Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 3 September 2025 to Question 70325 on Ministry of Justice: Translation Services, what estimate she has made of the proportion of the spending between 2021 and 2024 that was attributable to people who have arrived in the UK since 2021.

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

As this personal data is not collected in relation to the translation contract, the requested information cannot be provided.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, in how many cases before the (a) First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) and (b) Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) has the applicant been in receipt of legal aid in the last 12 months for which information is available.

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

The information requested is not held centrally.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what measures his Department has in place to continue to run critical services in the event of a major internet outage.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Government has a robust set of policies in place to ensure there are well-defined and tested incident management processes, and to ensure continuity of essential functions in the event of system or service failure. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will publish the Government Cyber Action Plan this Winter, which will set out a clear approach for the Government and the Wider Public Sector to manage cyber security and resilience incidents.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many officials were investigated under their Department's disciplinary processes in each of the last 5 years.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The following table contains the number of Ministry of Justice (inc. HMPPS) employees who had a disciplinary investigation case opened against them between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2025, by financial year:

Caveats

1. This is based on the latest available investigations data as at 30 September 2025 and includes all cases where the investigation was commissioned or opened between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2025 by financial year.

2. A small proportion of individuals will have been subject to multiple investigation cases. Within each financial year, individuals are only counted once in this table, regardless of how many investigations are opened against. However, where an individual has an investigation opened in more than one year, they will be counted once in each of those years.

3. This only includes cases where the individual that the case was opened was employed by MoJ HQ, HMPPS, HMCTS, OPG, LAA, and CICA, and will include all cases regardless of outcome. This excludes non-payroll employees such as agency staff and contractors.

4. Within HMPPS, all investigation cases related to disciplinary processes and so all investigation cases have been included here. Within MoJ, investigations can relate to either disciplinary processes or grievances processes. Therefore, only investigations relating to disciplinary processes have been included.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when his Department intends to respond to the coroner's Prevention of Future Death report following the death of Stephen Sleaford.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

HM Prison and Probation Service responded to the coroner’s Prevention of Future Death Report following the inquest into the death of Stephen Sleaford on 9 December 2024, which was within the statutory deadline of 56 days from the date of the report. The response is now available on the Chief Coroner’s website.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the restriction zone requirement in the Sentencing Bill would apply to convicted murderers on a life sentence; and whether the conditions of convicted murderers would be independently managed by the parole board.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

It is crucial that we have a justice system that punishes offenders and supports victims. That is why increasing restriction on serious sexual and violent offenders is part of our Plan for Change to cut crime and make streets safer.

Through the Sentencing Bill, we are introducing a new power which will allow restriction zones to be imposed on offenders on licence, where appropriate. These will restrict certain offenders to specific areas – so their victims know they are safe wherever else they want to go. We are working to finalise the operation of, and eligibility for, the new restriction zones, subject to the passage of the Sentencing Bill

Where an offender is serving a life sentence, they may only be released once they have completed their minimum term (or tariff) set by the court and where the independent Parole Board is satisfied that they no longer need to be detained for the protection of the public. If the Board directs the release of a life-sentence prisoner, it will also decide what licence conditions will apply to safely manage the offender in the community. Any subsequent variation of the conditions on a life licence will also be a matter for the Parole Board to decide.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of (a) tableware and (b) crockery used in (i) his Department, (ii) Courts and Tribunals and (iii) the Prison estate is made by a British manufacturer.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

All tableware (including plates, bowls, cups and cutlery) used in HM Prisons are made from polypropylene and polycarbonate plastics for safety reasons. They are manufactured in house in our plastics injection moulding workshops. The items form part of the equipment issued to prisoners for their personal use and are washed and reused by the individual after each meal.

It is important to note that despite being made of plastic they are multi-use and are washed and reused time and time again. Each of the items are 100% recyclable.

The Government is committed to supporting British businesses and ensuring they have the best chance to win public contracts.

The new Procurement Act creates a simpler and more transparent system that will support British businesses bidding for work. The Act also allows contracting authorities to set standards that recognise the quality and standard of UK businesses and products.

Alongside this, the National Procurement Policy Statement encourages contracting authorities to consider this Government’s Industrial strategy and the sectors vital to our economic growth.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make it her policy to seek an agreement with the US Government on measures to minimise delays in UK probate cases where the deceased held assets in the US.

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

Applications for probate for the estate of an individual who died domiciled in England and Wales will normally be dealt with by reference to domestic laws.

Where an estate involves foreign assets, the onus is on personal representatives to assess which laws would apply in an individual case, and whether probate would be required in other jurisdictions to administer a cross-border estate.

Where it is necessary, private international law rules may need to be exercised to determine which law of succession should apply to the assets applies. These rules are well established and there are no plans to seek an international agreement with individual states.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of extending the Armed Forces Covenant Duty on his Departmental responsibilities.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice adheres to the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant Duty. The principles inform a range of work across the Department. For example, in 2021, the Ministry of Justice was one of the first Departments to participate in the now civil service-wide initiative Great Place to Work for Veterans. Additionally, we introduced Advance into Justice in March 2022 as a fast-track scheme for service personnel leaving the Armed Forces to become prison officers. The scheme has since been expanded to include a wider range of roles across His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) and for all those who have served in the Armed Forces, as well including spouses and legal partners of service personnel.

