The Justice Committee has issued a call for evidence to inform its scrutiny of the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many applications for judicial review relating to NHS service reconfiguration decisions in England were lodged in each year since 2015; and in how many of those cases permission to proceed was granted.

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

Data on the number of judicial review applications relating to NHS service reconfiguration decisions in England — and the number in which permission to proceed was granted— is included within the official Judicial Review statistics published on the Civil Justice Statistics webpage: Civil justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK.

These statistics are presented in broad categories and do not separately identify cases concerning NHS service reconfiguration.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what offences will have the right to elect restricted by the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

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

The Bill removes a defendants’ right to elect Crown Court trial for all triable either-way offences. The venue will be determined by the magistrates’ courts, which will send cases they consider outside of their jurisdiction to the Crown Court.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) prison and (b) probation workers have made complaints through the new independent reporting channel in HMPPS.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

On 10 November 2025, as part of the work to implement the reforms recommended in the Rademaker Review, His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) instituted an interim grievance process through which members of staff can raise complaints about bullying, harassment, discrimination or victimisation outside of their management line. This complements the existing grievance policy. For the period up to 26 February 2026, 5 complaints were received from staff working in Headquarters, 79 from probation staff and 188 from prison staff.

On 26 January 2026, a new Independent Review, Resolution and Investigations Service (IRRIS) was launched in HMPPS, subsuming the work of the former Tackling Unacceptable Behaviours Unit (TUBU). IRRIS will provide a fully independent route for bullying, harassment, discrimination and victimisation complaints within HMPPS, operating entirely outside line management structures. It will build upon TUBU’s strong work over the last five years, continuing to provide all the existing TUBU services while significantly enhancing its role.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made an assessment of the risks that private prosecutions in the United Kingdom may be used by well‑resourced organisations to (a) target and (b) intimidate individuals associated with pro‑Palestinian advocacy.

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

Any individual or organisation in England and Wales has the right to bring a private prosecution where a criminal offence has been committed.

The Government expects all organisations that bring private prosecutions to do so where there is sufficient evidence that the defendant has committed an offence, and where the prosecution is in the public interest.

The Ministry of Justice held a consultation on the regulation of private prosecutors – to ensure consistency, accountability, and transparency in private prosecutions – last year and the Government will set out its next steps shortly.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average wait is for a tribunal date to be set to appeal decisions made by the Department for Work and Pensions.

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

The information requested is not held centrally.

Waiting times are calculated from receipt of the appeal to the final disposal decision. The final outcome of any appeal is not necessarily achieved at its first listed hearing so we are unable to extract data about waiting times for tribunal hearing dates.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what offences will be reclassified by the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

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

The Courts and Tribunals Bill does not reclassify offences - it changes allocation and mode of trial arrangements within the existing classification framework.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many defendants elected trial by jury in either-way cases in each of the last a) three years and b) five years.

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

The Ministry of Justice published data on those electing for jury trials in either-way cases covering periods from 2014 up to the first quarter of 2023. This information is published in the Criminal Courts Statistics release in Table_AC10: Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2023 - GOV.UK

At present, around 15% of either-way receipts into the Crown Court have an unknown reason for sending recorded in HMCTS reporting systems. Work is underway to reduce this rate of unknowns so that robust data can be published in future releases.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the longest wait has been for a tribunal date to be set to appeal decisions made by the Department for Work and Pensions.

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

The information requested is not held centrally.

Waiting times are calculated from receipt of the appeal to the final disposal decision. The final outcome of any appeal is not necessarily achieved at its first listed hearing so we are unable to extract data about waiting times for tribunal hearing dates.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what progress he has made on the new independent reporting channel in HMPPS.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

On 10 November 2025, as part of the work to implement the reforms recommended in the Rademaker Review, His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) instituted an interim grievance process through which members of staff can raise complaints about bullying, harassment, discrimination or victimisation outside of their management line. This complements the existing grievance policy. For the period up to 26 February 2026, 5 complaints were received from staff working in Headquarters, 79 from probation staff and 188 from prison staff.

On 26 January 2026, a new Independent Review, Resolution and Investigations Service (IRRIS) was launched in HMPPS, subsuming the work of the former Tackling Unacceptable Behaviours Unit (TUBU). IRRIS will provide a fully independent route for bullying, harassment, discrimination and victimisation complaints within HMPPS, operating entirely outside line management structures. It will build upon TUBU’s strong work over the last five years, continuing to provide all the existing TUBU services while significantly enhancing its role.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Written Statement of 22 January 2026 on Response to Legal Aid Agency cyber attack, HCWS1265, how much funding will be allocated to the transformation programme for Legal Aid Agency digital services.

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

The amount of funding which will be allocated to the transformation programme for Legal Aid Agency digital services is subject to final budget allocation decisions, which are currently ongoing.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what offences will be eligible for trial without jury by the Crown Court Bench Division proposal in the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

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

The Courts and Tribunals Bill introduces judge-only trials for triable either-way offences where the courts assess that the likely custodial sentence, applying the relevant sentencing guidelines to the alleged facts and any appropriate representations, is three years imprisonment or less. Indictable-only offences are excluded and will not be eligible for this mode of trial, described as the Crown Court Bench Division.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether (a) his Department and (b) the arms length bodies sponsored by his Department are compliant with the Supreme Court ruling in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025].

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We have set out our expectation that all duty bearers, including Departments and arm’s-length bodies, follow the law as clarified by the Supreme Court ruling and seek specialist legal advice where necessary. The Prime Minister has underlined this recently.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has submitted a draft Code of Practice on services, public functions and associations to Ministers, and we are reviewing it with the care it deserves. This will provide further guidance to duty bearers.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many staff within his Department are reliant on a visa for employment.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information his Department holds on the average length of time it takes for a court case to be processed and concluded in (a) Basildon, (b) Essex, and (c) England.

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

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the time taken ‘at court’ in the magistrates’ courts and Crown Court for Essex in the ‘Magistrates’ courts timeliness tool’ and the ‘End-to-end timeliness tool’ (Crown Court).

Magistrates ‘at court’ time refers to the number of days from first listing to completion at the magistrates’ court and for the Crown Court it refers to the time from first listing at the magistrates’ court to completion at the Crown Court.

Data for the Essex Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) can be found using the ‘geographic area’ filter - Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK

LCJB is the lowest geographic level of our published Accredited Official Statistics for timeliness. Our published timeliness metrics are produced at a sufficiently 'high' level to reduce the volatility and fluctuations associated with low volumes of cases i.e. using court level data. As a result, we are unable to provide timeliness data for individual courts in Basildon.

The publication provides data for ‘England and Wales’ but does not contain a breakdown for England alone. When looking at data for England, the median time spent ‘at court’ across magistrates’ courts was 0 days for the year ending September 2025. This is due to the high proportion of Single Justice Procedure cases which commence and conclude on the same day. For the Crown Court, the median time spent ‘at court’ was 172 days for the same period.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information his Department holds on the current number of court cases awaiting hearings in (a) Essex and (b) Basildon.

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

The Ministry of Justice publishes information on the number of open criminal cases at the Crown Court for Essex in the ‘Crown Court receipts, disposals and open cases tool’ and for the magistrates’ courts in the ‘Magistrates’ courts receipts, disposals and open cases tool’. Essex can be selected under Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB).

Data is published for Basildon Crown Court in the Crown Court tool under the Crown Court filter - Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK

Data is not published at court level for the magistrates’ courts. The open caseload for the Basildon magistrates’ court was 1,700 as of the end of September 2025.

The open caseload reflects the workload in the courts at a given time. It will never be zero, as it reflects the volume of cases that are active in the courts at a particular point, including those recently received, those close to being disposed, those which are complex and take time to complete, and those that may be awaiting further hearings.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to page 92 of the Strategic Defence Review, published on 2 June 2025, how many (a) public engagements and (b) private meetings Ministers in their Department have undertaken related to the national conversation on defence and security.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Ministers have regular discussions with officials, external experts and ministerial colleagues on a range of issues, including national security, defence and resilience, and associated public communications.

As set out in the Strategic Defence Review, the national conversation will be a multi-year engagement designed to embed a whole-of-society approach, where Government, businesses, and the public all play a part in strengthening our resilience. This addresses the risks we face, including threats below and above the threshold of an armed attack.

The Ministry of Justice is actively supporting this work.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the median waiting time was between a request for a registered intermediary and allocation in each of the last three years; and what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of these waiting times on the (a) wellbeing of victims and (b) the progress of their cases.

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

The table below sets out the proportion of requests for a registered intermediary that were successfully matched, as well as those that could not be matched, were cancelled by the police or CPS, or where matching was still in progress at the end of the calendar year. This is broken down for victims, prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses for the calendar years 2022-2024 (the most recent years for which published data is available through the Witness Intermediary Scheme annual report):

Unmatched cases include those where:

• A Registered Intermediary (RI) could not be assigned to a case because the Witness Intermediary Team could not provide a RI within the timeframe specified by the end user,
• A RI initially accepted the case but then withdrew,
• the court agreed to adjourn a case and a new request reflecting the new trial date was generated.

Therefore, not all unmatched requests indicate that the individual did not have a RI for their case.

