Asked by: Paul Kohler (Liberal Democrat - Wimbledon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent assessment he has made of trends in the prevalence of (a) drug use and (b) synthetic drug use among the prison population in England and Wales.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
We recognise that illicit drug use in prisons is too high, and are committed to tackling this to improve safety, support rehabilitation and reduce reoffending. We are investing over £40 million in physical security measures this financial year and have funded Incentivised Substance Free Living Units in 85 prisons. We work closely with health partners to identify prisoners with a drug dependency and support them into treatment and recovery and are rolling out naloxone in prisons – life saving medication which can reverse the effects of an opiate overdose.
We are currently unable to publish performance data on drug level use in prisons because due to reduced testing levels, reduced number of prisons with sufficient testing and the need to update the testing panel, the data is currently not sufficient to robustly estimate the percentage positive. Prisons across the estate strive to conduct target levels of rMDT, but in recent years Governors have had to make difficult decisions about how to balance the demands of testing with wider capacity pressures. However, rMDT is only one element of a wider testing regime, which includes suspicion-based testing for those suspected of illicit use, and compact-based testing on Incentivised Substance Free Living Units and Drug Recovery Wings. Our testing regime enables us to monitor a wide range of substances and assess the prevalence of different types of drugs. We keep this under regular review to ensure we identify emerging trends to keep both prisoners and staff safe. Our new drug testing contract supports this by giving us greater flexibility to respond to emerging drug threats, including synthetic drugs.
Asked by: Jim Shannon (Democratic Unionist Party - Strangford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people with a learning disability have (i) entered and (ii) exited the prison population in each of the last ten years.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested is not held within the Ministry of Justice.
Asked by: John Lamont (Conservative - Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on supporting the victims of cross-border grooming gangs.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government is committed to working closely with the Scottish Government to strengthen protections for victims of cross-border grooming gangs.
We have accepted all 12 recommendations of Baroness Casey’s report, ensuring a comprehensive, victim focused response to tackling group-based child sexual exploitation.
Asked by: Jim Shannon (Democratic Unionist Party - Strangford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of people being held in prisons in England and Wales have not been found guilty in a court.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the untried remand population in custody in the Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) publication. This data can be found in Population Table 1_Q_2 of OMSQ: Offender management statistics quarterly: July to September 2025 - GOV.UK.
Asked by: Wendy Morton (Conservative - Aldridge-Brownhills)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to prevent mistaken prisoner releases.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Releases in error are never acceptable, and we are bearing down on those errors that do occur. Following the release in error of Hadush Kebatu from HMP Chelmsford, we took immediate steps to make the processes that take place when a prisoner is released more robust. This includes implementing a clear checklist for governors to determine that every step has been followed before any release takes place.
On 11 November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced this Government’s five-point action plan to address the causes of releases in error. This includes an urgent query process with a dedicated unit and court experts to allow prisons to quickly escalate warrant-related queries and reduce release errors, a multi-million pound investment to deploy digital tools and upgrade outdated paper-based processes, and an independent review into the recent errors and systemic issues, with recommendations to prevent further inaccuracies.
Asked by: Jim Shannon (Democratic Unionist Party - Strangford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure that child sex offenders are separated in prisons.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Safety in prisons is a key priority. We are working hard to make prisons as safe as possible for those who live and work in them. Safe prisons are vital to enable prisoners to engage in rehabilitative activities that reduce re-offending. Staff are trained to identify where a prisoner may be at risk, and to be able to take appropriate action in response.
A number of reception prisons have specific units for people convicted of sexual offences. In addition to this, a number of other prisons have particular arrangements for vulnerable prisoners – a category which includes, but is not limited to, people convicted of sex offences.
Asked by: Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat - St Albans)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make it his policy to introduce targets for the time taken by the Office of the Public Guardian to process and register (a) amendments and (b) cancellations to existing Lasting Powers of Attorney.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) keeps its performance targets under regular review to ensure they remain appropriate and aligned with demand and operational capacity. The performance metrics focus on the registration of new Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs) and the discharge of statutory responsibilities. OPG already operates published targets for the registration of LPAs, with performance reported annually.
In 2024–25, the average processing times for LPAs and Enduring Powers of Attorney reduced significantly to 49 working days, down from 76 working days in 2023–24. This improvement reflects sustained efforts to clear a backlog of applications. Amendments to, and cancellations of, existing LPAs vary in complexity, and their timeliness is monitored through internal performance management arrangements. The organisation does not collect or publish detailed operational data on the processing times for deeds of revocation. While OPG aims to process such requests within 15 working days of receipt, it does not record individual clearance times for these cases. As a result, the shortest, median and longest processing times for cancellation requests in 2025 cannot be provided.
Existing guidance on GOV.UK explains the process for revoking an LPA, including the requirement for a donor to complete a Deed of Revocation in the prescribed form. OPG keeps its published guidance under regular review. While OPG does not currently publish specific guidance on the precise legal point at which an LPA is considered revoked, the legal position is set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), an LPA is revoked once the donor has executed a valid Deed of Revocation and notified OPG. OPG will continue to review its guidance to ensure it remains clear, accessible and aligned with statutory requirements.
