Asked by: Lord Bradley (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many and what proportion of Parole Board recommendations to move prisoners (1) serving an Imprisonment for Public Protection sentence, and (2) serving a life sentence, to open conditions were rejected in each month in 2025.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
For many years the Secretary of State has asked the independent Parole Board for advice on whether a prisoner serving an imprisonment for public protection (IPP) or a life sentence is suitable for transfer to open conditions. Where the Parole Board recommends that a prisoner is so suitable, the Secretary of State is not bound to accept the recommendation, and it is the Secretary of State who is ultimately responsible for determining whether a life or IPP prisoner is safe to be managed in an open prison.
The following tables provide the number and proportion of recommendations made by the Parole Board which were rejected in each month in 2025 for prisoners serving (1) an IPP sentence and (2) a life sentence.
Table 1: Outcomes of consideration of IPP open condition recommendations
Period considered | Accepted | Rejected | Total | % Rejected |
January 2025 | 10 | 2 | 12 | 17% |
February 2025 | 7 | 7 | 14 | 50% |
March 2025 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 25% |
Table 2: Outcomes of Consideration of life sentence open condition recommendations
Period considered | Accepted | Rejected | Total | % Rejected |
January 2025 | 19 | 7 | 26 | 27% |
February 2025 | 23 | 3 | 26 | 12% |
March 2025 | 23 | 3 | 26 | 12% |
Data have been provided for the period 1 January 2025 to 31 March 2025 to align with the publication of the Parole Board’s data on recommendations for open conditions.
Public protection remains the priority and prisoners will only be approved for a move to open conditions if it is assessed that it is safe to do so.
Asked by: Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the use of artificial intelligence tools within the courts of England and Wales, and what guidance or safeguards are in place to ensure judicial independence, accuracy and transparency.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The independent judiciary have their own procedures and policies. Guidance for judicial office holders on the appropriate and responsible use of AI has been issued by the judiciary and is publicly available on the judiciary’s website.
The judiciary’s approach to AI is designed to ensure that any use of AI by judicial office holders is safe, transparent, and consistent with the principles of fairness and non-discrimination, while preserving judicial independence.
HM Courts & Tribunals Service has developed its own Responsible AI Principles to provide guardrails for the development, delivery and maintenance of AI systems to ensure use of AI in the courts and tribunals is appropriate, safe and controlled.
Asked by: Baroness Noakes (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Ministry of Justice has reviewed the Isle of Man's Assisted Dying Bill and, if not, when it expects to do so.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The UK Government is currently in the process of reviewing the Isle of Man’s Assisted Dying Bill as part of our constitutional responsibilities towards the Crown Dependencies.
The Lord Chancellor is responsible for making a recommendation as to whether Crown Dependency primary legislation should receive Royal Assent.
Asked by: Baroness Noakes (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have a role in arranging for Royal Assent to be given to the Isle of Man’s assisted dying bill.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The UK Government is currently in the process of reviewing the Isle of Man’s Assisted Dying Bill as part of our constitutional responsibilities towards the Crown Dependencies.
The Lord Chancellor is responsible for making a recommendation as to whether Crown Dependency primary legislation should receive Royal Assent.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, who is the Chief Risk Officer for national security risks relating to the work of their Department.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Secretaries of State and Accounting Officers are ultimately responsible for all risks a Department owns. Each risk in the National Risk Register (NRR) has a designated Risk Owner, working within the Lead Government Department which is responsible for designated risk areas.
Asked by: Julian Smith (Conservative - Skipton and Ripon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the compatibility of early releases with the principles of justice.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
We must ensure that there are always sufficient prison places for dangerous offenders and those who pose a risk to the public. We are building 14,000 prison places and will have more prisoners by the time of the next election than the last. We take every possible step to mitigate risk, working in collaboration with partners across the Criminal Justice System. The introduction of the Sentencing Bill will bring an end to temporary early release measures and put the system back on a sustainable footing, ensuring sentences are served in a way that balances punishment, rehabilitation, and public safety.
We also recognise the importance of maintaining confidence in the justice system for victims and their families when designing these reforms and will continue to assess these impacts throughout implementation. Ministers and policy officials have been pleased to meet with victims’ stakeholders through a mix of individual meetings, roundtables and sector-wide engagement groups. We remain committed to continuing to engage with the victim sector to understand the impact of these changes.
