Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the cyber-attack on the Legal Aid Agency’s digital systems on the finances of legal aid firms; how many providers have received (a) partial and (b) emergency contingency payments since that incident; and what additional financial support he plans to provide to firms undertaking legal aid work without payment.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

We acknowledge and appreciate the constructive way that providers have worked with us following the serious criminal attack on the Legal Aid Agency’s (LAA) digital systems. They have continued to do vital work in challenging circumstances.

From the outset the LAA has consulted with providers and provider representative bodies to understand their concerns. These consultations confirmed that maintaining cash flow was a key priority and we immediately took steps to ensure that providers had the cash flow that they needed.

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. Payments are made on a weekly basis. The weekly average payment is based on previous payments made to that provider over the preceding 3-month period.  Some providers have not opted in to receive payment, but it is there should they need it.

As of 30 November, 2,045 advocates, and 1,206 legal aid provider offices have received payment through the Average Payment Scheme. As payments are calculated as a weekly average there is no scope or need to make a ‘partial’ or ‘emergency’ payment. However, there is, in addition, a simple escalation process in place to enable providers to request a payment in excess of the average amount offered to meet specific expenditure.

We are satisfied that providers have been able to access payment for work carried out whilst systems have been offline.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to reduce delays in County Court proceedings relating to possession or enforcement actions against individuals living in vehicles.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 55, 55.1 (a) states a possession claim means a claim for the recovery of possession of land (including buildings or parts of buildings), on which a vehicle might be parked.

The CPR stipulate that possession claims should be listed within 4-8 weeks. The most recent published statistics, covering the period July to September 2025 show that the median time from claim to order is 7.6 weeks. The timeliness of the subsequent enforcement of an order, where this is required, can be influenced by the actions of users as well as the court. For 2024 only 26% of possession claims required enforcement.

The Ministry of Justice publishes quarterly data on possession claims at: Mortgage and landlord possession statistics: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what is the total annual cost of legal aid issued in cases where one party subsequently (a) breaches court orders, (b) refuses contact arrangements and (c) obstructs proceedings.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The requested information is not centrally held.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, in what proportion of family court cases did only one party receiving legal aid in each of the last five years.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The requested information is not centrally held.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what was the average cost per case to the public purse of providing legal aid in family proceedings for which the latest data is available.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

For financial year 2024-2025 the average legal aid expenditure in family proceedings(1) was £4,551 for private family law cases e.g. proceedings concerning child arrangements orders and £10,058 for public family law cases e.g. care and supervision proceedings brought by the local authority. These figures are derived from Civil Representation expenditure data published as part of the LAA’s official statistics.

Under the 2013 Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations individuals may be assessed as liable to make a contribution towards the cost of their legal aid case from either income or capital. In 2024-2025, in cases where an individual was assessed as liable to make a contribution, the average contribution collected in relation to family cases was £1,019.

Under section 25 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 individuals who recover or preserve money in civil legal aid proceedings are required to repay the cost of their legal aid case from the money recovered (unless exempt under regulations). This is known as the statutory charge. In 2024-2025, for cases subject to the statutory charge, the average amount recovered in respect of family cases was £7,409. Recovery of the statutory charge can be postponed in certain limited circumstances and so recoveries made may not necessarily relate to cases funded in the same period.

(1) As defined in the 2024 Standard Civil Contract: Category Definitions.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what was the average amount repaid by people who had received legal aid in family court cases in each of the last five years.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

For financial year 2024-2025 the average legal aid expenditure in family proceedings(1) was £4,551 for private family law cases e.g. proceedings concerning child arrangements orders and £10,058 for public family law cases e.g. care and supervision proceedings brought by the local authority. These figures are derived from Civil Representation expenditure data published as part of the LAA’s official statistics.

Under the 2013 Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations individuals may be assessed as liable to make a contribution towards the cost of their legal aid case from either income or capital. In 2024-2025, in cases where an individual was assessed as liable to make a contribution, the average contribution collected in relation to family cases was £1,019.

Under section 25 of the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 individuals who recover or preserve money in civil legal aid proceedings are required to repay the cost of their legal aid case from the money recovered (unless exempt under regulations). This is known as the statutory charge. In 2024-2025, for cases subject to the statutory charge, the average amount recovered in respect of family cases was £7,409. Recovery of the statutory charge can be postponed in certain limited circumstances and so recoveries made may not necessarily relate to cases funded in the same period.

(1) As defined in the 2024 Standard Civil Contract: Category Definitions.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what guidance his Department provides to county courts on (a) the verification of documents submitted in support of Mental Health Breathing Space applications and (b) instances in which concerns have been raised that such documents may be forged or fraudulent.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

When a Breathing Space is cancelled, the creditor will be automatically notified by the Insolvency Service. They should provide a copy of this notification to the county court when they apply for any further enforcement action.

The decision on whether someone enters a Breathing Space Moratorium is not initially determined by the court but by a debt advice provider authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority or by a local authority (where they provide debt advice to residents). For a Mental Health Breathing Space, an Approved Mental Health Professional must certify that a person is receiving mental health treatment. If a creditor disagrees with a notification, there are grounds under which they can ask the debt advisor for a review. After a review, if the creditor does not agree with the decision, they can then apply to the court to cancel the breathing space.

If a creditor who has applied to the court is concerned about the validity of documents supporting a Mental Health Breathing Space, they should include supporting evidence as to why the documentation may be invalid in their application, verified by a statement of truth. Such applications are treated as a Part 8 claim by the court. The evidence will be considered by a judge who will make the decision.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he plans to take to help ensure that county courts update their records to reflect the cancellation of Breathing Space certifications.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

When a Breathing Space is cancelled, the creditor will be automatically notified by the Insolvency Service. They should provide a copy of this notification to the county court when they apply for any further enforcement action.

The decision on whether someone enters a Breathing Space Moratorium is not initially determined by the court but by a debt advice provider authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority or by a local authority (where they provide debt advice to residents). For a Mental Health Breathing Space, an Approved Mental Health Professional must certify that a person is receiving mental health treatment. If a creditor disagrees with a notification, there are grounds under which they can ask the debt advisor for a review. After a review, if the creditor does not agree with the decision, they can then apply to the court to cancel the breathing space.

If a creditor who has applied to the court is concerned about the validity of documents supporting a Mental Health Breathing Space, they should include supporting evidence as to why the documentation may be invalid in their application, verified by a statement of truth. Such applications are treated as a Part 8 claim by the court. The evidence will be considered by a judge who will make the decision.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has assessed the potential implications for open justice of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision to bar the press and public from recent proceedings.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) is an independent statutory tribunal that hears cases of alleged misconduct by solicitors, registered European Lawyers, registered foreign lawyers, and employees of solicitors’ firms.

The SDT is committed to upholding the principles of open justice. Its default position is that hearings should be held in public and that any departure from this principle must be justified as an exception. Rule 35 of the Solicitors (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 2019 governs the SDT's power to hold a private hearing and stipulates the specific exceptions where hearings may be private. The primary ground for holding a private hearing is exceptional hardship or prejudice to a party, witness, or affected person. In addition, a private hearing may be necessary where a public hearing would prejudice the interests of justice. Details of the SDT’s approach to conducting hearings, or parts of a hearing, in private are available here: https://solicitorstribunal.org.uk/resource/policy-public-private-hearings/.