The National Crime Agency, who administer the Witness Intermediary Scheme on behalf of the Ministry of Justice does not collect waiting times between the making of a request for a Registered Intermediary, so no data is available on the number of cases that were delayed due to capacity constraints.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on the waiting time between the request for a registered intermediary and matching of the intermediary. The allocation of a Registered Intermediary in each case will be dependent on a number of requirements including the availability of the witness and the investigation officer as well the availability and skillset of the registered intermediary. Where a case is flagged as urgent, the National Crime Agency will endeavour to prioritise the case, including seeking registered intermediary support out of hours or at the weekend.

The Ministry of Justice recruits and trains Registered Intermediaries on an ongoing basis to meet growing demand. These are informed by annual gap analyses to ascertain where demand is growing. In the 3 years to 2024, we have recruited 88 additional RIs to the Scheme.

The table below sets out the rate at which requests for a Registered Intermediary (from both the police and CPS) in each police force area were matched in 2024. We do not hold data on waiting times for intermediaries. We also do not hold data broken down by Crown Court circuit.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of vulnerable (a) victims and (b) witnesses assessed as requiring a registered intermediary under the Witness Intermediary Scheme were allocated one in each of the last three years; and how many requests were (i) refused and (ii) delayed due to availability constraints.

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

The table below sets out the proportion of requests for a registered intermediary that were successfully matched, as well as those that could not be matched, were cancelled by the police or CPS, or where matching was still in progress at the end of the calendar year. This is broken down for victims, prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses for the calendar years 2022-2024 (the most recent years for which published data is available through the Witness Intermediary Scheme annual report):

Unmatched cases include those where:

• A Registered Intermediary (RI) could not be assigned to a case because the Witness Intermediary Team could not provide a RI within the timeframe specified by the end user,
• A RI initially accepted the case but then withdrew,
• the court agreed to adjourn a case and a new request reflecting the new trial date was generated.

Therefore, not all unmatched requests indicate that the individual did not have a RI for their case.

The National Crime Agency, who administer the Witness Intermediary Scheme on behalf of the Ministry of Justice does not collect waiting times between the making of a request for a Registered Intermediary, so no data is available on the number of cases that were delayed due to capacity constraints.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on the waiting time between the request for a registered intermediary and matching of the intermediary. The allocation of a Registered Intermediary in each case will be dependent on a number of requirements including the availability of the witness and the investigation officer as well the availability and skillset of the registered intermediary. Where a case is flagged as urgent, the National Crime Agency will endeavour to prioritise the case, including seeking registered intermediary support out of hours or at the weekend.

The Ministry of Justice recruits and trains Registered Intermediaries on an ongoing basis to meet growing demand. These are informed by annual gap analyses to ascertain where demand is growing. In the 3 years to 2024, we have recruited 88 additional RIs to the Scheme.

The table below sets out the rate at which requests for a Registered Intermediary (from both the police and CPS) in each police force area were matched in 2024. We do not hold data on waiting times for intermediaries. We also do not hold data broken down by Crown Court circuit.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the registered intermediary allocation (a) rates and (b) waiting times are in each (i) police force area and (ii) Crown Court circuits; and what steps his Department is taking to help ensure that all vulnerable victims have access to intermediaries.

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

The table below sets out the proportion of requests for a registered intermediary that were successfully matched, as well as those that could not be matched, were cancelled by the police or CPS, or where matching was still in progress at the end of the calendar year. This is broken down for victims, prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses for the calendar years 2022-2024 (the most recent years for which published data is available through the Witness Intermediary Scheme annual report):

Unmatched cases include those where:

• A Registered Intermediary (RI) could not be assigned to a case because the Witness Intermediary Team could not provide a RI within the timeframe specified by the end user,
• A RI initially accepted the case but then withdrew,
• the court agreed to adjourn a case and a new request reflecting the new trial date was generated.

Therefore, not all unmatched requests indicate that the individual did not have a RI for their case.

The National Crime Agency, who administer the Witness Intermediary Scheme on behalf of the Ministry of Justice does not collect waiting times between the making of a request for a Registered Intermediary, so no data is available on the number of cases that were delayed due to capacity constraints.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on the waiting time between the request for a registered intermediary and matching of the intermediary. The allocation of a Registered Intermediary in each case will be dependent on a number of requirements including the availability of the witness and the investigation officer as well the availability and skillset of the registered intermediary. Where a case is flagged as urgent, the National Crime Agency will endeavour to prioritise the case, including seeking registered intermediary support out of hours or at the weekend.

The Ministry of Justice recruits and trains Registered Intermediaries on an ongoing basis to meet growing demand. These are informed by annual gap analyses to ascertain where demand is growing. In the 3 years to 2024, we have recruited 88 additional RIs to the Scheme.

The table below sets out the rate at which requests for a Registered Intermediary (from both the police and CPS) in each police force area were matched in 2024. We do not hold data on waiting times for intermediaries. We also do not hold data broken down by Crown Court circuit.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information his Department holds on the link between individuals holding a criminal record and (a) unemployment and (b) PIP claimants.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice does not hold specific information on the link between having a criminal record and (a) unemployment or (b) Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants.

We know that employment can reduce the likelihood of reoffending by up to nine percentage points in the year following release. This is why the Government has committed to supporting ex-offenders into work, including through launching regional Employment Councils, which bring businesses together with prisons, probation and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to support offenders in the community.

We recognise that having a criminal record can impact on someone’s employment opportunities, but it should not be an automatic barrier to employment. The criminal records disclosure framework is designed to balance rehabilitation with maintaining safeguarding and public protection principles. Our guidance for employers makes clear that recruitment decisions should be based on a balanced assessment of relevance, context, and risk.

DWP also does not hold data on the criminal record of claimants to PIP as this, together with their employment status, does not form part of the eligibility criteria for the benefit. We continue to work across Government to improve data-sharing and build a clearer picture of people’s employment support needs.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what guidance he has issued on engagement between his Department and the legal representatives of prisoners undertaking prolonged hunger strikes.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Under the Prison Rules and Prison Service Instruction 49/2011 Prisoner Communication Services, prisoners are entitled to confidential access to their legal advisers, including by telephone, in person legal visits, and written correspondence, all of which must take place without being monitored except in exceptional, legally defined circumstances. Prisons must facilitate reasonable opportunities for legal contact, such as providing access to visit rooms, scheduling telephone calls, and ensuring that mail to and from legal representatives is handled promptly and without routine opening or interference.

On 24 December, the Deputy Prime Minister wrote in response to a letter from legal representatives of those who were refusing food. He offered to facilitate a meeting between senior representatives of the healthcare provider and the prisoners’ solicitors. This offer was accepted on 8 January, and the meeting took place on 9 January.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans his Department has to respond to the Law Commission’s consultation on New Funerary Methods.

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

It is anticipated that the Law Commission will publish a final report and draft Bill in relation to the New Funerary Methods project in Spring 2026.

We await the Commission’s findings and recommendations with interest and will respond in due course.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average length of time spent on remand in custody was in the most recent 12-month period for which data is available.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Information relating to the time spent on custodial remand is not centrally held by the Ministry of Justice. To obtain the data to answer this question would involve a manual interrogation of court records which would result in a disproportionate cost to the Department.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sport and Physical Activity in the Criminal Justice System’s report Physical Activity and Sport across the Children and Young People Secure Estate, and Adult Custodial Estate in England and Wales, published in December 2025.

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

We appreciate the considerable work that has gone into the inquiry.

His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) has been engaged with the work of the All-Party Parliamentary Group over many years, including in relation to this latest review. HMPPS will give careful consideration, in collaboration with other partners, to those recommendations in the report that are addressed to it.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure transparency in the use of statutory consultation in the appointment of judges.

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

The Lord Chancellor is committed to transparent and merit-based selection processes that maintain the quality of our judiciary.

Statutory consultation is provided for in legislation and requires the independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) to seek views from those with relevant experience, unless the appropriate authority agrees it is not required. It is one of a range of shortlisting and selection tools used by the JAC to ensure that candidates are of good character and have relevant capabilities for the role.

The JAC made changes to the operation of statutory consultation following an independent review in 2022 to provide clearer information about when and how statutory consultation is used. It has recently published an evaluation of those changes alongside updated guidance for candidates and consultees (https://judicialappointments.gov.uk/corp-publication/evaluation-on-the-revised-approach-to-statutory-consultation/).

Candidates can complain to the JAC and, if dissatisfied, to the independent Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman if they believe that their application for appointment has not been handled appropriately.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the forthcoming review of pornography regulation will consider any inconsistencies between online and offline regulation in restricting children’s access to sexually explicit material.

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

On 9 December 2025, during the House of Lords Committee Stage debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government announced that it would accept, in part, one of the recommendations from Baroness Bertin’s Independent Review on Pornography, namely recommendation 24 which says:

‘The current criminal justice response is ineffective in tackling illegal pornography online. Government should conduct its own legislative review of this regime to ensure that legislation and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance is fit-for-purpose in tackling illegal pornography in the online world.’

The Government will be reviewing the criminal law relating to pornography, which will give an opportunity to look at the criminal law in this area holistically and consider whether it is fit for purpose in an ever-developing online world. We have accepted in part because the Government cannot accept the recommendation to review CPS guidance. As the CPS is independent, whether to conduct a review of guidance would be a matter for them to decide.

