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 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: 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: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential risk to public safety posed by prisoners who escape custody and remain at large for over 30 days.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Public protection is our top priority. The number of escapes from prison establishments and prisoner escorts is very low. If a prisoner escapes or absconds, the police are immediately notified and are responsible for locating the offender.
Those who escape or abscond face serious consequences including, in the case of absconders, being returned to closed prison conditions, where they may serve up to two additional years. Escapees face an additional sentence of imprisonment for which there is no statutory maximum term. Prisoners whose release is subject to a decision of the Parole Board are likely to spend a longer period in custody before the Board will agree to their release.
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 assessment he has made of the adequacy of the capacity of the probation service to manage increased caseload.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Probation Service continues to face capacity and workload pressures. The Probation Service uses the Workload Measurement Tool alongside other management information to support local and national oversight of workloads. This tool indicates the caseload per officer, which is one indicator of pressure, but it does not on its own provide a complete picture of probation capacity, as it does not take account of the complexity, risk level or intensity of individual cases, all of which have a significant impact on workload.
The Government recognises the pressures created by increased demand and has taken steps to strengthen probation capacity, including sustained recruitment of probation officers, action to improve retention, the prioritisation of resources towards the highest risk cases, and reducing workloads through the Our Future Probation Service (OFPS) programme, which aims to reduce workloads by 25% by April 2027. Together, these measures are intended to help ensure the Probation Service can continue to protect the public while managing increased caseload pressures safely and effectively.
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 estimate he has made of the gap between projected prison demand and planned prison capacity.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
On 29 January 2026, we published our second annual statement on prison capacity, which sets out the projected prison demand and planned prison capacity up to November 2032: Ministry of Justice – Annual Statement on Prison Capacity: 2025.
Asked by: Clive Jones (Liberal Democrat - Wokingham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an his estimate of the potential reduction in the (a) cost to the public purse and (b) court workloads of increasing the adoption of community-based rehabilitation in the treatment of alcohol and substance use and addiction reducing recidivism rates.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
We are committed to diverting vulnerable offenders with substance misuse needs away from prison or out of the criminal justice system altogether where appropriate. Many people who have committed low-level offences can be managed more effectively in the community, with the right treatment and support to tackle the health-related causes of their offending behaviour, than on short custodial sentences. Public Health England analysis shows that drug treatment reflects a return on investment of £4 for every £1 invested. Offenders completing treatment for drugs or alcohol were also 19 percentage points less likely to reoffend than those that dropped out of treatment.
An evaluation of the impact of being sentenced with a community sentence treatment requirement (CSTR) on proven reoffending was published in 2024 and found that for people who reoffended those sentenced to a drug rehabilitation requirement (DRR) and alcohol treatment requirement (ATR) had fewer reoffences compared to those who received a short custodial sentence.
Our Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs), which divert offenders with complex needs, including substance misuse, away from short custodial sentences into rehabilitative community sentences, are undergoing full evaluation scheduled for completion in 2028. The evaluation will assess the effectiveness of ISCs on reducing reoffending and their value for money. Published process evaluation findings show early promising signs, whereby some offenders reported reduced substance use and willingness to avoid reoffending.