Asked by: Martin Wrigley (Liberal Democrat - Newton Abbot)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what guidance is issued to Legal Aid providers on the appropriate use of public funds for disputes that do not materially affect housing safety or security.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The scope of legal aid for housing matters is set out under paragraphs 33-35 of Schedule 1 to Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. This includes civil legal services relating to loss of home and ancillary housing, debt and welfare benefit service, provision of accommodation and assistance to an individual who is homeless or at risk of homelessness and risk to health and safety in rented accommodation.
Legal aid for housing matters may be provided as Legal Help which includes advice and assistance on the matters set out above or Legal Representation which would include representation before a court or tribunal. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also funds the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service (HLPAS) which covers early legal advice on housing, debt and welfare benefits issues to individuals with evidence showing they are at risk of possession proceedings, loss of their home or illegal eviction; and on-the-day emergency advice and advocacy to anyone facing possession proceedings.
Eligibility for legal aid subject to strict statutory criteria and the provision of and payment for legal aid services is governed by Contracts with legal aid providers. Both legal aid legislation and the Contracts contain a number of provisions to ensure that public funds are used proportionately and appropriately.
Legal aid provided under Legal Help or Legal Representation is subject to a strict financial eligibility test and a legal merits test as set out in the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013. To qualify for Legal Representation in respect of any housing matter the proportionality test as described at regulation 8 must be met and continue to be met throughout the duration of proceedings.
Regulation 40 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012 requires all legal aid providers to report to the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) any changes in circumstances which would materially affect a client’s eligibility for Legal Representation alongside other matters which may impact on eligibility, for example, failure to accept an offer to settle or to use and alternative dispute resolution method or issues relating to the client’s conduct. The LAA may withdraw a determination that the individual qualifies for Legal representation if it concludes the eligibility criteria are no longer met or it is satisfied that the client is requiring proceedings to be conducted unreasonably so as to incur unjustifiable expense.
Legal Representation is subject to scope and cost limitations setting out what work may be undertaken and the maximum amount of legal aid costs that may be claimed. To extend either scope or costs an application must be made to the LAA setting who will consider whether the additional funding should be authorised with reference to the applicable regulations. This ensures appropriate and proportionate use of legal aid funding.
Clause 2.4 of the Standard Civil Contract 2024 Standard Terms requires legal aid providers to work with the LAA to achieve value for money and to ensure that public money is spent with probity, accountability and in the public interest.
Additionally, any claims for payment for legal aid work are subject to assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Standard Civil Contract 2024. In particular under paragraph 6.9 sets our hat all assessments of Contract Work are to be on the Standard Basis as defined by Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).
CPR 44.3(2) states that: “Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will— (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred.”
The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) does not play an active role in case progression where all providers of legal aid services are independent providers of services who are bound to act in the best interest of the client taking into account the provisions of their legal aid contract and any relevant professional body rules. However, in addition to the reporting obligations referred to above, automatic enquiries are triggered on Legal Representation cases that have had no legal aid activity for a period of more than 365 days. Failure to respond to these enquiries may result in the withdrawal of legal aid. Furthermore, the LAA has a representations process which allows opponents (or other third parties) to report to the LAA circumstances which may affect an individual’s eligibility for legal aid.
There is no specific guidance on “appropriate use of public funds for disputes that do not materially affect housing safety or security”. However, statutory and contractual provisions governing the appropriate use of public funds in all civil cases are set out in the Regulations and Contract referred to above. Supporting guidance on the application of the statutory and contractual framework is set out in the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance under s.4 LASPO and the Costs Assessment Guidance both of which legal aid providers have a contractual obligation to comply with when carrying out legal aid work.
The average cost of a housing case under each legal aid scheme for the last five financial years is set out in the table below. These costs will include all housing cases within scope of legal aid as set out above. Average costs have been broken down by the type of legal aid provided.
Financial Year | In-court housing advice under HLPAS or its predecessors | Legal Help | Legal Representation |
2020-21 | £87 | £433 | £3,444 |
2021-22 | £107 | £376 | £3,963 |
2022-23 | £110 | £354 | £3,694 |
2023-24 | £103 | £337 | £3,531 |
2024-25 | £99 | £313 | £3,508 |
Asked by: Tom Hayes (Labour - Bournemouth East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to help reduce intimidation and harassment of members of the legal profession.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government recognises the vital role played by the legal profession in upholding access to justice and the rule of law, which is fundamental to a fair and democratic society. The Government is clear that intimidation, harassment or threats against legal professionals or their offices are wholly unacceptable. Where such behaviour amounts to criminal conduct, it is right that those responsible should face the full force of the law.