The review will be conducted by the Ministry of Justice. As the review is focused on the criminal law on pornography, it will not appraise the effectiveness of age-verification, age-assurance methods or regulation, which are outside of the scope of the criminal legislation the Ministry of Justice will be reviewing. A Joint Team has been set up, across the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to rigorously examine the evidence to address the issues from the Pornography Review. It will examine the evidence to inform the Government’s approach to pornography policy.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the forthcoming review of the criminal law relating to pornography will assess the effectiveness of current a) age-verification and b) age-assurance measures in preventing children from accessing online pornography.

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

On 9 December 2025, during the House of Lords Committee Stage debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government announced that it would accept, in part, one of the recommendations from Baroness Bertin’s Independent Review on Pornography, namely recommendation 24 which says:

‘The current criminal justice response is ineffective in tackling illegal pornography online. Government should conduct its own legislative review of this regime to ensure that legislation and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance is fit-for-purpose in tackling illegal pornography in the online world.’

The Government will be reviewing the criminal law relating to pornography, which will give an opportunity to look at the criminal law in this area holistically and consider whether it is fit for purpose in an ever-developing online world. We have accepted in part because the Government cannot accept the recommendation to review CPS guidance. As the CPS is independent, whether to conduct a review of guidance would be a matter for them to decide.

The review will be conducted by the Ministry of Justice. As the review is focused on the criminal law on pornography, it will not appraise the effectiveness of age-verification, age-assurance methods or regulation, which are outside of the scope of the criminal legislation the Ministry of Justice will be reviewing. A Joint Team has been set up, across the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to rigorously examine the evidence to address the issues from the Pornography Review. It will examine the evidence to inform the Government’s approach to pornography policy.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure transparency in the appointment of judges.

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

The Lord Chancellor is committed to transparent and merit-based selection processes that maintain the quality of our judiciary. I refer the hon. Member for Wrekin, Mark Pritchard to the answer I gave on 1 May 2025 to Question 47182 (https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2025-04-23/47182).

In January 2026, the independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) relaunched its website which includes detailed information about the new Judicial Skills and Abilities Framework, and updated guidance about statutory consultation. In addition, the Ministry of Justice works with the JAC and the judiciary to produce the annual Diversity of the Judiciary statistics, with detailed data about judicial appointments.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions he has had with the Judicial Appointment Commission on its use of resources to challenge Freedom of Information requests.

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

The independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) is designated as a public body under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). The JAC is responsible for meeting its statutory obligations under the FOIA and the Data Protection Act 2018, including ensuring requests are handled in line with the relevant legislation. Decisions on the responses to individual Freedom of Information requests, including any associated legal consideration, are for the JAC.

The JAC as a non-departmental public body is responsible for managing its own resources including in relation to meeting its statutory obligations. The governance and accountability arrangements between the Ministry of Justice and the JAC are set out in the framework document agreed in line with HM Treasury’s Managing Public Money, including in relation to governance and financial matters

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, what steps he is taking to ensure that blitz courts do not lead to prolonged waits for trials for other types of cases.

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

The Government is committed to reducing outstanding caseloads in the Crown Court while maintaining progress across all case types.

Targeted initiatives, sometimes referred to as “blitz” courts, are carefully planned and time-limited exercises designed to make best use of available courtrooms, judicial capacity and sitting days. They are intended to increase overall throughput rather than divert resources from other cases. The plan is for London to use two courts at the Central Criminal Court specifically to accommodate the blitz courts.

Listing decisions in the Crown Court are a matter for the independent judiciary. HMCTS works closely with the judiciary to monitor waiting times and operational pressures across the system to ensure that targeted activity in one area does not lead to unintended delays elsewhere.

We continue to fund increased Crown Court sitting days and for 2026/27 we have removed the financial limits on how many days Crown Courts can sit in order to improve timeliness for all court users.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, which additional local authorities plan to adopt the scheme allowing prisoner transport vans to use bus lanes.

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

We agree with Sir Brian’s Leveson’s recommendation in the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts that Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (PECS) should be enabled to use bus lanes when transporting prisoners. However, these decisions are ultimately for local authorities.

PECS vehicles already use bus lanes in Manchester, Bristol, Salford and Nottingham. We are currently engaging with local authorities across the country to expand this, and will work with the Department for Transport to ensure that local authorities are aware of the role they can play in reducing prisoner delays. For example, in London we are working closely with Transport for London to pilot a scheme that retimes traffic signals to prioritise PECS vans on three routes in the capital. Around 300 traffic lights will be adjusted so that PECS vehicles are more likely to receive green lights on their journey to court.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, how many blitz court sittings are planned from April 2026; and what offences will be prioritised after assaults on emergency workers.

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

Blitz courts in London will initially focus on assault on emergency workers and will be listed at Central Criminal Court from April. A total of 500 days have been allocated for this first blitz initiative. After prioritising assaults on emergency workers, we will consider other case types including sentencing cases, breaches and trials with no civilian witnesses.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, whether blitz courts will be delivered through new additional capacity.

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

Blitz courts have been trialled previously and have shown positive results in reducing case backlog. The announcement of uncapped sitting days in the Crown Court in 2026/27 will enable more blitz initiatives to take place. The two court rooms which will be used are part of the existing London Crown Court Cluster.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, what estimate he has made of the cost of rolling out the proposed AI courts assistant across HMCTS.

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

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) is progressing work to expand the use of AI to support court and tribunal operations across a range of use cases. The Department has not published a single estimate of the cost of rolling out AI across HMCTS, as costs and benefits depend on the specific use case, scope and implementation approach. Any decision to deploy AI-enabled tools more widely would be subject to appropriate evaluation and the development of approved business cases, including affordability and value for money in accordance with HMCTS governance and standards.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, what criteria will be used to evaluate the success of the AI-assisted listing pilot within HMCTS.

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

HMCTS will evaluate the pilot of AI-enabled support for listing against criteria that will include expected:

• reductions in administrative effort associated with listing;

• improved timeliness and consistency of listing activity;

• the impact on listing accuracy and associated rework; and

• the effect on effective use of court capacity.

This will be considered alongside feedback from operational users and the judiciary on usability and confidence. Findings from this stage of the evaluation will inform decisions on any wider deployment. If we proceed, we will design an evaluation approach in line with Government Social Research standards that we would expect to publish as part of the programme of work.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, whether any blitz courts are planned to be opened in Essex.

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

At this current time there are no plans to operate blitz courts in Essex.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, whether he has conducted an equality impact assessment on the expanded use of AI within courts and tribunals.

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

The Department and HMCTS have due regard to their obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty when developing and implementing policy and operational changes. Equality considerations are taken into account as part of the design and evaluation of service changes, and appropriate equality analysis has informed, and will continue to inform, decisions on the adoption and scaling of AI-enabled tools and services within courts and tribunals. This is undertaken on a use-case-by-use-case basis, rather than through a single blanket assessment.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, what steps he is taking to ensure that AI court assistance does not lead to listing errors.

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

HMCTS is developing and piloting AI-enabled support for operational activity such as listing in a way that retains appropriate human oversight and accountability for decisions. In line with HMCTS Responsible AI principles, any work to scale AI-enabled tools will include robust processes for how issues and errors will be identified, challenged and corrected. Lessons learned from pilots in courts such as Preston and Isleworth, and subsequent evaluation will inform what safeguards are required for any future wider deployment. All of these have been subject to human oversight and are there to assist decision making in accordance with a new national listing framework to be introduced.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to his Department’s press release entitled Deputy Prime Minister sets out vision for the justice system, published on 24 February 2026, what estimate he has made of the time savings from the use of AI to transcribe hearings across the court system.

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

HMCTS is progressing work to expand AI-enabled transcription to support courts and tribunals. The Department has not published an estimate of time savings from the use of AI to transcribe hearings across the court system. It is worth noting that transcription of hearings is one of several use cases for AI assisted transcription. The main driver for hearing transcription is to make justice more open and transparent.

In line with HMCTS Responsible AI principles, decisions on scaling AI-enabled transcription will be informed by evaluation, including impacts on efficiency, quality and user experience, and will include robust processes for how errors will be identified, challenged and corrected.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when his Department expects to publish the review of pornography regulation announced in the House of Lords on 10 December 2025.

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

On 9 December 2025, during the House of Lords Committee Stage debate on the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government announced that it would accept, in part, one of the recommendations from Baroness Bertin’s Independent Review on Pornography, namely recommendation 24 which says:

‘The current criminal justice response is ineffective in tackling illegal pornography online. Government should conduct its own legislative review of this regime to ensure that legislation and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidance is fit-for-purpose in tackling illegal pornography in the online world.’

The Government will be reviewing the criminal law relating to pornography, which will give an opportunity to look at the criminal law in this area holistically and consider whether it is fit for purpose in an ever-developing online world. We have accepted in part because the Government cannot accept the recommendation to review CPS guidance. As the CPS is independent, whether to conduct a review of guidance would be a matter for them to decide.

