Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners have been released earlier than originally scheduled as a result of capacity pressures since 2024.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
This Government inherited prisons days from collapse. We had no choice but to take decisive action to stop our prisons overflowing and keep the public safe.
Without the changes this Government made, courts would have had to halt trials and the police cancel arrests, undermining public safety and leading to a disastrous impact on public confidence in the criminal justice system.
We regularly publish data on release from prison, including on forms of early release – for example we publish SDS40 data alongside the quarterly Offender Management statistics: Standard Determinate Sentence (SDS40) release data - GOV.UK.
Whilst measures like the SDS40 change provided the intended medium-term relief to the system, this was only ever a temporary change as a bridge to a more sustainable solution. That is why the Sentencing Act has now been passed, to ensure we never run out of prison space again and to deliver a more sustainable solution to the prison capacity crisis.
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what is the estimated capital cost for a new prison place in England and Wales, broken down into categories A, B, C and D.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
As set out in the 10-Year Prison Capacity Strategy, we are committed to delivering an additional 14,000 prison places and aim to do so by 2031. Our build programme consists of the construction of four new prisons, including HMP Millsike, as well as the expansion and refurbishment of the existing estate. These places are being delivered at category B, C and D sites and therefore no cost estimate has been made for category A places.
As per the ‘Independent Review of Prison Capacity’ (published in August 2025) as of March 2025, the updated capital cost per place for the remainder of the 14,000 additional prison places is £600,000 (in 2025/26 prices). Due to commercial sensitivities, this figure cannot be broken down any further.
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 the long-term adequacy of using early release measures to manage prison capacity.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
This Government inherited prisons days from collapse. We had no choice but to take decisive action to stop our prisons overflowing and keep the public safe.
Without the changes this Government made, courts would have had to halt trials and the police cancel arrests, undermining public safety and leading to a disastrous impact on public confidence in the criminal justice system.
We regularly publish data on release from prison, including on forms of early release – for example we publish SDS40 data alongside the quarterly Offender Management statistics: Standard Determinate Sentence (SDS40) release data - GOV.UK.
Whilst measures like the SDS40 change provided the intended medium-term relief to the system, this was only ever a temporary change as a bridge to a more sustainable solution. That is why the Sentencing Act has now been passed, to ensure we never run out of prison space again and to deliver a more sustainable solution to the prison capacity crisis.
Asked by: Lord Banner (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Levitt on 26 February (HL14912), whether their answer was informed by statistical data relating to the duration taken to determine cases concerning challenges to planning permissions granted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in 2025 and 2026; and if so, what patterns this data showed, (1) compared to the target timescales set out in the Practice Direction, and (2) compared to performance in previous years.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Written Answer of 26 February 2026 (HL14912) was informed, not by statistical data, but by the knowledge of the Planning Liaison Judge, based on his work as judge in charge managing claims in the Planning Court.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many legal aid providers have represented appellants in the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber in each year since 2020.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Information about the number of distinct provider offices completing at least one case in the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) in each financial year since 2020 can be found in the table below:
Financial Years | Number of provider offices |
2020-21 | 252 |
2021-22 | 235 |
2022-23 | 227 |
2023-24 | 217 |
2024-25 | 224 |
Legal aid for immigration and asylum services, including proceedings before the First Tier Tribunal is subject to both a legal merits test and an assessment of the individual’s financial circumstances.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much funding has been provided to legal aid providers to represent appellants in the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber in each year since 2020, broken down by (a) ethnicity, and (b) nationality of the appellant.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Legal aid expenditure in respect of cases before the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) broken down by ethnicity is set out in the annexed table. Data is self-reported to the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) by applicants or their legal aid solicitor, it is not verified by the LAA. It is not mandatory for applicants to complete the Equality and Diversity section of an application. Where this has been left blank ethnicity is recorded as ‘unknown’.
Legal aid funding is not paid directly to the individual in receipt of legal aid. Legal aid is only paid to legal providers for the provision of legal advice and representation. Data in the annexed table therefore reflects expenditure relating to bills submitted by legal aid providers.
Information relating to nationality of applicants is not centrally held.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how much legal aid funding has been provided to appellants in the First-tier Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber in each year since 2020, broken down by (a) ethnicity, and (b) nationality of the appellant.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Legal aid expenditure in respect of cases before the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum) broken down by ethnicity is set out in the annexed table. Data is self-reported to the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) by applicants or their legal aid solicitor, it is not verified by the LAA. It is not mandatory for applicants to complete the Equality and Diversity section of an application. Where this has been left blank ethnicity is recorded as ‘unknown’.
