Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were (a) convicted of theft of a pedal cycle for each year in 2020-2024 and (b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted for theft of a pedal cycle, where the number of occasions was 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9+ previous convictions.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:
(a) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence (all disposal types); and,
(b) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.
This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.
To note, figures from 2020 and 2021 have been affected by measures taken to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic and the subsequent effect this has had on the court backlog. Additionally, figures from 2022 will have been affected by the Criminal Bar Association strikes.
Asked by: Fabian Hamilton (Labour - Leeds North East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of the implementation of fixed release dates by the Parole Board.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Prisoners serving a determinate sentence are usually released automatically at a point fixed by legislation relating to their sentence. In contrast, indeterminate sentenced prisoners can only be released by the Parole Board after the expiry of their tariff. They must serve a minimum term, in full, in prison, at the end of which they can only be released if the independent Parole Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public for the offender to be confined. Therefore, introducing release dates fixed by the Parole Board would primarily affect indeterminate sentences.
In accordance with legislation, an indeterminate sentenced prisoner must have a parole review to consider whether the release test is met and if not, to confirm further detention. Reviews take place just prior to tariff expiry and then at least every two years thereafter. The setting of fixed release dates would not be compatible with the need for release to be based on the current risk posed by offenders and whether they could be managed safely if released into the community on licence.
During the passage of the Sentencing Act 2026, the House of Lords voted against an amendment to legislate for the Parole Board to fix a future release date for IPP prisoners.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were (a) convicted for theft of a motor vehicle excluding aggravated vehicle taking for each year in 2020-2024 and (b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted for theft of a motor vehicle excluding aggravated vehicle taking, where the number of occasions was 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9+ previous convictions.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:
(a) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence (all disposal types); and,
(b) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.
This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.
To note, figures from 2020 and 2021 have been affected by measures taken to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic and the subsequent effect this has had on the court backlog. Additionally, figures from 2022 will have been affected by the Criminal Bar Association strikes.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were (a) convicted for theft from a vehicle other than a motor vehicle for each year in 2020-2024 and (b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted for theft from a vehicle other than a motor vehicle, where the number of occasions was 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9+ previous convictions.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:
(a) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence (all disposal types); and,
(b) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.
This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.
To note, figures from 2020 and 2021 have been affected by measures taken to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic and the subsequent effect this has had on the court backlog. Additionally, figures from 2022 will have been affected by the Criminal Bar Association strikes.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were (a) convicted of theft from a motor vehicle for each year in 2020-2024 and (b) did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by year of conviction and number of previous occasions the offender has been convicted of theft from a motor vehicle, where the number of occasions was 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9+ previous convictions.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:
(a) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence (all disposal types); and,
(b) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.
This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.
To note, figures from 2020 and 2021 have been affected by measures taken to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic and the subsequent effect this has had on the court backlog. Additionally, figures from 2022 will have been affected by the Criminal Bar Association strikes.
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of individuals sentenced to an unpaid work requirement last year were given a (a) community order, (b) suspended sentence order, (c) youth rehabilitation order, (d) enforcement order and (e) supervision default order.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables.
The decision as to what type of order to impose at sentence, or when imposing any other type of Order in court, is a matter for our independent judiciary, taking into account all the circumstances of the case before them.
Asked by: Daniel Francis (Labour - Bexleyheath and Crayford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans his Department has to restore pre-Brexit entitlement to cross-border civil legal claims; and what assessment he has made of the level of cost and time of pursuing such claims following the UK's withdrawal from the EU.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The UK has ratified the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, which entered into force for the UK on 1 July 2025. The EU is also party to this Convention, and UK participation has therefore significantly strengthened the UK-EU framework for the recognition and enforcement of cross-border civil claims. Being a Party to the Convention provides greater certainty for UK citizens and businesses and reduces costs and delays in relevant cross‑border disputes.
The Government remains committed to working with the EU and other international partners, including through the Hague Conference on Private International Law, as well as with the UK legal sector to deliver practical benefits for our citizens and businesses. We continue to promote the mutual benefits of closer cooperation in civil and commercial matters, as noted in the UK-EU Summit Common Understanding of May 2025.
Asked by: Ben Obese-Jecty (Conservative - Huntingdon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions the Deputy Prime Minister has had with the President of the Maldives since 1 January 2026.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Deputy Prime Minister has not held discussions with the President of the Maldives since 1 January 2026.
Asked by: Jas Athwal (Labour - Ilford South)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps is the Department taking to reduce waiting times in the family courts.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is committed to improving the performance of the Family Courts, and the Family Justice Board has agreed system-wide priorities and targets for reducing delay across England and Wales. The latest published data shows a reduction in the national average case duration for both public and private law cases.
In London, which has particular challenges around Family Court delays, a dedicated Family Justice Strategy has been implemented, bringing together key partners and the judiciary. This work has included targeted investment over 2025/26 to tackle the outstanding private law caseload by providing additional court capacity and a focus on ensuring that courts follow the Public Law Outline, with clear arrangements for overseeing performance. These measures have already delivered a reduction in delays.
The Child Focused Model for private law now operates in 10 of 43 Family Court areas and seek to enhance the experience of children and families. They have demonstrated significant impact on timeliness. Cases are concluding between 11-30 weeks quicker under the model and outstanding caseloads have been reduced by up to 50%. The Government announced on 17 March its intention to roll this model out nationally by the end of this Parliament
Asked by: Ben Obese-Jecty (Conservative - Huntingdon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment has he made of the adequacy of sentencing guidelines on hare coursing.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Sentencing guidelines are developed by the Sentencing Council, in fulfilment of its statutory duty to do so. There are currently no specific guidelines for hare coursing offences. However, in 2025 the Council consulted on a draft guideline for certain offences relating to hare coursing under the Night Poaching Act 1828, Game Act 1831 and Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Subject to approval from the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor, the Council plans to issue a final version of the guideline, for use by the courts, later this year.
Sentencing decisions in individual cases are a matter for the independent judiciary, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and the offender. Parliament has provided the courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders. As well as imposing a sentence, sentencing courts may also impose ancillary orders on offenders, such as dog disqualification orders under section 66 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which aim to help prevent future re-offending.