The review will be conducted by the Ministry of Justice. As the review is focused on the criminal law on pornography, it will not appraise the effectiveness of age-verification, age-assurance methods or regulation, which are outside of the scope of the criminal legislation the Ministry of Justice will be reviewing. A Joint Team has been set up, across the Home Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to rigorously examine the evidence to address the issues from the Pornography Review. It will examine the evidence to inform the Government’s approach to pornography policy.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent estimate he has made of the average length of time taken by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to process applications; and if he will bring forward proposals to implement a time limit by which applications must be decided.

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

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 (the 2012 Scheme) does not prescribe a time limit for applications to be decided.

Most applications are decided within 12 months. Each case must be considered on its own facts. In most cases, CICA requires information from third parties such as the police and medical authorities in order to decide a claim.

Some applications will by necessity take longer to decide. This could be where information is not available due to ongoing court proceedings, where CICA needs time to assess the long-term impact of complex injuries (e.g. brain injuries), or where there is an application for loss of earnings (which requires at least 28 weeks of loss).

In the financial year 2024-25, the average time to make a decision was 370 days.

The figure does not include applications deferred under paragraph 98 of the 2012 Scheme.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many convictions there have been for offences relating to the termination of pregnancy through the the pills-by-post scheme.

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

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the number of convictions across England and Wales for a wide range of offences in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK

The offences that constitute unlawful abortion include procuring an illegal abortion under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, as well as child destruction under section 1 of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929.

Information centrally held does not specify how many of these convictions are linked to the use of the pills-by-post scheme.

The Department of Health and Social Care is responsible for the policy relating to the pills-by-post scheme.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much ringfenced funding (a) Norfolk Constabulary, and (b) the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk received for Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence victim support services in 2025/26.

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

The Ministry of Justice is investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date. We will be increasing funding for victim support services year on year, from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery.

The Ministry of Justice provides all Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales with annual grant funding to commission local practical, emotional, and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types. In 2025/26, the funding from MOJ to Norfolk PCC included £0.78 million in ring-fenced funding specifically to support victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse. For 2026/27, we have allocated £1.83 million in victims funding to the PCC for Norfolk, which includes £0.8 million of ring-fenced funding for sexual violence and domestic abuse services.

The budgets for individual PCC areas are routinely published on each area’s website.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what funding he plans to allocate from the Victims General Fund to the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Norfolk in 2026/27, and when he plans to publish details of that funding.

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

The Ministry of Justice is investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date. We will be increasing funding for victim support services year on year, from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery.

The Ministry of Justice provides all Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales with annual grant funding to commission local practical, emotional, and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types. In 2025/26, the funding from MOJ to Norfolk PCC included £0.78 million in ring-fenced funding specifically to support victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse. For 2026/27, we have allocated £1.83 million in victims funding to the PCC for Norfolk, which includes £0.8 million of ring-fenced funding for sexual violence and domestic abuse services.

The budgets for individual PCC areas are routinely published on each area’s website.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to provide education and training in Welsh at Berwyn Prison for inmates whose first language is Welsh.

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

All learners at HMP Berwyn are entitled to access their education through the medium of Welsh should they choose to do so and are asked their language preference on arrival at the prison, and during their education induction. Although take up is historically low, this is facilitated through translated course materials, opportunities to complete assessments in Welsh, and classroom support provided by Welsh speaking staff working within the Education team. Welsh language courses are available to all prisoners on request, alongside a bilingual course on Welsh traditions and customs.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to promote literacy enrichment in the criminal justice system as part of the National Year of Reading.

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

I refer the noble Lord to the answer I gave to question PQ HL 14560 to Lord Weir on 23 February 2026.

The National Year of Reading is a welcome opportunity to promote a wide range of activity to improve literacy and engagement with reading for people in custody and on probation.

As part of this work we have appointed the first ever Prison Reading Laureate, the author Lee Child. He will champion the transformative power of reading across the criminal justice system, continue expansion of his successful literacy pilot programme which has been running in a number of prisons since 2025 and will bring in more authors to work with prisons across the country, promoting the benefits of reading to rehabilitation.

Reading is a priority for HMPPS who work with many voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) organisations such as the Reading Agency and National Literacy Trust. A programme of work is planned throughout this year to improve national access to books and facilitate workshops with authors. The Youth Custody Service is also launching its first ever Literacy Festival to inspire reading amongst some of the most complex children in our society.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what information his Department holds on the number of cases in which there have been miscommunications with respect to the Person Escort Record in the last 12 months.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Obtaining the information requested relating to possible miscommunications with respect to person escort records would require each prison to undertake a manual search of all such records for the period in question. That could not be undertaken without incurring disproportionate cost.

When a prisoner arrives in prison reception, risk assessment procedures are carried out in accordance with HM Prison and Probation Service’s current policy frameworks. During the reception process, staff review all available documentation, including the person escort record, and any existing Digital Prison Service alerts, as well as undertaking an observational assessment of the prisoner’s presentation and behaviour. A structured reception screening is then carried out by both operational and healthcare staff, to identify any risks relating to suicide or self-harm, violence, vulnerability, physical or mental health issues, or other safeguarding concerns. In addition, a cell-sharing risk assessment (CSRA) is completed for all prisoners new to custody, to identify whether they would be likely to cause serious harm to another prisoner if they were to share a cell. When a prisoner is transferred, their CSRA accompanies them. If the CSRA cannot be located at the time of transfer, a new assessment is undertaken to ensure that risks are appropriately identified.

The processes relating to capturing and transferring risk management information are set out in the Person Escort Record Policy Framework. The framework is currently being reviewed: this will help to capture a broader range of risk information, and support more accurate and consistent completion of the form.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to help improve the accuracy of documentation used during transfers between custodial settings.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Obtaining the information requested relating to possible miscommunications with respect to person escort records would require each prison to undertake a manual search of all such records for the period in question. That could not be undertaken without incurring disproportionate cost.

When a prisoner arrives in prison reception, risk assessment procedures are carried out in accordance with HM Prison and Probation Service’s current policy frameworks. During the reception process, staff review all available documentation, including the person escort record, and any existing Digital Prison Service alerts, as well as undertaking an observational assessment of the prisoner’s presentation and behaviour. A structured reception screening is then carried out by both operational and healthcare staff, to identify any risks relating to suicide or self-harm, violence, vulnerability, physical or mental health issues, or other safeguarding concerns. In addition, a cell-sharing risk assessment (CSRA) is completed for all prisoners new to custody, to identify whether they would be likely to cause serious harm to another prisoner if they were to share a cell. When a prisoner is transferred, their CSRA accompanies them. If the CSRA cannot be located at the time of transfer, a new assessment is undertaken to ensure that risks are appropriately identified.

The processes relating to capturing and transferring risk management information are set out in the Person Escort Record Policy Framework. The framework is currently being reviewed: this will help to capture a broader range of risk information, and support more accurate and consistent completion of the form.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what processes are used to assess risks presented by people on admission to custodial facilities.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Obtaining the information requested relating to possible miscommunications with respect to person escort records would require each prison to undertake a manual search of all such records for the period in question. That could not be undertaken without incurring disproportionate cost.

When a prisoner arrives in prison reception, risk assessment procedures are carried out in accordance with HM Prison and Probation Service’s current policy frameworks. During the reception process, staff review all available documentation, including the person escort record, and any existing Digital Prison Service alerts, as well as undertaking an observational assessment of the prisoner’s presentation and behaviour. A structured reception screening is then carried out by both operational and healthcare staff, to identify any risks relating to suicide or self-harm, violence, vulnerability, physical or mental health issues, or other safeguarding concerns. In addition, a cell-sharing risk assessment (CSRA) is completed for all prisoners new to custody, to identify whether they would be likely to cause serious harm to another prisoner if they were to share a cell. When a prisoner is transferred, their CSRA accompanies them. If the CSRA cannot be located at the time of transfer, a new assessment is undertaken to ensure that risks are appropriately identified.

The processes relating to capturing and transferring risk management information are set out in the Person Escort Record Policy Framework. The framework is currently being reviewed: this will help to capture a broader range of risk information, and support more accurate and consistent completion of the form.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to help tackle substance misuse by inmates in the prison estate.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We recognise that illicit drug use in prison is too high, and are committed to tackling this to improve safety, support rehabilitation and reduce reoffending. We are investing over £40 million in physical security measures across 34 prisons this financial year, including £10 million on anti-drone measures, to help prevent drugs entering prison.

We work closely with health partners to identify prisoners with a drug problem and support them into treatment. To create the environment and incentives for prisoners to make the right choices, we have funded Incentivised Substance Free Living Units in 85 prisons, which provide a dedicated, supportive environment for any prisoner who wants to live drug-free in prison, using regular drug testing alongside incentives. We are also working to increase access to mutual aid fellowships in prison, which can provide vital ongoing support for people in recovery.

