Asked by: Suella Braverman (Reform UK - Fareham and Waterlooville)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many safeguarding alerts have been recorded in the last five years involving transgender prisoners placed in the women’s estate.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
We have interpreted these Parliamentary Questions as relating to transgender women in the prison estate.
Transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of sexual or violent offences – including individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate – cannot be held in the general women’s estate other than in exceptional circumstances, where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.
Placement decisions for transgender prisoners are determined by a Complex Case Board (CCB) - a multidisciplinary panel of experts. Whilst possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate is a consideration, it is one of a range of risk and vulnerabilities that are considered - including offending history and mental health conditions - and does not take precedence. CCBs assess both risk that the individual may face to and from others.
The very small number of transgender women who fail to meet the high-risk threshold we have set for being accommodated in the general women’s estate, but who are too vulnerable to be held in the men’s estate are housed on E Wing at HMP/YOI Downview. They are accommodated completely separately to biological women, in a discrete building behind a gated fence. Despite being on the site of HMP/YOI Downview, E Wing is not part of the general women’s estate, and E Wing prisoners can only access the prison's wider regime under supervision, and where a local risk assessment deems this appropriate.
As of 1 April 2026, fewer than five transgender women were being held in the general women's prison estate. None of these has convictions for sexual or stalking offences. We cannot comment on individual cases.
There have been no assaults or sexual assaults committed by transgender women in the general women's estate in the last five years. The number of safeguarding alerts involving transgender prisoners placed in the women’s estate over the last five years can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
We are working through the implications of the 2025 Supreme Court ruling on the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010, and the Government is considering the draft updated Code of Practice produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Once this process has been completed, we will confirm any updates to the transgender prisoner allocation policy.
Asked by: Suella Braverman (Reform UK - Fareham and Waterlooville)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many transgender prisoners are held in specialist units on the (a) male and (b) female estate; and what criteria determine those placements.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Transgender women who cannot be held safely in the male or female estate can be placed on E Wing, where this is approved by a multi-disciplinary panel of officials. E Wing is a separate unit for transgender women at HMP & YOI Downview: it is not part of the general women's prison estate. E Wing prisoners may only have access to the wider regime at Downview in limited circumstances, and only where this is supervised by staff and following a thorough risk assessment.
As of 1 April 2026, seven prisoners were being held on E Wing.
Asked by: Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many hours per day the Crown Courts at (1) Liverpool, (2) Crown Square, and (3) Minshull Street, sat on average between (a) September and December 2024, and (b) September and December 2025; what was the average time taken at these courts from receipt of a case to its conclusion in (1) December 2024, and (2) December 2025; and what assessment they have made of the earliest date at which a trial of (1) 2 days, (2) 10 days, and (3) 6 weeks, would be heard at these courts as of March 2026.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Criminal Court data is published at a Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) area level and not by individual court. This reduces volatility and fluctuations associated with low volumes of cases at some court centres. The Criminal Courts Accredited Official Statistics are published quarterly and data is reported by quarter. The information requested is provided at LCJB area level. Listing is a judicial responsibility and function. The purpose is to ensure that all cases are brought to a hearing or trial in accordance with the interests of justice, that the resources available for criminal justice are deployed as effectively as possible, and that cases are heard by an appropriate judge or bench with the minimum of delay. (CRIMINAL PRACTICE DIRECTIONS 2015 DIVISION XIII ). Data on how far a court is listing certain lengths of trial concerning the listing of trials of particular duration is held locally by individual court centres and not centrally held. It is influenced by the listing policy of the Resident Judge in question and the local open caseload. It is subject to continual change and adapts to reflect the open caseload volume and case mix at any point in time. Normally cases are listed in order of priority according to a number of factors (e.g. counsel availability and courtroom availability) as well as the time estimate. Earlier listing dates may become available where other trials are vacated, or if the Resident Judge decides to prioritise one trial over another (for example those involving young defendants or child witnesses). Both LCJB areas are listing custody cases within the required Custody Time Limits. The listing data provided below relates to general bail cases and reflects the position as at 27 March 2026.
|
Asked by: Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer from Baroness Levitt on 24 March (HL15657), for what reason the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements does not record the cost of individual inquiries.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Independent Monitoring Authority (IMA) is operationally independent from the Ministry of Justice. The IMA’s inquiry work is, like its other functions, delivered within its overall allocated budget.
This means that, unlike a stand-alone statutory or public inquiry which is established with dedicated funding and resource, no additional or dedicated funds are allocated to individual IMA inquiries.
The IMA does not charge inspection fees to any relevant public authority involved in an inquiry. As a result, unit costs for individual inquiries have not been developed.
The overall costs of the IMA are published in its Annual Report and Accounts, which details all staffing costs and administrative costs.
Asked by: Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the reply by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage on 24 March (HL Deb col 1357), what data they hold on the caseload of the First-tier Tribunal regarding rent appeals specifically; and what plans they have to make it publicly accessible.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Currently, HM Courts and Tribunals Services (HMCTS) publishes quarterly data on the Residential Property Chamber. The latest data is attached but can also be found via the following link: Tribunals statistics quarterly: January to March 2025 - GOV.UK.
HMCTS is reviewing the data captured, drawn and published from the supporting systems for the Tribunal as part of preparations for the Renters’ Rights Act.
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to (1) implement the findings of the Civil Justice Council's Review of Litigation Funding (2 June 2025), and (2) legislate in response to R (PACCAR Inc and Others) v. Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28, and by when.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of increased third-party funded collective actions on (1) court capacity, (2) judicial workload, and (3) case duration.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to publish data on the total costs of third-party funded collective actions to the public sector.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps what they are taking to ensure that any policy they have on litigation funding does not lead to any inappropriate use of court time or resources.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.
Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of (1) sentencing guidelines, and (2) penalties, for offences related to waste crime and illegal waste disposal.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Sentencing guidelines are developed by the Sentencing Council, in fulfilment of its statutory duty to do so. The Council has issued guidelines on environmental offences for individuals and organisations which capture offences involving the unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal of waste as well as illegal discharges to air, land and water. The guidelines are designed to increase consistency and transparency in sentencing for these offences.
In 2024, following consultation, the Council updated the guideline for individuals to provide for greater use of community orders (over fines) across the sentence tables included within the guideline, in recognition of the seriousness of this offending. Further information is available on the Council’s website: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/crown-court/
The Government is clear, penalties for waste crime must match the harm it causes. The Ministry of Justice will work closely with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs following the recent publication of the Waste Crime Action Plan to explore what more can be done to further ensure that those who commit these types of offences are appropriately punished. This would aim to reinforce the effectiveness of current systems and strengthen our overall approach to tackling illegal behaviour.