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: 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: 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, what estimate has his department made of the size of the (a) youth custody population, (b) youth secure estate for the next five years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
During the last 12 months, the population of the youth secure estate has varied in the range 440 to 510. Work on future projections is in hand, but owing to the small numbers involved and consequent volatility, there are difficulties in generating robust figures.
Later this year, we will set out our plans for wider reforms to youth custody, to deliver better outcomes for children, communities and taxpayers. This will include consideration of the future shape and configuration of the youth secure estate.
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 |
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many weapons have been confiscated by prison officers since 5 July 2024, broken down by individual prison.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
As data on the distinct number of weapons confiscated is not held centrally, the information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
Statistics on the number of incidents of weapon finds in prison, which could include multiple weapons per incident, are, however, published. Information on finds of contraband, including weapons, are included as part of the HMPPS Annual Digest. The ‘Finds in Prison – Incidents Data Tool’ can be used to show the number of incidents of weapon finds by prison broken down by calendar month. The most recent release includes data to March 2025. The next publication will also include the period April 2025 to March 2026.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hmpps-annual-digest-april-2024-to-march-2025
Prisons in England and Wales have a range of specialist staff and equipment to tackle the smuggling of drugs, mobile phones, weapons and other contraband into prisons. This includes X-ray body scanners, airport-style Enhanced Gate Security, X-ray baggage scanners, detection dogs, and other specialist equipment to alert staff to the potential presence of drugs on a range of items and materials
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of meat served in prisons has been (a) halal and (b) kosher in each year since 2020, broken down by individual prison.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
As this data is not held centrally the information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
The Food in Prison Policy Framework requires that prisoners are provided with meals that meet an individual’s religious, cultural, and medical dietary needs. Prisons provide a multi-choice, pre-select menu for the lunchtime or evening meal which must reflect the diverse needs of the establishment’s population. When a Halal meat or poultry menu choice is offered, an alternative meat or poultry choice which is not Halal must be provided at the same meal.
All prisons across England and Wales provide prisoners with a choice of at least five meal options at both lunch and the evening meal. As a minimum, these options include: one meat dish, one vegan dish, one vegetarian dish, one Halal dish, and one additional alternative option.