Ministry of Justice

Post-reforms, any judge sitting alone in the Crown Court will give a reasoned judgment for their verdict in open court. This will increase transparency over how decisions to convict or acquit are reached as juries do not currently give reasons for their judgments.

Post-reforms, any judge sitting alone in the Crown Court will give a reasoned judgment for their verdict in open court. This will increase transparency over how decisions to convict or acquit are reached as juries do not currently give reasons for their judgments.

The Government is committed to tackling the issue of unpaid employment tribunal awards. The civil courts in England and Wales offer several different enforcement methods that a judgment creditor may apply for to recover money or property owed on a court order or judgment. These processes are individually designed to address different financial circumstances; and collectively they aim to make it as difficult as possible for judgment debtors to avoid their responsibilities. This also includes the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (Acas) and Employment Tribunal Fast Track enforcement scheme whereby a claimant can instruct a High Court Enforcement Officer (HCEO) to act on their behalf.

We recognise the challenges associated with enforcing employment awards. We are therefore strengthening enforcement options through the Employment Tribunal Penalty scheme which will move to the Fair Work Agency (FWA) once established. The proposed powers of the FWA are set out in the Employment Rights Bill and we are committed to ensuring that it has the appropriate resources to discharge its responsibilities. The FWA will work closely with HMRC, the Insolvency Service and other relevant enforcement bodies to do this as effectively as possible. This will include considering how to use existing powers to tackle misuse of phoenix companies.

There has been no major reform of the criminal courts since the establishment of the Crown Court in 1971, despite Lord Auld making similar recommendations to Sir Brian Leveson in 2001.

Sir Brian’s report found that jury trials are taking twice as long as they were in 2000 - one of the reasons is increased complexity in modern cases, the density of evidence deployed to establish them, and the increased efforts made to provide support and guidance to jurors.

We are working within a system built for a different age and even with record investment, the Crown Court caseload will continue to rise. We need generational structural reform, investment, and modernisation.

Everyone has, and will always have, the right to a fair trial. But there is no right to trial by jury in England and Wales and the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted – fairly, without a jury – in the magistrates’ courts. Jury trials will nevertheless remain for the most serious cases - these reforms are designed to ensure a more proportionate use of overall resource in our criminal courts to ensure we are best serving the needs of both victims and defendants, to deliver better, swifter outcomes.

There is no quick fix - it will take time to tackle an issue which has been years in the making, but we must act before the caseload becomes irretrievable. There are no plans to introduce sunset clauses for all proposals.

The Government recognises the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in access to justice and is committed to ensuring it works fairly for all. That is why we intend to introduce legislation to enact the two primary recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s review when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, my officials will consider the remaining recommendations in more detail.

New legislation will mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages Based Agreements, with prospective effect. Furthermore, the Government intends to introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.

Further details can be read in the Written Ministerial Statement issued on 17 December 2025: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-12-17/hcws1192.

The Government recognises the benefits of mediation in resolving disputes swiftly and consensually. We are piloting mandatory mediation for small money claims (under £10,000) as part of the county court process. This pilot runs until May 2026 and will be evaluated before decisions on further mandatory use across civil law.

I refer the honourable Member to the answer I gave on 10 November to Question 87407.

The Department has worked around the clock to ensure that digital services were restored as swiftly and safely as possible. There has been no delay to implementation of the new secure single sign-in tool for LAA online services (SiLAS), which went live on 11 August following a period of testing with providers

Since then, we have worked closely with providers to test functionality before bringing providers back onto our systems in a careful, phased approach. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.

In the event that the Ministry of Justice receives a complaint about the handling or outcome of a particular case the correspondent would be advised to seek advice regarding any right of appeal and, if the complaint is about the conduct of a member of the judiciary, provided with information about the relevant complaints process. This is because the judiciary are entirely independent and must be free to decide the outcome of cases without fear of interference from Government or its administration.

