Asked by: Lord Bishop of Gloucester (Bishops - Bishops)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to commission a study into the impact and consequences of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, as recommended in the Independent Sentencing Review 2025, published on 22 May 2025.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Independent Sentencing Review (ISR) published its findings on 22 May 2025, and the previous Lord Chancellor welcomed the recommendations and accepted the majority of them in principle. The Sentencing Act takes forward many of the ISR recommendations and it received royal assent on 22 January, and the first tranche of measures will come into effect on 22 March. We are continuing to consider how we take forward the ISR's recommendations that do not require legislation.
Asked by: Charlie Dewhirst (Conservative - Bridlington and The Wolds)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what is the current policy of HM Courts & Tribunals Service on ensuring its courts facilities for (a) the public and (b) staff are compliant with the Supreme Court ruling in the case of For Women Scotland v. The Scottish Ministers regarding the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) works to ensure its facilities comply with equalities law, in relation to the interpretation of sex under the Equality Act 2010.
HMCTS is presently awaiting updated cross-government guidance from the Office for Equality and Opportunity.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of regulations relating to the i) regulation of conduct and operations and ii) remuneration of High Court Enforcement Officers.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
On 9 June 2025, the Government announced a balanced package of measures to strengthen independent regulation of the enforcement sector to protect people in debt, whilst ensuring fair and effective enforcement. As part of this package, reforms to the Taking Control of Goods Procedure will be made to improve the experience of those facing enforcement action, as well as uplifting the enforcement fees High Court Enforcement Officers can charge to support sector sustainability.
The Government intends to bring forward legislation to implement these reforms when parliamentary time allows.
Asked by: Jim Shannon (Democratic Unionist Party - Strangford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the cost is per electronic monitoring tag; and what the running costs are of those tags.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The spend on electronic monitoring contracts in each of the last five financial years is presented in the table below:
Year 2021-22 | £55.6m |
Year 2022-23 | £60.4m |
Year 2023-24 | £88.0m |
Year 2024-25 | £106.8m |
Forecast Year 2025/26 | £107.8m |
The total number of individuals with an electronic monitoring device assigned at 31 December 2025 was 28,111. This figure comes from the Electronic Monitoring Statistics Publication: (Electronic Monitoring Statistics Publication, December 2025 - GOV.UK).
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electronic-monitoring-statistics-publication-december-2025
The cost per tag information is commercially sensitive. The Ministry of Justice believes that releasing information on device costs would prejudice, or likely prejudice Allied Universal Electronic Monitoring’s (the provider of the monitoring equipment) commercial interests.
The latest assessment of average running costs per offender per year is £3,130 – related to direct EM costs only. That figure includes contracted out and internal costs but does not include the average cost of a probation or police officer supervising an individual with EM.
Tagging is a critical tool for punishing and monitoring offenders outside of prison which is why we are already tagging more offenders than ever before and will increase numbers further through the Sentencing Act.
For information relating to the additional supervision costs of managing an individual with EM please refer to the following answer: Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament
Asked by: Jim Shannon (Democratic Unionist Party - Strangford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many electronic monitoring tags are in use.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The spend on electronic monitoring contracts in each of the last five financial years is presented in the table below:
Year 2021-22 | £55.6m |
Year 2022-23 | £60.4m |
Year 2023-24 | £88.0m |
Year 2024-25 | £106.8m |
Forecast Year 2025/26 | £107.8m |
The total number of individuals with an electronic monitoring device assigned at 31 December 2025 was 28,111. This figure comes from the Electronic Monitoring Statistics Publication: (Electronic Monitoring Statistics Publication, December 2025 - GOV.UK).
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electronic-monitoring-statistics-publication-december-2025
The cost per tag information is commercially sensitive. The Ministry of Justice believes that releasing information on device costs would prejudice, or likely prejudice Allied Universal Electronic Monitoring’s (the provider of the monitoring equipment) commercial interests.
The latest assessment of average running costs per offender per year is £3,130 – related to direct EM costs only. That figure includes contracted out and internal costs but does not include the average cost of a probation or police officer supervising an individual with EM.
Tagging is a critical tool for punishing and monitoring offenders outside of prison which is why we are already tagging more offenders than ever before and will increase numbers further through the Sentencing Act.
For information relating to the additional supervision costs of managing an individual with EM please refer to the following answer: Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what modelling his department has used to establish that allowing pending cases to be tried by a judge alone will deliver swifter justice as referenced in the Minister for Courts and Legal Services’ letter to the Justice Select Committee dated 17 February 2026.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice has published information about the impacts of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts (IRCC) measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, in the IRCC Impact Assessment (Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural Criminal Court) Impact Assessment). This includes the impacts of re-allocating cases in the open caseload to the Crown Court Bench Division and judge-alone trials for technical and lengthy cases to cases.
Sir Brian’s Review gave a ‘conservative’ estimate that trials without a jury will make hearings at least 20% faster. This assumption was reached through quantitative analysis and workshops with HMCTS operational experts and engagement with judges. The Impact Assessment details the methodology used to reach this estimate. The assumption is also consistent with international evidence: data from New South Wales shows an average 16% reduction in trial length for judge-only trials, rising to around 29% for complex cases.
