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 implication for his policies of the news story from the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales entitled The evolving response to ethnic disproportionality in youth justice, published on 19 December 2025.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Ministry of Justice has not made an assessment of the impact of Islington’s changes to pre-sentence reports which the independent Youth Justice Board (YJB) included in its news story. We encourage YOTs to make full and effective use of pre-sentence reports in order to ensure judges make the most informed decision possible when sentencing a child.
Research commissioned by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) in 2021 highlighted that disproportionate outcomes for some ethnic groups persist, including more restrictive remand outcomes, fewer out-of-court disposals, and harsher court sentences, even when accounting for demographic and offence-related factors.
While these disparities cannot be attributed solely to adultification bias, evidence indicates that differential practitioner assessments can inflate the perceived reoffending risk for ethnic minority children, increasing the likelihood of disproportionate outcomes. Research commissioned by the YJB in 2024 found that pre-sentence reports for Black children gave less consideration to their health, life experiences and trauma than those for White children, which may contribute to Black children being viewed through a less safeguarding- and support-focused lens. However, the small sample size means these findings may not be representative.
The Government is clear that racial disparities within the youth justice system must be addressed. The YJB’s news story highlighted a number of issues, including poorer remand outcomes for Black and Mixed children even after accounting for offence severity. The Ministry of Justice is committed to tackling unnecessary custodial remands, and is currently developing a package of reforms to ensure that custody for children is only used as a last resort.
Asked by: Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what safeguards they plan to introduce alongside legislation to reverse the effect of R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28 to prevent speculative or disproportionate litigation that could negatively impact economic growth.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government has not carried out a formal assessment of the economic impact of the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in PACCAR on businesses, publicly funded bodies, or stability of the litigation funding sector. There is also no official estimate on the cost of defending and settling increased volumes of funder-backed litigation against public bodies. However, the Civil Justice Council carried out a thorough and holistic review of litigation funding which the Government has welcomed and has been used to inform our policy development in this area. The Council’s full report can be found here and its interim report and public consultation can be found here. Alongside the public consultation, the Council established both a core Working Group and Consultation Group to ensure a wide range of perspectives informed the development of its recommendations.
As announced via Written Ministerial Statement on 17 December 2025, we intend to legislate to implement the Council’s recommendations to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment and introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) when parliamentary time allows. The legislation will restore the availability of LFAs as a source of funding by clarifying that they are not Damages Based Agreements, and ensure there is a regulatory regime that protects those signing up to LFAs.
The new regulatory framework will take a balanced and holistic approach, with appropriate consideration for financial impacts on public bodies, implications for businesses, and wider economic factors. These will complement the existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the court to dismiss any claim with no reasonable grounds. There are no current plans to introduce further measures beyond those announced on 17 December 2025 until we have considered the Council’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the critical role third-party litigation funding can play in access to justice and in the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction to resolve disputes, as well as the need to ensure that it works fairly and proportionately for all involved. We will outline next steps in due course.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the news story from the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales entitled The evolving response to ethnic disproportionality in youth justice, published on 19 December 2025, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of Islington’s change to pre-sentencing reports to include statements on local over-representation data and adultification on local reoffending rates.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Ministry of Justice has not made an assessment of the impact of Islington’s changes to pre-sentence reports which the independent Youth Justice Board (YJB) included in its news story. We encourage YOTs to make full and effective use of pre-sentence reports in order to ensure judges make the most informed decision possible when sentencing a child.
Research commissioned by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) in 2021 highlighted that disproportionate outcomes for some ethnic groups persist, including more restrictive remand outcomes, fewer out-of-court disposals, and harsher court sentences, even when accounting for demographic and offence-related factors.
While these disparities cannot be attributed solely to adultification bias, evidence indicates that differential practitioner assessments can inflate the perceived reoffending risk for ethnic minority children, increasing the likelihood of disproportionate outcomes. Research commissioned by the YJB in 2024 found that pre-sentence reports for Black children gave less consideration to their health, life experiences and trauma than those for White children, which may contribute to Black children being viewed through a less safeguarding- and support-focused lens. However, the small sample size means these findings may not be representative.
The Government is clear that racial disparities within the youth justice system must be addressed. The YJB’s news story highlighted a number of issues, including poorer remand outcomes for Black and Mixed children even after accounting for offence severity. The Ministry of Justice is committed to tackling unnecessary custodial remands, and is currently developing a package of reforms to ensure that custody for children is only used as a last resort.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the news story from the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales entitled The evolving response to ethnic disproportionality in youth justice, published on 19 December 2025, what recent assessment he has made of the trends in the level of adultification bias within youth justice decision making.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Ministry of Justice has not made an assessment of the impact of Islington’s changes to pre-sentence reports which the independent Youth Justice Board (YJB) included in its news story. We encourage YOTs to make full and effective use of pre-sentence reports in order to ensure judges make the most informed decision possible when sentencing a child.
Research commissioned by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) in 2021 highlighted that disproportionate outcomes for some ethnic groups persist, including more restrictive remand outcomes, fewer out-of-court disposals, and harsher court sentences, even when accounting for demographic and offence-related factors.
While these disparities cannot be attributed solely to adultification bias, evidence indicates that differential practitioner assessments can inflate the perceived reoffending risk for ethnic minority children, increasing the likelihood of disproportionate outcomes. Research commissioned by the YJB in 2024 found that pre-sentence reports for Black children gave less consideration to their health, life experiences and trauma than those for White children, which may contribute to Black children being viewed through a less safeguarding- and support-focused lens. However, the small sample size means these findings may not be representative.