Whilst the Ministry of Justice does not intervene in individual cases or decisions of the SDT, we keep the underlying legislative framework under review to ensure it continues to provide an effective and transparent disciplinary system.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of financial restrictions on the ability of victims of civil online defamation and harassment to take action.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Individuals who believe they have been defamed online can bring a claim under the tort of defamation, provided it meets the statutory requirements in the Defamation Act 2013, including demonstrating that the statement has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to their reputation.

Victims of harassment can seek civil remedies under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which allows applications for injunctions to prevent further harassment and, in some cases, claims for damages.

As with any civil claim there are costs involved which may involve seeking professional advice. The general principle in England and Wales is, however, that legal costs are recoverable; usually the losing party pays the costs, as well as their own, following the event.

To help manage the costs of litigation, individuals may wish to consider a range of funding options, including conditional fee agreements, damages-based agreements, and insurance products such as after-the-event cover. Third-party litigation funding may also be available in some circumstances.

Civil legal aid may be available for injunctions to protect people against harassment. Eligibility depends on both the nature and merits of the case and the applicant’s financial circumstances.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what level of tuition has been provided in each young offender institution in England and Wales since August.

Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Youth Education Service contract requires Shaw Trust to deliver education to each learner for at least 15 hours each week. This is in addition to the wider curriculum offer, which includes library access, gym, youth work sessions and other activities that support children’s learning and development.

Every child is assessed to determine the grade or level of tuition they should be working at or towards, from Entry Level 1 in subjects such as Mathematics and English, through to A level.

The table below shows the number of hours planned per child by education providers, and the number of hours delivered.

Planned learning sessions may not take place for a variety of reasons, including court appearances, legal visits, sickness and medical treatment. Absence of provider staff is a further cause of cancellation.

The Youth Custody Service (YCS) has developed a comprehensive improvement plan for the next three years, which aims to increase time spent out of room in purposeful activity. It is also overhauling the incentives systems to ensure it focuses on values-led behaviour. The YCS has seconded staff from HMYOI Parc to develop systems across the other YOIs and share learning from their success. We are already seeing a gradual increase in time out of room in all sites, work which the YCS will continue to build on.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what was the agreed level of tuition to be provided by Shaw Trust in the contract they signed with the trust for young offender institutions.

Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Youth Education Service contract requires Shaw Trust to deliver education to each learner for at least 15 hours each week. This is in addition to the wider curriculum offer, which includes library access, gym, youth work sessions and other activities that support children’s learning and development.

Every child is assessed to determine the grade or level of tuition they should be working at or towards, from Entry Level 1 in subjects such as Mathematics and English, through to A level.

The table below shows the number of hours planned per child by education providers, and the number of hours delivered.

Planned learning sessions may not take place for a variety of reasons, including court appearances, legal visits, sickness and medical treatment. Absence of provider staff is a further cause of cancellation.

The Youth Custody Service (YCS) has developed a comprehensive improvement plan for the next three years, which aims to increase time spent out of room in purposeful activity. It is also overhauling the incentives systems to ensure it focuses on values-led behaviour. The YCS has seconded staff from HMYOI Parc to develop systems across the other YOIs and share learning from their success. We are already seeing a gradual increase in time out of room in all sites, work which the YCS will continue to build on.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the financial equitableness when only one parent receives legal aid in family court proceedings.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The eligibility for family legal aid does not discriminate as between Mothers and Fathers. In any case, the eligibility criteria apply equally to both.

The legal aid framework was reformed by previous governments through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). In 2019, the then Government published a post-implementation review of LASPO; the outcome of that review, including in relation to legal aid in family proceedings, is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/post-implementation-review-of-part-1-of-laspo. Furthermore, between January 2023 and March 2025, the Ministry of Justice undertook a comprehensive Review of Civil Legal Aid (RoCLA); all reports are available at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/civil-legal-aid-review, this includes a deep dive on legal aid in family law cases.

Non means tested legal aid is available for parents and those with parental responsibility in most public family special Children Act 1989 cases, including care proceedings as well as related proceedings. A light-touch merits test is applied, so that only the need for representation is considered. As a result, more than one parent may be eligible for legal aid.

Legal aid is available in some private family matters for individuals experiencing, or at risk of, domestic abuse; for individuals (for example, parents) where the child who is the subject of the order is a victim of child abuse or at risk of abuse; for people under the age of 18; in certain cases of international or domestic abduction; for family mediation where there is a family dispute; and for certain urgent protection applications – for example, non-molestation orders. To be eligible for legal aid in these cases, means and merits tests usually need to be met, and evidence of domestic abuse also needs to be provided.

It is possible for both parties to receive legal aid in private family proceedings, if the case is in scope of LASPO and both parties meet the statutory eligibility and evidence requirements, where applicable. It is however also possible under LASPO for only one party to receive legal aid. This is due to the overall intention of LASPO which is to target legal aid to particularly vulnerable cohorts and those most in need.

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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of removing a defendant’s right to choose trial by jury for certain offences on the constitution.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

We are confident that the removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst the jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following these reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial. As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases being dealt with by magistrates. Only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury currently. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants or anyone involved in the justice system.

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. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. 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.

As with all reforms, we will conduct full equalities impact assessment ahead of implementation to obtain an understanding of the impact.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure that the removal of a defendant's right to elect a jury trail is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

We are confident that the removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst the jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following these reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial. As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases being dealt with by magistrates. Only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury currently. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants or anyone involved in the justice system.

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. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. 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.

As with all reforms, we will conduct full equalities impact assessment ahead of implementation to obtain an understanding of the impact.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an estimate of the number of people who will be sentenced to more than three years in prison by new swift courts within the Crown Court in each of the next five years.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court which means the same procedures in the Crown Court will apply, apart from mode of trial. Judges will assign triable-either-ways cases to the new Crown Court Bench Division where the likely sentence is three years or less, but they will retain the full sentencing powers of the Crown Court. Sentencing decisions remain a matter for the independent judiciary and the Ministry of Justice is unable to provide estimates.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the maximum sentence will be that a judge could impose on a convicted person when tried under the proposed new swift courts within the Crown Court.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court which means the same procedures in the Crown Court will apply, apart from mode of trial. Judges will assign triable-either-ways cases to the new Crown Court Bench Division where the likely sentence is three years or less, but they will retain the full sentencing powers of the Crown Court.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the introduction of new swift courts within the Crown Court on the number of wrongful convictions.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court framework, following the same process and procedures. Safeguards will be in place including the existing appeals procedure, and judges in the ‘swift courts’ will be required to provide reasoned judgments when delivering decisions to convict or acquit.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many family court cases the mother acted as a litigant in person due to lack of access to (a) legal aid and (b) representation in each of the last five years.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

It is not possible to identify from the data whether the mother or father was represented during proceedings. However, representation can be broken down by applicant and respondent, and this information is published in the Family Court Statistics Quarterly collection. The latest publication is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/family-court-statistics-quarterly

Reasons why parties may not have been represented are not held centrally.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many family court cases the father acted as a litigant in person due to lack of access to (a) legal aid and (b) representation in each of the last five years.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

It is not possible to identify from the data whether the mother or father was represented during proceedings. However, representation can be broken down by applicant and respondent, and this information is published in the Family Court Statistics Quarterly collection. The latest publication is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/family-court-statistics-quarterly

Reasons why parties may not have been represented are not held centrally.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what was the average financial cost for people meeting their own legal fees in family court proceedings in each of the last five years.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Ministry of Justice does not hold records on the average financial cost for people meeting their own legal fees in family court proceedings. These are private arrangements and there is no statutory requirement for them to be reported.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Written Ministerial Statement of 2 December 2025, what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that, where defendants can no longer elect a jury trial, decisions are (a) consistent and (b) subject to appropriate oversight.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The court reforms, including removing the right to elect for a jury trial, are not intended to impact trial outcomes; the intention is only to change how trials are heard.

