Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans his Department has to publish an advertisement for the position of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons once it becomes vacant in October 2026.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Following consultation with the Justice Select Committee (JSC) about campaign plans to recruit to this position, we plan to advertise the role shortly. We will update the JSC on the timetable in due course.
Asked by: Lord Bradley (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to improve the fitting quality of electronic monitoring tags.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The field and monitoring service contract, with the provider Serco, has clear contractual requirements governing the delivery of the Electronic Monitoring service, including the fitting of electronic monitoring tags. The latest performance data from Serco evidenced continued improved performance with all contractual KPIs met.
The relevant contract can be found on contract finder via the following links, and have also been attached for ease: Electronic Monitoring Field and Monitoring Service (FMS) - Contracts Finder and Electronic Monitoring - MDSS contract - Contracts Finder.
Asked by: Lord Farmer (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether there has been an impact assessment of clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill on fathers in prison who are trying to retain parental responsibility.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the statutory presumption of parental involvement from section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The aim of repealing this measure is better to protect children from harm, including harm which might result from contact with abusive parents or resulting from decisions made by abusive parents.
The Government has thoroughly assessed the impact of repealing the statutory presumption of parental involvement. The impact assessment for Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill does not look at fathers who are prisoners as a distinct group.
The impact assessment for this measure can be found here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0389/Non-IRCC_impact_assessment.pdf
The equalities statement for this measure can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/699dfa26db2401de164d6c90/courts-tribunals-bill-equalities-statement.pdf
Both documents have also been attached for ease.
Repealing the statutory presumption does not diminish the importance of a parent being involved in their child’s life – through contact or through holding or exercising parental responsibility - where it is safe and beneficial. Rather, it ensures that the child’s welfare continues to be placed first in every decision.
Repealing the presumption means that courts, when making decisions, including applications related to parental responsibility, will adopt an openminded enquiry as to what is in a child’s best interests rather than starting from an assumption about parental involvement. Courts will continue to use the provisions set out in the Children Act 1989. In making decisions about the exercise of parental responsibility, the court will continue to be guided by the welfare checklist in order to ensure a thorough assessment of each child's circumstances.
Courts will continue to make orders for a parent (including a parent who is a prisoner) to be involved in a child's life, where that is safe and in the child’s best interests. HMPPS will continue to provide a range of services to maintain family contact and are updating the Strengthening Family Ties Policy Framework to reaffirm this, setting out clear expectations for how prisons should support people in custody to develop and sustain positive family relationships.
Asked by: Lord Farmer (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have carried out an assessment of the impact of clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill on the ongoing implementation of the 2017 and 2019 Farmer Reviews on the importance of maintaining male prisoners' and female offenders' family ties to prevent reoffending and intergenerational crime.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the statutory presumption of parental involvement from section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The aim of repealing this measure is to better to protect children from harm, including from harm which might be caused by contact with abusive parents
The Government has thoroughly assessed the impact of repealing the statutory presumption of parental involvement. The impact assessment for Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill does not look at prisoners as a distinct group.
The impact assessment for this measure can be found here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0389/Non-IRCC_impact_assessment.pdf
The equalities statement for this measure can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/699dfa26db2401de164d6c90/courts-tribunals-bill-equalities-statement.pdf
Both documents have also been attached for ease.
Repealing the statutory presumption does not diminish the importance of parental involvement and contact where it is safe and beneficial. Rather, it ensures that the child’s welfare continues to be placed first in every decision.
Repealing the presumption means that courts will adopt an openminded inquiry enquiry into what is in a child’s best interests, rather than starting from an assumption about parental involvement. Courts will continue to use the provisions set out in the Children Act 1989 when making decisions, guided by the welfare checklist, in order to ensure a thorough assessment of each child's circumstances.
Courts will continue to make orders for a parent (including a parent who is a prisoner) to be involved in a child's life where that is safe and in the child’s best interests. HMPPS will continue to provide a range of services to maintain family contact and are updating the Strengthening Family Ties Policy Framework to reaffirm this, setting out clear expectations for how prisons should support people in custody to develop and sustain positive family relationships.
Asked by: Lord Spellar (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many crown courts and magistrates’ courts there are in each of the boroughs in West Midlands County; and what is the case backlog in each of those courts.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Table 1 - Crown Court open cases in West Midlands by court (December 2025)
Court | Open cases |
Birmingham | 2,525 |
Wolverhampton | 1,711 |
West Midlands LCJB | 4,236 |
Table 2 - Magistrates’ courts open cases in West Midlands by court (December 2025)
Court | Open cases |
Birmingham | 10,063 |
Coventry | 1,845 |
Dudley | 1,262 |
Sandwell* | 22 |
Solihull* | 80 |
Sutton Coldfield* | 4 |
Walsall | 1,591 |
West Bromwich* | 8 |
Wolverhampton | 1,433 |
West Midlands LCJB | 16,308 |
notes
1) Open cases are those without a final result record. At the Crown Court this excludes cases where one or more defendants is absent and have a live bench warrant.
2) Court location relates to where a case was first received.
3) * signifies magistrates’ courts which have permanently closed. Open cases for these courts will have been transferred to other courts but workload will continue to be reported under the initial location.