Decisions of the Employment Tribunal can be appealed on a point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Complaints about the conduct of an Employment Judge sitting in England must be made to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office: https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/

For an Employment Judge sitting wholly or mainly in Scotland, complaints must be made to the President of the Employment Tribunal (Scotland): https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/rulesandregulations/Employment%20Tribunal%20(Scotland)%20%E2%80%93%20Making%20a%20complaint%20of%20Judicial%20Misconduct%20about%20an%20Employment%20Judge

The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal publishes the names of its non-permanent judges on its website.

The list is available at https://www.hkcfa.hk/en/about/who/judges/npjs/index.html.

The Ministry of Justice recognises that the Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 judgement and its potential implications have created concern and uncertainty within parts of the legal profession, particularly among Chartered Institute of Legal Executive (CILEX) professionals.

Whilst the legal profession and its regulators operate independently of government, I have been proactively engaging with frontline regulators and representative bodies on the judgement’s implications and the action being taken in response. I convened a meeting with the Legal Services Board (LSB) and relevant frontline regulators to discuss the judgement, its implications, and the steps taken and underway. I have also met members of CILEX’s senior leadership team to discuss the judgement and attended the recent CILEX conference.

CILEx Regulation (CRL) has issued updated guidance, arranged webinars for practitioners, and secured approval from the LSB to allow standalone litigation practice rights. It has also been ensuring readiness for practice rights applications and working with partners to support practitioners. CILEX has been providing regular updates to its members on these actions, and the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Law Society have also published guidance to support professionals. The LSB is also reviewing how regulators ensured information and guidance provided to the profession on conducting litigation was accurate and reliable. It has published the scope and timings for this review on its website. Separately from these steps, CILEX has also been granted permission to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal.

While I am satisfied that appropriate practical steps are being taken to address the issues raised by the judgement and provide clarity and support for affected CILEX professionals, we will continue to work closely with the LSB, frontline regulators, and representative bodies to monitor whether further action is required.

We will continue to monitor conviction rates, sentencing outcomes and appeals volumes as part of our ongoing assessments of the criminal justice system.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions and sentencing outcomes for a wide range of offences and by defendant characteristics, in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics. The Department will continue to publish this data quarterly.

The Ministry of Justice also publishes data on appeals but does not have access to the reasons for appeal, beyond whether a sentence or verdict has been appealed. Data on appeals volumes can be found as part of the Criminal Courts Statistics release: Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK.

The Government does not collect or publish data on the outcomes of employment tribunal enforcement actions; however we do publish data on the value of awards from the Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal and discrimination claims.

The Department of Business and Trade will collect additional updated data on payment outcomes through the Survey of Employment Tribunal Applications in 2026.

The information requested is not held centrally by HM Courts and Tribunals service.

This data breach was the result of serious criminal activity but it was enabled by the fragility of the LAA’s IT systems as a result of the long years of neglect and mismanagement of the justice system under the last Conservative Government. Upon taking office, I was shocked to see how fragile our legal aid systems were. The previous Government knew about the vulnerabilities of the Legal Aid Agency digital systems, but failed to invest. By contrast, since taking office, this Government has prioritised work to rebuild the LAA digital systems. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services as we build back better in response to this attack. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services currently available via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.

This is an evolving situation but to date the total operational and digital costs of the incident are forecast to be £22 million for this financial year.

All providers have been able to access payment for work carried out whilst systems have been offline.

For some types of legal aid this meant adjusting the way in which providers submitted their claim for payment to the LAA. From 19 May, providers have been able to claim their usual payments for Legal Help, Crime Lower & Mediation work via a contingency process. Due to previous investment, the criminal legal aid systems were more modern, and internal access was restored more quickly. This enabled the LAA to resume paying Crown Court bills from early June.