Across the prison estate, almost all prisons have a Veterans in Custody Support Officer to provide tailored support to veterans who find themselves in prison. HMPPS also delivers services via many third sector organisations (including military charities such as SSAFA) who provide a prison in-reach service offering resettlement advice to veterans whilst in custody and guidance in preparation for release. We also have 2 Veterans Activity Hubs at HMP/YOI Holme House and HMP Risley which provide safe and supportive spaces for former service personnel in custody.

The Department will continue to work with the Ministry of Defence on the Covenant’s Statutory Guidance and implementation.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has made an estimate of reoffending rates for prisoners released under the early release scheme.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

This Government inherited prisons days from collapse. We have had no choice but to take decisive action to stop our prisons overflowing and keep the public safe.

Whilst this change provided the intended medium-term relief, it was only ever a temporary change to bridge to a more sustainable solution. The Sentencing Bill has now been introduced to ensure we never run out of prison space again.

Our initial operational insights suggested there was not a significant change to the use and application of recall since the implementation of SDS40. We will, however, continue to monitor this.

The requested information cannot be provided because it would form a subset of the data that underpins future versions of these Official Statistics.

Proven reoffending rates are published regularly on an annual and quarterly basis. The most recent rates are available at the following link: www.gov.uk/government/collections/proven-reoffending-statistics.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many barristers and solicitors (1) are available to sit as Crown court recorders in England and Wales, and (2) sat as Crown court recorders in each week of the last 12 months for which figures are available

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

The table below sets out the data held per month for the number of Recorders who hold a live Crime ticket (weekly data is not available) over the 12 months to June 2025, which is the latest month for which the data is available. It also sets out the number of Recorders who sat for at least 1 day in the Crown Court during that same month.

It should be noted that many Recorders will hold multiple tickets, so the Recorders listed here who have not sat in the Crown Court may have been sitting in Family or Civil instead. In addition, Recorders may have other professional obligations which mean that they are not available to sit in a particular month.

The Deputy Prime Minister recently announced an additional 1,250 sitting days in the Crown Court this year, which means the Crown Court will be able to sit for 111,250 days this year, 5,000 more than the days initially allocated last year. This enables the Crown Court to sit more days this year than ever before.

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 the Public Office (Accountability) Bill on (a) the (i) processing and (ii) public interest considerations of Freedom of Information Act requests and (b) how Ministers reply to written Parliamentary Questions.

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

The provisions in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill are not intended to have any impact on the processing or public interest considerations of Freedom of Information Act requests. The Bill does not alter the existing law or guidance about how public authorities are required to respond to freedom of information requests or the expectations on ministers in replying to written Parliamentary Questions.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many appeals heard at the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) were on the grounds that removal of the appellant from the UK would breach the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available; and how many of those appeals were successful in each of those months.

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

The number of asylum, protection and revocation of protection appeals (those lodged on grounds relating to breach of the UK’s Refugee Convention obligations) determined by the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal and the number of those that were successful and allowed by the Tribunal can be found in the following table:

Table 1. First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) - Number of appeals determined at hearing or on paper for Asylum/Protection/Revocation of Protection(1), April 2024 to March 2025(2)

The table shows the latest 12 months of available data. Published statistics can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tribunals-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2025.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many appeals heard at the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) were on the grounds that removal of the appellant from the UK was unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998 in each of the last 12 months for which figures are available; and how many of those appeals were successful in each of those months.

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

The number of human rights appeals (those lodged on human rights grounds) determined by the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal and the number of those that were successful and allowed by the Tribunal can be found in the following table:

Table 1. First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) - Number of appeals determined at hearing or on paper for Human Rights Appeals, April 2024 to March 2025(1)

The table shows the latest 12 months of available data. Published statistics can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tribunals-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2025.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many barristers and solicitors (1) are available to sit as deputy district judges (magistrates’ courts) in England and Wales, and (2) sat as deputy district judges (magistrates’ courts) in each week of the last 12 months for which figures are available.

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

As at 1 April 2025 (the most recent month for which there are published statistics), there were 88 Deputy District Judges (Magistrates Court) where this was their primary appointment. Whilst we do collect data on Deputy District Judge sittings in the Magistrates’ Court, the data held centrally does not allow us robustly to identify how many of the 88 primary appointment Deputy District Judges sat each week or month.

Decisions as to when to list cases before Deputy District Judges rather than a panel of lay magistrates are made by the judiciary.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government which Crown courts in England and Wales have court rooms that are (1) usable but unused, and (2) unusable because of their state of repair or a lack of judges or court staff, in each week of the last 12 months for which figures are available.

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

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

The Crown Court operates from 84 buildings across England and Wales, with a core estate of over 500 courtrooms. Most are jury-enabled and suitable for trials, with the remainder supporting other judicial work, such as interlocutory hearings. The wider HMCTS estate—including magistrates’, civil, family, and tribunal rooms —can also be used for Crown Court business when required. As a result, the precise number of rooms available for Crown Court use at any given time is variable.

HMCTS’s priority is to ensure all funded sitting days are fully utilised each financial year through active courtroom management. Estate capacity is not a limiting factor: last year, we sat 107,771, representing over 99% of our allocation, and we remain on track to deliver all allocated days this year.