To bring together rehabilitative and security focused activity in custody, we have funded 54 Drug Strategy Leads to ensure local drug strategies are effectively implemented, and to coordinate a whole system approach to tackling drugs. We have also recruited 17 new Group Drug and Alcohol Leads, who support work on drugs and alcohol across their prison groups, and establish links with community providers and local authority partnerships.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of recent prison education funding changes on rehabilitation outcomes.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice is committed to supporting rehabilitation through high-quality education, skills and work activities. National funding for prison education has not been reduced. Inflationary pressures have affected the proportion of the overall budget that can be spent on the Core Education contracts, and this has led to reductions in the volume of delivery that prisons are able to commission. This represents just one element of the wider education, skills and work offer that prisoners are able to access and Governors retain the flexibility to commission provision that best meets the needs of their prison population.

We continue to monitor delivery closely through HMPPS contract management arrangements. In addition, a full evaluation of the new Prisoner Education Service is underway to assess the impact of education provision on prisoner progress and rehabilitation outcomes, and to inform future policy and commissioning decisions.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what mechanisms his Department has put in place to help ensure that lessons identified in (a) inspections and (b) reports are implemented consistently across relevant agencies.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

In response to all reports by HM Inspectorate of Prison and HM Inspectorate of Probation, H M Prison and Probation Service is required to produce a formal action plan, which is published on the GOV.UK website, to address concerns raised and recommendations made by the Inspectorate.

Learning taken from Inspection reports directly informs policy review and development, and positive practice identified in reports is shared across the agency. Robust internal measures are in place to assure senior leaders that appropriate action is taken where lessons are identified.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the number of court delays in (a) Basildon, (b) Essex and (c) England attributable to late prisoner transport in each of the last three years.

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

The number of contractual delays caused by late prisoner transport to court attributable to the Prisoner Escort and Custody Service (PECS) suppliers for Basildon, Essex and England between 2023 and 2025 are shown in the table below.

PECS performance remains consistently over 99%, and while even small numbers of delays can have visible impacts in busy courts, we are improving reporting through digital development of a new application, this will further enable PECS to ensure performance data is transparent and accurately reflects what is happening across the system. We value feedback from all stakeholders which enable PECS to ensure performance data is transparent and accurately reflects what is happening across the system.

We recognise the problems we inherited in prisoner transfer with delays occurring at prisons, en route between prison and court and at courts themselves in bringing prisoners to the dock. The Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending and I will chair an oversight body established to review prisoner transfer from end to end. This will monitor and drive performance improvements in prisoner transfer across the country.

We are working with the Department for Transport to issue guidance on PECS’ use of bus lanes to all local authorities. And in London, where traffic regularly causes delays, we are working closely with Transport for London (TfL) to reduce avoidable delays and keep the justice system moving.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to paragraph 88 of the UK Government Resilience Action Plan, how many meetings Ministers in their Department have attended related to the Home Defence Programme.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Ministers have regular discussions with officials, external experts and ministerial colleagues on a range of issues, including national security, defence and resilience.

The Home Defence Programme was established in August 2024 to build the UK’s resilience to any potential escalation to conflict. It is an evolving and enduring programme of work which provides defence, security and resilience planning, focused on aligning military and civil effort in the event of a period of crisis and international hostilities affecting the UK, informed by and reflecting the recommendations from government strategies, including the Strategic Defence Review, National Security Strategy and Resilience Action Plan.

The Ministry of Justice is actively supporting this work.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of prison education staff have been made redundant in each of the past 12 months.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice and HM Prison and Probation Service are committed to ensuring that prisoners can access high-quality education and skills provision that supports rehabilitation and reduces re-offending.

The contract does not require Education suppliers to provide routine information about redundancies, and as the majority of teaching staff are employed by external providers, it is not possible to provide the information requested.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department was invited by the Office for National Statistics to provide evidence or input into its review of the ethnicity harmonised standard.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

A review of the harmonised standard for ethnicity data collection is underway by the Government Statistical Service Harmonisation team.

A public consultation between October 2025 and February 2026 sought views from a wide range of users, including Government Departments and public bodies, to understand user needs for ethnic group data. This was supplemented by a programme of engagement activity, including with representatives of all government departments.

ONS have committed to providing an initial response to the public consultation in April, and a full report on the consultation in late summer 2026 will include more detailed information on the departments that responded to the consultation.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of Crown Court backlogs on the length of time defendants are held on remand prior to trial.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Crown Court backlogs can cause defendants to spend longer time on remand. This Government is committed to pulling every lever we have – investment, reform and efficiency – so can we turn the tide on the backlog. The Government has invested significantly in the system, including funding unlimited sitting days so that the Crown Court can hear as many cases as possible next year. We have also introduced the Courts and Tribunals Bill to enable much-needed reform of the criminal courts, and are leading a major efficiency drive, including the introduction of ‘blitz courts’ to get through the backlog.

The use of remand is a judicial matter, and there are well established processes for extending Custody Time Limits if needed. Applications must be approved by independent judges and defendants have the right to oppose any application.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether it is his Department's policy that (a) Ministers and (b) special advisers use the disappearing messages function on Whatsapp on Government devices.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice's Information Management Policy explains that non-corporate communication channels such as WhatsApp 'must not be used unless absolutely necessary'. The policy directs staff to the Non-corporate communication channels for government business guidance, which is the primary guidance that ministers and officials should follow. Recordkeeping responsibilities are listed in paragraphs 19 to 24.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment has been made of the potential impact of courts using Community Orders under the Sentencing Framework on re-offending rates in the last two years.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The reoffending rates for adults with an index disposal of a community order was 36.4% in 2022/23 and 38.0% in 2023/24. The data can be found in the latest proven reoffending statistics release, in the annual tables here, in table C1a.

Studies have found that short custodial sentences of less than 12 months were associated with higher reoffending rates (approximately 4 percentage points higher) than when court orders of any length had been given (which includes both community orders and suspended sentence orders).

However, it is essential that community punishment works. The Sentencing Act 2026 includes a range of measures to make community punishment tougher. These include banning offenders from attending pubs, bars and clubs, as well as public events such as sports and concerts. The courts will also be able to prohibit an offender from driving as a punishment regardless of the offence they have committed. We have also introduced new tough restriction zones which will restrict offenders to a specific geographical area. These will be electronically monitored and are intended to serve not just as a punishment, but as an important tool to protect victims.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the (a) reasons for and (b) outcomes of complaints made through the new independent reporting channel in HMPPS were since its establishment.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The new independent reporting channel may consider allegations of bullying, harassment, discrimination, sexual harassment or assault, or cases where serious safeguarding concerns are raised. Complaints may be upheld, partially upheld or not upheld, or mediation between parties may be recommended.

A number of cases are still being investigated. As we are still in the process of putting in place a system for analysing data relating to complaints made through the new reporting channel, it is not possible to provide the requested information at this stage.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the answer of 4 March 2026 to Question 115634 on Ministry of Justice: ICT, for what reason the number of laptops, mobile phones and other electrical devices stolen or lost by the Department fell from 665 between 5 July 2024 to 29 April 2025 to 324 between 5 July 2024 and 5 December 2025.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

A difference in figures reported by the Department for periods 5 July 2024 to 29 April 2025 and 5 July 2024 to 5 December 2025 is due to a difference in how incident records were queried and displayed, resulting in an inflated figure of 665 where some devices had been double counted.

The correct figure for the period of 5 July 2024 to 5 December 2025 is 324.

The Department is currently undertaking work to improve asset data quality, during which some devices previously been reported lost or stolen have been since recovered or identified as having been reported in error.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the findings in the China Strategic Risks Institute report entitled The PRC’s Extraterritorial Legal Architecture, published in January 2026, regarding the risks of China's civil judgments being enforced in the UK against the public interest.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Decisions about recognition of foreign judgments are made by the UK’s independent judiciary, with safeguards against recognition and enforcement being available.

There are various grounds on which a judge may refuse to recognise or enforce a foreign judgment, including for example where the foreign court acted without jurisdiction, the proceedings involved a breach of natural justice, or recognition would be contrary to public policy.

The Government engages regularly with the judiciary and stakeholders about the operation of frameworks for recognition and enforcement.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to help prevent the principle of judicial comity from being used by the People’s Republic of China to conduct transnational repression against diaspora groups through UK civil courts.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Decisions about recognition of foreign judgments are made by the UK’s independent judiciary, with safeguards against recognition and enforcement being available.

There are various grounds on which a judge may refuse to recognise or enforce a foreign judgment, including for example where the foreign court acted without jurisdiction, the proceedings involved a breach of natural justice, or recognition would be contrary to public policy.

The Government engages regularly with the judiciary and stakeholders about the operation of frameworks for recognition and enforcement.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will review the assumption of judicial independence used to recognize civil judgments from Hong Kong, in light of the National Security Law and other developments.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Decisions about recognition of foreign judgments are made by the UK’s independent judiciary, with safeguards against recognition and enforcement being available.

There are various grounds on which a judge may refuse to recognise or enforce a foreign judgment, including for example where the foreign court acted without jurisdiction, the proceedings involved a breach of natural justice, or recognition would be contrary to public policy.

The Government engages regularly with the judiciary and stakeholders about the operation of frameworks for recognition and enforcement.

Found: sustainability of children’s care homes HC 1233 60th DWP follow-up: Autumn 2025 HC 1447 59th Ministry of Justice

Found: (MoJ) and the Department for Business and Trade (DBT).

