiveness of our legal services sector as well as the role it plays in extending access to justice. That is why we are committed to ensuring it works fairly for all. We are considering the Civil Justice Council’s recent report on litigation funding, and we will outline next steps in due course.

The Ministry of Justice recognises the contribution of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) and its Fellows in improving equality, diversity and social mobility in the legal profession. I reflected this when I delivered a welcome address at the CILEX annual conference this month in Birmingham, noting that CILEX is a valuable engine of social mobility in the profession. Data showing the diversity of CILEX members is published by CILEX Regulation (CRL) in its biennial Diversity Data Survey. The most recent published survey is available here: https://cilexregulation.org.uk/diversity-data/.

The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of Government. Under the Legal Services Act (LSA) 2007, the responsibility for regulating the sector sits with approved regulators, overseen by the Legal Services Board (LSB). CRL is the independent regulatory body of CILEX. Encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession is one of nine regulatory objectives under the LSA 2007, which the LSB, approved regulators, and the Office for Legal Complaints, have a duty to promote.

Recent action by CRL includes publishing its first Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Strategy, issuing its next biennial Diversity Data Survey, expanding diversity reporting in enforcement, and revising qualifying employment and experience requirements to remove barriers. CRL is refreshing its EDI Strategy this year. Steps taken by CILEX include establishing the CILEX Foundation in 2021 to remove financial and social mobility barriers and launching the CILEX Judicial Academy in 2024 to help increase diversity within the judiciary by supporting lawyers – including CILEX professionals – aspiring to judicial careers.

While respecting independence, the Ministry of Justice maintains regular dialogue with the legal services representative bodies and regulators on a range of issues including improving equality, diversity, and social mobility in the profession.

We know that sufficient and skilled frontline staffing is fundamental to delivering safe, secure, and rehabilitative prisons. We remain committed to ensuring prisons are sufficiently resourced and that we retain and build levels of experience.

Substantive recruitment efforts will continue at all prisons where vacancies exist or are projected, with targeted interventions applied to those prisons with the most need. We closely monitor staffing levels across the estate, including at a regional level, and look to provide short-term tactical support where possible. Where establishments feel that their staffing levels will affect stability or regime, there are a number of ways they can maximise the use of their own resource and seek support from other establishments in the short term, through processes managed nationally at Agency level.

HMPPS has a retention strategy in place which is linked to wider activities around employee experience, employee lifecycle, and staff engagement at work. Alongside the strategy a retention toolkit has been introduced which identifies local, regional, and national interventions against the drivers of attrition, which are utilised by establishments to ensure that they are embedding individual Retention Plans.

HMPPS publishes the following data as part of the HMPPS Workforce quarterly statistics for prison officers. This includes:

• The number of prison officers appointed to HMPPS annually, consisting of direct new recruits and existing staff who converted to a band 3 officer grade;

• Resignation rates cover the rate for those who voluntarily resigned from the organisation;

• Leaving rates covers the rate for all leavers and all reasons for leaving, including deaths, resignation, dismissals and redundancies; and,

• Reasons for leaving for prison officers.

This data can be accessed via the following link: HM Prison and Probation Service workforce quarterly: HM Prison & Probation Service workforce quarterly: September 2025 - GOV.UK:. Table 1 below gives an overview of Band 3-5 prison officer joiners, leavers, leaving rate and resignation rate: 2019/20 to 2024/25:

Table 1: Band 3-5 prison officer joiners, leavers, leaving rate and resignation rate: 2019/20 to 2024/25

HMPPS also publishes the difference between Staff in Post (SIP) and Target Staffing Figures (TSF) for Band 3 to 5 Prison Officers at establishment and national level in the Annex of the workforce quarterly publication (Table 4 of the Prison and Probation Officer Recruitment Annex, which can also be accessed via the link above). There was a difference of 1,225 FTE between the SIP and TSF for Band 3-5 prison officers in HMPPS at the end of September 2025. We are unable to attribute specific vacancies to reasons for leaving and as such, cannot calculate a breakdown of vacancies by reasons for leaving.

The information requested can be found in the table below.

Translation:

Interpreting:

The Ministry of Justice has a statutory duty to provide Language Services to enable access to justice for users whom English is not their first language. Language Service needs and spend are assessed to ensure these services offer good value for money for taxpayers whilst maintaining high standards of service delivery.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 7 November to Question 86918 which sets out methodology used to assess supply of legal aid services.

As set out in that response civil legal aid services are commissioned and monitored at procurement area level and the basic criteria used is whether each category of law has at least the minimum number of contracts.

Criminal legal aid services are commissioned at a national level but as set out in the response to question 86918 the Legal Aid Agency ensures demand under the local duty scheme is met i.e. there is cover for all available slots on the duty solicitor rota.

This information is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

The Government has read the Bar Council’s policy paper with interest and agrees that the family courts play a key role in our commitment to halve incidences of violence against women and girls over the next decade.

We agree with the Bar Council that proper data and analysis is an essential first step. The Government funded the recently published Family Court Review and Reporting Mechanism pilot, led by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and will publish a response to the report by the end of the year.

This Government also recognises that legal aid is a vital part of the justice system, supporting the ability of individuals to access publicly funded legal assistance to uphold their legal rights. Legal aid is available for certain private family matters such as child arrangements if an individual is a victim of domestic abuse or at risk of being abused, subject to providing the required evidence of domestic abuse and passing the means and merits tests. Last year we spent £854 million on the provision of family legal aid and we continue to keep the policy under review.

