Asked by: Lord Blencathra (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of (1) sentencing guidelines, and (2) penalties, for offences related to waste crime and illegal waste disposal.
Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Sentencing guidelines are developed by the Sentencing Council, in fulfilment of its statutory duty to do so. The Council has issued guidelines on environmental offences for individuals and organisations which capture offences involving the unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal of waste as well as illegal discharges to air, land and water. The guidelines are designed to increase consistency and transparency in sentencing for these offences.
In 2024, following consultation, the Council updated the guideline for individuals to provide for greater use of community orders (over fines) across the sentence tables included within the guideline, in recognition of the seriousness of this offending. Further information is available on the Council’s website: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/crown-court/
The Government is clear, penalties for waste crime must match the harm it causes. The Ministry of Justice will work closely with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs following the recent publication of the Waste Crime Action Plan to explore what more can be done to further ensure that those who commit these types of offences are appropriately punished. This would aim to reinforce the effectiveness of current systems and strengthen our overall approach to tackling illegal behaviour.
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 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 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, 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 assessment he has made of the potential risk to public safety posed by prisoners who escape custody and remain at large for over 30 days.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Public protection is our top priority. The number of escapes from prison establishments and prisoner escorts is very low. If a prisoner escapes or absconds, the police are immediately notified and are responsible for locating the offender.
Those who escape or abscond face serious consequences including, in the case of absconders, being returned to closed prison conditions, where they may serve up to two additional years. Escapees face an additional sentence of imprisonment for which there is no statutory maximum term. Prisoners whose release is subject to a decision of the Parole Board are likely to spend a longer period in custody before the Board will agree to their release.
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.