Found: Letter from the Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Justice relating to recommendation 4 of the Committee

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

Found: Alton of Liverpool Chair, Joint Committee on Human Rights House of Commons London SW1 0AA MoJ

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

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

Found: State for Business and Trade, who has proposed a collaboration between Blind Justice and the Ministry of Justice

Found: and Trade, has supported our work and proposed collaboration between Blind Justice and the Ministry of Justice

Found: The MoJ are restricted in providing data which forms a subset of any future

Found: (MoJ) letter of 23 January 2026 provided in response to the questions put to them by the Committee

Found: Grade DWP Annual Salary (Min) MoD Annual Salary (Min) MoJ Annual Salary (Min) HMRC Annual Salary

Found: A recent report commissioned by the Ministry of Justice indicates that the sector has grown by 200%

Found: sustainability of children’s care homes HC 1233 60th DWP follow-up: Autumn 2025 HC 1447 59th Ministry of Justice

Found: sustainability of children’s care homes HC 1233 60th DWP follow-up: Autumn 2025 HC 1447 59th Ministry of Justice

Found: The Ministry of Justice should be represented on the Defending Democracy Taskforce at ministerial level

Found: The Ministry of Justice should be represented on the Defending Democracy Taskforce at ministerial level

Found: Home Office, Lucy Rigby KC MP, Solicitor General and Sarah Sackman KC MP, Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

Found: and member of numerous committees advising government departments, particularly within the Ministry of Justice

Found: The Ministry of Justice should be represented on the Defending Democracy Taskforce at ministerial level

Found: The Ministry of Justice should be represented on the Defending Democracy Taskforce at ministerial level

Found: of the Bill is intended to encourage the MOD to work with other Departments, for example with the MOJ

Found: MHCLG) Integrated Settlement Skills Bootcamps Construction Budget 0 (1,200) (1,200) Ministry of Justice

Question to the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology:

To ask His Majesty's Government, in regard to the Freedom from violence and abuse volume 2: action plan, published on 18 December 2025, what is the timetable for the cross-departmental team's examination of the recommendations of Baroness Bertin's Independent Pornography Review.

Answered by Baroness Lloyd of Effra - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)

To address the recommendations of Baroness Bertin’s Review, in December 2025 government announced through the ‘Freedom from Violence and Abuse’ strategy, the creation of a cross-government joint team, to rigorously examine the evidence to inform the government’s approach to pornography policy. The team began work in December 2025, and is formed of the Home Office, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, Ministry of Justice and Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how long does it take to restore the state pension once a prisoner is released.

Answered by Torsten Bell - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)

State Pension and Pension Credit payments are suspended immediately when the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is notified by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) that an individual has entered custody for a criminal offence.

A citizen who has served a criminal offence must inform DWP of their release to enable DWP to reinstate their payments. Upon receiving notification from the citizen, reinstatement of State Pension and Pension Credit is usually completed instantaneously. The timing of their first payment will depend upon their regular payment cycle, which is usually 4-weekly but can be changed to weekly upon request.

Of the c13 million citizens receiving State Pension, around 1,400 citizens per annum are subject to suspension of their payments due to imprisonment. In 2025, there were 1,415 State Pension and Pension Credit related cases suspended.

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many pensioners are affected by the stopping of the state pension on imprisonment.

Answered by Torsten Bell - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)

State Pension and Pension Credit payments are suspended immediately when the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is notified by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) that an individual has entered custody for a criminal offence.

A citizen who has served a criminal offence must inform DWP of their release to enable DWP to reinstate their payments. Upon receiving notification from the citizen, reinstatement of State Pension and Pension Credit is usually completed instantaneously. The timing of their first payment will depend upon their regular payment cycle, which is usually 4-weekly but can be changed to weekly upon request.

Of the c13 million citizens receiving State Pension, around 1,400 citizens per annum are subject to suspension of their payments due to imprisonment. In 2025, there were 1,415 State Pension and Pension Credit related cases suspended.

Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:

To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, for what reason the stopping of a state pension is automatic on imprisonment but reinstatement on release is not.

Answered by Torsten Bell - Parliamentary Secretary (HM Treasury)

State Pension and Pension Credit payments are suspended immediately when the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is notified by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) that an individual has entered custody for a criminal offence.

A citizen who has served a criminal offence must inform DWP of their release to enable DWP to reinstate their payments. Upon receiving notification from the citizen, reinstatement of State Pension and Pension Credit is usually completed instantaneously. The timing of their first payment will depend upon their regular payment cycle, which is usually 4-weekly but can be changed to weekly upon request.

Of the c13 million citizens receiving State Pension, around 1,400 citizens per annum are subject to suspension of their payments due to imprisonment. In 2025, there were 1,415 State Pension and Pension Credit related cases suspended.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the adequacy of funding for domestic abuse services.

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

The Freedom from Violence and Abuse: a cross-government strategy committed to invest more than £1 billion over the next three years to support victims, including:

• £550 million for victims’ services from the Ministry of Justice;
• £499 million for safe accommodation from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

This sits alongside wider investments, across government, to support victims.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if she can list the (a) Ministerial responsibilities and (b) the responsibilities and reporting arrangements of any relevant cross-departmental units in relation to drugs policy.

Answered by Sarah Jones - Minister of State (Home Office)

The Joint Combating Drugs Unit (JCDU) is responsible for driving and co-ordinating efforts across Government to tackle drugs, working in close partnership with six departments – the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Work and Pensions, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the Department for Education. JCDU comprises full-time civil servants who are seconded from key government departments.

Each department is responsible for delivery of their programmes and projects. Progress is overseen by the lead departmental ministers but also reported to me as the lead drugs Minister, while a lead Permanent Secretary fulfils the role of senior responsible owner at official level.

Illicit drug use affects the whole of society, and this Government is taking a collective response to deliver safer streets, improve health outcomes and contribute to opportunities and growth through reducing crime and saving lives.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, whether his Department plans to review its approach to employment disputes and whistleblowing complaints.

Answered by Karin Smyth - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)

National Health Service organisations are independent employers and have their own policies and procedures for resolving workplace disputes, including whistleblowing complaints, which should be aligned to current employment law and relevant Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service codes of practice or guidance.

The Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice have set up the Dispute Resolution System Taskforce to consider longer-term system reform of dispute resolution across all sectors.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask His Majesty's Government what consultations took place with young people in Young Offender Institutions as part of the development of the report Youth Matters: Your National Youth Strategy, published on 10 December 2025.

Answered by Baroness Twycross - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)

‘Youth Matters: Your National Youth Strategy’ and ‘Youth Matters: State of the Nation’ report are informed by the voices of over 14,000 young people. To ensure a broad and representative range of perspectives were included, my officials conducted deep dives with specific underrepresented cohorts, including with 50 young offenders at HMP Forest Bank in Manchester, supported by the Hope Collective. Our findings were shared with the Ministry of Justice.

Question to the Cabinet Office:

To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what proportion of the Government estate is managed by the Government Property Agency; which departments, arm’s-length bodies or property portfolios lie within its direct management responsibilities; and what the Government Property Agency’s total expenditure was in 2024–25 on measuring, collecting, reporting or validating greenhouse gas emissions in respect of the parts of the estate for which it is responsible.

Answered by Anna Turley - Minister without Portfolio (Cabinet Office)

Fifty-three per cent (2023/24 53 per cent) of the central government office portfolio, covering c.1,100,000 sqm has been transferred to the Government Property Agency. The Agency provides portfolio services to the following Government departments:

• Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

• Attorney General’s Office

• Cabinet Office

• Care Quality Commission

• Companies House

• Crown Commercial Service

• Crown Prosecution Service

• Department for Business & Trade

• Department for Education

• Department for Energy, Security and Net Zero

• Department for Culture Media and Sport

• Department of Health & Social Care

• Government Actuary’s Department

• Ministry of Housing Communities & Local Government

• Disclosure & Barring Services

• Northern Ireland Office

• The Insolvency Service

• Foreign & Commonwealth Office

• HM Land Registry

• HM Treasury

• Food Standards Agency

• Great British Nuclear

• Ministry of Justice

• National Savings & Investments

• Office of the Public Guardian

• OfQual

The GPA calculates greenhouse gas emissions for office space occupied by GPA staff and provides utility consumption data for departments occupying other buildings within its managed estate. As this activity is performed by staff as part of their wider duties, the exact amount of time allocated to this specific activity is not centrally recorded.

Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, how many prosecutions have been brought in relation to offences involving the persecution of birds of prey in each of the last five years.

Answered by Mary Creagh - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

Defra does not hold official data on the number of prosecutions that have been brought in relation to offences involving the persecution of birds of prey. The Ministry of Justice does publish data on prosecutions for a wide range of offences, including offences relating to birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, but this is not broken down to a level to identify prosecutions for offences specifically involving birds of prey.

Based on data published by the Ministry of Justice, in the last five years there have been 50 prosecutions for offences relating to birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Data relating to specific offences against wild birds under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 can be sourced using the Outcomes by Offences data tool on the Criminal Justice Statistics website: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK.

Found: for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Ministry of Justice

Found: Orietta.Barbari@hmtreasury.gov.uk CC, Crown Estate Office, DBT, DEFRA, MHCLG, HM Land Registry, MoJ

Found: You can find more information at the Ministry of Justice website.

