Asked by: Kim Johnson (Labour - Liverpool Riverside)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 14 March 2025 to Question 37323 on Prison Sentences, how many people serving imprisonment for public protection sentences in Category A prisons on 1 January 2026 were classified as Category (a) A, (b) B, and (c) C prisoners.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Data on the prison population are published as part of the Department’s Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) release. The most recent publication includes prison population data as at 30 September 2025.
The information requested—relating to the prison population as at 1 January 2026—cannot be provided at this time, as doing so would provide an early indication of the data underpinning a future iteration of these Accredited Official Statistics, scheduled for publication on 30 April 2026.
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 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. The Justice Committee and various organisations have considered a resentencing exercise but none have identified an approach that would not pose too great a risk to the public.
Whilst this Government does want to make progress in relation to IPP prisoners, we cannot take any steps that would put victims or the public at risk.
Asked by: Liz Saville Roberts (Plaid Cymru - Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the Welsh Government has made a formal request for the devolution of (a) justice, (b) youth justice, (c) probation and (d) policing.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice ministers have met to discuss progressing the manifesto commitments on youth justice and probation. Welsh Government and Ministry of Justice officials continue to work together to progress this.
The Ministry of Justice is not responsible for policing and therefore has not received a request in respect of the devolution of policing.
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: Martin Wrigley (Liberal Democrat - Newton Abbot)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what guidance is issued to Legal Aid providers on the appropriate use of public funds for disputes that do not materially affect housing safety or security.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The scope of legal aid for housing matters is set out under paragraphs 33-35 of Schedule 1 to Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. This includes civil legal services relating to loss of home and ancillary housing, debt and welfare benefit service, provision of accommodation and assistance to an individual who is homeless or at risk of homelessness and risk to health and safety in rented accommodation.
Legal aid for housing matters may be provided as Legal Help which includes advice and assistance on the matters set out above or Legal Representation which would include representation before a court or tribunal. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also funds the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service (HLPAS) which covers early legal advice on housing, debt and welfare benefits issues to individuals with evidence showing they are at risk of possession proceedings, loss of their home or illegal eviction; and on-the-day emergency advice and advocacy to anyone facing possession proceedings.
Eligibility for legal aid subject to strict statutory criteria and the provision of and payment for legal aid services is governed by Contracts with legal aid providers. Both legal aid legislation and the Contracts contain a number of provisions to ensure that public funds are used proportionately and appropriately.
Legal aid provided under Legal Help or Legal Representation is subject to a strict financial eligibility test and a legal merits test as set out in the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013. To qualify for Legal Representation in respect of any housing matter the proportionality test as described at regulation 8 must be met and continue to be met throughout the duration of proceedings.
Regulation 40 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012 requires all legal aid providers to report to the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) any changes in circumstances which would materially affect a client’s eligibility for Legal Representation alongside other matters which may impact on eligibility, for example, failure to accept an offer to settle or to use and alternative dispute resolution method or issues relating to the client’s conduct. The LAA may withdraw a determination that the individual qualifies for Legal representation if it concludes the eligibility criteria are no longer met or it is satisfied that the client is requiring proceedings to be conducted unreasonably so as to incur unjustifiable expense.
Legal Representation is subject to scope and cost limitations setting out what work may be undertaken and the maximum amount of legal aid costs that may be claimed. To extend either scope or costs an application must be made to the LAA setting who will consider whether the additional funding should be authorised with reference to the applicable regulations. This ensures appropriate and proportionate use of legal aid funding.
Clause 2.4 of the Standard Civil Contract 2024 Standard Terms requires legal aid providers to work with the LAA to achieve value for money and to ensure that public money is spent with probity, accountability and in the public interest.
Additionally, any claims for payment for legal aid work are subject to assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Standard Civil Contract 2024. In particular under paragraph 6.9 sets our hat all assessments of Contract Work are to be on the Standard Basis as defined by Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).
CPR 44.3(2) states that: “Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will— (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred.”
The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) does not play an active role in case progression where all providers of legal aid services are independent providers of services who are bound to act in the best interest of the client taking into account the provisions of their legal aid contract and any relevant professional body rules. However, in addition to the reporting obligations referred to above, automatic enquiries are triggered on Legal Representation cases that have had no legal aid activity for a period of more than 365 days. Failure to respond to these enquiries may result in the withdrawal of legal aid. Furthermore, the LAA has a representations process which allows opponents (or other third parties) to report to the LAA circumstances which may affect an individual’s eligibility for legal aid.
There is no specific guidance on “appropriate use of public funds for disputes that do not materially affect housing safety or security”. However, statutory and contractual provisions governing the appropriate use of public funds in all civil cases are set out in the Regulations and Contract referred to above. Supporting guidance on the application of the statutory and contractual framework is set out in the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance under s.4 LASPO and the Costs Assessment Guidance both of which legal aid providers have a contractual obligation to comply with when carrying out legal aid work.
