Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department taking to help prevent prisoners from avoiding their Release on Temporary Licence.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) is a key part of preparing individuals for safe resettlement into the community. The Ministry of Justice takes the risk of prisoners failing to return from ROTL extremely seriously. I have assumed that it is this risk that you are referring to when you ask about preventing prisoners from ‘avoiding their Release on Temporary Licence'.
ROTL is only granted following a rigorous risk assessment and is available only to prisoners who meet strict eligibility criteria. Decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the prisoner’s behaviour and compliance in custody, the nature of their index offence, and the purpose of the release.
Where ROTL is approved, prisoners are subject to clear licence conditions, monitoring requirements and, where appropriate, curfews and checks on employment or resettlement placements. The inherent risk that offenders breach the trust placed in them is closely managed through robust controls.
Any failure to return from ROTL is a criminal offence and can result in recall to custody, removal of future ROTL, and prosecution with a custodial sentence imposed. Where a prisoner fails to return, prisons and the police act promptly to locate and return the individual to custody.
Asked by: Oliver Dowden (Conservative - Hertsmere)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if his Department will make an assessment of the adequacy of the timescale permitted for a second post-mortem examination.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones
Once a death has been reported to a coroner, the deceased person’s body remains in the legal control of the coroner until released for burial or cremation. During this time, decisions relating to the body, including on whether to order a post-mortem examination or permit a second post‑mortem examination, are a matter for the coroner as an independent judge.
The Chief Coroner has provided guidance for coroners which makes clear that, where a second post‑mortem examination is permitted, it should be carried out as quickly as possible following the first examination and, unless there are exceptional circumstances, within 28 days of the death being reported to the coroner. The coroner must inform the deceased person’s next of kin or personal representative if the body cannot be released for burial or cremation within this period.
Asked by: Oliver Dowden (Conservative - Hertsmere)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take steps to reduce the timescale allowed for a second post-mortem examination.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones
Once a death has been reported to a coroner, the deceased person’s body remains in the legal control of the coroner until released for burial or cremation. During this time, decisions relating to the body, including on whether to order a post-mortem examination or permit a second post‑mortem examination, are a matter for the coroner as an independent judge.
The Chief Coroner has provided guidance for coroners which makes clear that, where a second post‑mortem examination is permitted, it should be carried out as quickly as possible following the first examination and, unless there are exceptional circumstances, within 28 days of the death being reported to the coroner. The coroner must inform the deceased person’s next of kin or personal representative if the body cannot be released for burial or cremation within this period.
Asked by: Caroline Dinenage (Conservative - Gosport)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department is responsible for reforming the regulation of funeral directors.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones
The Department of Health and Social Care will lead on co-ordinating cross‑government work to raise standards in relation to the care and treatment of the deceased, supported by the Department of Business and Trade, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Asked by: Lord Kempsell (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Timpson on 5 February (HL14147), what the deadline is to train and equip 500 prison-based staff to use taser devices.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This capability is being implemented on a phased basis, reflecting the complexity of introducing Conducted Energy Devices (generally known as TASERs) safely into the prison environment. Initial enabling activity is under way, including development of policy and operating procedures, assurance processes, training design, and engagement with key stakeholders.
Training and equipping of staff will be delivered incrementally, with cohorts authorised to access the equipment in stages, once the necessary governance, infrastructure and safeguards are in place.
In view of the need to prioritise safety, operational readiness and learning from early phases of implementation, it would not be appropriate at this stage to set a deadline for completion. Progress will continue to be monitored closely to ensure progress is maintained.
Asked by: Lord Kempsell (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many sniffer dogs there are in England and Wales's prisons; and what plans they have to increase that number.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) currently deploys 492 licensed search dogs across prisons in England and Wales. These dogs form a key part of the Department’s approach to tackling the supply of illicit items, including drugs, mobile telephones and other contraband, and are used proactively across the estate.
Decisions on deployment, and any increase in search dog capacity, are made at local and regional level, enabling prisons to respond flexibly to their specific security risks and operational challenges. This includes the ability to scale up provision where intelligence or demand indicates a need.
HMPPS keeps this capability under regular review as part of its wider security strategy and will continue to assess whether additional resources are required to meet any emerging threats.
Asked by: Lord Kempsell (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many job vacancies there currently are in HM Prison and Probation Service.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) holds required staffing levels which are subject to regular amendment and managed at a local and regional level. As a result of this discretion, HMPPS does not present vacancy data due to variability in required staffing levels.