Temporary unavailability may arise due to maintenance, but also due to overspill from other trials, alternative judicial activities (such as, box work, civil, family and tribunals hearings, or coroner’s court work), or other legitimate uses (including meetings and video-link sessions). However, these factors do not prevent the Crown Courts from sitting at their funded allocation.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many court rooms in the Crown courts in England and Wales have not been used in each week of the last 12 months for which figures are available.

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

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

The Crown Court operates from 84 buildings across England and Wales, with a core estate of over 500 courtrooms. Most are jury-enabled and suitable for trials, with the remainder supporting other judicial work, such as interlocutory hearings. The wider HMCTS estate—including magistrates’, civil, family, and tribunal rooms —can also be used for Crown Court business when required. As a result, the precise number of rooms available for Crown Court use at any given time is variable.

HMCTS’s priority is to ensure all funded sitting days are fully utilised each financial year through active courtroom management. Estate capacity is not a limiting factor: last year, we sat 107,771, representing over 99% of our allocation, and we remain on track to deliver all allocated days this year.

Temporary unavailability may arise due to maintenance, but also due to overspill from other trials, alternative judicial activities (such as, box work, civil, family and tribunals hearings, or coroner’s court work), or other legitimate uses (including meetings and video-link sessions). However, these factors do not prevent the Crown Courts from sitting at their funded allocation.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will hold discussions with the Judicial College on the adequacy of the mandatory training for judges on (a) domestic abuse and (b) coercive control.

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

To preserve judicial independence, statutory responsibility for judicial training is held by the Lady Chief Justice, Senior President of Tribunals and Chief Coroner. These responsibilities are fulfilled by the Judicial College. Whilst the content of judicial training is for the judiciary to decide, Ministers have relayed the Government’s view of the importance of domestic abuse training for judges and magistrates.

All judges and magistrates complete induction and regular continuation training. Training is designed to equip the judiciary with the essential knowledge and skills they need to discharge their duties effectively.

Family judges completed specialist mandatory training on domestic abuse between 2022 and 2024, which was also made available to civil judges. Training for judges who hear criminal cases includes judgecraft, effective decision-making and sentencing, and advancing procedural fairness. Dealing with the vulnerable in court and issues relating to domestic abuse are interwoven into much of the training. Magistrates sitting in the family and criminal jurisdictions receive mandatory domestic abuse training. The training is trauma-informed and reflects the wide nature of domestic abuse including coercive and controlling behaviour. Training seminars are complemented by a range of other resources, including the Equal Treatment Bench Book which includes specific guidance in relation to domestic abuse.

The College regularly reviews its training to ensure it remains high quality and up to date, and reflects contemporary law, practice and procedure.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an assessment of the adequacy of the (a) judicial process and (b) sentencing in the case of Sir David Amess's murder.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Sentencing is a matter for the independent judiciary. In the case of Sir David Amess’s tragic murder, the judge imposed a life sentence with a whole life order. A whole life order is the most severe form of punishment the courts can impose. Such sentences have no minimum term and no possibility of Parole Board release, and as such they are reserved for the most heinous cases of murder. Our thoughts and sympathies remain with Sir David’s family.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether (a) Ministers and (b) special advisers in his Department have met with abortion providers since July 2024.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Details of Ministers’ meetings with external organisations and individuals are published by Departments quarterly in arrears on their departmental pages on gov.uk. The most recent data - for the period April 2025 to June 2025 - was published on 25 September.

Special Advisers are required to comply with the Special Adviser Code of Conduct at all times and are required to make declarations on meetings with senior media figures in line with published transparency guidance.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of sentencing outcomes in grooming gang cases.

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

This Government recognises the profound harm caused by grooming gangs and is committed to ensuring that victims receive justice, support and redress through a robust and victim centred justice system that brings all perpetrators of this heinous crime before the courts.

My Department continues to assess and improve court processes to ensure they are effective and responsive in all cases, including those involving grooming gangs. Where possible, judges prioritise serious sexual offences, and cases involving vulnerable complainants and witnesses. HMCTS staff support the delivering of fair and efficient hearings, with special measures available to vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. Recent reforms include new powers to compel offenders to attend sentencing hearings and enhanced training across the justice system to ensure victims are treated with fairness and dignity.

The Government acknowledges the impact of delays in the justice system on victims, and Sir Brian Leverson continues to lead a comprehensive review of the criminal courts to deliver swifter justice. In the meantime, we have increased funding to ensure Crown Courts operate at their highest capacity in nearly a decade, 110,000 sitting days, and doubled magistrates’ sentencing powers.

Victims are supported through Independent Sexual Violence Advisers (ISVAs) during court proceedings. Also, the Ministry of Justice funds the CSA Centre to develop evidence-based training and resources to professionals across the voluntary statutory sector workforce, as well as continuing to invest in specialist support services via the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund that awards ringfenced grants to Police and Crime Commissioners.  Additionally, the Home Office has invested £1.6 million in the Support for Victims and Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse Fund and an extra £1.6 million for national services for adult victims.

To support victims in seeking redress, we are removing the three-year limitation period for civil claims in cases of child sexual abuse. The Government is also working to improve awareness of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme through campaigns and consultations.