The vast majority of criminal cases - over 90% - are already heard without a jury, by magistrates. Their decisions will continue to be based on the law and the facts of the case. Safeguards are in place to ensure magistrates’ court decisions are consistent and subject to appropriate oversight. This includes a new appeals process whereby defendants will be able to seek permission to appeal based on an arguable point of law for their case. This new process will mirror the appeals process from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal. Magistrates and judges must also follow sentencing guidelines when making sentencing decisions. These guidelines outline the factors they should consider before reaching a final decision.

Under the reformed system, trials taking place in the Magistrates’ Court will be recorded. This transparency measure represents an important modernisation of our Courts but also represents an important safeguard for all parties.

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

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Family Court system, particularly in cases where one parent is legally represented and the other is not.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Government does not record the number of litigants who were unable to present their case properly due to lack of representation. The Ministry of Justice publish official statistics includes legal representation data in the following: Family_Court_Tables__Apr-Jun_2025_.ods

The Government is committed to ensuring all court users can access justice fairly. HMCTS offers practical guidance and intermediary support for litigants in person, while wider legal help is available through organisations funded by over £6 million from the Ministry of Justice (April 2025–March 2026), including online resources like Advicenow.

We have not made a specific assessment of the delays in cases involving litigants in person. However, published statistics show that cases where both parties, or the respondent only, had legal representation generally took longer to conclude than those where only the applicant was represented or both parties were unrepresented.

We recognise the impact delays have on families and are taking action to improve outcomes. In private law proceedings relating to children, Pathfinder courts are reducing case durations, delivering some of the fastest times nationally and providing better support for vulnerable parties, including domestic abuse survivors.

This Government has not made an assessment of judicial outcomes. The Judiciary are constitutionally independent from the Government. Commenting on or evaluating judicial decisions would risk undermining this independence.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what mechanisms exist to coordinate information between criminal courts and family courts.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Disclosure of Information between Family and Criminal Agencies and Jurisdictions: Protocol 2024 came into effect on 1 March 2024 and applies to the exchange of information and material between criminal and family agencies and jurisdictions.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of using scanning machines in probation offices to detect weapons; and what steps he is taking to ensure the safety of probation officers in the workplace.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The safety of probation staff is our priority, and we are committed to taking action to protect them. Following a comprehensive review of health, safety, and security across all probation premises, we are urgently implementing measures to strengthen protection for staff and improve overall safety.

We have completed a comprehensive nationwide review of local safety arrangements and are currently installing visitor lockers outside all probation contact areas with the aim of preventing the ingress of weapons and rolling out bleed control kits and defibrillators in every office to provide critical emergency support.

We are also planning to pilot enhanced security measures in seven probation offices. The proposed pilots include archway scanners, handheld wands, body-worn cameras, and advanced safety training focused on de-escalation and aggression management. The aim is to prevent weapon ingress, improve staff safety, and assess the effectiveness of the proposed interventions.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many litigants in person report that they were unable to present their case properly due to lack of representation in each of the last five years; and what assessment he has made of the effect on judicial outcomes in family court proceedings.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Government does not record the number of litigants who were unable to present their case properly due to lack of representation. The Ministry of Justice publish official statistics includes legal representation data in the following: Family_Court_Tables__Apr-Jun_2025_.ods

The Government is committed to ensuring all court users can access justice fairly. HMCTS offers practical guidance and intermediary support for litigants in person, while wider legal help is available through organisations funded by over £6 million from the Ministry of Justice (April 2025–March 2026), including online resources like Advicenow.

We have not made a specific assessment of the delays in cases involving litigants in person. However, published statistics show that cases where both parties, or the respondent only, had legal representation generally took longer to conclude than those where only the applicant was represented or both parties were unrepresented.

We recognise the impact delays have on families and are taking action to improve outcomes. In private law proceedings relating to children, Pathfinder courts are reducing case durations, delivering some of the fastest times nationally and providing better support for vulnerable parties, including domestic abuse survivors.

This Government has not made an assessment of judicial outcomes. The Judiciary are constitutionally independent from the Government. Commenting on or evaluating judicial decisions would risk undermining this independence.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of trends in the level of delays in the family courts caused by litigants in person on (a) one and (b) both sides of a case.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Government does not record the number of litigants who were unable to present their case properly due to lack of representation. The Ministry of Justice publish official statistics includes legal representation data in the following: Family_Court_Tables__Apr-Jun_2025_.ods

The Government is committed to ensuring all court users can access justice fairly. HMCTS offers practical guidance and intermediary support for litigants in person, while wider legal help is available through organisations funded by over £6 million from the Ministry of Justice (April 2025–March 2026), including online resources like Advicenow.

We have not made a specific assessment of the delays in cases involving litigants in person. However, published statistics show that cases where both parties, or the respondent only, had legal representation generally took longer to conclude than those where only the applicant was represented or both parties were unrepresented.

We recognise the impact delays have on families and are taking action to improve outcomes. In private law proceedings relating to children, Pathfinder courts are reducing case durations, delivering some of the fastest times nationally and providing better support for vulnerable parties, including domestic abuse survivors.

This Government has not made an assessment of judicial outcomes. The Judiciary are constitutionally independent from the Government. Commenting on or evaluating judicial decisions would risk undermining this independence.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much was spent on probation services in (a) Greater Manchester (b) Oldham for each year from 2015 to date.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The data below shows the annual spend for Probation services in the Greater Manchester Probation Region and Oldham since 2021.

To note:

Data prior to July 2021 is unable to be reported on, due to the structure of probation regions following Transforming Rehabilitation in 2014 where a National Probation Service (NPS) for high-risk work, and 21 Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) for low/medium risk were created.

Under the National Probation Service, Greater Manchester was part of a wider area called North West Division.

The unification of CRCs and the National Probation Service (NPS) in England and Wales took place on 26 June 2021, creating The Probation Service and marked a significant restructuring of the probation system.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what is the full scope of the five point action plan to tackle release inaccuracy announced by him on 11 November 2025.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Releases in error are never acceptable, and we are bearing down on those errors that do occur.

Releases in error have always existed, and are another long-term symptom of the prison system crisis this Government inherited. While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, we are taking decisive action to address this issue to reduce the risk of future mistakes.

On 11 November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a five-point action plan. This includes:

• a new Justice Performance Board which will give a comprehensive view of performance across the criminal justice system;
• the introduction of an urgent query process to allow prisons to quickly escalate warrant-related queries;
• a multi-million pound investment in new technology to reduce human error;
• the simplification of release policy to reduce the scope for errors through the implementation of the Sentencing Bill; and
• an independent system-wide review, led by Dame Lynne Owens, which will report its recommendations in spring next year.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of applications for legal aid in family proceedings have been granted to mothers in each of the last five years.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Legal Aid Agency does not specifically track or report on grants of legal aid broken down by whether the applicant was a mother or father as the same eligibility criteria are applicable to all parents and persons with parental responsibility. The requested information could only be obtained by manually reviewing individual applications at disproportionate cost to the Department.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many applications for legal aid in family proceedings were granted to fathers in each of the last five years.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Legal Aid Agency does not specifically track or report on grants of legal aid broken down by whether the applicant was a mother or father as the same eligibility criteria are applicable to all parents and persons with parental responsibility. The requested information could only be obtained by manually reviewing individual applications at disproportionate cost to the Department.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the reoffending outcomes for adults released from short custodial sentences; and what steps he is taking to improve those outcomes.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We publish proven reoffending statistics quarterly, including detailed data by sentence type, offence type, and offender characteristics. The next publication is due at the end of January 2026 (Proven reoffending statistics - GOV.UK).