The Government works with partners across the justice system to promote respect for the rule of law and the independence of the legal profession. Domestically, this is underpinned by a robust legal and regulatory framework designed to protect professional independence and integrity, consistent with the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. Internationally, the UK was proud to be among the first signatories to the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer in May 2025, which sets clear international standards to ensure legal professionals can practise without harassment, intimidation, or improper interference.
In addition, there are robust security arrangements in place across courts and tribunals to protect all court users, including legal professionals. These include risk assessment measures to prevent, detect and respond to threats, such as security screening on entry, CCTV, and the powers of Court and Tribunal Security Officers to exclude, restrain or remove individuals threatening violence. The Government has also allocated over £20 million in additional funding in 2025/26 to further strengthen court and judicial security, including additional security officers and physical security systems.
Asked by: Alex Sobel (Labour (Co-op) - Leeds Central and Headingley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has conducted research into the potential merits of retrospectively abolishing Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
It is right that the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence was abolished. The Justice Committee and various organisations have considered a resentencing exercise but none have identified an approach that would not pose too great a risk to the public.
Whilst this Government does want to make progress in relation to IPP prisoners, we cannot take any steps that would put victims or the public at risk.
Asked by: Martin Wrigley (Liberal Democrat - Newton Abbot)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average cost to the Legal Aid Agency was per housing dispute in each of the last five years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The scope of legal aid for housing matters is set out under paragraphs 33-35 of Schedule 1 to Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. This includes civil legal services relating to loss of home and ancillary housing, debt and welfare benefit service, provision of accommodation and assistance to an individual who is homeless or at risk of homelessness and risk to health and safety in rented accommodation.
Legal aid for housing matters may be provided as Legal Help which includes advice and assistance on the matters set out above or Legal Representation which would include representation before a court or tribunal. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also funds the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service (HLPAS) which covers early legal advice on housing, debt and welfare benefits issues to individuals with evidence showing they are at risk of possession proceedings, loss of their home or illegal eviction; and on-the-day emergency advice and advocacy to anyone facing possession proceedings.
Eligibility for legal aid subject to strict statutory criteria and the provision of and payment for legal aid services is governed by Contracts with legal aid providers. Both legal aid legislation and the Contracts contain a number of provisions to ensure that public funds are used proportionately and appropriately.
Legal aid provided under Legal Help or Legal Representation is subject to a strict financial eligibility test and a legal merits test as set out in the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013. To qualify for Legal Representation in respect of any housing matter the proportionality test as described at regulation 8 must be met and continue to be met throughout the duration of proceedings.
Regulation 40 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012 requires all legal aid providers to report to the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) any changes in circumstances which would materially affect a client’s eligibility for Legal Representation alongside other matters which may impact on eligibility, for example, failure to accept an offer to settle or to use and alternative dispute resolution method or issues relating to the client’s conduct. The LAA may withdraw a determination that the individual qualifies for Legal representation if it concludes the eligibility criteria are no longer met or it is satisfied that the client is requiring proceedings to be conducted unreasonably so as to incur unjustifiable expense.
Legal Representation is subject to scope and cost limitations setting out what work may be undertaken and the maximum amount of legal aid costs that may be claimed. To extend either scope or costs an application must be made to the LAA setting who will consider whether the additional funding should be authorised with reference to the applicable regulations. This ensures appropriate and proportionate use of legal aid funding.
Clause 2.4 of the Standard Civil Contract 2024 Standard Terms requires legal aid providers to work with the LAA to achieve value for money and to ensure that public money is spent with probity, accountability and in the public interest.
Additionally, any claims for payment for legal aid work are subject to assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Standard Civil Contract 2024. In particular under paragraph 6.9 sets our hat all assessments of Contract Work are to be on the Standard Basis as defined by Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).
CPR 44.3(2) states that: “Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will— (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred.”
The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) does not play an active role in case progression where all providers of legal aid services are independent providers of services who are bound to act in the best interest of the client taking into account the provisions of their legal aid contract and any relevant professional body rules. However, in addition to the reporting obligations referred to above, automatic enquiries are triggered on Legal Representation cases that have had no legal aid activity for a period of more than 365 days. Failure to respond to these enquiries may result in the withdrawal of legal aid. Furthermore, the LAA has a representations process which allows opponents (or other third parties) to report to the LAA circumstances which may affect an individual’s eligibility for legal aid.