Parliament has legislated for robust custodial sentences for child sex offences, though sentencing decisions are made by independent courts. Recognising the severity of grooming, the Government has introduced legislation through the Crime and Policing Bill to make grooming an aggravating factor in sentencing for child sexual offences, ensuring this behaviour is appropriately reflected in sentencing outcomes.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that victims of grooming gangs have timely access to (a) justice and (b) compensation.

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

This Government recognises the profound harm caused by grooming gangs and is committed to ensuring that victims receive justice, support and redress through a robust and victim centred justice system that brings all perpetrators of this heinous crime before the courts.

My Department continues to assess and improve court processes to ensure they are effective and responsive in all cases, including those involving grooming gangs. Where possible, judges prioritise serious sexual offences, and cases involving vulnerable complainants and witnesses. HMCTS staff support the delivering of fair and efficient hearings, with special measures available to vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. Recent reforms include new powers to compel offenders to attend sentencing hearings and enhanced training across the justice system to ensure victims are treated with fairness and dignity.

The Government acknowledges the impact of delays in the justice system on victims, and Sir Brian Leverson continues to lead a comprehensive review of the criminal courts to deliver swifter justice. In the meantime, we have increased funding to ensure Crown Courts operate at their highest capacity in nearly a decade, 110,000 sitting days, and doubled magistrates’ sentencing powers.

Victims are supported through Independent Sexual Violence Advisers (ISVAs) during court proceedings. Also, the Ministry of Justice funds the CSA Centre to develop evidence-based training and resources to professionals across the voluntary statutory sector workforce, as well as continuing to invest in specialist support services via the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund that awards ringfenced grants to Police and Crime Commissioners.  Additionally, the Home Office has invested £1.6 million in the Support for Victims and Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse Fund and an extra £1.6 million for national services for adult victims.

To support victims in seeking redress, we are removing the three-year limitation period for civil claims in cases of child sexual abuse. The Government is also working to improve awareness of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme through campaigns and consultations.

Parliament has legislated for robust custodial sentences for child sex offences, though sentencing decisions are made by independent courts. Recognising the severity of grooming, the Government has introduced legislation through the Crime and Policing Bill to make grooming an aggravating factor in sentencing for child sexual offences, ensuring this behaviour is appropriately reflected in sentencing outcomes.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to support victims of grooming gangs throughout the criminal justice process.

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

This Government recognises the profound harm caused by grooming gangs and is committed to ensuring that victims receive justice, support and redress through a robust and victim centred justice system that brings all perpetrators of this heinous crime before the courts.

My Department continues to assess and improve court processes to ensure they are effective and responsive in all cases, including those involving grooming gangs. Where possible, judges prioritise serious sexual offences, and cases involving vulnerable complainants and witnesses. HMCTS staff support the delivering of fair and efficient hearings, with special measures available to vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. Recent reforms include new powers to compel offenders to attend sentencing hearings and enhanced training across the justice system to ensure victims are treated with fairness and dignity.

The Government acknowledges the impact of delays in the justice system on victims, and Sir Brian Leverson continues to lead a comprehensive review of the criminal courts to deliver swifter justice. In the meantime, we have increased funding to ensure Crown Courts operate at their highest capacity in nearly a decade, 110,000 sitting days, and doubled magistrates’ sentencing powers.

Victims are supported through Independent Sexual Violence Advisers (ISVAs) during court proceedings. Also, the Ministry of Justice funds the CSA Centre to develop evidence-based training and resources to professionals across the voluntary statutory sector workforce, as well as continuing to invest in specialist support services via the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund that awards ringfenced grants to Police and Crime Commissioners.  Additionally, the Home Office has invested £1.6 million in the Support for Victims and Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse Fund and an extra £1.6 million for national services for adult victims.

To support victims in seeking redress, we are removing the three-year limitation period for civil claims in cases of child sexual abuse. The Government is also working to improve awareness of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme through campaigns and consultations.

Parliament has legislated for robust custodial sentences for child sex offences, though sentencing decisions are made by independent courts. Recognising the severity of grooming, the Government has introduced legislation through the Crime and Policing Bill to make grooming an aggravating factor in sentencing for child sexual offences, ensuring this behaviour is appropriately reflected in sentencing outcomes.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of court processes for handling grooming gang cases.

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

This Government recognises the profound harm caused by grooming gangs and is committed to ensuring that victims receive justice, support and redress through a robust and victim centred justice system that brings all perpetrators of this heinous crime before the courts.

My Department continues to assess and improve court processes to ensure they are effective and responsive in all cases, including those involving grooming gangs. Where possible, judges prioritise serious sexual offences, and cases involving vulnerable complainants and witnesses. HMCTS staff support the delivering of fair and efficient hearings, with special measures available to vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. Recent reforms include new powers to compel offenders to attend sentencing hearings and enhanced training across the justice system to ensure victims are treated with fairness and dignity.

The Government acknowledges the impact of delays in the justice system on victims, and Sir Brian Leverson continues to lead a comprehensive review of the criminal courts to deliver swifter justice. In the meantime, we have increased funding to ensure Crown Courts operate at their highest capacity in nearly a decade, 110,000 sitting days, and doubled magistrates’ sentencing powers.