We are tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

For example, to support employment, we are delivering vocational courses, a future skills programme, and expanding the prisoner apprenticeship scheme. All 93 resettlement prisons have key roles in place to prepare prisoners for employment on release, and we have launched regional Employment Councils, which for the first time bring businesses together with prisons, probation, and the Department for Work and Pensions to support prison leavers.

Reoffending rates for adults sentenced to less than 12 months in custody remain high – in the latest data, just over 60% reoffended within a year. Ministry of Justice research shows that community orders and suspended sentences are up to 4 percentage points more effective at reducing reoffending than short custodial sentences. That is why we are introducing a presumption to suspend custodial sentences of 12 months or less via the Sentencing Bill, and expanding Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs), which aim to reduce reoffending by diverting individuals from short custodial sentences into enhanced community-based orders.

We are not, however, abolishing short sentences. Judges will always have the power to send offenders to prison where they have breached a court order, where there is a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to a particular individual, or in exceptional circumstances.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans he has to review the effectiveness of custodial sentences of under 12 months in reducing levels of reoffending.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We publish proven reoffending statistics quarterly, including detailed data by sentence type, offence type, and offender characteristics. The next publication is due at the end of January 2026 (Proven reoffending statistics - GOV.UK).

We are tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

For example, to support employment, we are delivering vocational courses, a future skills programme, and expanding the prisoner apprenticeship scheme. All 93 resettlement prisons have key roles in place to prepare prisoners for employment on release, and we have launched regional Employment Councils, which for the first time bring businesses together with prisons, probation, and the Department for Work and Pensions to support prison leavers.

Reoffending rates for adults sentenced to less than 12 months in custody remain high – in the latest data, just over 60% reoffended within a year. Ministry of Justice research shows that community orders and suspended sentences are up to 4 percentage points more effective at reducing reoffending than short custodial sentences. That is why we are introducing a presumption to suspend custodial sentences of 12 months or less via the Sentencing Bill, and expanding Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs), which aim to reduce reoffending by diverting individuals from short custodial sentences into enhanced community-based orders.

We are not, however, abolishing short sentences. Judges will always have the power to send offenders to prison where they have breached a court order, where there is a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to a particular individual, or in exceptional circumstances.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans he has to publish detailed data on reoffending outcomes by (a) sentence type, (b) offence type, and (c) offender characteristics.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We publish proven reoffending statistics quarterly, including detailed data by sentence type, offence type, and offender characteristics. The next publication is due at the end of January 2026 (Proven reoffending statistics - GOV.UK).

We are tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

For example, to support employment, we are delivering vocational courses, a future skills programme, and expanding the prisoner apprenticeship scheme. All 93 resettlement prisons have key roles in place to prepare prisoners for employment on release, and we have launched regional Employment Councils, which for the first time bring businesses together with prisons, probation, and the Department for Work and Pensions to support prison leavers.

Reoffending rates for adults sentenced to less than 12 months in custody remain high – in the latest data, just over 60% reoffended within a year. Ministry of Justice research shows that community orders and suspended sentences are up to 4 percentage points more effective at reducing reoffending than short custodial sentences. That is why we are introducing a presumption to suspend custodial sentences of 12 months or less via the Sentencing Bill, and expanding Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs), which aim to reduce reoffending by diverting individuals from short custodial sentences into enhanced community-based orders.

We are not, however, abolishing short sentences. Judges will always have the power to send offenders to prison where they have breached a court order, where there is a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to a particular individual, or in exceptional circumstances.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when he plans to visit HMP Wandsworth.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Ministers regularly visit prisons across the country. Any plans to visit specific prisons will be notified to the relevant Members of Parliament in advance.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to reduce the proportion of offenders who commit a further offence within the one-year follow-up period used in reoffending statistics.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We publish proven reoffending statistics quarterly, including detailed data by sentence type, offence type, and offender characteristics. The next publication is due at the end of January 2026 (Proven reoffending statistics - GOV.UK).

We are tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

For example, to support employment, we are delivering vocational courses, a future skills programme, and expanding the prisoner apprenticeship scheme. All 93 resettlement prisons have key roles in place to prepare prisoners for employment on release, and we have launched regional Employment Councils, which for the first time bring businesses together with prisons, probation, and the Department for Work and Pensions to support prison leavers.

Reoffending rates for adults sentenced to less than 12 months in custody remain high – in the latest data, just over 60% reoffended within a year. Ministry of Justice research shows that community orders and suspended sentences are up to 4 percentage points more effective at reducing reoffending than short custodial sentences. That is why we are introducing a presumption to suspend custodial sentences of 12 months or less via the Sentencing Bill, and expanding Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs), which aim to reduce reoffending by diverting individuals from short custodial sentences into enhanced community-based orders.

We are not, however, abolishing short sentences. Judges will always have the power to send offenders to prison where they have breached a court order, where there is a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to a particular individual, or in exceptional circumstances.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to reduce the level of reoffending rates of people convicted of immigration offences and sentenced to short custodial terms.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The term “immigration related offences” covers a wide range of offending behaviour including making illegal entry to the country, overstaying leave to remain, employing illegal workers and facilitating breaches of immigration law.

As a result, providing reoffending data across all of these offence types would come at disproportionate cost and it is difficult to make generalised assumptions about future risk of offending.

More broadly the Government is tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what data he holds on the rate of reoffending of people convicted of immigration-related offences.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The term “immigration related offences” covers a wide range of offending behaviour including making illegal entry to the country, overstaying leave to remain, employing illegal workers and facilitating breaches of immigration law.

As a result, providing reoffending data across all of these offence types would come at disproportionate cost and it is difficult to make generalised assumptions about future risk of offending.

More broadly the Government is tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the risk of reoffending of individuals convicted of immigration-related offences.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The term “immigration related offences” covers a wide range of offending behaviour including making illegal entry to the country, overstaying leave to remain, employing illegal workers and facilitating breaches of immigration law.

As a result, providing reoffending data across all of these offence types would come at disproportionate cost and it is difficult to make generalised assumptions about future risk of offending.

More broadly the Government is tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the official closing date under section 14 of the Inquiries Act 2005 was for the public inquiries entitled (a) Inquiry into the circumstances of the Death of Bernard Lodge at Manchester Prison on 28 August 1998 and (b) Azelle Rodney Inquiry.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Chairs of the Bernard Lodge and Azelle Rodney Inquiries completed their investigations and submitted reports, which were published on 15 December 2009 and 5 July 2013, respectively.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the official set up date under section 5 of the Inquiries Act 2005 was for the public inquiry entitled Inquiry into the circumstances of the Death of Bernard Lodge at Manchester Prison on 28 August 1998.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Bernard Lodge inquiry was commissioned initially as an ad hoc investigation with no statutory powers. The investigation was converted to a statutory inquiry under section 15 of the Inquiries Act 2005 on 23 February 2009.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the availability and effectiveness of rehabilitation support for individuals with a gambling addiction within the criminal justice system.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) co-commissioned an independent report to inform understanding of the prevalence of gambling harms among those in prison and on probation in the community: Report on Gambling Harms and the Criminal Justice System.