The Crown Court backlog currently stands at over 80,000 cases and, without decisive action, would rise to 100,000 by 2028. Behind each of those cases is someone awaiting justice – defendants seeking to clear their name and victims putting their lives on hold. The record and rising Crown Court caseload means that thousands of victims and witnesses are waiting years for their day in court. Justice delayed is justice denied and the status quo is unacceptable.
That is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, to conduct an independent review of the criminal justice system and make recommendations for the modernisation of the system and ways to tackle the backlog. His expert panel gathered evidence over many months. They concluded that reform is essential alongside additional investment in sitting days and the workforce, and a programme of efficiencies. Part 1 of the Review set out a blueprint for pragmatic structural reform in our criminal courts and made clear that action across all aspects of the criminal justice process is needed. Reform, investment and modernisation are all necessary to ensure that our courts deliver justice effectively and efficiently.
The Government has already invested significantly in the system – in record sitting days (increasing judicial capacity), court buildings and technology, and in legal professionals with significant investment in legal aid. However, these investments in growing the workforce, whilst vital, will take years to take effect.
The Government is committed to doing whatever is necessary to deliver swifter justice for victims. Only by pulling every lever we have – investment, efficiency and reform – can we turn the tide on the backlog and begin to deliver faster and fairer justice.
Asked by: Lord Kempsell (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many sniffer dogs there are in England and Wales's prisons; and what plans they have to increase that number.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) currently deploys 492 licensed search dogs across prisons in England and Wales. These dogs form a key part of the Department’s approach to tackling the supply of illicit items, including drugs, mobile telephones and other contraband, and are used proactively across the estate.
Decisions on deployment, and any increase in search dog capacity, are made at local and regional level, enabling prisons to respond flexibly to their specific security risks and operational challenges. This includes the ability to scale up provision where intelligence or demand indicates a need.
HMPPS keeps this capability under regular review as part of its wider security strategy and will continue to assess whether additional resources are required to meet any emerging threats.
Asked by: Lord Kempsell (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many job vacancies there currently are in HM Prison and Probation Service.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) holds required staffing levels which are subject to regular amendment and managed at a local and regional level. As a result of this discretion, HMPPS does not present vacancy data due to variability in required staffing levels.
We do, however, publish indicative vacancies in the HMPPS Workforce and the most recently published figures can be found via the following link: HM Prison & Probation Service workforce quarterly: December 2025 - GOV.UK.
Asked by: Lord Banner (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Baroness Levitt on 26 March (HL15521) and 12 March (HL14912), what assessment they have made of the article “Are judicial reviews in the Planning Court taking too long?”, published by the UK Constitutional Law Association on 23 March, having regard to that article being based upon statistical analysis unlike the Written Answers.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Written Answers on 26 March (HL15521) and 12 March (HL14912) were based on the professional knowledge and experience of the Planning Liaison Judge, rather than statistical data, drawing on his role managing claims in the Planning Court. The Planning Court Users Group provides a mechanism for users to raise any specific concerns regarding the timely progress of cases. The Court has confirmed that there is no backlog of cases in the Planning Court relating to challenges to planning permissions granted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Significant Planning Court claims are managed in line with the targets set out in the relevant Practice Direction, while other cases follow the arrangements applicable to the Administrative Court. Overall oversight by the Planning Liaison Judge ensures that claims are progressed efficiently.
HMCTS is committed to improving efficiency, responsiveness and overall quality of service provided. Through collaborative working with the well-established Planning Court Users Group, HMCTS will discuss and consider any further administrative improvements.
Asked by: Lord Kempsell (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Timpson on 5 February (HL14147), what the deadline is to train and equip 500 prison-based staff to use taser devices.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This capability is being implemented on a phased basis, reflecting the complexity of introducing Conducted Energy Devices (generally known as TASERs) safely into the prison environment. Initial enabling activity is under way, including development of policy and operating procedures, assurance processes, training design, and engagement with key stakeholders.
Training and equipping of staff will be delivered incrementally, with cohorts authorised to access the equipment in stages, once the necessary governance, infrastructure and safeguards are in place.
In view of the need to prioritise safety, operational readiness and learning from early phases of implementation, it would not be appropriate at this stage to set a deadline for completion. Progress will continue to be monitored closely to ensure progress is maintained.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure that coronial complaints procedures are independent and transparent; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of measures in place to prevent conflicts of interest within that process.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Coroners are independent judges, but operational responsibility for coroner services lies with the lead local authorities which fund and administer of each of the 74 coroner areas in England and Wales. Whist the framework of accountability in the coronial jurisdiction is therefore complex, it is nevertheless robust and transparent.
Complaints about the standard of service provided in the context of a coroner’s investigation should be raised in the first instance with the coroner’s office and/or with the funding local authority. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, the matter can be reported to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (https://www.lgo.org.uk/make-a-complaint), which aims to provide a remedy to complaints through impartial and fair investigation.
The Ombudsman cannot investigate a coroner’s decisions as an independent judge. However, these can be challenged through the judicial review process or, in some circumstances, by applying to the Attorney General for leave to apply to the High Court for a fresh inquest.
Complaints about the personal conduct of coroners should be made to the independent Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/).