Victims are supported through Independent Sexual Violence Advisers (ISVAs) during court proceedings. Also, the Ministry of Justice funds the CSA Centre to develop evidence-based training and resources to professionals across the voluntary statutory sector workforce, as well as continuing to invest in specialist support services via the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund that awards ringfenced grants to Police and Crime Commissioners.  Additionally, the Home Office has invested £1.6 million in the Support for Victims and Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse Fund and an extra £1.6 million for national services for adult victims.

To support victims in seeking redress, we are removing the three-year limitation period for civil claims in cases of child sexual abuse. The Government is also working to improve awareness of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme through campaigns and consultations.

Parliament has legislated for robust custodial sentences for child sex offences, though sentencing decisions are made by independent courts. Recognising the severity of grooming, the Government has introduced legislation through the Crime and Policing Bill to make grooming an aggravating factor in sentencing for child sexual offences, ensuring this behaviour is appropriately reflected in sentencing outcomes.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an assessment of the reasons for which the number of Crown Court sitting days has been below the maximum operational capacity forecast by HM Courts and Tribunals Service since September 2024.

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

Operational capacity in the criminal courts does not refer solely to judicial sitting days. Consideration of court capacity necessarily includes consideration of capacity in terms of numbers of advocates, defence and prosecution, legal advisors and other court staff of which there is a finite supply. To fund additional sitting days, the Lord Chancellor needed to be confident that the extra days were both deliverable and affordable.

The Crown Court is currently sitting the most sitting days since records began. The previous Lord Chancellor had already funded a significant increase over previous years’ allocations for this year. Having assessed regional delivery performance and confidence across criminal justice partners required for delivery, and considered the Department’s broader financial position, the Lord Chancellor chose to fund a further 1,250 Crown Court sitting days, taking the total to a record 111,250 this financial year.

The additional sitting days will be distributed to areas of the country able to support higher sitting levels and will enable the courts to sit at record levels this year, meaning more trials will be able to be heard. New courts and prison projections which include the assumed 111,250 days will be published in December.

Whilst the Crown Court sitting days allocation is at a record level, it is not even higher due to capacity constraints and the Department’s wider financial position. This means while we are prioritising Crown Court funding we also have to consider the capacity not just of HMCTS, but the capacity and cost of the judges, lawyers, prosecutors, legal aid and defence barristers that underpin the rest of the system. We do not hold data for the number of cases not heard each month as a result of the cap on sitting days. We consider capacity across the year and have adjusted sitting day levels accordingly, as detailed below.

The Lord Chancellor and his officials engage regularly with the Treasury on court resourcing and funding. This increase in sitting days reflects the Government’s commitment to ensuring the Crown Court has the resources it needs to deliver timely justice. This year we have secured record investment in the courts system – up to £450 million by the end of the Spending Review period.

While extra sitting days will help to tackle delays in our courts, only major reform will address the crisis in our courts. That is why the previous Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to lead an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, to propose bold and ambitious reforms to improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swifter justice for victims.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the number of Crown Court cases that were not heard as a result of the cap on sitting days for each month for which data is available.

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

Operational capacity in the criminal courts does not refer solely to judicial sitting days. Consideration of court capacity necessarily includes consideration of capacity in terms of numbers of advocates, defence and prosecution, legal advisors and other court staff of which there is a finite supply. To fund additional sitting days, the Lord Chancellor needed to be confident that the extra days were both deliverable and affordable.

The Crown Court is currently sitting the most sitting days since records began. The previous Lord Chancellor had already funded a significant increase over previous years’ allocations for this year. Having assessed regional delivery performance and confidence across criminal justice partners required for delivery, and considered the Department’s broader financial position, the Lord Chancellor chose to fund a further 1,250 Crown Court sitting days, taking the total to a record 111,250 this financial year.

The additional sitting days will be distributed to areas of the country able to support higher sitting levels and will enable the courts to sit at record levels this year, meaning more trials will be able to be heard. New courts and prison projections which include the assumed 111,250 days will be published in December.

Whilst the Crown Court sitting days allocation is at a record level, it is not even higher due to capacity constraints and the Department’s wider financial position. This means while we are prioritising Crown Court funding we also have to consider the capacity not just of HMCTS, but the capacity and cost of the judges, lawyers, prosecutors, legal aid and defence barristers that underpin the rest of the system. We do not hold data for the number of cases not heard each month as a result of the cap on sitting days. We consider capacity across the year and have adjusted sitting day levels accordingly, as detailed below.

The Lord Chancellor and his officials engage regularly with the Treasury on court resourcing and funding. This increase in sitting days reflects the Government’s commitment to ensuring the Crown Court has the resources it needs to deliver timely justice. This year we have secured record investment in the courts system – up to £450 million by the end of the Spending Review period.

While extra sitting days will help to tackle delays in our courts, only major reform will address the crisis in our courts. That is why the previous Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to lead an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, to propose bold and ambitious reforms to improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swifter justice for victims.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an assessment of the potential impact of holding 111,250 Crown Court sitting days in the 2025-26 financial year on the criminal case backlog.

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

Operational capacity in the criminal courts does not refer solely to judicial sitting days. Consideration of court capacity necessarily includes consideration of capacity in terms of numbers of advocates, defence and prosecution, legal advisors and other court staff of which there is a finite supply. To fund additional sitting days, the Lord Chancellor needed to be confident that the extra days were both deliverable and affordable.