We are committed to rehabilitating those impacted by gambling and its harms, through a rehabilitative culture, positive relationships and pro-social staff. Together with this, HMPPS delivers a broad range of interventions to address individuals’ criminogenic risks and needs, including accredited offending behaviour programmes. In addition, the NHS provides support for individuals who are experiencing gambling addiction.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps are being taken to find prisoners who were released by accident.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Any release in error is unacceptable, and public safety is the Government’s first duty. In such cases, we coordinate across multiple agencies including the police to ensure individuals are returned to custody. The majority of those released in error are recaptured swiftly.

Releases in error are another long-term symptom of the prison system crisis this Government inherited. While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, we are bearing down on those errors that do occur.

On 11 November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a five-point action plan. This includes strengthening release checks across prisons, a multi-million pound investment in new technology, and an independent review, which will report its recommendations in spring next year.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the prevalence of gambling-related harm among individuals within the criminal justice system; and what steps he is taking to improve screening and support for problem gambling in prisons and the probation services.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) co-commissioned an independent report to inform understanding of the prevalence of gambling harms among those in prison and on probation in the community: Report on Gambling Harms and the Criminal Justice System.

We are committed to rehabilitating those impacted by gambling and its harms, through a rehabilitative culture, positive relationships and pro-social staff. Together with this, HMPPS delivers a broad range of interventions to address individuals’ criminogenic risks and needs, including accredited offending behaviour programmes. In addition, the NHS provides support for individuals who are experiencing gambling addiction.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department's press release entitled Government action to protect children from abusive parents, published on 22 October 2025, how he plans to enact the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989; and what his planned timetable is for that repeal.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Government will repeal the presumption of parental involvement when Parliamentary time allows. Doing so requires amendments to the Children Act 1989 which will be taken forward once an appropriate legislative vehicle is identified. This remains a Ministerial priority, and we will announce further plans for implementation in due course.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government how much they have spent on each young offender institution in England and Wales in each year since October 2022.

Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The following table shows total resource expenditure at each public sector young offender institution (YOI), in the Children and Young People Estate for the three years 2022-23 to 2024-25. The figures do not include expenditure on education, as this is managed collectively across establishments, and it is not therefore possible to apportion it to individual YOIs.

Notes:

1. HMYOI Parc is not included. This is because it is managed under a single contract together with HMP Parc and it is not possible to disaggregate spending between the two establishments.

2. Cookham Wood closed as a YOI in August 2024.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the policy papers entitled Spending Review 2025, published on 30 June 2025, and Budget 2025, published on 28 November 2025, what their Department’s capital Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will be in each year of the Spending Review period; how much capital funding has been allocated to each of their Department’s programmes; and how much and what proportion of the capital DEL allocation remains unallocated in each year.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Budget 2025 was announced on 26 November 2025 and table C.2 confirms our Spending Review settlement of £2.3bn for 2026-2027, £2.3bn for 2027-2028, £2.3bn for 2028-2029 and £2.0bn for 2029-2030.

Of which we must spend the following split to complete the 14,000 prison place programme: £1.2bn for 2026-2027, £1.2bn for 2027-2028, £1,2bn for 2028-2029 and £1.14bn for 2029-2030. This is a total investment of £4.7bn over this period.

All other areas of spend will be subject to future allocations discussions in the usual way.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, for the total spend on (i) LinkedIn membership fees (ii) other subscriptions by his Department in the last financial year.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice does not hold a specific membership with LinkedIn. However, our spend on LinkedIn for the financial year 2024/2025 was £155,247.65.

Please note this cost covers multiple recruitment services and advertising that span across all our operationally critical frontline roles. For example, those in HMPPS and HMCTS. All our campaign activity is data driven to maximise our reach to our target audiences.

The Department’s spend for other subscriptions in 2024/2025 is £628,213.00. These subscriptions/memberships cover things such as The Solicitors Regulation Authority, The Bar Council, and the Office for National Statistics and ensure we are able to operate compliantly and effectively.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has made an assessment of the potential impact of reforms to jury trials on minority ethnic groups.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

A full Equalities Impact Assessment will be published alongside legislation as is usual practice. This will include an assessment of the potential impact of these reforms on minority ethnic groups. The criminal court reforms are not expected to impact trial outcomes, only how trials are heard.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 4 December 2025 to Question 94768 on Criminal Proceedings: Evidence, whether he has made an assessment of the potential implications for his policies of lost, missing and damaged evidence collapsed court cases in the context of steps taken to reduce the court backlog and deliver successful trials; and if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of collating adequate data.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Ministry of Justice does not collate data on cases that are not progressed due to lost, missing or damaged evidence. We keep our data gathering processes under constant review and will need to consider whether the areas identified in the question can feasibly be collected.

Reducing the number of cases which are either delayed or collapse all together due to lost or missing evidence or mislaying of documents is important. As part of our ongoing efforts to improve timeliness and efficiency in our criminal courts, we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake a review of the court operations and make recommendations designed to boost court efficiency in Part 2 of his review. We are awaiting that report in the New Year and will look to act on its recommendations. It is vital that all partners, across the justice system, work together to create a sustainable justice system, including through the Criminal Justice Board, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of removing a defendant’s right to elect trial by jury for triable-either-way offences on public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

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. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. 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.

Jury trials are the cornerstone of our justice system and will remain in place for the most serious crimes. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness.

The vast majority of criminal cases are already heard in magistrates’ courts without juries, with 90% of all criminal cases being dealt with by magistrates. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants or anyone involved in the justice system. We need to do things differently and prevent defendants from gaming the system. Currently, triable-either-way offences make up around 40% of all cases. Triable-either-way offences allow a defendant to insist on their choice of having a jury trial at the taxpayer’s expense and greater length, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence. What this means it that, currently, according to Crown Prosecution Service figures, over 4,000 defendants, whose cases could have been heard in the magistrates’ court with magistrates’ court sentencing powers, were heard in the Crown Court because the defendant was able to insist on a full jury trial. This means that in each of those cases, money and significant time and resource was spent on a jury trial, not only at taxpayer’s expense but all those in the system.

Under the Government’s proposals, the mode of trial will be triaged by the Court, which will determine whether a case needs to be heard in the Crown Court, or could be heard more swiftly in the Magistrates’ Court. The latest figures show offences heard by magistrates already complete more than four times faster than similar cases in the Crown Court. Only reform will free up the space and time needed to prioritise the most serious cases – including those that can and should have a jury trial. We think that will benefit victims, witnesses, and defendants alike.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of removing the right to elect for a jury trial on perceptions of the justice system of a) victims, b) witnesses and c) defendants.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

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. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. 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.

Jury trials are the cornerstone of our justice system and will remain in place for the most serious crimes. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness.