Asked by: Julian Smith (Conservative - Skipton and Ripon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the impact of early releases on (a) victims and (b) victims' families.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
We must ensure that there are always sufficient prison places for dangerous offenders and those who pose a risk to the public. We are building 14,000 prison places and will have more prisoners by the time of the next election than the last. We take every possible step to mitigate risk, working in collaboration with partners across the Criminal Justice System. The introduction of the Sentencing Bill will bring an end to temporary early release measures and put the system back on a sustainable footing, ensuring sentences are served in a way that balances punishment, rehabilitation, and public safety.
We also recognise the importance of maintaining confidence in the justice system for victims and their families when designing these reforms and will continue to assess these impacts throughout implementation. Ministers and policy officials have been pleased to meet with victims’ stakeholders through a mix of individual meetings, roundtables and sector-wide engagement groups. We remain committed to continuing to engage with the victim sector to understand the impact of these changes.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to Answer of 9th December 2025 to Question 96041, on Reoffenders: Sentencing, what assessment he has made of how frequently courts depart from sentencing guidelines on the basis that it is in the interest of justice to do so.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
All sentencing courts in England and Wales must follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the offender’s case, unless it is in the interests of justice not to do so (by virtue of section 59 of the Sentencing Code).
Whilst there is a high bar for departing from the guidelines, it is necessary, in the interests of justice, that courts retain the discretion to do so, where the individual case and circumstances warrant it. If a court departs from the guidelines, it must give reasons for doing so.
As mentioned in my previous response, the Sentencing Council has a statutory duty to monitor and evaluate all definitive guidelines to assess their impact on sentencing outcomes and ensure they operate as intended. Analysis conducted by the Council between 2010 and 2015 demonstrated that the vast majority of sentences imposed for offences for which there were offence-specific guidelines were within the sentence range set out in the guidelines. The findings are presented in the Council’s annual reports for 2010/11 through 2014/15 which are available on its website. As part of its ongoing monitoring of the use of guidelines, the Council conducts quantitative and qualitative research to determine how the guidelines are being used and the effect they are having on sentencing practice. These evaluations will highlight any issues if departures from guidelines are commonplace for a particular offence(s) or aspect of sentencing.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of whether the discretion for courts to depart from sentencing guidelines in the interests of justice affects the (a) consistency and (b) effectiveness of sentencing outcomes.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
All sentencing courts in England and Wales must follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the offender’s case, unless it is in the interests of justice not to do so (by virtue of section 59 of the Sentencing Code).
Whilst there is a high bar for departing from the guidelines, it is necessary, in the interests of justice, that courts retain the discretion to do so, where the individual case and circumstances warrant it. If a court departs from the guidelines, it must give reasons for doing so.
As mentioned in my previous response, the Sentencing Council has a statutory duty to monitor and evaluate all definitive guidelines to assess their impact on sentencing outcomes and ensure they operate as intended. Analysis conducted by the Council between 2010 and 2015 demonstrated that the vast majority of sentences imposed for offences for which there were offence-specific guidelines were within the sentence range set out in the guidelines. The findings are presented in the Council’s annual reports for 2010/11 through 2014/15 which are available on its website. As part of its ongoing monitoring of the use of guidelines, the Council conducts quantitative and qualitative research to determine how the guidelines are being used and the effect they are having on sentencing practice. These evaluations will highlight any issues if departures from guidelines are commonplace for a particular offence(s) or aspect of sentencing.
Asked by: Pam Cox (Labour - Colchester)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of prisoners have been released with a resettlement passport in each month since their introduction.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Government is committed to ensuring individuals have plans in place before release, identifying needs early, and linking people to the right support, such as housing, employment, and health services, to help reduce reoffending. No prisoners have left with a resettlement passport as formal introduction of a digital tool is yet to take place. However, development work has marked important progress in testing approaches to improve pre-release planning across the estate.
This testing, carried out in ten prisons and four probation regions, has gathered valuable insight and learning throughout, including a comprehensive understanding of current practice and identification of gaps and opportunities in service delivery. It has also provided insight relevant to ARNS (Assess, Risks, Needs and Strengths), supporting its development as part of HMPPS’s wider digital transformation strategy. ARNS is designed to modernise offender assessments by moving towards a more dynamic, collaborative, and strength-based approach to resettlement planning, offender management, and risk assessment.
These findings will feed into work to improve the operational processes to support preparation for release, to support delivery of recommendations from the Independent Review of Sentencing.