Asked by: Charlotte Nichols (Labour - Warrington North)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the level of risk to named judges who replace juries in trials.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The safety and security, welfare, and independence of the judiciary remain paramount. Engagement with the judiciary on the court reform measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill included consideration of personal safety and security. We will continue to work with the judiciary as the Courts and Tribunals Bill progresses and these measures are implemented.
When implemented, judge‑only trials will operate within the existing robust HMCTS security framework. This already includes a range of judicial security policies and procedures, such as the Judicial Harassment Protocol, designed to protect judicial office holders in court, outside of court, and online as a result of their judicial role.
Last year, the Department invested over £20 million extra funding in judicial security, and HMCTS is continuing to improve its security procedures. We stand ready to do more if required.
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 the potential impact of gender on (a) custodial sentence length and (b) rates of reoffending.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Sentencing decisions are a matter for the courts, which must follow statutory sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council, unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.
Those guidelines are gender‑neutral, requiring courts to assess culpability, harm, and all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors in each individual case. The law and guidelines allow sentencers to take account of an offender’s personal circumstances where relevant, such as primary caring responsibilities, pregnancy, mental health needs, or experiences of abuse, which may arise more frequently among female offenders.
The Independent Sentencing Review recognised that women in the criminal justice system often present with complex vulnerabilities and are typically lower risk to the public, and that short custodial sentences can be less effective for many women than robust community‑based alternatives. In response, the Government has taken forward reforms through the Sentencing Act 2026 to reduce the unnecessary use of short custodial sentences and expand the use of community‑based disposals where appropriate. These reforms apply to all offenders.
The Government is committed to ensuring sentencing is fair, proportionate, and equitable. Consistency is promoted through statutory guidelines and judicial training. Alongside this, in 2024, the Government has established a Women’s Justice Board to advise on reducing the number of women going to prison with more managed in the community. Community supervision can often be more effective than custody in addressing the root causes of offending, helping women rebuild their lives and reduce reoffending.
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 comparative assessment he has made of custodial sentencing rates between male and female offenders for comparable offences.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Sentencing decisions are a matter for the courts, which must follow statutory sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council, unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.
Those guidelines are gender‑neutral, requiring courts to assess culpability, harm, and all relevant aggravating and mitigating factors in each individual case. The law and guidelines allow sentencers to take account of an offender’s personal circumstances where relevant, such as primary caring responsibilities, pregnancy, mental health needs, or experiences of abuse, which may arise more frequently among female offenders.
The Independent Sentencing Review recognised that women in the criminal justice system often present with complex vulnerabilities and are typically lower risk to the public, and that short custodial sentences can be less effective for many women than robust community‑based alternatives. In response, the Government has taken forward reforms through the Sentencing Act 2026 to reduce the unnecessary use of short custodial sentences and expand the use of community‑based disposals where appropriate. These reforms apply to all offenders.
The Government is committed to ensuring sentencing is fair, proportionate, and equitable. Consistency is promoted through statutory guidelines and judicial training. Alongside this, in 2024, the Government has established a Women’s Justice Board to advise on reducing the number of women going to prison with more managed in the community. Community supervision can often be more effective than custody in addressing the root causes of offending, helping women rebuild their lives and reduce reoffending.
Asked by: Elsie Blundell (Labour - Heywood and Middleton North)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of reviewing the enforcement processes of the Child Maintenance Service.
Answered by Andrew Western - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Work and Pensions)
The Child Maintenance Service has a range of strong enforcement powers that are designed to get money flowing quickly, prevent the build-up of arrears and ensure children get the financial support they deserve. These powers include the ability to deduct directly from the paying parent’s earnings or bank accounts and disqualifications from holding or obtaining driving licenses and passports.
The Government has announced our intention to reform the Child Maintenance when parliamentary time allows system. We will remove Direct Pay and move to a single, strengthened Collect and Pay system which will allow the CMS to monitor all payments, identify missed or partial payments immediately, and take faster enforcement action. Ahead of this change, the CMS is already moving non-compliant parents more quickly from Direct Pay to Collect and Pay.
In March 2025, CMS established a process to manage high- and medium-risk cases using predictive analytics, resulting in earlier identification of at-risk cases and enabling caseworker intervention at the earliest opportunity where indicators of non-compliance are identified.