The vast majority of criminal cases are already heard in magistrates’ courts without juries, with 90% of all criminal cases being dealt with by magistrates. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants or anyone involved in the justice system. We need to do things differently and prevent defendants from gaming the system. Currently, triable-either-way offences make up around 40% of all cases. Triable-either-way offences allow a defendant to insist on their choice of having a jury trial at the taxpayer’s expense and greater length, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence. What this means it that, currently, according to Crown Prosecution Service figures, over 4,000 defendants, whose cases could have been heard in the magistrates’ court with magistrates’ court sentencing powers, were heard in the Crown Court because the defendant was able to insist on a full jury trial. This means that in each of those cases, money and significant time and resource was spent on a jury trial, not only at taxpayer’s expense but all those in the system.

Under the Government’s proposals, the mode of trial will be triaged by the Court, which will determine whether a case needs to be heard in the Crown Court, or could be heard more swiftly in the Magistrates’ Court. The latest figures show offences heard by magistrates already complete more than four times faster than similar cases in the Crown Court. Only reform will free up the space and time needed to prioritise the most serious cases – including those that can and should have a jury trial. We think that will benefit victims, witnesses, and defendants alike.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what funding his Department has committed to providing specialist support services for survivors of technology-facilitated abuse and online violence against women and girls.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

My Department is committed to the Government’s pledge to halve Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) in a decade.

The Ministry of Justice will be investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date.

I have committed two years of grant funding to the 42 Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales. They commission local practical, emotional, and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types, including victims of technology-facilitated abuse and online violence against women and girls. The funding from the Ministry of Justice includes ‘core’ funding, which is for PCCs to allocate at their discretion, based on their assessment of local need, as well as funding that is ring-fenced for sexual violence and domestic abuse services.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of magistrates come from working class backgrounds in (a) England and (b) Greater Manchester.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Judicial Office collects demographic information on magistrates, including professional background; however, providing this information is voluntary. Low declaration rates mean that there is insufficient data to allow for any meaningful analysis or interpretation at this time. We, and the judiciary, are committed to working to improve the completeness and quality of socio-economic data across the judiciary, including magistrates.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the proposed removal of the right to trial by jury for offences carrying a maximum sentence of less than three years will apply retrospectively to defendants who have already entered a plea of not guilty and elected for jury trial.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Ministers will introduce detailed proposals to Parliament as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to implement the Law Commission’s July 2022 recommendations for reforming weddings law in England and Wales.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Government announced on 2 October that we intend to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows. The reforms reflect a commitment to making marriage law fairer, simpler and more modern, whilst also protecting the solemnity and dignity of marriage. We want to create a level playing field for all groups, including allowing humanist weddings to be legally recognised for the first time. We will be consulting on the details early next year.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps the Government has taken to review the provisions of the Marriage Act 1949.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Government announced on 2 October that we intend to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows. The reforms reflect a commitment to making marriage law fairer, simpler and more modern, whilst also protecting the solemnity and dignity of marriage. We want to create a level playing field for all groups, including allowing humanist weddings to be legally recognised for the first time. We will be consulting on the details early next year.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many transgender prisoners with convictions for (a) sexual and (b) violent offences are housed within the general female prison estate; and how many of those prisoners have been granted a Ministerial exemption to remain there in the last 12 months.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

As of 1 December, there were no transgender women, including individuals with Gender Recognition Certificates, in the general women's prison estate with any convictions for sexual offences and five or fewer transgender women with convictions for violent offences. (Where statistics include a total of five or fewer, the exact figure is not given, for data protection reasons.)

The individuals with convictions for violent offences received Ministerial exemptions to be held in the general women's estate under the previous Government. No exemptions have been provided by this Government since it came into power.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether any offenders currently detained in (a) separation and (b) close supervision centres are challenging their detention.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

There are no ongoing judicial review challenges made with regards to separation centres and no ongoing challenges that have reached the courts with regards to close supervision centres.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, for what reasons Jonathan Hall KC’s review into Separation Centres has not yet been published; and when he plans to publish that review.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Government is carefully considering the recommendations made by Jonathan Hall KC and will publish his report in due course.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many perpetrators of cyber crime were (a) prosecuted and (b) convicted in (i) 2022, (ii) 2023 and (iii) 2024.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

There are no offences specifically defined in legislation as “cyber crime,” however the Computer Misuse Act 1990 has a number of offences that could be considered as such.

The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data concerning prosecutions and convictions available here: Criminal Justice Statistics.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made an estimate of the cost savings from expanding DNA testing in criminal trials.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Ministry of Justice does not collect or hold data which would link the use of DNA testing, or any other type of evidence produced by the prosecution, with the overall efficiency of criminal trials. Therefore, it is not possible to make an estimate of any cost savings.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of changes to the right to jury trial on the number of appeals and judicial review applications.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Following reforms to the criminal courts, appellants will continue to have the right to appeal convictions and sentences received in both magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court. Permission to appeal will be granted by the judiciary where the appeal has a real prospect of success.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of (a) named day questions and (b) ordinary written questions were responded to by his Department within the required timescale in (i) May 2025, (ii) June 2025, (iii) July 2025, (iv) August 2025, (v) September 2025, (vi) October 2025 and (vii) November 2025.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Government recognises the importance of the effective and timely handling of written parliamentary questions (PQs).

The following table provides the information requested:

Please note that these figures have been pulled from the Ministry of Justice’s internal data and may not be a fully accurate representation of the Department’s timeliness. No Commons PQs were due for answer in August, so no data has been given.

The House of Commons Procedure Committee monitors departmental PQ performance and publishes a report of the Government’s consolidated PQ data following the end of each session.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of arts and culture programmes on reducing and preventing youth crime.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice recognises the important role that arts and culture can play in engaging children and supporting positive outcomes.

Evidence from the 2025 publication by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, ‘The effects of arts and culture programmes on youth crime: A rapid review’ shows that, whilst the current evidence base is limited, arts and culture programmes can help improve young people’s wellbeing, confidence, relationships and engagement with services. These are all factors associated with a reduced risk of future offending.

This year, the Government is providing more than £100 million of investment in Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) across England and Wales, including through the early intervention Turnaround programme. This gives YOTs the flexibility to use and commission arts and culture interventions where they judge this may be most effective in helping a child’s rehabilitation.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many additional cases are expected to be heard each year under the new swift courts compared with existing Crown Court processes.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Of the 3% of criminal trial cases that proceed to a jury trial in the Crown Court, over half would still proceed to the Crown Court and get a jury trial post-reform. The remainder would be expected to stay in the magistrates’ courts or would be allocated to the new ‘swift courts’.

The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court, and this means they will be dealing with the same cases that come into the Crown Court. As mode of trial allocations and trial listing remain a matter for the independent judiciary and are dependent on case mix, the Ministry of Justice is unable to comment on how cases arriving at the Crown Court will be distributed between ‘swift courts’ and jury trials.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of making case conferences before trial mandatory for victims and survivors of sexual abuse.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

Victims and witnesses in sexual offence cases can request in advance of trial to observe proceedings remotely once they have given evidence. Courts will make every effort to accommodate these requests, which may include re-listing the trial in a courtroom with suitable technology. However, remote observation cannot be guaranteed in every case, as it depends on the availability of appropriate facilities and resources.

The listing of Ground Rules Hearings (GRHs) is a matter for the judiciary. GRHs are typically held in cases involving vulnerable witnesses, such as children or individuals with communication difficulties, to ensure they are questioned in a fair and appropriate way during trial. However, judges also have discretion to direct a GRH for intimidated witnesses, including complainants in sexual offence cases, where they consider it appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of implementing a whole-system criminal justice strategy for rape and sexual abuse.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Ministry of Justice is committed to a high standard, whole system approach to cases of rape and sexual abuse. This is supported by the expertise of our Independent Advisor on the Criminal Justice Response to Sexual Violence.

