Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many transgender prisoners with convictions for (a) sexual and (b) violent offences are housed within the general female prison estate; and how many of those prisoners have been granted a Ministerial exemption to remain there in the last 12 months.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
As of 1 December, there were no transgender women, including individuals with Gender Recognition Certificates, in the general women's prison estate with any convictions for sexual offences and five or fewer transgender women with convictions for violent offences. (Where statistics include a total of five or fewer, the exact figure is not given, for data protection reasons.)
The individuals with convictions for violent offences received Ministerial exemptions to be held in the general women's estate under the previous Government. No exemptions have been provided by this Government since it came into power.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether any offenders currently detained in (a) separation and (b) close supervision centres are challenging their detention.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
There are no ongoing judicial review challenges made with regards to separation centres and no ongoing challenges that have reached the courts with regards to close supervision centres.
Asked by: Robert Jenrick (Conservative - Newark)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the proposed removal of the right to trial by jury for offences carrying a maximum sentence of less than three years will apply retrospectively to defendants who have already entered a plea of not guilty and elected for jury trial.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Ministers will introduce detailed proposals to Parliament as soon as Parliamentary time allows.
Asked by: Alex Brewer (Liberal Democrat - North East Hampshire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to implement the Law Commission’s July 2022 recommendations for reforming weddings law in England and Wales.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government announced on 2 October that we intend to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows. The reforms reflect a commitment to making marriage law fairer, simpler and more modern, whilst also protecting the solemnity and dignity of marriage. We want to create a level playing field for all groups, including allowing humanist weddings to be legally recognised for the first time. We will be consulting on the details early next year.
Asked by: Alex Brewer (Liberal Democrat - North East Hampshire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps the Government has taken to review the provisions of the Marriage Act 1949.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government announced on 2 October that we intend to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows. The reforms reflect a commitment to making marriage law fairer, simpler and more modern, whilst also protecting the solemnity and dignity of marriage. We want to create a level playing field for all groups, including allowing humanist weddings to be legally recognised for the first time. We will be consulting on the details early next year.
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 removing the right to elect for a jury trial on perceptions of the justice system of a) victims, b) witnesses and c) defendants.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.
Jury trials are the cornerstone of our justice system and will remain in place for the most serious crimes. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness.
The vast majority of criminal cases are already heard in magistrates’ courts without juries, with 90% of all criminal cases being dealt with by magistrates. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants or anyone involved in the justice system. We need to do things differently and prevent defendants from gaming the system. Currently, triable-either-way offences make up around 40% of all cases. Triable-either-way offences allow a defendant to insist on their choice of having a jury trial at the taxpayer’s expense and greater length, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence. What this means it that, currently, according to Crown Prosecution Service figures, over 4,000 defendants, whose cases could have been heard in the magistrates’ court with magistrates’ court sentencing powers, were heard in the Crown Court because the defendant was able to insist on a full jury trial. This means that in each of those cases, money and significant time and resource was spent on a jury trial, not only at taxpayer’s expense but all those in the system.
Under the Government’s proposals, the mode of trial will be triaged by the Court, which will determine whether a case needs to be heard in the Crown Court, or could be heard more swiftly in the Magistrates’ Court. The latest figures show offences heard by magistrates already complete more than four times faster than similar cases in the Crown Court. Only reform will free up the space and time needed to prioritise the most serious cases – including those that can and should have a jury trial. We think that will benefit victims, witnesses, and defendants alike.
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 removing a defendant’s right to elect trial by jury for triable-either-way offences on public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.
Jury trials are the cornerstone of our justice system and will remain in place for the most serious crimes. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness.
The vast majority of criminal cases are already heard in magistrates’ courts without juries, with 90% of all criminal cases being dealt with by magistrates. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants or anyone involved in the justice system. We need to do things differently and prevent defendants from gaming the system. Currently, triable-either-way offences make up around 40% of all cases. Triable-either-way offences allow a defendant to insist on their choice of having a jury trial at the taxpayer’s expense and greater length, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence. What this means it that, currently, according to Crown Prosecution Service figures, over 4,000 defendants, whose cases could have been heard in the magistrates’ court with magistrates’ court sentencing powers, were heard in the Crown Court because the defendant was able to insist on a full jury trial. This means that in each of those cases, money and significant time and resource was spent on a jury trial, not only at taxpayer’s expense but all those in the system.
