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: Claire Hazelgrove (Labour - Filton and Bradley Stoke)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to help reduce violent reoffending among young people who are on bail.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Government recognises the importance of reducing offending, including violent reoffending, among children who are on bail through close supervision and high levels of support by skilled staff. We are investing £5 million over the next three years in strengthening the bail packages available for children, so that courts have access to more robust community-based options that both support children to make positive changes and help manage the risk of offending. We are also reforming the annual youth remand funding arrangements to further support greater local authority investment in high-quality community alternatives to custodial remand, including suitable community placements (specialist fostering and accommodation), family support and enhanced Bail Intensive Supervision and Support services. This builds on the Greater Manchester Youth Remand Funding pilot, which has demonstrated promising early findings in improving their bail and community remand offer regionally, to keep children and communities safe. We are now offering multi-year funding to local authorities to scale up this regional model, encouraging areas to collaborate in developing a broader range of bail support options to meet the needs of children and protect the public.
Asked by: Joy Morrissey (Conservative - Beaconsfield)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what guidance is issued to Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service officers on ensuring neutrality between parents in family court proceedings.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Cafcass provides learning for all colleagues on recognising and reflecting on bias as part of its wider approach to equality, diversity and inclusion. All colleagues are required to complete mandatory Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) e‑learning, alongside training entitled Exploring the Impact of Bias, which supports reflection on how personal assumptions and bias can affect professional judgement in work with children and families.
As with all considerations within the Family Court, Cafcass’s primary focus is the best interests and welfare of the child, rather than the interests or viewpoints of parents. Cafcass guidance and practice therefore focuses on assessing what is safe and promotes a child’s welfare, rather than balancing parental rights or perspectives or seeking neutrality between parents.
Cafcass works through a relationship‑based practice framework, Together with Children and Families, which prioritises and values the development of trusting relationships to enable sensitive and complex work with children and families. The framework encourages listening, understanding, clear reasoning, respect and integrity.
In all advice to the Family Court, Family Court Advisers are required to observe Cafcass’s statutory responsibility to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in family proceedings. This includes assessing children’s safety, understanding the harm they have experienced and the risk of further harm in existing and future contact arrangements. The advice provided to the court and the report that is filed are based on this assessment and what is safe and in the best interests of the child.
Asked by: Joy Morrissey (Conservative - Beaconsfield)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how CAFCASS ensures that safeguarding considerations are balanced with the rights of both parents to maintain meaningful relationships with children.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Cafcass provides learning for all colleagues on recognising and reflecting on bias as part of its wider approach to equality, diversity and inclusion. All colleagues are required to complete mandatory Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) e‑learning, alongside training entitled Exploring the Impact of Bias, which supports reflection on how personal assumptions and bias can affect professional judgement in work with children and families.
As with all considerations within the Family Court, Cafcass’s primary focus is the best interests and welfare of the child, rather than the interests or viewpoints of parents. Cafcass guidance and practice therefore focuses on assessing what is safe and promotes a child’s welfare, rather than balancing parental rights or perspectives or seeking neutrality between parents.
Cafcass works through a relationship‑based practice framework, Together with Children and Families, which prioritises and values the development of trusting relationships to enable sensitive and complex work with children and families. The framework encourages listening, understanding, clear reasoning, respect and integrity.
In all advice to the Family Court, Family Court Advisers are required to observe Cafcass’s statutory responsibility to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in family proceedings. This includes assessing children’s safety, understanding the harm they have experienced and the risk of further harm in existing and future contact arrangements. The advice provided to the court and the report that is filed are based on this assessment and what is safe and in the best interests of the child.
Asked by: Joy Morrissey (Conservative - Beaconsfield)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what training is provided to staff of CAFCASS on unconscious bias, with particular reference to fathers in family court proceedings.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Cafcass provides learning for all colleagues on recognising and reflecting on bias as part of its wider approach to equality, diversity and inclusion. All colleagues are required to complete mandatory Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) e‑learning, alongside training entitled Exploring the Impact of Bias, which supports reflection on how personal assumptions and bias can affect professional judgement in work with children and families.
As with all considerations within the Family Court, Cafcass’s primary focus is the best interests and welfare of the child, rather than the interests or viewpoints of parents. Cafcass guidance and practice therefore focuses on assessing what is safe and promotes a child’s welfare, rather than balancing parental rights or perspectives or seeking neutrality between parents.
Cafcass works through a relationship‑based practice framework, Together with Children and Families, which prioritises and values the development of trusting relationships to enable sensitive and complex work with children and families. The framework encourages listening, understanding, clear reasoning, respect and integrity.
In all advice to the Family Court, Family Court Advisers are required to observe Cafcass’s statutory responsibility to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in family proceedings. This includes assessing children’s safety, understanding the harm they have experienced and the risk of further harm in existing and future contact arrangements. The advice provided to the court and the report that is filed are based on this assessment and what is safe and in the best interests of the child.
Asked by: Joy Morrissey (Conservative - Beaconsfield)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many complaints have been made against CAFCASS in each of the last five years alleging (a) discrimination and (b) bias against fathers; and how many such complaints were upheld.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Cafcass does not record structured data in its complaints case management system to enable reporting on how many complaints have been made against Cafcass in each of the last five years alleging (a) discrimination and (b) bias against fathers; and how many such complaints were upheld.
This information is not recorded centrally, and the data would only be available from individual case file review at a disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Ben Obese-Jecty (Conservative - Huntingdon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many officers in each prison are a) currently trained in Operation Tornado control and restraint procedures and b) what percentage of operational staff in each prison does this represent.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The number of officers trained in Operation Tornado control and restraint procedures, as of 31 March 2026, and the percentage of operational staff that these staff represent, are set out in the attached table.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners with at least one life sentence have been transferred to open prison conditions in each year since 2020, broken down by offence.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
To answer the question would incur disproportionate cost as it would require a search of individual prisoner records. Centrally-collated data on prisoner transfers cover transfers between a predominant function closed prison and a predominant function open prison but does not distinguish instances of prisoner movements between a ‘closed’ wing and an ‘open’ wing where a prison has both types of function. Therefore, this would require a search of individual prisoner records.
Public protection remains the priority and prisoners will only be transferred to open conditions if it is assessed that it is safe to do so.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 1 April 2026 to Question 123531 on Prisons: Meat, what sum his Department spent on providing multi-choice, pre-select menus for (a) lunchtime and (b) evening meals in prisons in each year since 2020.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Department does not hold information on the cost of specific food items, including meat, or on expenditure associated with multi -choice or pre-selected menus. Prison expenditure on food is recorded at an aggregate level in management accounts as total prisoner food costs: it is not broken down by individual prisons, food types, menu options or dietary components. Food budgets are managed locally by Governors in the public estate, or Directors in privately managed prisons, who have flexibility within their overall allocations to meet the needs of their prison population, including religious, cultural and medical dietary requirements.
All prisons across England and Wales provide prisoners with a choice of at least five meal options at both lunch and for the evening meal. As a minimum, these options include one meat dish, one vegan dish, one vegetarian dish, one Halal dish, and one additional alternative option. This requirement was established under PSO 5000 (Prison Catering Services), and was subsequently re-affirmed in its successor policy, PSI 44/2010 Catering: Meals for Prisoners, which came into effect in October 2010.