With our partners across the family justice system, we are committed to long-term reform of the family courts to better support and protect victims of domestic abuse and serious violence and their children. Central to this is our new Pathfinder model, which uses a more investigative and less adversarial approach for private law proceedings relating to children and is now operating in nine court areas, with expansion to a tenth in January 2026.

The Government will be publishing our new, cross-government Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy as soon as possible.

This Government is committed to improving the experience of victims of domestic abuse in the family courts across England and Wales, including in the north west and Warrington.

In early 2026, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) plans to roll out a new digital service for applications for non-molestation orders and occupation orders. This service will make it easier and quicker for applicants to submit applications for these protective orders via an online portal.

Additional support is available to litigants in person via CourtNav, a free online tool operated by RCJ Advice, a citizens advice and law centre dedicated to improving access to justice. CourtNav guides individuals through applying for non-molestation and occupation orders, assisting with drafting applications and supporting statements. Applicants also have the option to have their application checked by a legal adviser, who can help identify the most appropriate course of action.

To streamline the process, the CourtNav system can automatically direct applications to HMCTS’s digital service. This enables information entered in CourtNav to transfer directly into the HMCTS system, ensuring better integration and efficiency when applications are submitted to the court.

An ineffective trial is a trial that does not go ahead on the scheduled trial date, and so a further listing is required. This can be due to action or inaction by one or more of the prosecution, the defence or the court. If a trial is deemed ineffective due to the witness being absent, this would indicate that the trial has been delayed.

The Ministry of Justice publishes ineffective trials statistics by reason including trials that are rescheduled due to “prosecution witness absent – professional/expert” here: Criminal court statistics quarterly: April to June 2025 - GOV.UK. These statistics can be filtered by Local Criminal Justice Board to isolate figures for Greater Manchester. We do not have access to data on ineffective trials due to the absence of a defence professional witness.

The Ministry of Justice cannot provide data on cases that “did not progress” due to the non-attendance of professional witnesses. This information would only be held in the individual court records for cases that are discontinued, and examination of these records would be of disproportionate cost.

The Ministry of Justice holds data pertaining to employees who have limited leave to remain. This data includes all employees, past or present, for whom this would be the case, but there is no functionality to withdraw any ex-employees from the data other than manually checking every file. To provide an accurate response to the question would be of disproportionate cost.

We are clear that net migration, as a whole must, come down. We will of course provide support to those affected by the changes to Immigration Rules, and anyone with a Skilled Worker visa can be considered for an extension where possible.

We are working with Home Office colleagues to consider the impact of the reforms and options to ensure the safety and stability of our prisons. We know that sufficient and skilled frontline staffing is fundamental to delivering safe, secure, and rehabilitative prison regimes.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold the requested data in a single central system. Information on nationality, new joiners, and salary is recorded across separate administrative systems, and linking these datasets accurately would incur disproportionate cost.

His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) does not require fingerprint checks to be conducted routinely at the point of release for prisoners, convicted individuals, or those held on remand. Where biometric data, such as fingerprints, is available, it will be checked as part of identity assurance during release procedures. The same discharge policy applies to remand prisoners who are released following a court appearance.

Dame Lynne Owens is conducting an independent review which will consider whether current discharge processes are robust and make recommendations in due course.

His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) in Wales regularly assesses the availability of S4C, the Welsh language public service broadcasting channel, across the prison estate in Wales through engagement with each prison’s nominated Welsh language champion, and site visits undertaken by regional assurance teams.

The information requested can be found in the tables below.

Translation:

Interpreting:

The Ministry of Justice has a statutory duty to provide Language Services to enable access to justice for users whom English is not their first language. Language Service needs and spend are assessed to ensure these services offer good value for money for taxpayers whilst maintaining high standards of service delivery.

We are taking a number of steps to reduce numbers of those being released from prison homeless, including measures to improve joint processes and guidance across prisons, probation and local authorities. Overall statutory responsibility for housing and homelessness lies with local authorities in both England and Wales.

We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and other Departments through the Inter-Ministerial Group on Homelessness and Rough Sleeping to develop a new long-term cross-government strategy to put us back on track to ending homelessness.

We deliver our Community Accommodation Service Tier 3 (CAS3) to support prison leavers who are subject to probation supervision and at risk of homelessness, by offering up to 12 weeks of basic transitional accommodation to provide a stable base on release.

We employ 50 prison-based Strategic Housing Specialists, including nine across the female estate, to support prisons to reduce homelessness on release by working in partnership with probation teams and Local Authorities.

Published figures relating to offender accommodation outcomes can be found here: Offender Accommodation Outcome Statistics - GOV.UK.

We are taking a number of steps to reduce numbers of those being released from prison homeless, including measures to improve joint processes and guidance across prisons, probation and local authorities. Overall statutory responsibility for housing and homelessness lies with local authorities in both England and Wales.

We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and other Departments through the Inter-Ministerial Group on Homelessness and Rough Sleeping to develop a new long-term cross-government strategy to put us back on track to ending homelessness.

We deliver our Community Accommodation Service Tier 3 (CAS3) to support prison leavers who are subject to probation supervision and at risk of homelessness, by offering up to 12 weeks of basic transitional accommodation to provide a stable base on release.

We employ 50 prison-based Strategic Housing Specialists, including nine across the female estate, to support prisons to reduce homelessness on release by working in partnership with probation teams and Local Authorities.

Published figures relating to offender accommodation outcomes can be found here: Offender Accommodation Outcome Statistics - GOV.UK.