Sep. 05 2025
Source Page: Parole Board: appointment of membersAsked by: Andrew Snowden (Conservative - Fylde)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions she has had with the (a) Law Society and (b) Solicitors Regulation Authority on the consequences of legal advice that may contribute to the suppression of evidence during police interviews.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The legal profession in England and Wales operates independently of government. This framework is set out in the Legal Services Act 2007. Regulation of the sector is carried out by the approved regulators, overseen by the Legal Services Board. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and law firms, while the Law Society represents solicitors in England and Wales.
An independent legal services sector is a key pillar of the rule of law, and it is therefore important to maintain this regulatory independence. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate for ministers or their officials to seek to influence how solicitors are regulated.
Solicitors advising clients during interviews are bound by professional duties, as set out in the SRA’s Code of Conduct. Where necessary, the SRA has a duty to investigate allegations of professional misconduct by solicitors. It has a range of disciplinary powers available at its disposal, including the ability to impose fines and refer matters to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, which can suspend or strike a solicitor off the roll. Complaints about a solicitor’s conduct can be made directly to the SRA at: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor/.
The Ministry of Justice will continue to engage with legal regulators to ensure that consumers are protected and public confidence in the justice system is maintained.
Asked by: Ayoub Khan (Independent - Birmingham Perry Barr)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether her Department has set a deadline for introducing a comprehensive remuneration and conditions framework set for implementation from October 2026 for public service interpreters.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice has provided a comprehensive response to the Public Services Committee inquiry and report into interpreter and translation services in the courts, published in June 2025, which covers this topic.
The Ministry of Justice is procuring new interpreter contracts to commence in October 2026, which include improvements to the service, interpreter remuneration, and conditions.
The Department considered mandating payment rates for interpreters during market engagement but concluded that suppliers (as experts in the market) are best placed to set payment rates. The Ministry of Justice’s role, as the commissioning body, is to ensure that these rates are fair and deliver value for money to the taxpayer.
The Ministry of Justice has already taken steps to improve interpreter remuneration, such as increasing the minimum face to face booking duration to two hours in October 2024, which has led to improved contract fulfilment rates and a reduction in off contract requests.
From October 2026, the new contracts will introduce improvements to interpreter remuneration and conditions. This includes:
Strengthening safeguarding provisions to support interpreter wellbeing
Changing the cancellation cut-off time meaning more cancellations will fall into the ‘short notice’ category and attract a fee payable to interpreters
Maintaining the two-hour minimum booking duration
Asked by: Ayoub Khan (Independent - Birmingham Perry Barr)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether her Department has considered the potential merits of introducing an independent regulator to oversee the commercial agencies it appoints for the provision of interpreting and translation services.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice does not require the introduction of an independent regulator due to the existing, robust assurance procedures in place.
All interpreters under the Ministry of Justice contracts are subject to a quality assurance regime, which is independent of the suppliers that provide our interpreters. The Department has a dedicated Commercial and Contract Management team that oversees the quality assurance provider and the suppliers of interpreters. Their work includes conducting audits to ensure that data is reliable and reviewing quality and complaints data to ensure that the service is delivering for the taxpayer.
Performance data for the language interpreter and translation services is published on the GOV.UK website.
Asked by: Ayoub Khan (Independent - Birmingham Perry Barr)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps her Department is taking to ensure the recruitment and retention of sufficient numbers of interpreters with a Level 6 Diploma in Public Service Interpreting by October 2026.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice is committed to maintaining both the quality and capacity of the future supply chain of qualified court interpreters.
The Department and its suppliers regularly review fulfilment data to inform and adapt recruitment strategies, and our suppliers ensure that there are, and will be, sufficient interpreters with the required qualifications to meet our demand. The new contracts will improve this further by including steps to support interpreters in attaining Level 6 Diploma in Public Service Interpreting, through expanding the Trainee Scheme managed by the quality and assurance provider and providing more support for qualification costs.
Asked by: Matt Vickers (Conservative - Stockton West)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of community sentencing in reducing reoffending.
Answered by Nicholas Dakin - Government Whip, Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury
There is evidence that community orders and suspended sentence orders are more effective at reducing reoffending than sentences of immediate custody in certain circumstances.
Robust analysis (using a matched comparison group to account for cohort differences such as drug use and unemployment), found that custodial sentences of less than 12 months were associated with higher reoffending rates (4 percentage points difference) compared to court orders (community or suspended sentence): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d1c732ee5274a08cdbe45c4/impact-short-custodial-sentences.pdf.
The Department’s latest published reoffending data (July to September 2023) shows that the one year proven reoffending rate for those on a court order was 34% and 62% for those released from a determinant sentence of less than 12 months: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/proven-reoffending-statistics-july-and-september-2023.
Ministry of Justice research findings indicate that individuals sentenced with a Community Sentence Treatment Requirement reoffend less often compared with those given a short custodial sentence. For example, Mental Health Treatment Requirements recipients had a lower reoffending rate than those on a short custodial sentence recipients by 9 percentage points.
We welcome the Independent Sentencing Review’s emphasis on increasing the use of community sentences for lower-level offenders, ensuring that prisons are focused on locking up the most dangerous offenders.
In the Sentencing Bill, we have introduced new powers to allow the courts to have greater flexibility than ever before to tailor punishments to offenders and ensure sentences served in the community are not a “soft option” but represent a genuine punishment by restricting offenders’ freedoms.
These new powers will include banning offenders from driving, from attending pubs and bars, as well as public events such as sports and concerts. We are also introducing tough new restriction zones that will limit offenders to a specific geographical area.