The Crown Court is currently sitting the most sitting days since records began. The previous Lord Chancellor had already funded a significant increase over previous years’ allocations for this year. Having assessed regional delivery performance and confidence across criminal justice partners required for delivery, and considered the Department’s broader financial position, the Lord Chancellor chose to fund a further 1,250 Crown Court sitting days, taking the total to a record 111,250 this financial year.

The additional sitting days will be distributed to areas of the country able to support higher sitting levels and will enable the courts to sit at record levels this year, meaning more trials will be able to be heard. New courts and prison projections which include the assumed 111,250 days will be published in December.

Whilst the Crown Court sitting days allocation is at a record level, it is not even higher due to capacity constraints and the Department’s wider financial position. This means while we are prioritising Crown Court funding we also have to consider the capacity not just of HMCTS, but the capacity and cost of the judges, lawyers, prosecutors, legal aid and defence barristers that underpin the rest of the system. We do not hold data for the number of cases not heard each month as a result of the cap on sitting days. We consider capacity across the year and have adjusted sitting day levels accordingly, as detailed below.

The Lord Chancellor and his officials engage regularly with the Treasury on court resourcing and funding. This increase in sitting days reflects the Government’s commitment to ensuring the Crown Court has the resources it needs to deliver timely justice. This year we have secured record investment in the courts system – up to £450 million by the end of the Spending Review period.

While extra sitting days will help to tackle delays in our courts, only major reform will address the crisis in our courts. That is why the previous Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to lead an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, to propose bold and ambitious reforms to improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swifter justice for victims.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has had discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the provision of funding to increase the number of Crown Court sitting days.

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

Operational capacity in the criminal courts does not refer solely to judicial sitting days. Consideration of court capacity necessarily includes consideration of capacity in terms of numbers of advocates, defence and prosecution, legal advisors and other court staff of which there is a finite supply. To fund additional sitting days, the Lord Chancellor needed to be confident that the extra days were both deliverable and affordable.

The Crown Court is currently sitting the most sitting days since records began. The previous Lord Chancellor had already funded a significant increase over previous years’ allocations for this year. Having assessed regional delivery performance and confidence across criminal justice partners required for delivery, and considered the Department’s broader financial position, the Lord Chancellor chose to fund a further 1,250 Crown Court sitting days, taking the total to a record 111,250 this financial year.

The additional sitting days will be distributed to areas of the country able to support higher sitting levels and will enable the courts to sit at record levels this year, meaning more trials will be able to be heard. New courts and prison projections which include the assumed 111,250 days will be published in December.

Whilst the Crown Court sitting days allocation is at a record level, it is not even higher due to capacity constraints and the Department’s wider financial position. This means while we are prioritising Crown Court funding we also have to consider the capacity not just of HMCTS, but the capacity and cost of the judges, lawyers, prosecutors, legal aid and defence barristers that underpin the rest of the system. We do not hold data for the number of cases not heard each month as a result of the cap on sitting days. We consider capacity across the year and have adjusted sitting day levels accordingly, as detailed below.

The Lord Chancellor and his officials engage regularly with the Treasury on court resourcing and funding. This increase in sitting days reflects the Government’s commitment to ensuring the Crown Court has the resources it needs to deliver timely justice. This year we have secured record investment in the courts system – up to £450 million by the end of the Spending Review period.

While extra sitting days will help to tackle delays in our courts, only major reform will address the crisis in our courts. That is why the previous Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to lead an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, to propose bold and ambitious reforms to improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swifter justice for victims.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make it his policy that requests by district judges to transfer up to the High Court for enforcement should always be allowed (a) where the County Court bailiff delay locally is three months or more and (b) where it is possible that reasonable force may have to be used.

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

The Government has noted the findings of the High Court Enforcement Officer Association’s recent report about the process for transferring possession cases to the High Court for enforcement by High Court Enforcement Officers and is considering its recommendations.

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 High Court Enforcement Officers Association's report entitled Possessions - Transferring Up, published in October 2025.

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

The Government has noted the findings of the High Court Enforcement Officer Association’s recent report about the process for transferring possession cases to the High Court for enforcement by High Court Enforcement Officers and is considering its recommendations.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the criteria for parental involvement in decision-making for young people who lack mental capacity after becoming 18 years of age.

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

Anyone who wishes to make decisions for a person who lacks the mental capacity to do so for themselves must have the legal authority to act. The provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 reflect that principle and provide safeguards to protect the interests of persons who lack mental capacity.

Parents are often unaware they need legal authority to make decisions once their child reaches 18, when legal parental responsibility ends. The Government acknowledges this lack of awareness and in relation to property and finance has produced a toolkit ‘Making Financial decisions for young people who lack capacity’ to raise awareness: Making financial decisions for young people who lack capacity: A toolkit for parents and carers - GOV.UK.

Parents and carers can still be involved in decisions regarding the young person. Section 4 of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, outlines the principles for making decisions in a person’s best interests for whom they care and confirms that the decision maker should consult with anyone engaged in caring for the person as well as close family and friends.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department plans to legislate to protect the rights of children to communicate with (a) grandparents and (b) others members of extended family in cases where (i) one and (ii) both parents seek to prevent such contact.

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

I acknowledge and respect that grandparents and other extended family members often play an important role in children’s lives and can provide stability in families, particularly where parents are separating.

