Asked by: Baroness Noakes (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether the Ministry of Justice has reviewed the Isle of Man's Assisted Dying Bill and, if not, when it expects to do so.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The UK Government is currently in the process of reviewing the Isle of Man’s Assisted Dying Bill as part of our constitutional responsibilities towards the Crown Dependencies.
The Lord Chancellor is responsible for making a recommendation as to whether Crown Dependency primary legislation should receive Royal Assent.
Asked by: Baroness Noakes (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have a role in arranging for Royal Assent to be given to the Isle of Man’s assisted dying bill.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The UK Government is currently in the process of reviewing the Isle of Man’s Assisted Dying Bill as part of our constitutional responsibilities towards the Crown Dependencies.
The Lord Chancellor is responsible for making a recommendation as to whether Crown Dependency primary legislation should receive Royal Assent.
Asked by: Lord Bradley (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many and what proportion of Parole Board recommendations to move prisoners (1) serving an Imprisonment for Public Protection sentence, and (2) serving a life sentence, to open conditions were rejected in each month in 2025.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
For many years the Secretary of State has asked the independent Parole Board for advice on whether a prisoner serving an imprisonment for public protection (IPP) or a life sentence is suitable for transfer to open conditions. Where the Parole Board recommends that a prisoner is so suitable, the Secretary of State is not bound to accept the recommendation, and it is the Secretary of State who is ultimately responsible for determining whether a life or IPP prisoner is safe to be managed in an open prison.
The following tables provide the number and proportion of recommendations made by the Parole Board which were rejected in each month in 2025 for prisoners serving (1) an IPP sentence and (2) a life sentence.
Table 1: Outcomes of consideration of IPP open condition recommendations
Period considered | Accepted | Rejected | Total | % Rejected |
January 2025 | 10 | 2 | 12 | 17% |
February 2025 | 7 | 7 | 14 | 50% |
March 2025 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 25% |
Table 2: Outcomes of Consideration of life sentence open condition recommendations
Period considered | Accepted | Rejected | Total | % Rejected |
January 2025 | 19 | 7 | 26 | 27% |
February 2025 | 23 | 3 | 26 | 12% |
March 2025 | 23 | 3 | 26 | 12% |
Data have been provided for the period 1 January 2025 to 31 March 2025 to align with the publication of the Parole Board’s data on recommendations for open conditions.
Public protection remains the priority and prisoners will only be approved for a move to open conditions if it is assessed that it is safe to do so.
Asked by: Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the use of artificial intelligence tools within the courts of England and Wales, and what guidance or safeguards are in place to ensure judicial independence, accuracy and transparency.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The independent judiciary have their own procedures and policies. 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.
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.
HM Courts & Tribunals Service has developed its own Responsible AI Principles to provide guardrails for the development, delivery and maintenance of AI systems to ensure use of AI in the courts and tribunals is appropriate, safe and controlled.
Asked by: Vikki Slade (Liberal Democrat - Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make it his policy to review the status of people held on remand in custody for more than six months to determine whether they should be considered for conditional release.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The decision to remand an individual in custody or to grant bail is solely a matter for the independent judiciary acting in accordance with the Bail Act 1976. With limited exceptions, the Bail Act creates a presumption in favour of bail for defendants involved in criminal proceedings. This recognises that a person should not be deprived of his/her liberty unless that is necessary for the protection of the public or the delivery of justice.
There is a well-established process that enables remanded prisoners to apply to the court for bail, and we have expanded the Bail Information Service over the last year to provide more support.
Asked by: Vikki Slade (Liberal Democrat - Mid Dorset and North Poole)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what data his Department holds on the length of time spent in detention without trial by defendants charged under the Terrorism Act 2000 for (a) supporting or (b) being a member of Palestine Action.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
No-one is being detained under the Terrorism Act 2000 for supporting, or being a member of, Palestine Action.
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 Answer of 9th December 2025 to Question 96041, on Reoffenders: Sentencing, what assessment he has made of how frequently courts depart from sentencing guidelines on the basis that it is in the interest of justice to do so.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
All sentencing courts in England and Wales must follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the offender’s case, unless it is in the interests of justice not to do so (by virtue of section 59 of the Sentencing Code).