The Government is clear that racial disparities within the youth justice system must be addressed. The YJB’s news story highlighted a number of issues, including poorer remand outcomes for Black and Mixed children even after accounting for offence severity. The Ministry of Justice is committed to tackling unnecessary custodial remands, and is currently developing a package of reforms to ensure that custody for children is only used as a last resort.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to his Department's press release entitled Battlefield tactics to inspire UK fight against prison drones, published on 16 January 2026, what proportion of the 1,712 drone incidents referenced resulted in prison officers intercepting and seizing contraband.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
We publish the number of drone incidents in prisons in England and Wales in the HMPPS Annual Digest. Data specific to the recoveries of illicit items cannot be disclosed for security reasons.
We are working hard to deter, detect and disrupt the use of drones to deliver contraband into prisons, which poses a major threat to prison security. In this 2025-26 financial year, we are investing over £40 million in physical security across 34 prisons. This includes circa £10 million on anti-drone measures such as secure windows and robust netting at 15 prisons.
Our approach is multi-faceted and includes physical security countermeasures, legislation, and working closely across Government, with law enforcement, the private sector, and international partners on this global issue. Due to operational sensitives, we are not able to discuss in detail the tactics used, as that would aid those seeking to exploit prison security.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to his Department's press release entitled Battlefield tactics to inspire UK fight against prison drones, published on 16 January 2026, whether his Department have had discussions with private drone companies to consult on anti-drone measures in prisons.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
We publish the number of drone incidents in prisons in England and Wales in the HMPPS Annual Digest. Data specific to the recoveries of illicit items cannot be disclosed for security reasons.
We are working hard to deter, detect and disrupt the use of drones to deliver contraband into prisons, which poses a major threat to prison security. In this 2025-26 financial year, we are investing over £40 million in physical security across 34 prisons. This includes circa £10 million on anti-drone measures such as secure windows and robust netting at 15 prisons.
Our approach is multi-faceted and includes physical security countermeasures, legislation, and working closely across Government, with law enforcement, the private sector, and international partners on this global issue. Due to operational sensitives, we are not able to discuss in detail the tactics used, as that would aid those seeking to exploit prison security.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to his Department's press release entitled Battlefield tactics to inspire UK fight against prison drones, published on 16 January 2026, what proportion of the 1,712 drone incidents at prisons were related to (a) drug and (b) weapons smuggling.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
We publish the number of drone incidents in prisons in England and Wales in the HMPPS Annual Digest. Data specific to the recoveries of illicit items cannot be disclosed for security reasons.
We are working hard to deter, detect and disrupt the use of drones to deliver contraband into prisons, which poses a major threat to prison security. In this 2025-26 financial year, we are investing over £40 million in physical security across 34 prisons. This includes circa £10 million on anti-drone measures such as secure windows and robust netting at 15 prisons.
Our approach is multi-faceted and includes physical security countermeasures, legislation, and working closely across Government, with law enforcement, the private sector, and international partners on this global issue. Due to operational sensitives, we are not able to discuss in detail the tactics used, as that would aid those seeking to exploit prison security.
Asked by: Rupert Lowe (Independent - Great Yarmouth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many civil servants employed by their Department work in roles primarily focused on (a) transgender policy, (b) diversity, (c) equity and (d) inclusion; and at what annual salary cost.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Ministry of Justice does not centrally hold information on how many civil servants are employed to work in roles primarily focused on (a) transgender policy, (b) diversity, (c) equity and (d) inclusion; and at what annual salary cost.
It is estimated that locating and extracting this information would result in disproportionate costs.
Asked by: Jack Rankin (Conservative - Windsor)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much their Department has spent on X and xAI since July 2024.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Paid advertising on X was suspended in April 2023 following a SAFE Framework assessment. X is currently used only for organic (non-paid) content to communicate policies and public services.
No expenditure has been made by the Ministry of Justice with X since July 2024.
Asked by: Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the potential financial impact on publicly funded bodies of an increase in collective or mass claims as a result of introducing legislation to reverse the effect of R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others [2023] UKSC 28.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government has not carried out a formal assessment of the economic impact of the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in PACCAR on businesses, publicly funded bodies, or stability of the litigation funding sector. There is also no official estimate on the cost of defending and settling increased volumes of funder-backed litigation against public bodies. However, the Civil Justice Council carried out a thorough and holistic review of litigation funding which the Government has welcomed and has been used to inform our policy development in this area. The Council’s full report can be found here and its interim report and public consultation can be found here. Alongside the public consultation, the Council established both a core Working Group and Consultation Group to ensure a wide range of perspectives informed the development of its recommendations.
As announced via Written Ministerial Statement on 17 December 2025, we intend to legislate to implement the Council’s recommendations to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment and introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) when parliamentary time allows. The legislation will restore the availability of LFAs as a source of funding by clarifying that they are not Damages Based Agreements, and ensure there is a regulatory regime that protects those signing up to LFAs.
The new regulatory framework will take a balanced and holistic approach, with appropriate consideration for financial impacts on public bodies, implications for businesses, and wider economic factors. These will complement the existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the court to dismiss any claim with no reasonable grounds. There are no current plans to introduce further measures beyond those announced on 17 December 2025 until we have considered the Council’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the critical role third-party litigation funding can play in access to justice and in the attractiveness of England and Wales as a jurisdiction to resolve disputes, as well as the need to ensure that it works fairly and proportionately for all involved. We will outline next steps in due course.