Any contact with the child should always be in their child's best interests. This is why there is no statutory right for any adult to have contact with a child. It is already possible for extended family members to seek leave of the court to apply for ‘spending time with’ or ‘living with’ arrangements through a Child Arrangements Order under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (‘the Act’). The requirement for grandparents or others to seek the leave of the court first is to ensure that their application is in the child's best interests; but in certain circumstances, applicants may be entitled to apply without the leave of the court under section 10 (5) of the Act. These circumstances include where the child has lived with them for a period of at least three years. Therefore, the Government has no current plans to legislate further on this issue.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government why the core education offer for prisoners does not include a distinct reading curriculum.

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

The core education offer in all prisons includes reading skills and their practical application. These are an integral part of literacy provision. In addition to this, prisons benefit from locally commissioned support delivered by voluntary and community sector organisations. These partners play a vital role in engaging individuals who may lack the confidence to participate in classroom-based learning, offering tailored and accessible routes into reading. Every prison now has a dedicated reading strategy, underpinned by HMPPS’s National Prison Reading Framework which supports the development and evaluation of effective reading provision.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the Justice Transcribe tool was developed (a) in-house or (b) in partnership with external technology providers.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Justice Transcribe is an AI-powered note-taking tool that records and transcribes conversations between probation officers and people on probation. It was developed in-house.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

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

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Releases in error have been increasing for several years and are another symptom of the prison system crisis inherited by this Government.

While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, we are clamping down on those releases in error that do occur. As the Deputy Prime Minister set out to the House, immediate measures have been introduced to strengthen release checks across prisons – making them the strongest release checks to ever be in place.

We have gripped this chaos – by building more prison places, ending the last Government’s early release scheme, being transparent with the public, immediately making changes to sentences to ease pressure on the system and, now, taking landmark reforms through our Sentencing Bill to make sure that prisons never run out of places again.

Annual totals for releases in error are published each July in the HMPPS Annual Digest, available via Prison and Probation Performance Statistics - GOV.UK, and provide data up to March 2025.

The total number of releases in error from 5 July 2024 to 31 March 2025 is 193.

The number of people who have been released in error since April 2025 cannot be provided because it would form a subset of releases in error data which underpins future versions of these Official Statistics.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prison officers have been suspended for mistakenly releasing prisoners early since 5 July 2024.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice cannot provide the information requested. The internal HR system records details of staff suspensions but does not include the reasons for those suspensions. It is therefore not possible to identify, from centrally held data, which suspensions may relate specifically to the mistaken early release of prisoners.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners have been mistakenly released from custody since 1 April 2025; and how many of those prisoners (a) were subsequently re-apprehended and (b) are still at large.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Releases in error have been increasing for several years and are another symptom of the prison system crisis inherited by this Government.

While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, we are clamping down on those releases in error that do occur – including through improved staff training and establishing a new specialist unit. A joint protocol between HMPPS and NPCC is in place, to ensure effective and timely communication between partner agencies when an individual is released in error to rearrest them as quickly as possible.

We have gripped this chaos – by building more prison places, ending the last Government’s early release scheme, being transparent with the public, immediately making changes to sentences to ease pressure on the system and now, taking landmark reforms through our Sentencing Bill to make sure that prisons never run out of places again

Annual totals for releases in error are published each July in the HMPPS Annual Digest, available via Prison and Probation Performance Statistics - GOV.UK(opens in a new tab), and provide data up to March 2025.

The number of people who have been released in error since April 2025 cannot be provided because it would form a subset of releases in error data which underpins future versions of these Official Statistics.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will provide a breakdown by prison establishment of the number of prisoners who have been erroneously released since 1 April 2025.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Releases in error have been increasing for several years and are another symptom of the prison system crisis inherited by this Government.

While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, we are clamping down on those releases in error that do occur – including through improved staff training and establishing a new specialist unit. A joint protocol between HMPPS and NPCC is in place, to ensure effective and timely communication between partner agencies when an individual is released in error to rearrest them as quickly as possible.

We have gripped this chaos – by building more prison places, ending the last Government’s early release scheme, being transparent with the public, immediately making changes to sentences to ease pressure on the system and now, taking landmark reforms through our Sentencing Bill to make sure that prisons never run out of places again

Annual totals for releases in error are published each July in the HMPPS Annual Digest, available via Prison and Probation Performance Statistics - GOV.UK(opens in a new tab), and provide data up to March 2025.

The number of people who have been released in error since April 2025 cannot be provided because it would form a subset of releases in error data which underpins future versions of these Official Statistics.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners serving sentences for sexual offences have been erroneously released since 1 April 2025.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Releases in error have been increasing for several years and are another symptom of the prison system crisis inherited by this Government.

While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, we are clamping down on those releases in error that do occur – including through improved staff training and establishing a new specialist unit. A joint protocol between HMPPS and NPCC is in place, to ensure effective and timely communication between partner agencies when an individual is released in error to rearrest them as quickly as possible.

We have gripped this chaos – by building more prison places, ending the last Government’s early release scheme, being transparent with the public, immediately making changes to sentences to ease pressure on the system and now, taking landmark reforms through our Sentencing Bill to make sure that prisons never run out of places again

Annual totals for releases in error are published each July in the HMPPS Annual Digest, available via Prison and Probation Performance Statistics - GOV.UK(opens in a new tab), and provide data up to March 2025.

