Asked by: Adam Jogee (Labour - Newcastle-under-Lyme)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to increase the number of probation officers.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Government recognises the vital role probation officers play in protecting the public and reducing reoffending. Recruitment and retention continue to be a priority and through these efforts we are starting to see the positive impact of a centralised recruitment process as a large number of qualified probation officers come through the pipeline.
In 2024/25, we exceeded our commitment to onboard 1,000 trainee probation officers, successfully onboarding 1,057. We are now going further, having committed to onboard a total of 1,300 trainee probation officers in 2025/26. Probation officer numbers have increased over both the last quarter and the last year. The Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP) 20 recruitment campaign, which went live on the 19th of January, will further support our efforts to maintain strong recruitment momentum and sustain the pipeline of future probation officers.
A retention toolkit has been developed, informed by research into the drivers of attrition. This toolkit supports local, regional, and national interventions and is used alongside structured exit interviews which were introduced to gather feedback and shape future actions. It is positive that we are seeing a continued reduction in Probation Service attrition.
Both probation officer numbers in post and leaving rates can be found at HM Prison and Probation Service workforce quarterly: September 2025 - GOV.UK
Asked by: Alex Sobel (Labour (Co-op) - Leeds Central and Headingley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has conducted research into the potential impacts on long-term rehabilitation of Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Section 67 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish an annual report about the steps taken to support the rehabilitation of IPP and Detention for Public Protection (DPP) offenders and their progress towards release from prison or licence termination and lay the report before Parliament.
Although there has not been research conducted in this area the Government published its latest IPP Annual Report on 17 July 2025, which included a commitment for HMPPS Psychology Services to complete a review of the Never Released IPP cohort. The review aims to ensure the current barriers to IPP progression are considered and services reviewed relating to these findings to support IPP progression. We will report on the outcome of this review in our next Annual Report, which is due to be published this summer.
The 2025 Annual Report also contained a refreshed version of the IPP Action Plan, which includes measurable targets to ensure transparency and accountability.
Through the IPP Action Plan we have significantly improved support for those serving the IPP sentence, with greater access to rehabilitation and mental health support.
Changes we have made in the Sentencing Act 2026 will provide IPP offenders with an earlier opportunity for licence termination, whilst allowing suitable time for support and rehabilitation in the community and ensuring victims and the public are best protected from harm.
Asked by: Alex Sobel (Labour (Co-op) - Leeds Central and Headingley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if his Department will consider the potential merits of retrospectively abolishing Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
It is right that the Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) sentence was abolished. Public protection will always be the top priority and abolishing the IPP sentence retrospectively would result in prisoners being released whom the independent Parole Board has determined are too dangerous. This would pose an unacceptable risk of harm to victims and the public.
We are determined to support those serving IPP sentences, but not in a way that undermines public protection. This is why the Government made changes in the Sentencing Act 2026 to provide IPP offenders with an earlier opportunity for licence termination, whilst allowing suitable time for support and rehabilitation in the community and ensuring victims and the public are best protected from harm
Asked by: Lord Wills (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what is the maximum amount of non-means-tested legal aid that they envisage being made available for each individual bereaved person and family at inquests in England and Wales for (1) legal assistance, and (2) advocacy, under the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Bill will provide non-means tested legal help and advocacy for bereaved families at inquests where a public authority is named as an interested person. As under the current system, the amount paid will depend on the work carried out by the provider on the inquest, which will be different for each case depending on its duration and complexity.
Asked by: Sarah Pochin (Reform UK - Runcorn and Helsby)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people have been prosecuted under section 25 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in each of the last five years, broken down by the recorded ethnicity of the defendant.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice publishes data on prosecutions and convictions for a wide range of criminal offences including those under section 25 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in England and Wales within the Outcomes by Offences data tool. This can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics. Data within the published tool can be disaggregated by ethnicity and sex.
The data specific to offences under section 25 of The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is available by selecting the HO offence filter and using the following codes
Asked by: Sarah Pochin (Reform UK - Runcorn and Helsby)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many convictions for incest under section 25 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 have been recorded in each of the last five years, disaggregated by the ethnicity and gender of the offender.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice publishes data on prosecutions and convictions for a wide range of criminal offences including those under section 25 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in England and Wales within the Outcomes by Offences data tool. This can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics. Data within the published tool can be disaggregated by ethnicity and sex.
The data specific to offences under section 25 of The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is available by selecting the HO offence filter and using the following codes
Asked by: Ruth Cadbury (Labour - Brentford and Isleworth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment has he made of the financial cost to parents of attendance at child contact centres.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government values the vital role that child contact centres play in supporting safe, positive relationships between children and their parents, particularly at times of family difficulty.
The Government is not responsible for setting the fees charged by child contact centres. Child contact centres operate independently and are responsible for setting their own pricing structures, which may vary according to the type of contact provided, the centre’s funding arrangements, staffing requirements and geographical location. As such, the Ministry of Justice has not made an assessment of the financial cost to parents of attending a child contact centre.
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had a) one, b) two, c) three, d) four and e) five or more prior convictions for violence against the person in each of the past 5 years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:
The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, and
The number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.
This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had a) one, b) two, c) three, d) four and e) five or more prior convictions for burglary in each of the past 5 years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:
The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, and
The number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.
This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people who were (a) convicted and (b) cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had (i) one, (ii) two, (iii) three, (iv) four and (iv) five or more prior convictions for a violent offence in each of the last five years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:
The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, and
The number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.
This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.
Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.
Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.