Found: (MOJ) Governance In the financial year 2024 to 2025, we have improved our departmental climate

Found: Data on releases only go up to September 2025, as these are the latest data published in the MoJ Offender

Found: Data on releases only go up to September 2025, as these are the latest data published in the MoJ Offender

Found: The returnship scheme will be piloted with Home Office and Ministry of Justice and will be open to any

Found: MoJ England and Wales48 Protecting What Matters: Towards a more confident, cohesive, and resilient United

Found: to year ending September 2025 (NFIB codes 51, 52, 53.4, 53.6, 53B.1, 53C, 53D, 53E, 53F) Source: MOJ

Found: to year ending September 2025 (NFIB codes 51, 52, 53.4, 53.6, 53B.1, 53C, 53D, 53E, 53F) Source: MOJ

Found: Ministry of Justice follow up: Autumn 2025 Introduction from the Committee MoJ is responsible

Found: Ministry of Justice follow up: Autumn 2025 Introduction from the Committee MoJ is responsible

Found:

Found: - COST - ADDITIONS - BUILDINGS - Professional fees

Found:

Found:

Found: In 2024/25 we offered the following: Mentoring Catapult is a mentoring scheme led by the Ministry of Justice

Found: amserlen sydd y tu hwnt i reolaeth uniongyrchol y pwyllgor neu reolaeth y Weinyddiaeth Gyfiawnder (MoJ

Found: The Civil Procedure Rule Committee is an independent, statutory body, sponsored by the Ministry of Justice

Found: This action plan is the HMPPS and MoJ response to the HM Inspectorate of Prisons inspection report for

Found: effectiveness of the work of probation, an d youth offending services across England and Wales to Ministry of Justice

Found: Neither the Committee, nor the Ministry of Justice can cover any costs incurred by public observers.

Found: It draws on management information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and HMPPS, including: • Outcomes

Found: FROALTHELORDLEGOVERNMENTWHIPS’OFFICE GOVERNMENTWHIPFCDO,MOJ,HO,EIOUSEOFLORDS 02072196802LONDONSWI1AOPW

Found: FROMTHELoRDGOVERNMENTWHIPS’OFFICE GOVERNMENTW}MOJ,HO,HOUSEOFLORDS 02072196802LONDONSW1AOPW Telephone020

Found: FROMTHELORDLEMOS:GOVERNMENTWHIPS’OFFICE MENTWHIPFCO,MOJ,HO,HOUSEOFLORDS 02072196802LONDONSW1AOPW Telephone020

Found: Frameworks and contracts such as those set up by the Scottish Government, Scotland Excel, the Ministry of Justice

Found: Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice have been combined since 2007, when the Ministry of Justice

Found: In parallel, the Scottish Government engaged with officials from the UK Government Ministry of Justice

Found: The guidance from both Ministry of Justice and Welsh Government set out two key questions that must

Found: We completed and shared with the Ministry of Justice a Justice System Impact Identification Form, which

Found: government policy advisory group and ensure policy cohesion Regularly engage with Home Office, Ministry of Justice

Found: Research shows reporting rates differ by ethnicity (Ministry of Justice 2024), offence type and local

Question

How has the Welsh Government worked with the UK Government to deliver the recommendations of the Commission on Justice in Wales where they share joint responsibility, particularly those identified and agreed as priority areas?

Answered by Counsel General and Minister for Delivery

As the largest ever examination of the justice system in Wales, the Commission on Justice in Wales (Thomas Commission) report remains of course a very important contribution to public understanding of the condition of the justice system in Wales. Its key findings in relation to the structural failings underlying justice in Wales are as relevant as ever, hence the Welsh Government’s continuing support for the devolution of justice and policing. This position was of course supported by the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales. 

The Welsh Government has taken a very large number of actions in response to the recommendations of the Thomas Commission. A number of these are set out in Delivering Justice for Wales and the subsequent progress report published in 2024. Delivering Justice for Wales is the main summary of Welsh Government actions related to justice during this Senedd term.

While we accept there are areas where we have not met all our aspirations, notable advancements have been made, even if arguments may be made that the recommendations in question have not been wholly completed.

For instance, in response to Recommendation 35 that Family Drug and Alcohol Courts should be established in Wales, the Welsh Government and partners funded a pilot in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan, and the findings of that pilot are contributing to changes being rolled out across courts in Wales. Similarly, there has been

• a significant increase in the provision of legal apprenticeships in Wales (recommendation 40),
• considerable investment in legal technology (recommendation 43),
• activity to promote the Welsh legal sector (recommendation 44),
• greater transparency increased in procurement of legal services (recommendation 41), and
• significant progress towards tribunals reform, including the publication of a White Paper (recommendation 27)

The Welsh Government also took the lead on facilitating the creation of the Law Council for Wales (recommendation 65). However, once that process was concluded, it was for the members of the Council to determine its objectives, priorities and work programme. The Welsh Government is not a member of the Council, nor does it provide any funding to it, so there can be no questions about the Council’s independence. As an independent body, it is not for the Welsh Government to make an assessment of the extent to which it has fulfilled the functions envisaged by the Thomas Commission.

It remains the case that the significant majority of the Thomas Commission’s recommendations, including the most impactful, are ones which require the support and active participation of the UK Government. Although most of these recommendations focused primarily on the devolution of justice and how it might work, there were also suggestions that could have been implemented with UK Government support within the current devolution framework. Even on these, engagement from the previous UK Government was very disappointing, as highlighted in the progress report on Delivering Justice for Wales, where we noted that “it remains unclear whether the MoJ are intending to undertake any significant further activity [directly] as a result of the Thomas Commission discussions”.

Progress has though improved recently in these areas. For instance, in response to Recommendation 50, which sought improved Wales-specific data for evidence-based policymaking and research, we collaborated with the UK Government to secure the Ministry of Justice’s first annual Wales-specific data publication. The "Welsh Justice Data: Annual Release 2025" represents a significant milestone, providing detailed breakdowns—including prison statistics by home address origin (Welsh or English), prison establishment, local authority, offence type, age, ethnicity, religion, sentence type, and security category. This long-awaited dataset will now be routinely published on GOV.UK: Welsh Justice Data: Annual Release 2025, including an Excel file with detailed statistics.

Finally, in the second half of this Senedd we have focused increasingly on preparedness for hoped-for first steps in advancing the principal recommendations concerning the devolution of justice. Following considerable work with academics, experts and stakeholders within Wales, we have advanced this objective by working with the UK Government towards a memorandum of understanding on probation services, and in exploring the devolution of funding for youth justice services, and the related strategic oversight and governance arrangements.

Alongside this, we are working with the UK Government to establish new local police governance arrangements within Wales, following the UK Government’s announcement that the office of Police and Crime Commissioners would end at the end of their terms in May 2028. While the UK Government has ruled out devolution of policing at this time, they have acknowledged that a distinct model is needed for Wales. We are clear that this should be devolutionary in nature. We will advise the Senedd of the outcomes of these discussions shortly.

Question

What action has the Welsh Government taken in response to the Commission on Justice in Wales’s recommendations?

Answered by Counsel General and Minister for Delivery

As the largest ever examination of the justice system in Wales, the Commission on Justice in Wales (Thomas Commission) report remains of course a very important contribution to public understanding of the condition of the justice system in Wales. Its key findings in relation to the structural failings underlying justice in Wales are as relevant as ever, hence the Welsh Government’s continuing support for the devolution of justice and policing. This position was of course supported by the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales. 

The Welsh Government has taken a very large number of actions in response to the recommendations of the Thomas Commission. A number of these are set out in Delivering Justice for Wales and the subsequent progress report published in 2024. Delivering Justice for Wales is the main summary of Welsh Government actions related to justice during this Senedd term.

While we accept there are areas where we have not met all our aspirations, notable advancements have been made, even if arguments may be made that the recommendations in question have not been wholly completed.

For instance, in response to Recommendation 35 that Family Drug and Alcohol Courts should be established in Wales, the Welsh Government and partners funded a pilot in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan, and the findings of that pilot are contributing to changes being rolled out across courts in Wales. Similarly, there has been

• a significant increase in the provision of legal apprenticeships in Wales (recommendation 40),
• considerable investment in legal technology (recommendation 43),
• activity to promote the Welsh legal sector (recommendation 44),
• greater transparency increased in procurement of legal services (recommendation 41), and
• significant progress towards tribunals reform, including the publication of a White Paper (recommendation 27)

The Welsh Government also took the lead on facilitating the creation of the Law Council for Wales (recommendation 65). However, once that process was concluded, it was for the members of the Council to determine its objectives, priorities and work programme. The Welsh Government is not a member of the Council, nor does it provide any funding to it, so there can be no questions about the Council’s independence. As an independent body, it is not for the Welsh Government to make an assessment of the extent to which it has fulfilled the functions envisaged by the Thomas Commission.

It remains the case that the significant majority of the Thomas Commission’s recommendations, including the most impactful, are ones which require the support and active participation of the UK Government. Although most of these recommendations focused primarily on the devolution of justice and how it might work, there were also suggestions that could have been implemented with UK Government support within the current devolution framework. Even on these, engagement from the previous UK Government was very disappointing, as highlighted in the progress report on Delivering Justice for Wales, where we noted that “it remains unclear whether the MoJ are intending to undertake any significant further activity [directly] as a result of the Thomas Commission discussions”.