Legal aid funding is not paid directly to the individual in receipt of legal aid. Legal aid is only paid to legal providers for the provision of legal advice and representation. Data in the annexed table therefore reflects expenditure relating to bills submitted by legal aid providers.
Information relating to nationality of applicants is not centrally held.
Asked by: Manuela Perteghella (Liberal Democrat - Stratford-on-Avon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps the he is taking to help ensure transparency in Court of Protection proceedings while safeguarding the privacy of vulnerable individuals.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
We do not hold data on the average costs incurred by individuals subject to professional deputy orders.
The Court of Protection sets strict rules about what deputies can charge, which are governed by specific practice directions and rules. Practice Direction 19B (PRACTICE DIRECTION 19B – FIXED COSTS AND DEPUTY REMUNERATION IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION) sets out the responsibilities of deputies in ensuring costs are justified, reasonable, and in P’s best interests. The Practice Direction provides a schedule of fees (fixed costs) that deputies, either solicitors or public authority officeholders, can charge when they have been authorised to act for P.
If professional deputies choose not to take fixed costs, they can have their costs assessed by the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO). The Office of the Public Guardian and the Senior Courts Costs Office have produced guidance to ensure costs charged to vulnerable individuals’ estates are reasonable, proportionate, and fully justified as well as maintaining public confidence through transparency, accountability, and consistent standards: Professional Deputy Costs - GOV.UK
Court of Protection proceedings involve personal, sensitive matters and enable decisions made in the best interests of the person who lacks the mental capacity to make those decisions themselves. A transparency order in the Court of Protection restricts the publication and communication of information from proceedings. They support the principle of open justice by allowing court of protection hearings to be heard in public whilst protecting the privacy of vulnerable individuals.
Asked by: Manuela Perteghella (Liberal Democrat - Stratford-on-Avon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate has been made of the average costs incurred by individuals subject to professional deputyship orders in the last five years.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
We do not hold data on the average costs incurred by individuals subject to professional deputy orders.
The Court of Protection sets strict rules about what deputies can charge, which are governed by specific practice directions and rules. Practice Direction 19B (PRACTICE DIRECTION 19B – FIXED COSTS AND DEPUTY REMUNERATION IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION) sets out the responsibilities of deputies in ensuring costs are justified, reasonable, and in P’s best interests. The Practice Direction provides a schedule of fees (fixed costs) that deputies, either solicitors or public authority officeholders, can charge when they have been authorised to act for P.
If professional deputies choose not to take fixed costs, they can have their costs assessed by the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO). The Office of the Public Guardian and the Senior Courts Costs Office have produced guidance to ensure costs charged to vulnerable individuals’ estates are reasonable, proportionate, and fully justified as well as maintaining public confidence through transparency, accountability, and consistent standards: Professional Deputy Costs - GOV.UK
Court of Protection proceedings involve personal, sensitive matters and enable decisions made in the best interests of the person who lacks the mental capacity to make those decisions themselves. A transparency order in the Court of Protection restricts the publication and communication of information from proceedings. They support the principle of open justice by allowing court of protection hearings to be heard in public whilst protecting the privacy of vulnerable individuals.
Asked by: Manuela Perteghella (Liberal Democrat - Stratford-on-Avon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what avenues of redress are available to family members who believe there has been maladministration in the handling of a deputyship case.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Family members who believe there has been maladministration in the handling of a deputyship case have several avenues of redress.
The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) is responsible for supervising deputies and will investigate concerns raised about a deputy’s conduct or the way they are carrying out their duties. These investigations are undertaken to ensure that the deputy is acting in the best interests of the person lacking capacity and fulfilling their responsibilities in line with the authority set out in their court order.
Separately, the OPG’s internal complaints process allows individuals to challenge the OPG’s own administrative handling of a case. Once internal processes are complete, if a customer remains unhappy, concerns may be referred to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman via a Member of Parliament.
Where an issue relates to a judicial decision, such as the making or discharging of a deputyship order, this must be addressed through the Court of Protection. Complaints about the professional standards of a deputy may also be taken to the relevant regulatory body.