Asked by: Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat - St Albans)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what is the (a) shortest, (b) median and (b) longest time taken by the Office of the Public Guardian to process a cancellation request for an existing Lasting Power of Attorney in 2025.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) keeps its performance targets under regular review to ensure they remain appropriate and aligned with demand and operational capacity. The performance metrics focus on the registration of new Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs) and the discharge of statutory responsibilities. OPG already operates published targets for the registration of LPAs, with performance reported annually.
In 2024–25, the average processing times for LPAs and Enduring Powers of Attorney reduced significantly to 49 working days, down from 76 working days in 2023–24. This improvement reflects sustained efforts to clear a backlog of applications. Amendments to, and cancellations of, existing LPAs vary in complexity, and their timeliness is monitored through internal performance management arrangements. The organisation does not collect or publish detailed operational data on the processing times for deeds of revocation. While OPG aims to process such requests within 15 working days of receipt, it does not record individual clearance times for these cases. As a result, the shortest, median and longest processing times for cancellation requests in 2025 cannot be provided.
Existing guidance on GOV.UK explains the process for revoking an LPA, including the requirement for a donor to complete a Deed of Revocation in the prescribed form. OPG keeps its published guidance under regular review. While OPG does not currently publish specific guidance on the precise legal point at which an LPA is considered revoked, the legal position is set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), an LPA is revoked once the donor has executed a valid Deed of Revocation and notified OPG. OPG will continue to review its guidance to ensure it remains clear, accessible and aligned with statutory requirements.
Asked by: Daisy Cooper (Liberal Democrat - St Albans)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will instruct the Office of the Public Guardian to publish guidance on the point at which a signed Deed of Revocation of a Last Power of Attorney is revoked.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) keeps its performance targets under regular review to ensure they remain appropriate and aligned with demand and operational capacity. The performance metrics focus on the registration of new Lasting Powers of Attorney (LPAs) and the discharge of statutory responsibilities. OPG already operates published targets for the registration of LPAs, with performance reported annually.
In 2024–25, the average processing times for LPAs and Enduring Powers of Attorney reduced significantly to 49 working days, down from 76 working days in 2023–24. This improvement reflects sustained efforts to clear a backlog of applications. Amendments to, and cancellations of, existing LPAs vary in complexity, and their timeliness is monitored through internal performance management arrangements. The organisation does not collect or publish detailed operational data on the processing times for deeds of revocation. While OPG aims to process such requests within 15 working days of receipt, it does not record individual clearance times for these cases. As a result, the shortest, median and longest processing times for cancellation requests in 2025 cannot be provided.
Existing guidance on GOV.UK explains the process for revoking an LPA, including the requirement for a donor to complete a Deed of Revocation in the prescribed form. OPG keeps its published guidance under regular review. While OPG does not currently publish specific guidance on the precise legal point at which an LPA is considered revoked, the legal position is set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), an LPA is revoked once the donor has executed a valid Deed of Revocation and notified OPG. OPG will continue to review its guidance to ensure it remains clear, accessible and aligned with statutory requirements.
Asked by: Al Pinkerton (Liberal Democrat - Surrey Heath)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment has been made of the potential contribution of family court processes, including repeated proceedings and contact litigation, to ongoing harm for victims of domestic abuse and their children.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
This Government recognises the impact that family court proceedings have on children and adult survivors of domestic abuse, which is why we are prioritising strong safeguarding and specialist support for those navigating the system.
The Government acknowledges that repeated court hearings can retraumatise adult and child victims of domestic abuse. The Pathfinder pilot was launched in Dorset and North Wales in February 2022 and has now been expanded to 10 court areas in England and Wales, which accounts for around a quarter of private law proceedings in England and Wales. Further expansion will be announced in due course. The Pathfinder model improves coordination between the family court and agencies, including local authorities and the police, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse. This approach reduces the number of cases returning to court, protecting children and families from further trauma.
By introducing a Child Impact Report early in the process and having a more investigative process, judges are enabled to assess risks thoroughly and make more sustainable orders. This child-centred, trauma-informed approach improves early risk identification, strengthens multiagency collaboration, and helps ensure that children’s voices are heard and that the psychological impact of contact arrangements is fully considered by the court.
This Government has taken steps to ensure that family court procedures more effectively identify and prevent patterns of coercive or controlling behaviour. Practice Direction 12 J has been amended to require courts to assess patterns of behaviour rather than isolated incidents, to modernise terminology, and to strengthen safeguards for vulnerable parties. Alongside this, section 91(14) orders, also referred to as “barring orders”, may be issued by the family court where further applications would put a child or adult, such as a victim of domestic abuse, at risk of harm, particularly where proceedings could be a form of continuing domestic abuse. Courts can issue a s91(14) order of their own motion or on application. Where such an order is in place, the court is required to consider whether circumstances have materially changed before granting permission to make a new application.
The Government welcomes the publication of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report “Everyday Business: Addressing domestic abuse and continuing harm through a family court review and reporting mechanism.” We are carefully considering the recommendations made in the report and will publish a full response shortly.