The number of people who have been released in error since April 2025 cannot be provided because it would form a subset of releases in error data which underpins future versions of these Official Statistics.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners serving sentences for violent offences have been erroneously released since 1 April 2025.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Releases in error have been increasing for several years and are another symptom of the prison system crisis inherited by this Government.

While the overwhelming majority of offenders are released correctly, we are clamping down on those releases in error that do occur – including through improved staff training and establishing a new specialist unit. A joint protocol between HMPPS and NPCC is in place, to ensure effective and timely communication between partner agencies when an individual is released in error to rearrest them as quickly as possible.

We have gripped this chaos – by building more prison places, ending the last Government’s early release scheme, being transparent with the public, immediately making changes to sentences to ease pressure on the system and now, taking landmark reforms through our Sentencing Bill to make sure that prisons never run out of places again

Annual totals for releases in error are published each July in the HMPPS Annual Digest, available via Prison and Probation Performance Statistics - GOV.UK(opens in a new tab), and provide data up to March 2025.

The number of people who have been released in error since April 2025 cannot be provided because it would form a subset of releases in error data which underpins future versions of these Official Statistics.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what policies and protections are in place to enable prisoners to use the Welsh language at HMP Berwyn.

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

The new HMPPS Welsh Language Scheme (24-27), published this month, sets out how the English and Welsh languages will be treated equally when delivering services to the public. This includes upholding and reinforcing the rights of prisoners to use Welsh, for example, through recording of language preference on arrival, provision of relevant information in Welsh, and offering opportunities for prisoners to use Welsh socially.

Found: Generation Licence) (Riverside Energy Park) (England) Order 2025Appendix 7: Memorandum from the Ministry of Justice

Found: T 020 3334 3555 F 0870 761 7753 E https://contact-moj.service.justice.gov.uk/ www.gov.uk/moj 102

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

Found: It largely involves consultation with the MOJ.

Found: I think that some of that data exists, but it is not used and published in the same way as MOJ does.

Found: Ministry of Justice, and Ministry of Justice Oral Evidence

Found: drink, including through a network of agricultural attaches, MHCLG work with diaspora communities and MoJ

Found: drink, including through a network of agricultural attaches, MHCLG work with diaspora communities and MoJ

Found: Letter dated 21 October 2025 from Alex Davies-Jones MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice

Found: The Home Office and Ministry of Justice have access to more granular level data on non-fitted devices

Found: Letter from the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice and associated papers relating to HMP

Found: uk (accessed 23 September 2025))32 more quickly.110 Sarah Sackman KC MP, Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

Found: Asylum seekers in receipt of support detailed datasets, year ending June 2025, Table ASY_D09 26 Ministry of Justice

Found: there has been a breach of the procedural requirements under Article 8 of the Convention. 1 Ministry of Justice

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many decisions of the Home Office with a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) have been made in each of the last 12 months; and how many of these have been or are now the subject of such an appeal.

Answered by Alex Norris - Minister of State (Home Office)

The Home Office publishes data on asylum in the ‘Immigration System Statistics Quarterly Release’.

Data on initial decisions and outcomes on asylum claims, is published in table Asy_D02 of the ‘Asylum claim and initial decisions detailed datasets’. The latest data relates to as at 30 June 2025.

Data for as at 30 September 2025 will be published on 27 November 2025.

Data on asylum appeals is published in table Asy_D06 and Asy_D07 of the ‘Asylum appeals lodged and determined detailed datasets’. The latest data relates to the year ending March 2023.

Information on how to use the datasets can be found in the ‘Notes’ page of the workbooks.

Appeals data from April 2023 onwards is currently unavailable for publication due to ongoing work as immigration data transitions to a new caseworking system. Work is ongoing to make this information available, and it will be included in a future edition of the Immigration System Statistics release.

Please note that figures for immigration and asylum appeals at First-Tier Tribunal and subsequent stages are published by the Ministry of Justice as part of their Tribunal Statistics release. The latest data relates to January to March 2025.

Question to the Wales Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what steps her Department is taking to help ensure that critical services continue to run in the event of a major internet outage.

Answered by Jo Stevens - Secretary of State for Wales

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) provides IT services, including cyber security to my Department.

The government has a robust set of policies in place to ensure there are well-defined and tested incident management processes in place, and to ensure continuity of essential functions in the event of system or service failure.

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology will publish the Government Cyber Action Plan this Winter, which will set out a clear approach for the Government and the Wider Public Sector to manage cyber security and resilience incidents.

Found: Tribunal returns to Article 3 medical cases, 19 May 2022 95 Ministry of Justice, Tribunals statistics

Found: Memorandum from the Ministry of Justice to the Joint Committee on Human Rights

Found: The Ministry of Justice is implementing sentencing reforms to reduce pressure on prison system capacity

Found: Ministry of Justice Accounts 2024-25

Found: Treasury, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, The Information Commissioner’s Office, Ministry of Justice

Found: MoJ Digital Twin pilots in houseblocks will also assess temperature. 30.

Found: (MoJ) 1�92 0�20 Joint Maritime Security Centre (JMSC) (managed by Home Office) 1�64 0�17 Maritime

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