It was necessary to agree a payment contingency for Civil Representation work with HM Treasury. This led to the implementation of the Average Payment Scheme on 27 May. The Average Payment Scheme enables providers to opt in to receive a temporary average payment for Civil Representation work that would otherwise be due, or where the value of their outstanding work varies from this, to apply for a specific payment to meet the cost of that work. Payments are made on a weekly basis. The weekly average payment is based on previous payments made to that provider over the 3 month period preceding the cyber incident.  Some providers have not opted in to receive payment in this way and wait for the restoration of the systems, but payments are there should they need it. We are unable to quantify the number of legal aid providers who have not opted in to receive an average payment in each of the weeks it has been available.

Providers are obligated to act in the best interests of their clients both by their own SRA regulatory requirements and by their LAA Contracts. In circumstances where a legal aid provider is unable to continue providing representation in an ongoing case, for whatever reason, they have a professional and contractual obligation toward their client to assist them in finding alternative representation.

We have not seen any evidence of legal aid providers leaving the market directly as a result of the cyber-attack. Since April 2023 there has been a net increase in the number of providers contracted to deliver legal aid services.

This data breach was the result of serious criminal activity but it was enabled by the fragility of the LAA’s IT systems as a result of the long years of neglect and mismanagement of the justice system under the last Conservative Government. Upon taking office, I was shocked to see how fragile our legal aid systems were. The previous Government knew about the vulnerabilities of the Legal Aid Agency digital systems, but failed to invest. By contrast, since taking office, this Government has prioritised work to rebuild the LAA digital systems. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services as we build back better in response to this attack. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services currently available via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.

This is an evolving situation but to date the total operational and digital costs of the incident are forecast to be £22 million for this financial year.

All providers have been able to access payment for work carried out whilst systems have been offline.

For some types of legal aid this meant adjusting the way in which providers submitted their claim for payment to the LAA. From 19 May, providers have been able to claim their usual payments for Legal Help, Crime Lower & Mediation work via a contingency process. Due to previous investment, the criminal legal aid systems were more modern, and internal access was restored more quickly. This enabled the LAA to resume paying Crown Court bills from early June.

It was necessary to agree a payment contingency for Civil Representation work with HM Treasury. This led to the implementation of the Average Payment Scheme on 27 May. The Average Payment Scheme enables providers to opt in to receive a temporary average payment for Civil Representation work that would otherwise be due, or where the value of their outstanding work varies from this, to apply for a specific payment to meet the cost of that work. Payments are made on a weekly basis. The weekly average payment is based on previous payments made to that provider over the 3 month period preceding the cyber incident.  Some providers have not opted in to receive payment in this way and wait for the restoration of the systems, but payments are there should they need it. We are unable to quantify the number of legal aid providers who have not opted in to receive an average payment in each of the weeks it has been available.

Providers are obligated to act in the best interests of their clients both by their own SRA regulatory requirements and by their LAA Contracts. In circumstances where a legal aid provider is unable to continue providing representation in an ongoing case, for whatever reason, they have a professional and contractual obligation toward their client to assist them in finding alternative representation.

We have not seen any evidence of legal aid providers leaving the market directly as a result of the cyber-attack. Since April 2023 there has been a net increase in the number of providers contracted to deliver legal aid services.

This data breach was the result of serious criminal activity but it was enabled by the fragility of the LAA’s IT systems as a result of the long years of neglect and mismanagement of the justice system under the last Conservative Government. Upon taking office, I was shocked to see how fragile our legal aid systems were. The previous Government knew about the vulnerabilities of the Legal Aid Agency digital systems, but failed to invest. By contrast, since taking office, this Government has prioritised work to rebuild the LAA digital systems. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services as we build back better in response to this attack. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services currently available via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.

This is an evolving situation but to date the total operational and digital costs of the incident are forecast to be £22 million for this financial year.

All providers have been able to access payment for work carried out whilst systems have been offline.

For some types of legal aid this meant adjusting the way in which providers submitted their claim for payment to the LAA. From 19 May, providers have been able to claim their usual payments for Legal Help, Crime Lower & Mediation work via a contingency process. Due to previous investment, the criminal legal aid systems were more modern, and internal access was restored more quickly. This enabled the LAA to resume paying Crown Court bills from early June.