Under the Government’s proposals, the mode of trial will be triaged by the Court, which will determine whether a case needs to be heard in the Crown Court, or could be heard more swiftly in the Magistrates’ Court. The latest figures show offences heard by magistrates already complete more than four times faster than similar cases in the Crown Court. Only reform will free up the space and time needed to prioritise the most serious cases – including those that can and should have a jury trial. We think that will benefit victims, witnesses, and defendants alike.
Asked by: Anneliese Midgley (Labour - Knowsley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what funding his Department has committed to providing specialist support services for survivors of technology-facilitated abuse and online violence against women and girls.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
My Department is committed to the Government’s pledge to halve Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) in a decade.
The Ministry of Justice will be investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in victim support services to date.
I have committed two years of grant funding to the 42 Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) in England and Wales. They commission local practical, emotional, and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types, including victims of technology-facilitated abuse and online violence against women and girls. The funding from the Ministry of Justice includes ‘core’ funding, which is for PCCs to allocate at their discretion, based on their assessment of local need, as well as funding that is ring-fenced for sexual violence and domestic abuse services.
Asked by: Richard Holden (Conservative - Basildon and Billericay)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the cyber-attack on the Legal Aid Agency’s digital systems on the finances of legal aid firms; how many providers have received (a) partial and (b) emergency contingency payments since that incident; and what additional financial support he plans to provide to firms undertaking legal aid work without payment.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
We acknowledge and appreciate the constructive way that providers have worked with us following the serious criminal attack on the Legal Aid Agency’s (LAA) digital systems. They have continued to do vital work in challenging circumstances.
From the outset the LAA has consulted with providers and provider representative bodies to understand their concerns. These consultations confirmed that maintaining cash flow was a key priority and we immediately took steps to ensure that providers had the cash flow that they needed.
For some types of legal aid this meant adjusting the way in which providers submitted their claim for payment to the LAA. From 19 May, providers have been able to claim their usual payments for Legal Help, Crime Lower & Mediation work via a contingency process. Due to previous investment, the criminal legal aid systems were more modern, and internal access was restored more quickly. This enabled the LAA to resume paying Crown Court bills from early June.
It was necessary to agree a payment contingency for Civil Representation work with HM Treasury. This led to the implementation of the Average Payment Scheme on 27 May. The Average Payment Scheme enables providers to opt in to receive a temporary average payment for Civil Representation work that would otherwise be due. Payments are made on a weekly basis. The weekly average payment is based on previous payments made to that provider over the preceding 3-month period. Some providers have not opted in to receive payment, but it is there should they need it.
As of 30 November, 2,045 advocates, and 1,206 legal aid provider offices have received payment through the Average Payment Scheme. As payments are calculated as a weekly average there is no scope or need to make a ‘partial’ or ‘emergency’ payment. However, there is, in addition, a simple escalation process in place to enable providers to request a payment in excess of the average amount offered to meet specific expenditure.
We are satisfied that providers have been able to access payment for work carried out whilst systems have been offline.
Asked by: Damien Egan (Labour - Bristol North East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to reduce delays in County Court proceedings relating to possession or enforcement actions against individuals living in vehicles.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 55, 55.1 (a) states a possession claim means a claim for the recovery of possession of land (including buildings or parts of buildings), on which a vehicle might be parked.
The CPR stipulate that possession claims should be listed within 4-8 weeks. The most recent published statistics, covering the period July to September 2025 show that the median time from claim to order is 7.6 weeks. The timeliness of the subsequent enforcement of an order, where this is required, can be influenced by the actions of users as well as the court. For 2024 only 26% of possession claims required enforcement.
The Ministry of Justice publishes quarterly data on possession claims at: Mortgage and landlord possession statistics: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK.