Asked by: Lee Anderson (Reform UK - Ashfield)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what data his Department holds on the number of interpreters used in the court system in each of the last fives years; and what languages these interpreters were for.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice uses interpreting and translation services provided under contract.
The information requested is not held centrally.
Asked by: Nadia Whittome (Labour - Nottingham East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take steps to require public authority respondents in Judicial Review hearings to confirm compliance with the duty of candour at Permission Stage.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The duty of candour is a well-established principle in judicial review, and its application is clearly set out in the Administrative Court’s Judicial Review Guide.
The duty of candour applies at all stages of judicial review proceedings. This duty requires all parties to ensure that relevant information is put before the Court, whether it supports or undermines their case. There is a particular obligation on public authorities to ensure that this duty is fulfilled given they are engaged in a common enterprise with the Court to fulfil the public interest in upholding the rule of law.
At the permission stage, public authorities are required to identify any material facts, highlight any matters of factual dispute and provide a summary of the reasoning underlying the measures in question. The Court can take into account a lack of candour in deciding whether to grant permission.
Asked by: Nadia Whittome (Labour - Nottingham East)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure safe, transparent and non-discriminatory judicial use of artificial intelligence.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The judiciary are constitutionally independent and have established their own procedures and policies governing the use of artificial intelligence. Guidance for judicial office holders on the appropriate and responsible use of AI has been issued by the judiciary and is publicly available on the judiciary’s website.
Judicial office holders, like civil servants within the Ministry of Justice, have been provided with secure versions of Microsoft Copilot. The deployment of this tool for judicial use has been subject to a data protection impact assessment to ensure compliance with data protection legislation and principles.
The judiciary’s approach to AI is designed to ensure that any use of AI by judicial office holders is safe, transparent, and consistent with the principles of fairness and non-discrimination, while preserving judicial independence.
Asked by: James Cleverly (Conservative - Braintree)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of (a) trends in the level of (i) delays and (ii) backlogs in the Planning Court and (b) the implications for his policies of the time taken to enforce a temporary stop notice.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Temporary Stop Notice (TSN) is a planning enforcement tool available to local planning authorities to halt breaches of planning control on a temporary basis while they consider whether more substantive enforcement action is required.
While the initial stages of Planning Court proceedings are generally within expected timeframes, delays persist at later stages, and substantive hearings continue to experience backlogs. The number of live cases has gradually increased over the past year.
The time taken to enforce a temporary stop notice has implications for the effectiveness of planning enforcement policy. These notices are intended to provide swift intervention to prevent unauthorised development, but delays in judicial processes can weaken their deterrent effect and undermine confidence in the planning system. Prolonged enforcement proceedings may increase costs for local authorities and frustrate wider policy objectives on development control.
The Government is working with HM Courts & Tribunals Service and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure enforcement tools remain robust and planning policy continues to operate effectively.
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.