There is no specific guidance on “appropriate use of public funds for disputes that do not materially affect housing safety or security”. However, statutory and contractual provisions governing the appropriate use of public funds in all civil cases are set out in the Regulations and Contract referred to above. Supporting guidance on the application of the statutory and contractual framework is set out in the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance under s.4 LASPO and the Costs Assessment Guidance both of which legal aid providers have a contractual obligation to comply with when carrying out legal aid work.
The average cost of a housing case under each legal aid scheme for the last five financial years is set out in the table below. These costs will include all housing cases within scope of legal aid as set out above. Average costs have been broken down by the type of legal aid provided.
Financial Year | In-court housing advice under HLPAS or its predecessors | Legal Help | Legal Representation |
2020-21 | £87 | £433 | £3,444 |
2021-22 | £107 | £376 | £3,963 |
2022-23 | £110 | £354 | £3,694 |
2023-24 | £103 | £337 | £3,531 |
2024-25 | £99 | £313 | £3,508 |
Asked by: Martin Wrigley (Liberal Democrat - Newton Abbot)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how the Legal Aid Agency monitors whether legally aided housing cases are being actively resolved.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The scope of legal aid for housing matters is set out under paragraphs 33-35 of Schedule 1 to Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. This includes civil legal services relating to loss of home and ancillary housing, debt and welfare benefit service, provision of accommodation and assistance to an individual who is homeless or at risk of homelessness and risk to health and safety in rented accommodation.
Legal aid for housing matters may be provided as Legal Help which includes advice and assistance on the matters set out above or Legal Representation which would include representation before a court or tribunal. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also funds the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service (HLPAS) which covers early legal advice on housing, debt and welfare benefits issues to individuals with evidence showing they are at risk of possession proceedings, loss of their home or illegal eviction; and on-the-day emergency advice and advocacy to anyone facing possession proceedings.
Eligibility for legal aid subject to strict statutory criteria and the provision of and payment for legal aid services is governed by Contracts with legal aid providers. Both legal aid legislation and the Contracts contain a number of provisions to ensure that public funds are used proportionately and appropriately.
Legal aid provided under Legal Help or Legal Representation is subject to a strict financial eligibility test and a legal merits test as set out in the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013. To qualify for Legal Representation in respect of any housing matter the proportionality test as described at regulation 8 must be met and continue to be met throughout the duration of proceedings.
Regulation 40 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012 requires all legal aid providers to report to the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) any changes in circumstances which would materially affect a client’s eligibility for Legal Representation alongside other matters which may impact on eligibility, for example, failure to accept an offer to settle or to use and alternative dispute resolution method or issues relating to the client’s conduct. The LAA may withdraw a determination that the individual qualifies for Legal representation if it concludes the eligibility criteria are no longer met or it is satisfied that the client is requiring proceedings to be conducted unreasonably so as to incur unjustifiable expense.
Legal Representation is subject to scope and cost limitations setting out what work may be undertaken and the maximum amount of legal aid costs that may be claimed. To extend either scope or costs an application must be made to the LAA setting who will consider whether the additional funding should be authorised with reference to the applicable regulations. This ensures appropriate and proportionate use of legal aid funding.
Clause 2.4 of the Standard Civil Contract 2024 Standard Terms requires legal aid providers to work with the LAA to achieve value for money and to ensure that public money is spent with probity, accountability and in the public interest.
Additionally, any claims for payment for legal aid work are subject to assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Standard Civil Contract 2024. In particular under paragraph 6.9 sets our hat all assessments of Contract Work are to be on the Standard Basis as defined by Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).
CPR 44.3(2) states that: “Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will— (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred.”
The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) does not play an active role in case progression where all providers of legal aid services are independent providers of services who are bound to act in the best interest of the client taking into account the provisions of their legal aid contract and any relevant professional body rules. However, in addition to the reporting obligations referred to above, automatic enquiries are triggered on Legal Representation cases that have had no legal aid activity for a period of more than 365 days. Failure to respond to these enquiries may result in the withdrawal of legal aid. Furthermore, the LAA has a representations process which allows opponents (or other third parties) to report to the LAA circumstances which may affect an individual’s eligibility for legal aid.