It was necessary to agree a payment contingency for Civil Representation work with HM Treasury. This led to the implementation of the Average Payment Scheme on 27 May. The Average Payment Scheme enables providers to opt in to receive a temporary average payment for Civil Representation work that would otherwise be due, or where the value of their outstanding work varies from this, to apply for a specific payment to meet the cost of that work. Payments are made on a weekly basis. The weekly average payment is based on previous payments made to that provider over the 3 month period preceding the cyber incident.  Some providers have not opted in to receive payment in this way and wait for the restoration of the systems, but payments are there should they need it. We are unable to quantify the number of legal aid providers who have not opted in to receive an average payment in each of the weeks it has been available.

Providers are obligated to act in the best interests of their clients both by their own SRA regulatory requirements and by their LAA Contracts. In circumstances where a legal aid provider is unable to continue providing representation in an ongoing case, for whatever reason, they have a professional and contractual obligation toward their client to assist them in finding alternative representation.

We have not seen any evidence of legal aid providers leaving the market directly as a result of the cyber-attack. Since April 2023 there has been a net increase in the number of providers contracted to deliver legal aid services.

This data breach was the result of serious criminal activity but it was enabled by the fragility of the LAA’s IT systems as a result of the long years of neglect and mismanagement of the justice system under the last Conservative Government. Upon taking office, I was shocked to see how fragile our legal aid systems were. The previous Government knew about the vulnerabilities of the Legal Aid Agency digital systems, but failed to invest. By contrast, since taking office, this Government has prioritised work to rebuild the LAA digital systems. That includes the allocation of over £20 million in extra funding this year to stabilise and transform the Legal Aid Agency digital services as we build back better in response to this attack. We are now in a position where all providers have online access to our civil legal aid services currently available via SiLAS, alongside our criminal legal aid services, which were restored in September.

This is an evolving situation but to date the total operational and digital costs of the incident are forecast to be £22 million for this financial year.

All providers have been able to access payment for work carried out whilst systems have been offline.

For some types of legal aid this meant adjusting the way in which providers submitted their claim for payment to the LAA. From 19 May, providers have been able to claim their usual payments for Legal Help, Crime Lower & Mediation work via a contingency process. Due to previous investment, the criminal legal aid systems were more modern, and internal access was restored more quickly. This enabled the LAA to resume paying Crown Court bills from early June.

It was necessary to agree a payment contingency for Civil Representation work with HM Treasury. This led to the implementation of the Average Payment Scheme on 27 May. The Average Payment Scheme enables providers to opt in to receive a temporary average payment for Civil Representation work that would otherwise be due, or where the value of their outstanding work varies from this, to apply for a specific payment to meet the cost of that work. Payments are made on a weekly basis. The weekly average payment is based on previous payments made to that provider over the 3 month period preceding the cyber incident.  Some providers have not opted in to receive payment in this way and wait for the restoration of the systems, but payments are there should they need it. We are unable to quantify the number of legal aid providers who have not opted in to receive an average payment in each of the weeks it has been available.

Providers are obligated to act in the best interests of their clients both by their own SRA regulatory requirements and by their LAA Contracts. In circumstances where a legal aid provider is unable to continue providing representation in an ongoing case, for whatever reason, they have a professional and contractual obligation toward their client to assist them in finding alternative representation.

We have not seen any evidence of legal aid providers leaving the market directly as a result of the cyber-attack. Since April 2023 there has been a net increase in the number of providers contracted to deliver legal aid services.

Decisions on listing are a matter for the independent judiciary, which already prioritises cases involving vulnerable complainants and witnesses, including those relating to sexual offences. These cases are listed at the earliest opportunity.

The record allocation of sitting days this financial year will mean more rape and other sexual offence cases can be heard – delivering swifter justice for victims of such crimes. We also commissioned Sir Brian’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts and have announced a package of reforms designed to improve timeliness in the Crown Court and speed up justice for all victims, including victims of rape.