To further improve arrears collection, the CMS will introduce administrative liability orders to replace the current court-based process. This will streamline enforcement, reduce delays, and help the CMS act more quickly against parents who avoid their responsibilities. Work with HM Courts and Tribunals Service and the Scottish Government is underway, and regulations will be brought to Parliament as soon as possible.
Asked by: Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (Ulster Unionist Party - Life peer)
Question to the Northern Ireland Office:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is their current assessment of whether the (1) Provisional Irish Republican Army, (2) Ulster Defence Association, or (3) Ulster Volunteer Force are active.
Answered by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The PSNI and UK security agencies continually assess the threat, risk and harm posed by paramilitary, terrorist and organised crime groups to inform the most appropriate operational response.
Rightly, any criminality or threats – by individuals or groups, loyalist or republican - will be investigated by the PSNI and those responsible will be brought before the courts.
Asked by: Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat - Surrey Heath)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment has been made of the potential contribution of family court processes, including repeated proceedings and contact litigation, to ongoing harm for victims of domestic abuse and their children.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government recognises the impact that family court proceedings have on children and adult survivors of domestic abuse, which is why we are prioritising strong safeguarding and specialist support for those navigating the system.
The Government acknowledges that repeated court hearings can retraumatise adult and child victims of domestic abuse. The Pathfinder pilot was launched in Dorset and North Wales in February 2022 and has now been expanded to 10 court areas in England and Wales, which accounts for around a quarter of private law proceedings in England and Wales. Further expansion will be announced in due course. The Pathfinder model improves coordination between the family court and agencies, including local authorities and the police, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse. This approach reduces the number of cases returning to court, protecting children and families from further trauma.
By introducing a Child Impact Report early in the process and having a more investigative process, judges are enabled to assess risks thoroughly and make more sustainable orders. This child-centred, trauma-informed approach improves early risk identification, strengthens multiagency collaboration, and helps ensure that children’s voices are heard and that the psychological impact of contact arrangements is fully considered by the court.
This Government has taken steps to ensure that family court procedures more effectively identify and prevent patterns of coercive or controlling behaviour. Practice Direction 12 J has been amended to require courts to assess patterns of behaviour rather than isolated incidents, to modernise terminology, and to strengthen safeguards for vulnerable parties. Alongside this, section 91(14) orders, also referred to as “barring orders”, may be issued by the family court where further applications would put a child or adult, such as a victim of domestic abuse, at risk of harm, particularly where proceedings could be a form of continuing domestic abuse. Courts can issue a s91(14) order of their own motion or on application. Where such an order is in place, the court is required to consider whether circumstances have materially changed before granting permission to make a new application.
The Government welcomes the publication of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report “Everyday Business: Addressing domestic abuse and continuing harm through a family court review and reporting mechanism.” We are carefully considering the recommendations made in the report and will publish a full response shortly.
Asked by: Tom Hayes (Labour - Bournemouth East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to help reduce intimidation and harassment of members of the legal profession.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government recognises the vital role played by the legal profession in upholding access to justice and the rule of law, which is fundamental to a fair and democratic society. The Government is clear that intimidation, harassment or threats against legal professionals or their offices are wholly unacceptable. Where such behaviour amounts to criminal conduct, it is right that those responsible should face the full force of the law.
The Government works with partners across the justice system to promote respect for the rule of law and the independence of the legal profession. Domestically, this is underpinned by a robust legal and regulatory framework designed to protect professional independence and integrity, consistent with the United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. Internationally, the UK was proud to be among the first signatories to the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer in May 2025, which sets clear international standards to ensure legal professionals can practise without harassment, intimidation, or improper interference.
In addition, there are robust security arrangements in place across courts and tribunals to protect all court users, including legal professionals. These include risk assessment measures to prevent, detect and respond to threats, such as security screening on entry, CCTV, and the powers of Court and Tribunal Security Officers to exclude, restrain or remove individuals threatening violence. The Government has also allocated over £20 million in additional funding in 2025/26 to further strengthen court and judicial security, including additional security officers and physical security systems.
Asked by: James Wild (Conservative - North West Norfolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has recently assessed the potential merits of reviewing the weighting given to a child's views in child arrangement orders in cases where there is an unresolved disagreement between parents.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government does not have any plans to undertake a formal assessment of the efficacy of child arrangement orders. However, we have recently published a review of the courts’ application of the presumption of parental involvement that explored the impact of decisions about child arrangements on child welfare. The Review found a high incidence of orders for direct contact between children and parents, even in cases where a parent has caused or posed a risk of harm. The evidence from the review suggested this could have long term negative impacts for children.