There is no specific guidance on “appropriate use of public funds for disputes that do not materially affect housing safety or security”. However, statutory and contractual provisions governing the appropriate use of public funds in all civil cases are set out in the Regulations and Contract referred to above. Supporting guidance on the application of the statutory and contractual framework is set out in the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance under s.4 LASPO and the Costs Assessment Guidance both of which legal aid providers have a contractual obligation to comply with when carrying out legal aid work.
The average cost of a housing case under each legal aid scheme for the last five financial years is set out in the table below. These costs will include all housing cases within scope of legal aid as set out above. Average costs have been broken down by the type of legal aid provided.
Financial Year | In-court housing advice under HLPAS or its predecessors | Legal Help | Legal Representation |
2020-21 | £87 | £433 | £3,444 |
2021-22 | £107 | £376 | £3,963 |
2022-23 | £110 | £354 | £3,694 |
2023-24 | £103 | £337 | £3,531 |
2024-25 | £99 | £313 | £3,508 |
Asked by: Martin Wrigley (Liberal Democrat - Newton Abbot)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what checks and balances are in place to ensure that Legal Aid funding in housing disputes is used proportionately.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The scope of legal aid for housing matters is set out under paragraphs 33-35 of Schedule 1 to Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. This includes civil legal services relating to loss of home and ancillary housing, debt and welfare benefit service, provision of accommodation and assistance to an individual who is homeless or at risk of homelessness and risk to health and safety in rented accommodation.
Legal aid for housing matters may be provided as Legal Help which includes advice and assistance on the matters set out above or Legal Representation which would include representation before a court or tribunal. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also funds the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service (HLPAS) which covers early legal advice on housing, debt and welfare benefits issues to individuals with evidence showing they are at risk of possession proceedings, loss of their home or illegal eviction; and on-the-day emergency advice and advocacy to anyone facing possession proceedings.
Eligibility for legal aid subject to strict statutory criteria and the provision of and payment for legal aid services is governed by Contracts with legal aid providers. Both legal aid legislation and the Contracts contain a number of provisions to ensure that public funds are used proportionately and appropriately.
Legal aid provided under Legal Help or Legal Representation is subject to a strict financial eligibility test and a legal merits test as set out in the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013. To qualify for Legal Representation in respect of any housing matter the proportionality test as described at regulation 8 must be met and continue to be met throughout the duration of proceedings.
Regulation 40 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012 requires all legal aid providers to report to the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) any changes in circumstances which would materially affect a client’s eligibility for Legal Representation alongside other matters which may impact on eligibility, for example, failure to accept an offer to settle or to use and alternative dispute resolution method or issues relating to the client’s conduct. The LAA may withdraw a determination that the individual qualifies for Legal representation if it concludes the eligibility criteria are no longer met or it is satisfied that the client is requiring proceedings to be conducted unreasonably so as to incur unjustifiable expense.
Legal Representation is subject to scope and cost limitations setting out what work may be undertaken and the maximum amount of legal aid costs that may be claimed. To extend either scope or costs an application must be made to the LAA setting who will consider whether the additional funding should be authorised with reference to the applicable regulations. This ensures appropriate and proportionate use of legal aid funding.
Clause 2.4 of the Standard Civil Contract 2024 Standard Terms requires legal aid providers to work with the LAA to achieve value for money and to ensure that public money is spent with probity, accountability and in the public interest.
Additionally, any claims for payment for legal aid work are subject to assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Standard Civil Contract 2024. In particular under paragraph 6.9 sets our hat all assessments of Contract Work are to be on the Standard Basis as defined by Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).
CPR 44.3(2) states that: “Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will— (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred.”
The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) does not play an active role in case progression where all providers of legal aid services are independent providers of services who are bound to act in the best interest of the client taking into account the provisions of their legal aid contract and any relevant professional body rules. However, in addition to the reporting obligations referred to above, automatic enquiries are triggered on Legal Representation cases that have had no legal aid activity for a period of more than 365 days. Failure to respond to these enquiries may result in the withdrawal of legal aid. Furthermore, the LAA has a representations process which allows opponents (or other third parties) to report to the LAA circumstances which may affect an individual’s eligibility for legal aid.
There is no specific guidance on “appropriate use of public funds for disputes that do not materially affect housing safety or security”. However, statutory and contractual provisions governing the appropriate use of public funds in all civil cases are set out in the Regulations and Contract referred to above. Supporting guidance on the application of the statutory and contractual framework is set out in the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance under s.4 LASPO and the Costs Assessment Guidance both of which legal aid providers have a contractual obligation to comply with when carrying out legal aid work.
The average cost of a housing case under each legal aid scheme for the last five financial years is set out in the table below. These costs will include all housing cases within scope of legal aid as set out above. Average costs have been broken down by the type of legal aid provided.
Financial Year | In-court housing advice under HLPAS or its predecessors | Legal Help | Legal Representation |
2020-21 | £87 | £433 | £3,444 |
2021-22 | £107 | £376 | £3,963 |
2022-23 | £110 | £354 | £3,694 |
2023-24 | £103 | £337 | £3,531 |
2024-25 | £99 | £313 | £3,508 |
Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 14 March 2025 to Question 37323 on Prison Sentences, how many people serving imprisonment for public protection sentences in Category A prisons on 1 January 2026 were classified as Category (a) A, (b) B, and (c) C prisoners.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Data on the prison population are published as part of the Department’s Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) release. The most recent publication includes prison population data as at 30 September 2025.
The information requested—relating to the prison population as at 1 January 2026—cannot be provided at this time, as doing so would provide an early indication of the data underpinning a future iteration of these Accredited Official Statistics, scheduled for publication on 30 April 2026.
Asked by: Adam Jogee (Labour - Newcastle-under-Lyme)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to increase the number of probation officers.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Government recognises the vital role probation officers play in protecting the public and reducing reoffending. Recruitment and retention continue to be a priority and through these efforts we are starting to see the positive impact of a centralised recruitment process as a large number of qualified probation officers come through the pipeline.
In 2024/25, we exceeded our commitment to onboard 1,000 trainee probation officers, successfully onboarding 1,057. We are now going further, having committed to onboard a total of 1,300 trainee probation officers in 2025/26. Probation officer numbers have increased over both the last quarter and the last year. The Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP) 20 recruitment campaign, which went live on the 19th of January, will further support our efforts to maintain strong recruitment momentum and sustain the pipeline of future probation officers.
A retention toolkit has been developed, informed by research into the drivers of attrition. This toolkit supports local, regional, and national interventions and is used alongside structured exit interviews which were introduced to gather feedback and shape future actions. It is positive that we are seeing a continued reduction in Probation Service attrition.
Both probation officer numbers in post and leaving rates can be found at HM Prison and Probation Service workforce quarterly: September 2025 - GOV.UK
Asked by: Alex Sobel (Labour (Co-op) - Leeds Central and Headingley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has conducted research into the potential impacts on long-term rehabilitation of Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Section 67 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish an annual report about the steps taken to support the rehabilitation of IPP and Detention for Public Protection (DPP) offenders and their progress towards release from prison or licence termination and lay the report before Parliament.
Although there has not been research conducted in this area the Government published its latest IPP Annual Report on 17 July 2025, which included a commitment for HMPPS Psychology Services to complete a review of the Never Released IPP cohort. The review aims to ensure the current barriers to IPP progression are considered and services reviewed relating to these findings to support IPP progression. We will report on the outcome of this review in our next Annual Report, which is due to be published this summer.
The 2025 Annual Report also contained a refreshed version of the IPP Action Plan, which includes measurable targets to ensure transparency and accountability.
Through the IPP Action Plan we have significantly improved support for those serving the IPP sentence, with greater access to rehabilitation and mental health support.
Changes we have made in the Sentencing Act 2026 will provide IPP offenders with an earlier opportunity for licence termination, whilst allowing suitable time for support and rehabilitation in the community and ensuring victims and the public are best protected from harm.
Asked by: Alex Sobel (Labour (Co-op) - Leeds Central and Headingley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if his Department will consider the potential merits of retrospectively abolishing Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
It is right that the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence was abolished. Public protection will always be the top priority and abolishing the IPP sentence retrospectively would result in prisoners being released whom the independent Parole Board has determined are too dangerous. This would pose an unacceptable risk of harm to victims and the public.
We are determined to support those serving IPP sentences, but not in a way that undermines public protection. This is why the Government made changes in the Sentencing Act 2026 to provide IPP offenders with an earlier opportunity for licence termination, whilst allowing suitable time for support and rehabilitation in the community and ensuring victims and the public are best protected from harm