We do, however, publish indicative vacancies in the HMPPS Workforce and the most recently published figures can be found via the following link: HM Prison & Probation Service workforce quarterly: December 2025 - GOV.UK.
Asked by: Lord Spellar (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many crown courts and magistrates’ courts there are in each of the boroughs in West Midlands County; and what is the case backlog in each of those courts.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Table 1 - Crown Court open cases in West Midlands by court (December 2025)
Court | Open cases |
Birmingham | 2,525 |
Wolverhampton | 1,711 |
West Midlands LCJB | 4,236 |
Table 2 - Magistrates’ courts open cases in West Midlands by court (December 2025)
Court | Open cases |
Birmingham | 10,063 |
Coventry | 1,845 |
Dudley | 1,262 |
Sandwell* | 22 |
Solihull* | 80 |
Sutton Coldfield* | 4 |
Walsall | 1,591 |
West Bromwich* | 8 |
Wolverhampton | 1,433 |
West Midlands LCJB | 16,308 |
notes
1) Open cases are those without a final result record. At the Crown Court this excludes cases where one or more defendants is absent and have a live bench warrant.
2) Court location relates to where a case was first received.
3) * signifies magistrates’ courts which have permanently closed. Open cases for these courts will have been transferred to other courts but workload will continue to be reported under the initial location.
The Crown Court backlog currently stands at over 80,000 cases and, without decisive action, would rise to 100,000 by 2028. Behind each of those cases is someone awaiting justice – defendants seeking to clear their name and victims putting their lives on hold. The record and rising Crown Court caseload means that thousands of victims and witnesses are waiting years for their day in court. Justice delayed is justice denied and the status quo is unacceptable.
That is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, to conduct an independent review of the criminal justice system and make recommendations for the modernisation of the system and ways to tackle the backlog. His expert panel gathered evidence over many months. They concluded that reform is essential alongside additional investment in sitting days and the workforce, and a programme of efficiencies. Part 1 of the Review set out a blueprint for pragmatic structural reform in our criminal courts and made clear that action across all aspects of the criminal justice process is needed. Reform, investment and modernisation are all necessary to ensure that our courts deliver justice effectively and efficiently.
The Government has already invested significantly in the system – in record sitting days (increasing judicial capacity), court buildings and technology, and in legal professionals with significant investment in legal aid. However, these investments in growing the workforce, whilst vital, will take years to take effect.
The Government is committed to doing whatever is necessary to deliver swifter justice for victims. Only by pulling every lever we have – investment, efficiency and reform – can we turn the tide on the backlog and begin to deliver faster and fairer justice.
Asked by: Lord Banner (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Baroness Levitt on 26 March (HL15521) and 12 March (HL14912), what assessment they have made of the article “Are judicial reviews in the Planning Court taking too long?”, published by the UK Constitutional Law Association on 23 March, having regard to that article being based upon statistical analysis unlike the Written Answers.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Written Answers on 26 March (HL15521) and 12 March (HL14912) were based on the professional knowledge and experience of the Planning Liaison Judge, rather than statistical data, drawing on his role managing claims in the Planning Court. The Planning Court Users Group provides a mechanism for users to raise any specific concerns regarding the timely progress of cases. The Court has confirmed that there is no backlog of cases in the Planning Court relating to challenges to planning permissions granted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Significant Planning Court claims are managed in line with the targets set out in the relevant Practice Direction, while other cases follow the arrangements applicable to the Administrative Court. Overall oversight by the Planning Liaison Judge ensures that claims are progressed efficiently.
HMCTS is committed to improving efficiency, responsiveness and overall quality of service provided. Through collaborative working with the well-established Planning Court Users Group, HMCTS will discuss and consider any further administrative improvements.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure that coronial complaints procedures are independent and transparent; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of measures in place to prevent conflicts of interest within that process.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones
Coroners are independent judges, but operational responsibility for coroner services lies with the lead local authorities which fund and administer of each of the 74 coroner areas in England and Wales. Whist the framework of accountability in the coronial jurisdiction is therefore complex, it is nevertheless robust and transparent.
Complaints about the standard of service provided in the context of a coroner’s investigation should be raised in the first instance with the coroner’s office and/or with the funding local authority. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, the matter can be reported to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (https://www.lgo.org.uk/make-a-complaint), which aims to provide a remedy to complaints through impartial and fair investigation.
The Ombudsman cannot investigate a coroner’s decisions as an independent judge. However, these can be challenged through the judicial review process or, in some circumstances, by applying to the Attorney General for leave to apply to the High Court for a fresh inquest.
Complaints about the personal conduct of coroners should be made to the independent Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/).