The Government is continually working with stakeholders to ensure that the family justice system delivers outcomes that work for children and families. The Government recently announced its intention to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 when parliamentary time allows, alongside a wider package of family court reforms. A Child Arrangements Order may be made by the court in private family law cases to determine whom a child is to live with, spend time with or otherwise have contact with. Child Maintenance calculations are carried out by the Child Maintenance Service and are based on HM Revenues and Customs data. The calculation represents an amount of money that is broadly equal to the amount that a paying parent would spend on the child if they were still living with them, irrespective of the income or assets of the receiving parent.
The Children Act 1989 states that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in family proceedings. The welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989 requires decision-makers to consider the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, and the Government has no plans to change this.
The Government believes that children’s voices must be central to family court proceedings and is delivering a new approach to private family law proceedings, known as Pathfinder. Under the Pathfinder model, a far greater proportion of children are engaged by Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru compared with the Child Arrangements Programme, and the court process puts a greater emphasis on the voice of the child through the ordering of a Child Impact Report (Report), which contains clear recommendations from the social worker, taking into account the child’s wishes and feelings.
Asked by: James Wild (Conservative - North West Norfolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has considered changes to child arrangement orders that would affect child maintenance requirements for parents without custody.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government does not have any plans to undertake a formal assessment of the efficacy of child arrangement orders. However, we have recently published a review of the courts’ application of the presumption of parental involvement that explored the impact of decisions about child arrangements on child welfare. The Review found a high incidence of orders for direct contact between children and parents, even in cases where a parent has caused or posed a risk of harm. The evidence from the review suggested this could have long term negative impacts for children.
The Government is continually working with stakeholders to ensure that the family justice system delivers outcomes that work for children and families. The Government recently announced its intention to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 when parliamentary time allows, alongside a wider package of family court reforms. A Child Arrangements Order may be made by the court in private family law cases to determine whom a child is to live with, spend time with or otherwise have contact with. Child Maintenance calculations are carried out by the Child Maintenance Service and are based on HM Revenues and Customs data. The calculation represents an amount of money that is broadly equal to the amount that a paying parent would spend on the child if they were still living with them, irrespective of the income or assets of the receiving parent.
The Children Act 1989 states that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in family proceedings. The welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989 requires decision-makers to consider the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, and the Government has no plans to change this.
The Government believes that children’s voices must be central to family court proceedings and is delivering a new approach to private family law proceedings, known as Pathfinder. Under the Pathfinder model, a far greater proportion of children are engaged by Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru compared with the Child Arrangements Programme, and the court process puts a greater emphasis on the voice of the child through the ordering of a Child Impact Report (Report), which contains clear recommendations from the social worker, taking into account the child’s wishes and feelings.
Asked by: James Wild (Conservative - North West Norfolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 10 November 2025 to Question 87080 on Child Arrangement Orders, if he will make such an assessment.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government does not have any plans to undertake a formal assessment of the efficacy of child arrangement orders. However, we have recently published a review of the courts’ application of the presumption of parental involvement that explored the impact of decisions about child arrangements on child welfare. The Review found a high incidence of orders for direct contact between children and parents, even in cases where a parent has caused or posed a risk of harm. The evidence from the review suggested this could have long term negative impacts for children.
The Government is continually working with stakeholders to ensure that the family justice system delivers outcomes that work for children and families. The Government recently announced its intention to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 when parliamentary time allows, alongside a wider package of family court reforms. A Child Arrangements Order may be made by the court in private family law cases to determine whom a child is to live with, spend time with or otherwise have contact with. Child Maintenance calculations are carried out by the Child Maintenance Service and are based on HM Revenues and Customs data. The calculation represents an amount of money that is broadly equal to the amount that a paying parent would spend on the child if they were still living with them, irrespective of the income or assets of the receiving parent.
The Children Act 1989 states that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in family proceedings. The welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989 requires decision-makers to consider the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned, and the Government has no plans to change this.
The Government believes that children’s voices must be central to family court proceedings and is delivering a new approach to private family law proceedings, known as Pathfinder. Under the Pathfinder model, a far greater proportion of children are engaged by Cafcass or Cafcass Cymru compared with the Child Arrangements Programme, and the court process puts a greater emphasis on the voice of the child through the ordering of a Child Impact Report (Report), which contains clear recommendations from the social worker, taking into account the child’s wishes and feelings.