Progress has though improved recently in these areas. For instance, in response to Recommendation 50, which sought improved Wales-specific data for evidence-based policymaking and research, we collaborated with the UK Government to secure the Ministry of Justice’s first annual Wales-specific data publication. The "Welsh Justice Data: Annual Release 2025" represents a significant milestone, providing detailed breakdowns—including prison statistics by home address origin (Welsh or English), prison establishment, local authority, offence type, age, ethnicity, religion, sentence type, and security category. This long-awaited dataset will now be routinely published on GOV.UK: Welsh Justice Data: Annual Release 2025, including an Excel file with detailed statistics.

Finally, in the second half of this Senedd we have focused increasingly on preparedness for hoped-for first steps in advancing the principal recommendations concerning the devolution of justice. Following considerable work with academics, experts and stakeholders within Wales, we have advanced this objective by working with the UK Government towards a memorandum of understanding on probation services, and in exploring the devolution of funding for youth justice services, and the related strategic oversight and governance arrangements.

Alongside this, we are working with the UK Government to establish new local police governance arrangements within Wales, following the UK Government’s announcement that the office of Police and Crime Commissioners would end at the end of their terms in May 2028. While the UK Government has ruled out devolution of policing at this time, they have acknowledged that a distinct model is needed for Wales. We are clear that this should be devolutionary in nature. We will advise the Senedd of the outcomes of these discussions shortly.

Question

To what extent has the Law Council for Wales fulfilled the functions recommended by the Commission on Justice in Wales?

Answered by Counsel General and Minister for Delivery

As the largest ever examination of the justice system in Wales, the Commission on Justice in Wales (Thomas Commission) report remains of course a very important contribution to public understanding of the condition of the justice system in Wales. Its key findings in relation to the structural failings underlying justice in Wales are as relevant as ever, hence the Welsh Government’s continuing support for the devolution of justice and policing. This position was of course supported by the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales. 

The Welsh Government has taken a very large number of actions in response to the recommendations of the Thomas Commission. A number of these are set out in Delivering Justice for Wales and the subsequent progress report published in 2024. Delivering Justice for Wales is the main summary of Welsh Government actions related to justice during this Senedd term.

While we accept there are areas where we have not met all our aspirations, notable advancements have been made, even if arguments may be made that the recommendations in question have not been wholly completed.

For instance, in response to Recommendation 35 that Family Drug and Alcohol Courts should be established in Wales, the Welsh Government and partners funded a pilot in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan, and the findings of that pilot are contributing to changes being rolled out across courts in Wales. Similarly, there has been

• a significant increase in the provision of legal apprenticeships in Wales (recommendation 40),
• considerable investment in legal technology (recommendation 43),
• activity to promote the Welsh legal sector (recommendation 44),
• greater transparency increased in procurement of legal services (recommendation 41), and
• significant progress towards tribunals reform, including the publication of a White Paper (recommendation 27)

The Welsh Government also took the lead on facilitating the creation of the Law Council for Wales (recommendation 65). However, once that process was concluded, it was for the members of the Council to determine its objectives, priorities and work programme. The Welsh Government is not a member of the Council, nor does it provide any funding to it, so there can be no questions about the Council’s independence. As an independent body, it is not for the Welsh Government to make an assessment of the extent to which it has fulfilled the functions envisaged by the Thomas Commission.

It remains the case that the significant majority of the Thomas Commission’s recommendations, including the most impactful, are ones which require the support and active participation of the UK Government. Although most of these recommendations focused primarily on the devolution of justice and how it might work, there were also suggestions that could have been implemented with UK Government support within the current devolution framework. Even on these, engagement from the previous UK Government was very disappointing, as highlighted in the progress report on Delivering Justice for Wales, where we noted that “it remains unclear whether the MoJ are intending to undertake any significant further activity [directly] as a result of the Thomas Commission discussions”.

Progress has though improved recently in these areas. For instance, in response to Recommendation 50, which sought improved Wales-specific data for evidence-based policymaking and research, we collaborated with the UK Government to secure the Ministry of Justice’s first annual Wales-specific data publication. The "Welsh Justice Data: Annual Release 2025" represents a significant milestone, providing detailed breakdowns—including prison statistics by home address origin (Welsh or English), prison establishment, local authority, offence type, age, ethnicity, religion, sentence type, and security category. This long-awaited dataset will now be routinely published on GOV.UK: Welsh Justice Data: Annual Release 2025, including an Excel file with detailed statistics.

Finally, in the second half of this Senedd we have focused increasingly on preparedness for hoped-for first steps in advancing the principal recommendations concerning the devolution of justice. Following considerable work with academics, experts and stakeholders within Wales, we have advanced this objective by working with the UK Government towards a memorandum of understanding on probation services, and in exploring the devolution of funding for youth justice services, and the related strategic oversight and governance arrangements.

Alongside this, we are working with the UK Government to establish new local police governance arrangements within Wales, following the UK Government’s announcement that the office of Police and Crime Commissioners would end at the end of their terms in May 2028. While the UK Government has ruled out devolution of policing at this time, they have acknowledged that a distinct model is needed for Wales. We are clear that this should be devolutionary in nature. We will advise the Senedd of the outcomes of these discussions shortly.

Question

To what extent does the Commission on Justice in Wales’s report and its recommendations remain relevant as a basis for ongoing work to assess the condition of the justice system in Wales?

Answered by Counsel General and Minister for Delivery

As the largest ever examination of the justice system in Wales, the Commission on Justice in Wales (Thomas Commission) report remains of course a very important contribution to public understanding of the condition of the justice system in Wales. Its key findings in relation to the structural failings underlying justice in Wales are as relevant as ever, hence the Welsh Government’s continuing support for the devolution of justice and policing. This position was of course supported by the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales. 

The Welsh Government has taken a very large number of actions in response to the recommendations of the Thomas Commission. A number of these are set out in Delivering Justice for Wales and the subsequent progress report published in 2024. Delivering Justice for Wales is the main summary of Welsh Government actions related to justice during this Senedd term.

While we accept there are areas where we have not met all our aspirations, notable advancements have been made, even if arguments may be made that the recommendations in question have not been wholly completed.

For instance, in response to Recommendation 35 that Family Drug and Alcohol Courts should be established in Wales, the Welsh Government and partners funded a pilot in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan, and the findings of that pilot are contributing to changes being rolled out across courts in Wales. Similarly, there has been

• a significant increase in the provision of legal apprenticeships in Wales (recommendation 40),
• considerable investment in legal technology (recommendation 43),
• activity to promote the Welsh legal sector (recommendation 44),
• greater transparency increased in procurement of legal services (recommendation 41), and
• significant progress towards tribunals reform, including the publication of a White Paper (recommendation 27)

The Welsh Government also took the lead on facilitating the creation of the Law Council for Wales (recommendation 65). However, once that process was concluded, it was for the members of the Council to determine its objectives, priorities and work programme. The Welsh Government is not a member of the Council, nor does it provide any funding to it, so there can be no questions about the Council’s independence. As an independent body, it is not for the Welsh Government to make an assessment of the extent to which it has fulfilled the functions envisaged by the Thomas Commission.

It remains the case that the significant majority of the Thomas Commission’s recommendations, including the most impactful, are ones which require the support and active participation of the UK Government. Although most of these recommendations focused primarily on the devolution of justice and how it might work, there were also suggestions that could have been implemented with UK Government support within the current devolution framework. Even on these, engagement from the previous UK Government was very disappointing, as highlighted in the progress report on Delivering Justice for Wales, where we noted that “it remains unclear whether the MoJ are intending to undertake any significant further activity [directly] as a result of the Thomas Commission discussions”.

Progress has though improved recently in these areas. For instance, in response to Recommendation 50, which sought improved Wales-specific data for evidence-based policymaking and research, we collaborated with the UK Government to secure the Ministry of Justice’s first annual Wales-specific data publication. The "Welsh Justice Data: Annual Release 2025" represents a significant milestone, providing detailed breakdowns—including prison statistics by home address origin (Welsh or English), prison establishment, local authority, offence type, age, ethnicity, religion, sentence type, and security category. This long-awaited dataset will now be routinely published on GOV.UK: Welsh Justice Data: Annual Release 2025, including an Excel file with detailed statistics.

Finally, in the second half of this Senedd we have focused increasingly on preparedness for hoped-for first steps in advancing the principal recommendations concerning the devolution of justice. Following considerable work with academics, experts and stakeholders within Wales, we have advanced this objective by working with the UK Government towards a memorandum of understanding on probation services, and in exploring the devolution of funding for youth justice services, and the related strategic oversight and governance arrangements.

Alongside this, we are working with the UK Government to establish new local police governance arrangements within Wales, following the UK Government’s announcement that the office of Police and Crime Commissioners would end at the end of their terms in May 2028. While the UK Government has ruled out devolution of policing at this time, they have acknowledged that a distinct model is needed for Wales. We are clear that this should be devolutionary in nature. We will advise the Senedd of the outcomes of these discussions shortly.