Ministry of Justice

The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables.

The decision as to what type of order to impose at sentence, or when imposing any other type of Order in court, is a matter for our independent judiciary, taking into account all the circumstances of the case before them.

The data requested are provided in the attached excel tables.

The decision as to what type of order to impose at sentence, or when imposing any other type of Order in court, is a matter for our independent judiciary, taking into account all the circumstances of the case before them.

The data requested can be found in the following table:

Periods marked with an asterisk (*) indicate incomplete performance years. The data provided is from July 2021, the month following the reunification of the Probation Service.

All data has been sourced from nDelius on 13/04/2026. While this data has been assured as much as practical, as with any large administrative dataset, the data should not be assumed to be accurate to the last value presented.

Please note, data relating to those sentenced in 2025/26 has not been provided as recording of this period is still ongoing and it would therefore not portray a true reflection of current performance.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

(a) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence (all disposal types); and,

(b) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.

This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

To note, figures from 2020 and 2021 have been affected by measures taken to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic and the subsequent effect this has had on the court backlog. Additionally, figures from 2022 will have been affected by the Criminal Bar Association strikes.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

(a) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence (all disposal types); and,

(b) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.

This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

To note, figures from 2020 and 2021 have been affected by measures taken to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic and the subsequent effect this has had on the court backlog. Additionally, figures from 2022 will have been affected by the Criminal Bar Association strikes.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

(a) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence (all disposal types); and,

(b) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.

This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

To note, figures from 2020 and 2021 have been affected by measures taken to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic and the subsequent effect this has had on the court backlog. Additionally, figures from 2022 will have been affected by the Criminal Bar Association strikes.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

(a) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence (all disposal types); and,

(b) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.

This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

To note, figures from 2020 and 2021 have been affected by measures taken to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic and the subsequent effect this has had on the court backlog. Additionally, figures from 2022 will have been affected by the Criminal Bar Association strikes.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel tables. These tables include data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:

(a) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence (all disposal types); and,

(b) The number of offenders who were convicted of the specified offence but did not receive an immediate custodial sentence, by the number of previous convictions for that specified offence.

This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.

To note, figures from 2020 and 2021 have been affected by measures taken to combat the COVID-19 Pandemic and the subsequent effect this has had on the court backlog. Additionally, figures from 2022 will have been affected by the Criminal Bar Association strikes.

Prisoners serving a determinate sentence are usually released automatically at a point fixed by legislation relating to their sentence. In contrast, indeterminate sentenced prisoners can only be released by the Parole Board after the expiry of their tariff. They must serve a minimum term, in full, in prison, at the end of which they can only be released if the independent Parole Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public for the offender to be confined. Therefore, introducing release dates fixed by the Parole Board would primarily affect indeterminate sentences.

In accordance with legislation, an indeterminate sentenced prisoner must have a parole review to consider whether the release test is met and if not, to confirm further detention. Reviews take place just prior to tariff expiry and then at least every two years thereafter. The setting of fixed release dates would not be compatible with the need for release to be based on the current risk posed by offenders and whether they could be managed safely if released into the community on licence.

During the passage of the Sentencing Act 2026, the House of Lords voted against an amendment to legislate for the Parole Board to fix a future release date for IPP prisoners.

Since 1 November 2024, officials in the Public Protection Casework Section (PPCS) in HMPPS has on behalf of the Secretary of State considered the suitability of every newly recalled IPP prisoner for re-release under RARR. That means that the recalled offender does not need to make an application for RARR. In each case, officials in PPCS will have regard to any recommendation made by the offender’s community offender manager. The number of recalled IPP offenders re-released via RARR in each month from 1 November 2024 to 30 September 2025 is given in the table below.

Note:

1. Data quality: The figures in these tables 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.

2. We have provided the RARR release data up to 30 September 2025 as we have only published general release data up to 30 September 2025.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

The Government does not recognise the concept of “parental alienation” and does not believe it is a syndrome capable of diagnosis. We are working with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to limit the instruction of unregulated experts, including unregulated “parental alienation” experts.

The Family Justice Council guidance on “Responding to a Child’s Unexplained Reluctance, Resistance or Refusal to Spend Time with a Parent and Allegations of Alienating Behaviour” provides a clear framework for assessing whether alienating behaviours are present.

The guidance clarifies that the child's perspective should be central, emphasising an understanding of their experiences and reasons for rejecting a parent. The guidance is clear that where the court finds that domestic abuse has occurred then the child’s rejection of the parent may be appropriate and justified.

The Child Focused Model prioritises early identification of risk and the voice of the child is amplified through a ‘Child Impact Report’. In addition, victims of domestic abuse are offered specialist support from an Independent Domestic Violence Adviser (IDVA), which includes the offer of in-court support.

The total cost of the Malkinson Inquiry from its commencement in October 2023, up to the end of the financial year 2025/26 is £2.9 million.

We recognise that guilty pleas made earlier in the process can save victims and witnesses from the concern of having to give evidence, particularly in cases involving controlling or coercive behaviour or domestic abuse. Even if an offender pleads later in the process, this can still save victims from giving potentially traumatic evidence, but the later plea is reflected by a lower reduction in the sentence, as set out in guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council.

In Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of Criminal Courts, he made a number of recommendations relating to early guilty pleas, including a recommendation to increase the maximum reduction in sentence for a guilty plea from 33% to 40% with the aim of increasing the number of defendants pleading earlier in the process. We will set out our full response to Sir Brian’s remaining recommendations, alongside Part 2 of his review, in due course.

The Government has no plans to discuss this infringement case with Ministers from EU countries. Officials in the Ministry of Justice and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office have been in contact with officials in the European Commission, which issued the infringement notice. Ministers and officials continue to raise relevant international child abduction cases with the Polish authorities at every appropriate opportunity.

