Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the current total amount of (a) compensation and (b) civil claim payments made to families of prisoners who have died in custody while serving a sentence of Imprisonment for Public Protection.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested is not held centrally. Information relating to payments relating to civil claims following the death in custody of prisoners is not broken down by sentence-type.
It remains a priority for the Government that all those on IPP sentences receive the support they need to progress towards safe release from custody or, where they are being supervised on licence in the community, towards having their licence terminated altogether. Guidance has been provided to all prison staff and partner agencies to raise the importance of recognising the heightened level of risk of self-harm and suicide amongst IPP prisoners and an IPP Safety Toolkit has been developed, with a range of resources to promote learning and to help front-line staff support and engage those serving the IPP sentence effectively.
Asked by: Rebecca Paul (Conservative - Reigate)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what criteria his Department uses to determine placement of transgender young people within the Children and Young People's Estate.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 4 November 2025 to Question 85613.
Asked by: Rebecca Paul (Conservative - Reigate)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many sexual assaults of female prisoners by biologically male prisoners took place in HMP Downview in (a) 2016, (b) 2017, (c) 2018 and (d) 2019.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
There were no recorded sexual assaults of female prisoners by biologically male prisoners at HMP & YOI Downview, during the specified periods.
Asked by: Rebecca Paul (Conservative - Reigate)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what decisions his Department has made on the (a) scope and (b) timeline of the review of transgender prisoner policy following the Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
We are reviewing transgender prisoner policy following the For Women Scotland Supreme Court ruling. Alongside this, the Office for Equality and Opportunity is currently reviewing the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s draft updated Code of Practice on single sex spaces.
If the Code is approved, it will be laid before Parliament in due course. We are working closely with the Office for Equality and Opportunity on this, and will come forward with our updated policy on transgender prisoners once this process has concluded.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he has made an assessment of the potential impact of increasing sentences for serial offenders on (a) public safety and (b) crime rates.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
This Government takes prolific offending extremely seriously, which is why we commissioned the Independent Sentencing Review (ISR) to specifically consider the sentencing approach in cases involving prolific offenders alongside, more broadly, how the sentencing framework could be reformed to reduce reoffending, cut crime, and make our streets safer.
We know prolific offenders are one of the most challenging cohorts with high levels of criminogenic needs, that typically commit a multitude of low-harm but high-nuisance offences, such as shoplifting, which attract maximum sentences of up to 12 months. The ISR referenced robust Ministry of Justice evidence which shows that offenders released from short prison sentences of less than 12 months reoffend at a higher rate than similar offenders given a community or suspended sentence. The ISR therefore recommended that the Government legislate to ensure that short custodial sentences are only used in exceptional circumstances. For prolific offenders specifically, the ISR recommended that the Government expand the availability of Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs) to address prolific offending. The ISCs provide a robust alternative to custody, using enhanced community-based sentences to divert those at risk of facing custodial sentences of two years in the Crown Court, and twelve months in the Magistrates’ Court. International studies show that similar courts reduce arrests by 33% compared to standard sentences. We ran an Expression of Interest process to identify new sites which closed on 17 October 2025. We will announce successful new sites in the coming months.
The Sentencing Bill 2025 delivers many of the reforms recommended by the ISR. For instance, Clause 1 introduces a presumption for the courts to suspend short sentences of immediate custody of 12 months or less. We are not abolishing short sentences. They will continue to be available where an offender has committed an offence involving, or closely connected to, breach of a court order – including breaching the requirements of a previous suspended sentence order or committing a further offence. Short prison sentences will also be available where an individual is at significant risk of harm, and in exceptional circumstances.
Limiting the use of short sentences will not only help offenders to leave the merry-go-round of re-offending but reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities.
Asked by: Blake Stephenson (Conservative - Mid Bedfordshire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an estimate of the cost to the public purse of (a) consultations and (b) reviews conducted by his Department since 4 July 2024.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested is not centrally held in an easily accessible form as there are no expenditure categories that just cover consultations or reviews.
Due to this any response could only be collated and verified for the purposes of answering this question at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Mike Wood (Conservative - Kingswinford and South Staffordshire)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much his Department has spent on social media influencers since July 2024.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
I refer the honourable Member to the reply I gave on 6 November 2025 to PQ 86469.
Asked by: Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat - Surrey Heath)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department is taking to improve data collection on (a) the number of veterans serving custodial sentences and (b) potential disparities in sentencing outcomes.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Sentencing decisions in individual cases are a matter for the independent judiciary, who take into account the circumstances of the offence and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in accordance with the relevant law. Sentencers also have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, unless in the interests of justice not to do so. Sentencing guidelines help promote consistency and transparency in sentencing.
Whilst the fact that someone is a veteran is not explicitly listed as a mitigating factor in statute nor in sentencing guidelines, judges have the flexibility to consider relevant factors in an individual case and could, for example, choose to take previous positive good character or exemplary conduct into account when determining a sentence, if considered appropriate to do so based on the full facts of the case.
We do not hold data concerning the previous military service of those sentenced at the criminal courts and so are unable to make an assessment of sentencing outcomes for this cohort relative to non-veterans. More generally, prisoners are asked on entry into custody whether they have served in the armed forces, and responses are then checked against Ministry of Defence records.
Asked by: Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat - Surrey Heath)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made a comparative assessment of the consistency of sentencing outcomes for (a) veterans and (b) non-veterans convicted of similar offences.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Sentencing decisions in individual cases are a matter for the independent judiciary, who take into account the circumstances of the offence and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in accordance with the relevant law. Sentencers also have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, unless in the interests of justice not to do so. Sentencing guidelines help promote consistency and transparency in sentencing.
Whilst the fact that someone is a veteran is not explicitly listed as a mitigating factor in statute nor in sentencing guidelines, judges have the flexibility to consider relevant factors in an individual case and could, for example, choose to take previous positive good character or exemplary conduct into account when determining a sentence, if considered appropriate to do so based on the full facts of the case.
We do not hold data concerning the previous military service of those sentenced at the criminal courts and so are unable to make an assessment of sentencing outcomes for this cohort relative to non-veterans. More generally, prisoners are asked on entry into custody whether they have served in the armed forces, and responses are then checked against Ministry of Defence records.
Asked by: Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat - Surrey Heath)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made an assessment of the potential impact of military service on sentencing decisions in criminal cases.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Sentencing decisions in individual cases are a matter for the independent judiciary, who take into account the circumstances of the offence and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in accordance with the relevant law. Sentencers also have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, unless in the interests of justice not to do so. Sentencing guidelines help promote consistency and transparency in sentencing.
Whilst the fact that someone is a veteran is not explicitly listed as a mitigating factor in statute nor in sentencing guidelines, judges have the flexibility to consider relevant factors in an individual case and could, for example, choose to take previous positive good character or exemplary conduct into account when determining a sentence, if considered appropriate to do so based on the full facts of the case.
We do not hold data concerning the previous military service of those sentenced at the criminal courts and so are unable to make an assessment of sentencing outcomes for this cohort relative to non-veterans. More generally, prisoners are asked on entry into custody whether they have served in the armed forces, and responses are then checked against Ministry of Defence records.