Criminal cases will continue to start in the magistrates’ court and will be sent to the Crown Court by magistrates where the seriousness or complexity of the case means it is more suitable for trial on indictment.

Post reforms, to determine whether a triable either-way case is eligible for trial in the Crown Court Bench Division, a Crown Court judge will assess whether the case is likely to attract a custodial sentence of three years or less. The process for allocations in the Crown Court will be similar to the existing approach used in the magistrates’ courts. We have full confidence in our judiciary to apply the Sentencing Guidelines appropriately when deciding the mode of trial. Eligibility for the Crown Court Bench Division will be assessed at the first opportunity a defendant has to enter a plea – normally the plea and trial preparation hearing where the judge will consider mode of trial among other case management factors to ensure the case is ready for trial.

Criminal cases will continue to start in the magistrates’ court and will be sent to the Crown Court by magistrates where the seriousness or complexity of the case means it is more suitable for trial on indictment.

Post reforms, to determine whether a triable either-way case is eligible for trial in the Crown Court Bench Division, a Crown Court judge will assess whether the case is likely to attract a custodial sentence of three years or less. The process for allocations in the Crown Court will be similar to the existing approach used in the magistrates’ courts. We have full confidence in our judiciary to apply the Sentencing Guidelines appropriately when deciding the mode of trial. Eligibility for the Crown Court Bench Division will be assessed at the first opportunity a defendant has to enter a plea – normally the plea and trial preparation hearing where the judge will consider mode of trial among other case management factors to ensure the case is ready for trial.

The breakdown of magistrates in post by age bands is provided in table 3.6 of the annual official Diversity of the Judiciary statistics (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2025-statistics).

The Government has no plans to remove any rights of appeal route from family court judges to the High Court, nor has it made an assessment of the potential impact of such a change on judicial oversight and accountability.

This Government recognises that legal aid – a vital part of the justice system – supports the ability of individuals to access publicly funded legal assistance to uphold their legal rights.

Legal aid is available for private family proceedings, such as divorce and financial remedy proceedings, if an adult is a victim of domestic abuse or at risk of being abused. Funding is subject to providing the required evidence of domestic abuse and passing the means and merits tests. The Government recognises that abuse may include behaviour directed at a third party, for example the victim’s child, to influence the victim. In May 2025, we amended the legislation to explicitly reflect this definition of domestic abuse; it now reflects the definition of domestic abuse from the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and it clarifies that behaviour, violence or abuse between individuals may consist of or include behaviour, violence or abuse directed at another individual.

Legal aid is available for individuals for some private family orders, such as child arrangement orders or prohibited steps orders, if the child who is the subject of the order is a victim of child abuse or at risk of abuse. This is subject to providing evidence of child abuse and passing the means and merits tests.

The Government monitors legal aid provision and is carefully considering the criteria that govern financial eligibility for legal aid.

Where an issue falls outside the scope of legal aid, eligible individuals may be able to obtain Exceptional Case Funding where they can show that, without the provision of legal aid, there is a risk that their human rights may be breached.

There are a range of options available for leaseholders involved in disputes with property management agents or freeholders. Advice organisations, such as Citizens Advice and Shelter, may be able to provide advice or signpost to further support, and leaseholders may be able to get support from organisations that specialise in leasehold issues, such as the Leasehold Advisory Service. Alternatively, ombudsman services may be able to provide support with resolving a dispute. Leaseholders may choose to seek pro bono advice via organisations such as LawWorks or Advocate.

Under section 7(2)(c) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Lady Chief Justice is responsible for the maintenance of appropriate arrangements for the deployment of the judiciary and the allocation of work within courts. Accordingly, the Government has no role in the process for assigning judges to cases.

This is consistent with the important principle of judicial independence, which shields judges from external pressures and gives the public confidence that cases will be decided fairly and in accordance with the law.

My Department is committed to the Government’s pledge to halve Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) in a decade. We have committed £550 million to victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date.