The package of reforms in the Courts and Tribunals Bill are designed to free up Crown Court capacity so that the most serious cases can be put before a jury more quickly, reducing delays for victims and witnesses.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the number of cases due to be affected by the decision to allow pending cases to be tried by a judge alone.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice has published information about the impacts of the IRCC measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, in the IRCC Impact Assessment (Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural Criminal Court) Impact Assessment). This includes the impacts of re-allocating cases in the open caseload to the Crown Court Bench Division and judge-alone trials for technical and lengthy cases.
The package of measures is estimated to reduce incoming demand on the Crown Court by the equivalent of around 27,000 sitting days in 2028/29. These changes are annual and continue into future years. In 2028/29 a further one-off gain of c. 3,500 Crown Court sitting days will accrue from changing mode of trial on cases already in the Crown Court open caseload from jury trial to trial by judge alone (either under the Crown Court Bench Division or on grounds of technicality or length). The modelling of this gain takes into account the time needed to review open cases when re-allocating cases.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent discussions he has had with the Solicitors Regulation Authority on the adequacy of waiting times for complaint resolutions.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of government. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales. The Legal Services Board (LSB) oversees the SRA’s performance to ensure it operates effectively and in the public interest, including through performance assessments, targeted reviews and ongoing supervisory engagement. As the minister with responsibility for legal services I meet regularly with the SRA to hold it to account for its performance and am happy to rase the issue of waiting times for complaint resolutions at future meetings.
Where allegations of solicitor misconduct are raised with the SRA, it assesses the complaint to determine whether it meets the threshold for formal investigation. The SRA publishes information about its performance, including data on the timeliness of investigations and enforcement activity, through its corporate reporting and Board papers. It has reported an increase in complaints about solicitor misconduct and has taken steps to manage this, including increasing investigative resource and seeking to improve the quality and timeliness of its investigation work.
Within the framework of regulatory independence, Ministers and officials in the Ministry of Justice engage frequently with the SRA on matters relating to the regulatory framework. This has included engagement on the steps the SRA is taking to improve the timeliness of its investigations.
Asked by: Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat - Twickenham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which countries the UK has prisoner transfer agreements with.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Enhancing our bilateral prisoner transfer capability is a government priority. We remain fully committed to transferring eligible foreign national offenders from the UK so they can serve the remainder of their sentences in their home country, and to repatriating British nationals imprisoned overseas.
Compulsory bilateral agreements
The UK has compulsory bilateral prisoner transfer agreements (PTAs) with Albania, Ghana, Libya, Nigeria and Rwanda. These agreements state that the consent of the prisoner is not required for transfer, although both States must agree to the transfer. The UK has also recently signed a compulsory bilateral PTA with Italy, which is currently undergoing parliamentary scrutiny and has not yet been ratified.
Voluntary bilateral agreements
The UK also has voluntary bilateral PTAs, where the consent of the prisoner to transfer is required in addition to the agreement of both States, with the following countries: Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Brazil, Cuba, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, the Philippines, India, Iraq, Laos, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peru, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Thailand and Vietnam.
Multilateral arrangements
The UK has multilateral prisoner transfer arrangements with all States that are party to the 1983 Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. This includes:
All 27 European Union Member States.
NonEU Council of Europe members: Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Türkiye and Ukraine.
Non‑Council of Europe States (as the Convention is also open to non‑Council of Europe members): Australia, the Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Ghana, Honduras, India, Israel, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Panama, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea, Russia, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, the United States of America and Venezuela.
The UK also participates in the Scheme for the Transfer of Convicted Offenders within the Commonwealth, which provides prisoner transfer arrangements with: Kenya, Malawi, Maldives, Botswana, Tonga and Uganda.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
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 decision to allow pending cases to be tried by a judge alone on (a) the number of pre-trial hearings and (b) the number of appeals to these hearings.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice has published information about the impacts of the IRCC measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, in the IRCC Impact Assessment (Courts and Tribunals Bill (Structural Criminal Court) Impact Assessment). This includes the impacts of re-allocating cases in the open caseload to the Crown Court Bench Division or judge-alone for technical and lengthy cases. Re-allocation of these cases may be done on the papers, ie without a hearing.
The package of measures is estimated to reduce incoming demand on the Crown Court by the equivalent of around 27,000 sitting days in 2028/29. These changes are annual and continue into future years. In 2028/29 a further one-off gain of c. 3,500 Crown Court sitting days will accrue from changing mode of trial on cases already in the Crown Court open caseload from jury trial to trial by judge alone (either under the Crown Court Bench Division or on grounds of technicality or length). The modelling of this gain takes into account the time needed to review open cases when re-allocating cases.
There will be no right to appeal against an allocation decision or order made to hear a trial by judge alone. Parliament has long held that decisions about mode of trial (e.g., allocation decisions in the magistrates’ court) are not normally subject to appeal given the need for procedural finality and avoiding delay in cases.