We will soon be publishing our cross-government Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Strategy. This will set out strategic direction and concrete actions to prevent violence and abuse, pursue perpetrators, and support victims, including across the criminal justice system. This strategy will work in tandem with the recently published Crown Prosecution Service VAWG strategy, which sets out how they will work with partners to ensure a consistent, best practice response to VAWG.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of removing juries from trials on an individual’s right to a free and fair trial.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following these reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial. As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates. Only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury currently.

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. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. 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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many staff within the HM Prison & Probation Service reliant on visas for employment have been employed since 5 July 2024.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice does not hold the requested information requested data in an easily accessible format. Right to Work data is collected during the vetting stage but is not retained within the employment record. As a result, extracting this information would require a manual review of individual vetting files, which would incur a disproportionate cost.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when statutory guidance will be produced on the duty to collaborate under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024; and what plans the Government has to ensure its implementation following the decision to abolish PCCs and the upcoming changes to integrated care boards.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

We will work closely with the Home Office and the Department for Health and Social care as Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) and Integrated Care Board reforms unfold and this will inform our consideration of implementation of the Duty to Collaborate under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The Ministry of Justice has recently announced that it will be investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date.

We are taking this opportunity to review and strengthen the commissioning and delivery of victims’ services. In light of the announcement to abolish the PCC function in May 2028, we will also explore changes to the delivery of victims funding to ensure this is delivered in the best way in the future.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is planning to take to ensure that public confidence in the criminal justice system is maintained if the use of jury trials is reduced.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

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. The significant delays in our courts are corrosive of public confidence in our justice system. In many cases, witnesses and victims are pulling out of the court process, resulting in the collapse of trials and justice not being served. That is why this Government is determined to tackle the crisis and why we 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 central purpose of these reforms is precisely to restore public confidence in the justice system.

Whilst jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial. The removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates. Only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury currently.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of proposals to remove jury trials for offences other than the most serious crimes on defendants’ rights.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Whilst the jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial. The removal of the defendants’ right to elect or right to insist on a jury trial irrespective of the seriousness of the offence is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conduct fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates. Only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury currently.

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. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. 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.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take steps to enable victims and survivors of sexual abuse to observe their trial without sitting in the public gallery.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

Victims and witnesses in sexual offence cases can request in advance of trial to observe proceedings remotely once they have given evidence. Courts will make every effort to accommodate these requests, which may include re-listing the trial in a courtroom with suitable technology. However, remote observation cannot be guaranteed in every case, as it depends on the availability of appropriate facilities and resources.

The listing of Ground Rules Hearings (GRHs) is a matter for the judiciary. GRHs are typically held in cases involving vulnerable witnesses, such as children or individuals with communication difficulties, to ensure they are questioned in a fair and appropriate way during trial. However, judges also have discretion to direct a GRH for intimidated witnesses, including complainants in sexual offence cases, where they consider it appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will extend Operation Soteria into the Crown Court.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

Operation Soteria transformed how the police and the Crown Prosecution Service work together to investigate rape cases, promoting partnership working and ensuring a focus on the suspect’s behaviour and evidence, not the victim’s lifestyle, their choices or their character. This focus should continue in the court room. That is why we have announced new legislation to stop evidence which has the sole aim of undermining the victim – such as about their past sexual behaviour, previous allegations of assault, or compensation claim – being admitted to the courtroom unless it is absolutely necessary and clearly relevant.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners have been released in error since 5 July 2024 by prison.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Releases in error have been increasing for several years and are another symptom of the prison system crisis inherited by this Government. On 11 November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a five-point action plan setting out initial steps to address this issue.

Totals for releases in error, including a breakdown by releasing prison (or Prisoner Escort Custody Services), are published each July in the HMPPS Annual Digest, available via  HMPPS Annual Digest, April 2024 to March 2025 - GOV.UK , and provide data up to March 2025.

The Government is determined to fix the issue of mistaken releases and ensure the public is properly protected.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the risk of mistakes, errors and potential miscarriages of justice through the use of the single justice procedure.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Single Justice Procedure (SJP) was designed to deal with straightforward, uncontested, non-imprisonable offences in a proportionate and efficient way. Cases are decided by a single magistrate with the support of a legal adviser, in private rather than in open court.

Whilst safeguards are in place, this Government acknowledges that errors have occurred within the SJP. In 2024, it became apparent that certain train operators had been incorrectly using the procedure to prosecute for offences under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, which are ineligible for prosecution through the SJP. Such instances highlight the importance of robust safeguards to protect fairness.

That is why we launched a consultation on the oversight and regulation of private prosecutors, which included a dedicated chapter on the SJP. The consultation explored measures to strengthen prosecutor accountability and ensure consistent standards in addition to how defendant submissions are handled in the SJP. The consultation closed on 8 May, and our proposals will be outlined in the Government’s response which we will publish in due course.

We are continuing to monitor risks and remain committed to enhancing safeguards in the SJP to maintain public confidence and fairness in the justice system. This includes ongoing engagement with stakeholders, reviewing operational practices and exploring further improvements to transparency.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Hanson of Flint on 25 November (HL11797), what steps they take to ensure that those living in the vicinity of a prison are notified in the event that a foreign national offender is released without being deported immediately.

Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

There is no mechanism to notify the public living in the vicinity of a prison if a Foreign National Offender (FNO) is released.

When a FNO is released into the community, they are subject to supervision and monitoring by the probation service in the same way British citizens released from prison would be. The Home Office will pursue removal of FNOs whether in prison or the community where a deportation order has been made.

The HMPPS Victim Contact Scheme provides a service for the victims of offenders who are convicted of a specified violent, sexual or terrorism offence and are sentenced to twelve months or more imprisonment. Victims who decide to receive the service are allocated a Victim Liaison Officer who will keep the victim updated on key stages throughout the sentence, including when the offender (whether FNO or not) is released.

In the year-ending October 2025, over 5,400 FNOs have been returned which is 12% higher than the 12 months prior.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made, as part of his Department’s responsibilities for access to justice and the protection of victims of domestic abuse, of the risk that delays caused by a non-engaging spouse in divorce and financial remedy proceedings may facilitate ongoing coercive or controlling behaviour.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

It is a top priority for this Government to tackle violence against women and girls, including economic abuse and coercive control. The Law Commission’s 2024 scoping report on financial remedies on divorce considered the issue of domestic abuse in financial remedy cases. The Government is carefully considering this report as it prepares to consult on issues identified by the Law Commission. We will issue our consultation by Spring next year.

It is a matter of concern that perpetrators of domestic abuse may fail to engage with divorce proceedings. The courts have powers to deal with parties who fail to engage, including to make orders confirming a perpetrator has received a divorce application when they have refused to acknowledge it. In September this year, the process of asking the court to make orders about sending applications became easier, when His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service extended the online application system for litigants-in-person.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what criteria the Crown Prosecution Service uses to determine whether to (a) release an absconder on bail and (b) bail them.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The decision to remand an individual in custody or to grant bail is solely a matter for the independent judiciary acting in accordance with the criteria set out in the Bail Act 1976.

