Asked by: Claire Coutinho (Conservative - East Surrey)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether (a) his Department and (b) the arms length bodies sponsored by his Department are compliant with the Supreme Court ruling in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers [2025].
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
We have set out our expectation that all duty bearers, including Departments and arm’s-length bodies, follow the law as clarified by the Supreme Court ruling and seek specialist legal advice where necessary. The Prime Minister has underlined this recently.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has submitted a draft Code of Practice on services, public functions and associations to Ministers, and we are reviewing it with the care it deserves. This will provide further guidance to duty bearers.
Asked by: John Hayes (Conservative - South Holland and The Deepings)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many staff within his Department are reliant on a visa for employment.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
This information could only be provided at disproportionate cost. |
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Written Statement of 22 January 2026 on Response to Legal Aid Agency cyber attack, HCWS1265, how much funding will be allocated to the transformation programme for Legal Aid Agency digital services.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The amount of funding which will be allocated to the transformation programme for Legal Aid Agency digital services is subject to final budget allocation decisions, which are currently ongoing.
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 information his Department holds on the average length of time it takes for a court case to be processed and concluded in (a) Basildon, (b) Essex, and (c) England.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the time taken ‘at court’ in the magistrates’ courts and Crown Court for Essex in the ‘Magistrates’ courts timeliness tool’ and the ‘End-to-end timeliness tool’ (Crown Court).
Magistrates ‘at court’ time refers to the number of days from first listing to completion at the magistrates’ court and for the Crown Court it refers to the time from first listing at the magistrates’ court to completion at the Crown Court.
Data for the Essex Local Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) can be found using the ‘geographic area’ filter - Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK
LCJB is the lowest geographic level of our published Accredited Official Statistics for timeliness. Our published timeliness metrics are produced at a sufficiently 'high' level to reduce the volatility and fluctuations associated with low volumes of cases i.e. using court level data. As a result, we are unable to provide timeliness data for individual courts in Basildon.
The publication provides data for ‘England and Wales’ but does not contain a breakdown for England alone. When looking at data for England, the median time spent ‘at court’ across magistrates’ courts was 0 days for the year ending September 2025. This is due to the high proportion of Single Justice Procedure cases which commence and conclude on the same day. For the Crown Court, the median time spent ‘at court’ was 172 days for the same period.
Asked by: Alison Griffiths (Conservative - Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many applications for judicial review relating to NHS service reconfiguration decisions in England were lodged in each year since 2015; and in how many of those cases permission to proceed was granted.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Data on the number of judicial review applications relating to NHS service reconfiguration decisions in England — and the number in which permission to proceed was granted— is included within the official Judicial Review statistics published on the Civil Justice Statistics webpage: Civil justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK.
These statistics are presented in broad categories and do not separately identify cases concerning NHS service reconfiguration.
Asked by: Matt Western (Labour - Warwick and Leamington)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has made an assessment of the risks that private prosecutions in the United Kingdom may be used by well‑resourced organisations to (a) target and (b) intimidate individuals associated with pro‑Palestinian advocacy.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Any individual or organisation in England and Wales has the right to bring a private prosecution where a criminal offence has been committed.
The Government expects all organisations that bring private prosecutions to do so where there is sufficient evidence that the defendant has committed an offence, and where the prosecution is in the public interest.
The Ministry of Justice held a consultation on the regulation of private prosecutors – to ensure consistency, accountability, and transparency in private prosecutions – last year and the Government will set out its next steps shortly.
Asked by: Tristan Osborne (Labour - Chatham and Aylesford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many defendants elected trial by jury in either-way cases in each of the last a) three years and b) five years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice published data on those electing for jury trials in either-way cases covering periods from 2014 up to the first quarter of 2023. This information is published in the Criminal Courts Statistics release in Table_AC10: Criminal court statistics quarterly: January to March 2023 - GOV.UK
At present, around 15% of either-way receipts into the Crown Court have an unknown reason for sending recorded in HMCTS reporting systems. Work is underway to reduce this rate of unknowns so that robust data can be published in future releases.
Asked by: Will Forster (Liberal Democrat - Woking)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the longest wait has been for a tribunal date to be set to appeal decisions made by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The information requested is not held centrally.
Waiting times are calculated from receipt of the appeal to the final disposal decision. The final outcome of any appeal is not necessarily achieved at its first listed hearing so we are unable to extract data about waiting times for tribunal hearing dates.
Asked by: Will Forster (Liberal Democrat - Woking)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average wait is for a tribunal date to be set to appeal decisions made by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The information requested is not held centrally.
Waiting times are calculated from receipt of the appeal to the final disposal decision. The final outcome of any appeal is not necessarily achieved at its first listed hearing so we are unable to extract data about waiting times for tribunal hearing dates.
Asked by: Liz Saville Roberts (Plaid Cymru - Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) prison and (b) probation workers have made complaints through the new independent reporting channel in HMPPS.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
On 10 November 2025, as part of the work to implement the reforms recommended in the Rademaker Review, His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) instituted an interim grievance process through which members of staff can raise complaints about bullying, harassment, discrimination or victimisation outside of their management line. This complements the existing grievance policy. For the period up to 26 February 2026, 5 complaints were received from staff working in Headquarters, 79 from probation staff and 188 from prison staff.
On 26 January 2026, a new Independent Review, Resolution and Investigations Service (IRRIS) was launched in HMPPS, subsuming the work of the former Tackling Unacceptable Behaviours Unit (TUBU). IRRIS will provide a fully independent route for bullying, harassment, discrimination and victimisation complaints within HMPPS, operating entirely outside line management structures. It will build upon TUBU’s strong work over the last five years, continuing to provide all the existing TUBU services while significantly enhancing its role.