The average cost of a housing case under each legal aid scheme for the last five financial years is set out in the table below. These costs will include all housing cases within scope of legal aid as set out above. Average costs have been broken down by the type of legal aid provided.
Financial Year | In-court housing advice under HLPAS or its predecessors | Legal Help | Legal Representation |
2020-21 | £87 | £433 | £3,444 |
2021-22 | £107 | £376 | £3,963 |
2022-23 | £110 | £354 | £3,694 |
2023-24 | £103 | £337 | £3,531 |
2024-25 | £99 | £313 | £3,508 |
Asked by: Martin Wrigley (Liberal Democrat - Newton Abbot)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what checks and balances are in place to ensure that Legal Aid funding in housing disputes is used proportionately.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The scope of legal aid for housing matters is set out under paragraphs 33-35 of Schedule 1 to Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. This includes civil legal services relating to loss of home and ancillary housing, debt and welfare benefit service, provision of accommodation and assistance to an individual who is homeless or at risk of homelessness and risk to health and safety in rented accommodation.
Legal aid for housing matters may be provided as Legal Help which includes advice and assistance on the matters set out above or Legal Representation which would include representation before a court or tribunal. The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) also funds the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service (HLPAS) which covers early legal advice on housing, debt and welfare benefits issues to individuals with evidence showing they are at risk of possession proceedings, loss of their home or illegal eviction; and on-the-day emergency advice and advocacy to anyone facing possession proceedings.
Eligibility for legal aid subject to strict statutory criteria and the provision of and payment for legal aid services is governed by Contracts with legal aid providers. Both legal aid legislation and the Contracts contain a number of provisions to ensure that public funds are used proportionately and appropriately.
Legal aid provided under Legal Help or Legal Representation is subject to a strict financial eligibility test and a legal merits test as set out in the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013. To qualify for Legal Representation in respect of any housing matter the proportionality test as described at regulation 8 must be met and continue to be met throughout the duration of proceedings.
Regulation 40 of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012 requires all legal aid providers to report to the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) any changes in circumstances which would materially affect a client’s eligibility for Legal Representation alongside other matters which may impact on eligibility, for example, failure to accept an offer to settle or to use and alternative dispute resolution method or issues relating to the client’s conduct. The LAA may withdraw a determination that the individual qualifies for Legal representation if it concludes the eligibility criteria are no longer met or it is satisfied that the client is requiring proceedings to be conducted unreasonably so as to incur unjustifiable expense.
Legal Representation is subject to scope and cost limitations setting out what work may be undertaken and the maximum amount of legal aid costs that may be claimed. To extend either scope or costs an application must be made to the LAA setting who will consider whether the additional funding should be authorised with reference to the applicable regulations. This ensures appropriate and proportionate use of legal aid funding.
Clause 2.4 of the Standard Civil Contract 2024 Standard Terms requires legal aid providers to work with the LAA to achieve value for money and to ensure that public money is spent with probity, accountability and in the public interest.
Additionally, any claims for payment for legal aid work are subject to assessment in accordance with the provisions of the Standard Civil Contract 2024. In particular under paragraph 6.9 sets our hat all assessments of Contract Work are to be on the Standard Basis as defined by Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).
CPR 44.3(2) states that: “Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will— (a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred.”
The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) does not play an active role in case progression where all providers of legal aid services are independent providers of services who are bound to act in the best interest of the client taking into account the provisions of their legal aid contract and any relevant professional body rules. However, in addition to the reporting obligations referred to above, automatic enquiries are triggered on Legal Representation cases that have had no legal aid activity for a period of more than 365 days. Failure to respond to these enquiries may result in the withdrawal of legal aid. Furthermore, the LAA has a representations process which allows opponents (or other third parties) to report to the LAA circumstances which may affect an individual’s eligibility for legal aid.
There is no specific guidance on “appropriate use of public funds for disputes that do not materially affect housing safety or security”. However, statutory and contractual provisions governing the appropriate use of public funds in all civil cases are set out in the Regulations and Contract referred to above. Supporting guidance on the application of the statutory and contractual framework is set out in the Lord Chancellor’s Guidance under s.4 LASPO and the Costs Assessment Guidance both of which legal aid providers have a contractual obligation to comply with when carrying out legal aid work.
The average cost of a housing case under each legal aid scheme for the last five financial years is set out in the table below. These costs will include all housing cases within scope of legal aid as set out above. Average costs have been broken down by the type of legal aid provided.
Financial Year | In-court housing advice under HLPAS or its predecessors | Legal Help | Legal Representation |
2020-21 | £87 | £433 | £3,444 |
2021-22 | £107 | £376 | £3,963 |
2022-23 | £110 | £354 | £3,694 |
2023-24 | £103 | £337 | £3,531 |
2024-25 | £99 | £313 | £3,508 |
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.
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 theft or robbery 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.