The 42 Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales receive annual grant funding from the Department’s victim and witness budget to commission local practical, emotional, and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types. This includes services for victims of sexual abuse. In addition, MoJ provides funding through the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund to over 60 specialist organisations, supporting victims of all ages to cope with their experiences and move forward with their lives.

On 1 December 2025, all PCCs and RASASF recipients received confirmation that their grants will be extended for two years until March 2028, with a 2% year-on-year uplift.

In light of the announcement to abolish the PCC function in May 2028, we have held back confirmation of year three funding. This enables us to explore changes to the longer-term delivery of victims funding to ensure this is delivered in the best way in the future. This will include extensive engagement with partners, including PCCs and RASASF recipients, to ensure we can continue to provide the right support to victims.

My Department is committed to the Government’s pledge to halve Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) in a decade. We have committed £550 million to victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date.

On 1 December 2025, all Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and recipients of the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund (RASASF) received confirmation that their Ministry of Justice grants will be extended for two years until March 2028, with a 2% year-on-year uplift. This includes the grants the Ministry of Justice holds with West Mercia Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre (WMRSASC) and with West Mercia PCC, who will make decisions on which organisations to fund locally, based on their assessment of need.

The grant the Department holds with WMRSASC has been unchanged since August 2023 when the RASASF was recompeted via an open competition.

Incidents of spiking may be prosecuted under various criminal offences. These offences encompass a broad spectrum of criminal behaviours, not all of which constitute spiking.

The Ministry of Justice does not currently collate statistics which show the number of individuals who are charged and subsequently prosecuted and convicted of offences which relate to incidents of spiking. The Government is, however, considering options to improve the way spiking crimes are recorded and collated with the aim of capturing better data to help advise preventative strategies for spiking where needed.

My Department is committed to the Government’s pledge to halve Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) in a decade. We have committed £550 million to victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date.

On 1 December 2025, all recipients of the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund (RASASF) received confirmation that their Ministry of Justice grants will be extended for two years until March 2028, with a 2% year-on-year uplift. Given this, there will be no impacts on waiting lists as funding has not been discontinued or frozen.

My Department is committed to the Government’s pledge to halve Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) in a decade. We have committed £550 million to victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date.

On 1 December 2025, all recipients of the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund (RASASF) received confirmation that their Ministry of Justice grants will be extended for two years until March 2028, with a 2% year-on-year uplift. Given this, there will be no impacts on waiting lists as funding has not been discontinued or frozen.

Data relating to the use of PAVA broken down by disability comes from internal management information that is under development. It is not quality assured and does not meet the standard required for publication.

The table below provides information on the use of PAVA broken down ethnicity and religion.

Please note that the 2025 figures represent data to 30 November this year. Figures include each time a prisoner is impacted by a PAVA incident. This means each time PAVA is drawn and used/drawn not used, multiple prisoners may be counted. In addition, the same prisoner may be counted more than once if involved in multiple incidents.

Figures provided have been drawn from HMPPS Management Information which has not passed through the quality assurance processes usually associated with official statistics published on gov.uk and may contain incomplete or, on rare occasions, inaccurate data.

Pelargonic acid vanillylamide incapacitant (PAVA) spray is made available to protect staff and prisoners in the event of serious violence, or where there is an imminent risk of serious violence. Clear guidance has been issued to staff, to ensure it is used only where appropriate. Our hardworking prison officers are brave public servants doing exceptionally difficult jobs, this Government will do everything we can to keep them safe.

On 01 October 2025 we introduced a requirement and new tool for Governors to ensure all prisoners receive a screening for additional learning needs within 30 days of reception into custody. Young people entering the youth estate are screened within 10 days of arrival.

The new screening requirement built on an earlier process (since 2023) of carrying out an initial rapid screening for learning difficulties and/or disabilities and more in-depth screening which formed part of the initial education induction.

Data is collected and used locally, however, there is no routine centralised collection of validated data in relation to the numbers undertaking screening and assessment in either the adult estate or in Young Offender Institutions.