Whilst there is a high bar for departing from the guidelines, it is necessary, in the interests of justice, that courts retain the discretion to do so, where the individual case and circumstances warrant it. If a court departs from the guidelines, it must give reasons for doing so.
As mentioned in my previous response, the Sentencing Council has a statutory duty to monitor and evaluate all definitive guidelines to assess their impact on sentencing outcomes and ensure they operate as intended. Analysis conducted by the Council between 2010 and 2015 demonstrated that the vast majority of sentences imposed for offences for which there were offence-specific guidelines were within the sentence range set out in the guidelines. The findings are presented in the Council’s annual reports for 2010/11 through 2014/15 which are available on its website. As part of its ongoing monitoring of the use of guidelines, the Council conducts quantitative and qualitative research to determine how the guidelines are being used and the effect they are having on sentencing practice. These evaluations will highlight any issues if departures from guidelines are commonplace for a particular offence(s) or aspect of sentencing.
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 whether the discretion for courts to depart from sentencing guidelines in the interests of justice affects the (a) consistency and (b) effectiveness of sentencing outcomes.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
All sentencing courts in England and Wales must follow any sentencing guidelines which are relevant to the offender’s case, unless it is in the interests of justice not to do so (by virtue of section 59 of the Sentencing Code).
Whilst there is a high bar for departing from the guidelines, it is necessary, in the interests of justice, that courts retain the discretion to do so, where the individual case and circumstances warrant it. If a court departs from the guidelines, it must give reasons for doing so.
As mentioned in my previous response, the Sentencing Council has a statutory duty to monitor and evaluate all definitive guidelines to assess their impact on sentencing outcomes and ensure they operate as intended. Analysis conducted by the Council between 2010 and 2015 demonstrated that the vast majority of sentences imposed for offences for which there were offence-specific guidelines were within the sentence range set out in the guidelines. The findings are presented in the Council’s annual reports for 2010/11 through 2014/15 which are available on its website. As part of its ongoing monitoring of the use of guidelines, the Council conducts quantitative and qualitative research to determine how the guidelines are being used and the effect they are having on sentencing practice. These evaluations will highlight any issues if departures from guidelines are commonplace for a particular offence(s) or aspect of sentencing.
Asked by: Pam Cox (Labour - Colchester)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of prisoners have been released with a resettlement passport in each month since their introduction.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Government is committed to ensuring individuals have plans in place before release, identifying needs early, and linking people to the right support, such as housing, employment, and health services, to help reduce reoffending. No prisoners have left with a resettlement passport as formal introduction of a digital tool is yet to take place. However, development work has marked important progress in testing approaches to improve pre-release planning across the estate.
This testing, carried out in ten prisons and four probation regions, has gathered valuable insight and learning throughout, including a comprehensive understanding of current practice and identification of gaps and opportunities in service delivery. It has also provided insight relevant to ARNS (Assess, Risks, Needs and Strengths), supporting its development as part of HMPPS’s wider digital transformation strategy. ARNS is designed to modernise offender assessments by moving towards a more dynamic, collaborative, and strength-based approach to resettlement planning, offender management, and risk assessment.
These findings will feed into work to improve the operational processes to support preparation for release, to support delivery of recommendations from the Independent Review of Sentencing.
Asked by: Andrew Mitchell (Conservative - Sutton Coldfield)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent steps his Department has taken to help reduce levels of reoffending in the West Midlands.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
HMPPS Area Executive Directors (AEDs) are responsible for leading a joined-up approach to prisons and probation in their region, alongside working with criminal justice partners such as the police and local authorities to address the causes of offending and to make sure that those released from prison do not reoffend.
For those who persistently break the law, we are building 14,000 new prison places to make sure they are removed from the streets. Whilst in prison they will be expected to take part in education or learn new skills to make them more useful contributors to society after release.
Anyone released from prison is subject to strict licence conditions, including exclusion zones where appropriate. If found to have breached these conditions they can be returned to prison.
The Probation Service puts in place services aimed at reducing re-offending by supporting the needs of people on probation in the West Midlands. These include providing support in obtaining and maintaining suitable accommodation, help with drug and alcohol dependency issues, assistance with personal wellbeing needs and a holistic service addressing all needs for women.
In the Midlands, we have introduced an area Reducing Reoffending lead who will lead on projects working with Prison and Probations across the Midlands to help in reducing reoffending.