Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to (1) implement the findings of the Civil Justice Council's Review of Litigation Funding (2 June 2025), and (2) legislate in response to R (PACCAR Inc and Others) v. Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28, and by when.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps what they are taking to ensure that any policy they have on litigation funding does not lead to any inappropriate use of court time or resources.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of increased third-party funded collective actions on (1) court capacity, (2) judicial workload, and (3) case duration.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to publish data on the total costs of third-party funded collective actions to the public sector.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will list the organisations authorised to send religious and welfare packs to prisons in England and Wales for (a) Ramadan and (b) Eid.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Decisions on whether any external materials may be provided are taken by individual establishments. They are subject to governor approval, national policy on faith and pastoral care, security requirements, and extremism safeguards. All proposed materials are assessed by chaplaincy teams in conjunction with prison security staff, including scrutiny against the Inappropriate Materials Guidance and oversight by Prevent Leads and Chaplaincy headquarters, and may be refused or withdrawn where concerns arise.
HMPPS chaplaincy teams do not request or use materials from the Islamic Human Rights Commission in prisons.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many religious chaplaincies have permitted the Islamic Human Rights Commission to send religious materials to prisons in England and Wales.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Decisions on whether any external materials may be provided are taken by individual establishments. They are subject to governor approval, national policy on faith and pastoral care, security requirements, and extremism safeguards. All proposed materials are assessed by chaplaincy teams in conjunction with prison security staff, including scrutiny against the Inappropriate Materials Guidance and oversight by Prevent Leads and Chaplaincy headquarters, and may be refused or withdrawn where concerns arise.
HMPPS chaplaincy teams do not request or use materials from the Islamic Human Rights Commission in prisons.
Asked by: Ben Obese-Jecty (Conservative - Huntingdon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, in which police force areas is the Acquisitive Crime scheme currently live.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Domestic Abuse Perpetrators on Licence (DAPOL) pilot is currently live in eight probation regions: East Midlands; West Midlands; London; Kent, Surrey and Sussex; East of England; South West; South Central; and Wales.
The Electronic Monitoring for Acquisitive Crime (AC) scheme is currently live in the following 19 police force areas in England and Wales: Avon and Somerset, Bedfordshire, Cheshire, City of London, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Durham, Essex, Gloucestershire, Gwent, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Humberside, Kent, the Metropolitan Police area, North Wales, Nottinghamshire, Sussex and West Midlands.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prison inmates have had illicit relationships with prison officers in each year since 2010, broken down by offence group.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The table below shows the number of prisoners in the last six years recorded as being involved in proven cases where a member of prison staff has been convicted of Misconduct in Public Office.
No data is held for years prior to 2020.
Year of case outcome | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
Number of prisoners | 0 | 5 | 5 | 17 | 10 | 22 |
An inappropriate relationship is defined as any relationship that compromises a staff member’s ability to perform their duties appropriately.
Where officers fall below our high standards, we do not hesitate to take robust action. We are catching more of the minority who break the rules with our Counter Corruption Unit and stronger vetting.
The figures in this table have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate has his department made of the size of the (a) youth custody population, (b) youth secure estate for the next five years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
During the last 12 months, the population of the youth secure estate has varied in the range 440 to 510. Work on future projections is in hand, but owing to the small numbers involved and consequent volatility, there are difficulties in generating robust figures.
Later this year, we will set out our plans for wider reforms to youth custody, to deliver better outcomes for children, communities and taxpayers. This will include consideration of the future shape and configuration of the youth secure estate.
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 steps he is taking to help ensure that prison staffing levels are sufficient to maintain security.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Effective prison security is a prerequisite for the safe and stable regimes required to promote prisoner rehabilitation, and sufficient levels of skilled frontline staff are fundamental to delivering secure and rehabilitative prison regimes. Against a challenging labour market, we have recruitment campaigns at all prisons where there are current or projected needs, and provide enhanced support to the prisons in the most challenging parts of the estate. HMPPS offers several routes to become a prison officer, including:
To help improve Prison Officer retention, HMPPS has created a retention strategy which is linked to wider activities around employee experience, employee lifecycle and staff engagement at work. As of December 2025, the resignation rate for Band 3-5 Prison Officers was the lowest it has been in the last four years.
We have specialist staff and equipment to stop the smuggling of contraband in prisons – such as drugs, weapons and mobile phones – which can fuel violence and create instability.
We remain committed to ensuring prisons are sufficiently resourced and that we retain and build levels of experience, both of which are fundamental to delivering quality outcomes in prisons.