29 prisoners serving a sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection were released by the Secretary of State under section 32ZZA of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 between 1 November 2024 (when the power became available) and 1 June 2025. We are determined to make progress towards safe and sustainable releases for those in prison, but not in a way that undermines public protection.

The information requested is not held centrally.

Lincoln Crown Court has continued to reduce outstanding workloads through the creation of a fourth Crown Court room in May 2021, utilising all Crown Court sitting day allocations for this financial year. To mitigate delays in setting trial dates, Lincoln actively identifies cases that are too large to be heard within Lincoln, moving these within the East Midlands in agreement with relevant parties.

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. Investment alone is not enough - that is why this Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.

The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data in Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) on the number of unreleased prisoners serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentences that are over tariff, broken down by time spent over tariff.

As of 30 September 2025, there were 233 IPP prisoners that were 15 years or more over their tariff. The latest data published can be found in Table 1.Q.18: prison-population-30-Sept-2025.ods

Data on the number of recalled IPP prisoners by tariff length are not collated centrally.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold this information. Capacity to manage financial affairs is decision-specific and cannot be determined simply by reference to any disability or condition a person may have. Capacity can also fluctuate over time.

Using the current legal processes, all Child Trust Funds, where the account holder lacks mental capacity, can be accessed by a parent or carer who obtains legal authority to manage those funds. This can be done by making an application to the Court of Protection. Authority can be obtained in advance of the account holder reaching age 18, and in many cases no court fee will be payable.

A toolkit for parents and carers Making Financial decisions for young people who lack capacity Making financial decisions for young people who lack capacity: A toolkit for parents and carers - GOV.UK was published in June 2023 and explains the process.

The Ministry of Justice is considering what further steps could be taken to raise awareness of the current law and improving the court process while maintaining necessary safeguards.

The Government does not have any plans to undertake a formal assessment of the efficacy of child arrangement orders. However, we have recently published a review of the courts’ application of the presumption of parental involvement that explored the impact of decisions about child arrangements on child welfare. The Review found a high incidence of orders for direct contact between children and parents, even in cases where a parent has caused or posed a risk of harm. The evidence from the review suggested this could have long term negative impacts for children.

The Government is continually working with stakeholders to ensure that the family justice system delivers outcomes that work for children and families. The Government recently announced its intention to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 when parliamentary time allows, alongside a wider package of family court reforms. A Child Arrangements Order may be made by the court in private family law cases to determine whom a child is to live with, spend time with or otherwise have contact with. Child Maintenance calculations are carried out by the Child Maintenance Service and are based on HM Revenues and Customs data. The calculation represents an amount of money that is broadly equal to the amount that a paying parent would spend on the child if they were still living with them, irrespective of the income or assets of the receiving parent.

The Children Act 1989 states that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in family proceedings. The welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989 requires decision-makers to consider the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, and the Government has no plans to change this.

The Government believes that children’s voices must be central to family court proceedings and is delivering a new approach to private family law proceedings, known as Pathfinder. Under the Pathfinder model, a far greater proportion of children are engaged by Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru compared with the Child Arrangements Programme, and the court process puts a greater emphasis on the voice of the child through the ordering of a Child Impact Report (Report), which contains clear recommendations from the social worker, taking into account the child’s wishes and feelings.

The Government does not have any plans to undertake a formal assessment of the efficacy of child arrangement orders. However, we have recently published a review of the courts’ application of the presumption of parental involvement that explored the impact of decisions about child arrangements on child welfare. The Review found a high incidence of orders for direct contact between children and parents, even in cases where a parent has caused or posed a risk of harm. The evidence from the review suggested this could have long term negative impacts for children.

The Government is continually working with stakeholders to ensure that the family justice system delivers outcomes that work for children and families. The Government recently announced its intention to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 when parliamentary time allows, alongside a wider package of family court reforms. A Child Arrangements Order may be made by the court in private family law cases to determine whom a child is to live with, spend time with or otherwise have contact with. Child Maintenance calculations are carried out by the Child Maintenance Service and are based on HM Revenues and Customs data. The calculation represents an amount of money that is broadly equal to the amount that a paying parent would spend on the child if they were still living with them, irrespective of the income or assets of the receiving parent.