Questions about the Crown Prosecution Service are for the Attorney General.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when he expects the investigation into releases in error led by Dame Lynne Owens to be (a) completed and (b) published.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Dame Lynne Owens will have completed her independent investigation and be reporting to the Deputy Prime Minister on all her findings by the end of February. We will continue to approach the issue of releases in error with an emphasis on transparency.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the investigation into releases in error led by Dame Lynne Owens has reported any interim findings.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Dame Lynne Owens will have completed her independent investigation and be reporting to the Deputy Prime Minister on all her findings by the end of February. We will continue to approach the issue of releases in error with an emphasis on transparency.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners were held in custody beyond their lawful release dates in each of the past ten years; and what the total amount of compensation paid was in each year.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Release inaccuracy is yet another symptom of the prison system crisis inherited by this Government. While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, we are clamping down on those errors that do occur, and this includes unlawful detentions.

On 11 November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a five-point action plan setting out initial steps which includes an independent inquiry which will report its recommendations to prevent further inaccuracies. The Government is determined to fix release inaccuracies and ensure the public is properly protected.

The data requested comes from internal management information and is not centrally collected. It is not quality assured and does not meet the standard required for publication.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners were held in custody beyond their lawful release dates in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what the total compensation paid was.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Release inaccuracy is yet another symptom of the prison system crisis inherited by this Government. While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, we are clamping down on those errors that do occur, and this includes unlawful detentions.

On 11 November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a five-point action plan setting out initial steps which includes an independent inquiry which will report its recommendations to prevent further inaccuracies. The Government is determined to fix release inaccuracies and ensure the public is properly protected.

The data requested comes from internal management information and is not centrally collected. It is not quality assured and does not meet the standard required for publication.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average sum of compensation paid per day is to prisoners who have been held in custody beyond their lawful release dates.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Release inaccuracy is yet another symptom of the prison system crisis inherited by this Government. While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, we are clamping down on those errors that do occur, and this includes unlawful detentions.

On 11 November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a five-point action plan setting out initial steps which includes an independent inquiry which will report its recommendations to prevent further inaccuracies. The Government is determined to fix release inaccuracies and ensure the public is properly protected.

The data requested comes from internal management information and is not centrally collected. It is not quality assured and does not meet the standard required for publication.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to reduce the number of prisoners who are held in custody beyond their lawful release dates.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Release inaccuracy is yet another symptom of the prison system crisis inherited by this Government. While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, we are clamping down on those errors that do occur, and this includes unlawful detentions.

On 11 November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a five-point action plan setting out initial steps which includes an independent inquiry which will report its recommendations to prevent further inaccuracies. The Government is determined to fix release inaccuracies and ensure the public is properly protected.

The data requested comes from internal management information and is not centrally collected. It is not quality assured and does not meet the standard required for publication.

Found: Article 4 – Right to a Fair Trial 1.17 The Ministry of Justice recently published the AI action plan

Found: T +4420 3334 3555 F +44870 761 7753 E https://contact-moj.service.justice.gov.uk/ www.gov.uk/moj 102

Found: . • As it stands, the Ministry of Justice does not disaggregate drug-related deaths from non-natural

Found: Witnesses I: Lord Timpson OBE, Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, Ministry of Justice

Found: We have also been working closely with LawtechUK, which is supported and funded by the Ministry of Justice

Found: remits of the Department for Science, Technology and Innovation, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice

Found: Dan Hobbs: The appeals system is a matter for the Ministry of Justice.

Found: That does not only involve the Home Office; that involves every other part of the system—the Ministry of Justice

Found: Elmore: I am not cutting across, but it might be helpful to mention obviously the Home Office, the MOJ

Found: accommodation for 16 and 17 year old young people who may be homeless and/or require accommodation. 25 Ministry of Justice

Found: criminalisation in care developed jointly by the Department for Education, Home Office and Ministry of Justice

Found: Policy on conditional fee agreements (CFAs – no win, no fee) is led by colleagues in the Ministry of Justice

Found: Department for Work and Pensions on social security and pensions • Andy Slaughter: Spending of the Ministry of Justice

Found: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Ministry of Justice

Found: what this deal has done, alongside ongoing engagement through the high commission and the Ministry of Justice

Found: What about the MoJ? Should it be involved? Dr Marc Bailey: That is a good question.

Found: We have a very strong working relationship with the Ministry of Justice.

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether the inquiry into the Child Maintenance Service will include a review of the REMO/MEBC.

Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)

The Government is conducting a review of the child maintenance calculation to make sure it is fit for purpose. This includes updating the underlying research and considering how to ensure the calculation reflects current and future societal trends.

The scope of the review does not include Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (REMO) or Maintenance Enforcement Business Centre (MEBC) processes. Responsibility for REMO falls within the Ministry of Justice, as it concerns the enforcement of maintenance orders across international jurisdictions that are subject to separate legislative frameworks.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what steps her Department is taking to help tackle domestic abuse in Surrey Heath constituency.

Answered by Jess Phillips - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)

Tackling violence against women and girls (VAWG) is a top priority for this Government with a manifesto mission to halve VAWG in a decade. We will deliver a cross-government transformative approach, underpinned by a new strategy which we aim to publish as soon as possible.

In advance of the strategy, we have already introduced measures designed to strengthen the police response to VAWG, protect victims and hold perpetrators to account. These include: funding to rollout Drive Project to tackle high-risk and high-harm domestic abuse perpetrators across England and Wales; embedding the first domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms in five police forces; measures to tackle spiking; measures focusing on preventing and tackling ‘honour’-based abuse (HBA), and launching the new Domestic Abuse Protection Orders in selected police forces and courts which go further than any existing orders.

The Home Office has provided the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Surrey with an annual funding allocation of £998,248 for 2025/26 for interventions around perpetrators of domestic abuse. PCCs in England and Wales receive annual grant funding from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), to commission local practical, emotional, and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types.

Furthermore, this government has increased funding to local authorities, which includes Surrey Heath constituency, to £160 million for 2025-26, an uplift of £30 million from the previous year, to provide further support in safe accommodation for domestic abuse survivors, including tailored support for protected groups.

Found: receiving more than 20% of their annual income from “a foreign power” to register with the Ministry of Justice

Found: (MoJ), Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) and other relevant partners

Found: all parts of the end-to-end asylum system (including all relevant parts of the Home Office, Ministry of Justice

Found: all parts of the end-to-end asylum system (including all relevant parts of the Home Office, Ministry of Justice

Found: TOTAL AME DEPT AME Ministry of Justice X047A306 X047A306 - POLICY GROUP CORE AME VOTED D401

Found: Children’s Funeral Fund These payments are wholly administered by Ministry of Justice and, in accordance

Found: Markets and Regulatory Reform (CMRR) - DBT - CMRR - Office for Product Safety and Standards Ministry Of Justice

Found: - Office for Product Safety and Standards

Found: 0.00 14.10 LYNDA RAWSTHORNE 2025-09-29 2025-09-29 PARKING AND TRAVEL TO/FROM LONDON FOR INTERVIEWS FOR MOJ

Found: td>

Found: cell">Economic Deterrence Initiative Impact 1

Found: 45,275.00 HM Treasury HMT 09-Jun-25 Internal Training Economic Deterrence Initiative Impact 1 Ministry of Justice

Found: _cell">Insurance and Pensions Markets Team

Found: related costs HM Treasury HMT 14-Jul-25 Legal Services Insurance and Pensions Markets Team Ministry of Justice

Found: govuk-template--rebranded" lang="en">