Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer from Baroness Levitt on 24 March (HL15657), for what reason the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements does not record the cost of individual inquiries.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Independent Monitoring Authority (IMA) is operationally independent from the Ministry of Justice. The IMA’s inquiry work is, like its other functions, delivered within its overall allocated budget.
This means that, unlike a stand-alone statutory or public inquiry which is established with dedicated funding and resource, no additional or dedicated funds are allocated to individual IMA inquiries.
The IMA does not charge inspection fees to any relevant public authority involved in an inquiry. As a result, unit costs for individual inquiries have not been developed.
The overall costs of the IMA are published in its Annual Report and Accounts, which details all staffing costs and administrative costs.
Asked by: Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the reply by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage on 24 March (HL Deb col 1357), what data they hold on the caseload of the First-tier Tribunal regarding rent appeals specifically; and what plans they have to make it publicly accessible.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Currently, HM Courts and Tribunals Services (HMCTS) publishes quarterly data on the Residential Property Chamber. The latest data is attached but can also be found via the following link: Tribunals statistics quarterly: January to March 2025 - GOV.UK.
HMCTS is reviewing the data captured, drawn and published from the supporting systems for the Tribunal as part of preparations for the Renters’ Rights Act.
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to (1) implement the findings of the Civil Justice Council's Review of Litigation Funding (2 June 2025), and (2) legislate in response to R (PACCAR Inc and Others) v. Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28, and by when.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps what they are taking to ensure that any policy they have on litigation funding does not lead to any inappropriate use of court time or resources.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of increased third-party funded collective actions on (1) court capacity, (2) judicial workload, and (3) case duration.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to publish data on the total costs of third-party funded collective actions to the public sector.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of (1) sentencing guidelines, and (2) penalties, for offences related to waste crime and illegal waste disposal.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Sentencing guidelines are developed by the Sentencing Council, in fulfilment of its statutory duty to do so. The Council has issued guidelines on environmental offences for individuals and organisations which capture offences involving the unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal of waste as well as illegal discharges to air, land and water. The guidelines are designed to increase consistency and transparency in sentencing for these offences.
In 2024, following consultation, the Council updated the guideline for individuals to provide for greater use of community orders (over fines) across the sentence tables included within the guideline, in recognition of the seriousness of this offending. Further information is available on the Council’s website: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/crown-court/
The Government is clear, penalties for waste crime must match the harm it causes. The Ministry of Justice will work closely with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs following the recent publication of the Waste Crime Action Plan to explore what more can be done to further ensure that those who commit these types of offences are appropriately punished. This would aim to reinforce the effectiveness of current systems and strengthen our overall approach to tackling illegal behaviour.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to help ensure that prison staffing levels are sufficient to maintain security.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Effective prison security is a prerequisite for the safe and stable regimes required to promote prisoner rehabilitation, and sufficient levels of skilled frontline staff are fundamental to delivering secure and rehabilitative prison regimes. Against a challenging labour market, we have recruitment campaigns at all prisons where there are current or projected needs, and provide enhanced support to the prisons in the most challenging parts of the estate. HMPPS offers several routes to become a prison officer, including:
To help improve Prison Officer retention, HMPPS has created a retention strategy which is linked to wider activities around employee experience, employee lifecycle and staff engagement at work. As of December 2025, the resignation rate for Band 3-5 Prison Officers was the lowest it has been in the last four years.
We have specialist staff and equipment to stop the smuggling of contraband in prisons – such as drugs, weapons and mobile phones – which can fuel violence and create instability.
We remain committed to ensuring prisons are sufficiently resourced and that we retain and build levels of experience, both of which are fundamental to delivering quality outcomes in prisons.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prison inmates have had illicit relationships with prison officers in each year since 2010, broken down by offence group.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The table below shows the number of prisoners in the last six years recorded as being involved in proven cases where a member of prison staff has been convicted of Misconduct in Public Office.
No data is held for years prior to 2020.
Year of case outcome | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
Number of prisoners | 0 | 5 | 5 | 17 | 10 | 22 |
An inappropriate relationship is defined as any relationship that compromises a staff member’s ability to perform their duties appropriately.
Where officers fall below our high standards, we do not hesitate to take robust action. We are catching more of the minority who break the rules with our Counter Corruption Unit and stronger vetting.
The figures in this table have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many stab vests have been issued to prison officers since 5 July 2024, broken down by individual prison.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Following a serious incident at HMP Frankland in April 2025, the Department acted quickly to review the use of protective body armour (PBA) across the estate. As a result, we have introduced a significant expansion in provision, with PBA now mandated for staff working in the highest-risk areas of the long-term high security estate, including Close Supervision Centres, Separation Centres and Segregation Units.
This builds on existing use in high-risk operational contexts such as planned use of force and national tactical deployments. Our approach is risk-based and evidence-led, ensuring that protective equipment is prioritised for those staff facing the greatest threat, while remaining practical and effective in operational environments.
We are committed to delivering the Deputy Prime Minister's pledge to equip up to 10,000 staff with PBA. As of 26 March, we have issued protective body armour to 514 named staff members and 264 spare sets for cross deployment. Information about the provision of PBA broken down by prison is shown in the table below.
Prison | Personal Issue | Spare |
Belmarsh | 22 | 12 |
Frankland | 71 | 36 |
Full Sutton | 73 | 36 |
Garth | 13 | 12 |
Gartree | 15 | 12 |
Isle of Wight | 13 | 12 |
Long Lartin | 26 | 12 |
Lowdham Grange | 19 | 12 |
Manchester | 51 | 24 |
Swaleside | 19 | 12 |
Wakefield | 50 | 24 |
Whitemoor | 48 | 24 |
Woodhill | 94 | 36 |
Total | 514 | 264 |