The Children Act 1989 states that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in family proceedings. The welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989 requires decision-makers to consider the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, and the Government has no plans to change this.

The Government believes that children’s voices must be central to family court proceedings and is delivering a new approach to private family law proceedings, known as Pathfinder. Under the Pathfinder model, a far greater proportion of children are engaged by Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru compared with the Child Arrangements Programme, and the court process puts a greater emphasis on the voice of the child through the ordering of a Child Impact Report (Report), which contains clear recommendations from the social worker, taking into account the child’s wishes and feelings.

The Government does not have any plans to undertake a formal assessment of the efficacy of child arrangement orders. However, we have recently published a review of the courts’ application of the presumption of parental involvement that explored the impact of decisions about child arrangements on child welfare. The Review found a high incidence of orders for direct contact between children and parents, even in cases where a parent has caused or posed a risk of harm. The evidence from the review suggested this could have long term negative impacts for children.

The Government is continually working with stakeholders to ensure that the family justice system delivers outcomes that work for children and families. The Government recently announced its intention to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 when parliamentary time allows, alongside a wider package of family court reforms. A Child Arrangements Order may be made by the court in private family law cases to determine whom a child is to live with, spend time with or otherwise have contact with. Child Maintenance calculations are carried out by the Child Maintenance Service and are based on HM Revenues and Customs data. The calculation represents an amount of money that is broadly equal to the amount that a paying parent would spend on the child if they were still living with them, irrespective of the income or assets of the receiving parent.

The Children Act 1989 states that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in family proceedings. The welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989 requires decision-makers to consider the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, and the Government has no plans to change this.

The Government believes that children’s voices must be central to family court proceedings and is delivering a new approach to private family law proceedings, known as Pathfinder. Under the Pathfinder model, a far greater proportion of children are engaged by Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru compared with the Child Arrangements Programme, and the court process puts a greater emphasis on the voice of the child through the ordering of a Child Impact Report (Report), which contains clear recommendations from the social worker, taking into account the child’s wishes and feelings.

Since my response to PQ 87077 on 10 November 2025, uptake of the Mediation Voucher Scheme has continued to grow. The scheme has now helped over 51,000 families access mediation services since its launch.

Decisions on the continuation or expansion of the Mediation Voucher Scheme beyond March 2026 form part of the ongoing funding allocations discussion for the three-year Spending Review period. Any decisions on if and how the scheme could be expanded will be taken once the allocations process has concluded, should the scheme continue.

Local authority-level reporting on voucher take-up is something we are working towards. Our new client survey now collects location data, which will allow us to provide more detailed insights in the future.

Since my response to PQ 87077 on 10 November 2025, uptake of the Mediation Voucher Scheme has continued to grow. The scheme has now helped over 51,000 families access mediation services since its launch.

Decisions on the continuation or expansion of the Mediation Voucher Scheme beyond March 2026 form part of the ongoing funding allocations discussion for the three-year Spending Review period. Any decisions on if and how the scheme could be expanded will be taken once the allocations process has concluded, should the scheme continue.

Local authority-level reporting on voucher take-up is something we are working towards. Our new client survey now collects location data, which will allow us to provide more detailed insights in the future.

Since my response to PQ 87077 on 10 November 2025, uptake of the Mediation Voucher Scheme has continued to grow. The scheme has now helped over 51,000 families access mediation services since its launch.

Decisions on the continuation or expansion of the Mediation Voucher Scheme beyond March 2026 form part of the ongoing funding allocations discussion for the three-year Spending Review period. Any decisions on if and how the scheme could be expanded will be taken once the allocations process has concluded, should the scheme continue.

Local authority-level reporting on voucher take-up is something we are working towards. Our new client survey now collects location data, which will allow us to provide more detailed insights in the future.