The Secretary of State for Justice did not meet President Ahmed al-Sharaa of Syria during his visit to the UK on 31 March 2026.

The Deputy Prime Minister has not held discussions with the President of the Maldives since 1 January 2026.

Sentencing guidelines are developed by the Sentencing Council, in fulfilment of its statutory duty to do so. There are currently no specific guidelines for hare coursing offences. However, in 2025 the Council consulted on a draft guideline for certain offences relating to hare coursing under the Night Poaching Act 1828, Game Act 1831 and Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Subject to approval from the Lady Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor, the Council plans to issue a final version of the guideline, for use by the courts, later this year.

Sentencing decisions in individual cases are a matter for the independent judiciary, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and the offender. Parliament has provided the courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders. As well as imposing a sentence, sentencing courts may also impose ancillary orders on offenders, such as dog disqualification orders under section 66 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which aim to help prevent future re-offending.

The UK has ratified the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, which entered into force for the UK on 1 July 2025. The EU is also party to this Convention, and UK participation has therefore significantly strengthened the UK-EU framework for the recognition and enforcement of cross-border civil claims. Being a Party to the Convention provides greater certainty for UK citizens and businesses and reduces costs and delays in relevant cross‑border disputes.

The Government remains committed to working with the EU and other international partners, including through the Hague Conference on Private International Law, as well as with the UK legal sector to deliver practical benefits for our citizens and businesses. We continue to promote the mutual benefits of closer cooperation in civil and commercial matters, as noted in the UK-EU Summit Common Understanding of May 2025.

This Government is committed to improving the performance of the Family Courts, and the Family Justice Board has agreed system-wide priorities and targets for reducing delay across England and Wales. The latest published data shows a reduction in the national average case duration for both public and private law cases.

In London, which has particular challenges around Family Court delays, a dedicated Family Justice Strategy has been implemented, bringing together key partners and the judiciary. This work has included targeted investment over 2025/26 to tackle the outstanding private law caseload by providing additional court capacity and a focus on ensuring that courts follow the Public Law Outline, with clear arrangements for overseeing performance. These measures have already delivered a reduction in delays.

The Child Focused Model for private law now operates in 10 of 43 Family Court areas and seek to enhance the experience of children and families. They have demonstrated significant impact on timeliness. Cases are concluding between 11-30 weeks quicker under the model and outstanding caseloads have been reduced by up to 50%. The Government announced on 17 March its intention to roll this model out nationally by the end of this Parliament

The Government has no plans to undertake a further review of divorce law in respect of the way in which marriages are dissolved. This is because significant reforms were introduced by the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act (“DDSA”) 2020, which came into force on 6 April 2022. These reforms established a system of no-fault divorce, enabled joint applications and strengthened protections for respondents, including by making provision to delay the final order where financial disadvantage may arise before the settlement becomes final.

The law governing financial remedies on divorce enables parties to apply to the court for the division of assets. This legislation also allows applications for interim maintenance orders (known as “maintenance pending suit”) once a divorce application has been made. These orders can meet immediate needs, in so far as the court thinks reasonable, before a financial settlement is reached.

The Law Commission conducted a review of the law relating to financial remedies on divorce in December 2024. The Government will be considering issues raised by the Law Commission, including issues relating to vulnerable individuals, in its upcoming consultation on Cohabitation and Financial Remedies.

This Government is committed to ensuring that families involved in private family law proceedings receive the support they need and we are delivering a package of reforms to strengthen their wellbeing and safety throughout the process.

A key part of this reform is the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989. We have carefully assessed the impact of this measure, which involves courts adopting an open minded enquiry into what is in a child’s best interests, rather than starting from an assumption about parental involvement. Repealing the presumption will help ensure that decisions about child arrangements keep the child’s welfare at the centre of decision-making and are based on a robust assessment of risk. The impact assessment can be found at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0389/Non-IRCC_impact_assessment.pdf.

We are also expanding our Child Focused Courts programme nationally, which improves how Family Courts manage many private law children cases, including those involving a child arrangements order. By providing early risk assessment, specialist domestic abuse support and a non-adversarial, problem-solving process, it better safeguards the wellbeing of children and families.

This Government is committed to ensuring that families involved in private family law proceedings receive the support they need and we are delivering a package of reforms to strengthen their wellbeing and safety throughout the process.

A key part of this reform is the repeal of the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989. We have carefully assessed the impact of this measure, which involves courts adopting an open minded enquiry into what is in a child’s best interests, rather than starting from an assumption about parental involvement. Repealing the presumption will help ensure that decisions about child arrangements keep the child’s welfare at the centre of decision-making and are based on a robust assessment of risk. The impact assessment can be found at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0389/Non-IRCC_impact_assessment.pdf.

We are also expanding our Child Focused Courts programme nationally, which improves how Family Courts manage many private law children cases, including those involving a child arrangements order. By providing early risk assessment, specialist domestic abuse support and a non-adversarial, problem-solving process, it better safeguards the wellbeing of children and families.

Supporting access to justice for everyone in England and Wales is a key objective for this Government, and the Government recognises the important role that legal aid plays in helping some of the most vulnerable in society access legal advice.

Individuals who are unable to pay for legal advice or representation for civil justice issues may be eligible for legal aid, subject to the scope of legal aid and the eligibility rules on financial thresholds and the merits of the case as set out in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) and its supporting secondary legislation. Applications must generally pass a means and merits test. The means test assesses an applicant’s financial eligibility (including their capital e.g. savings), income and access to welfare benefits. The merits test assesses the merits of the case including the likelihood of success and the benefit to the applicant.

This Government is delivering the first major fee uplift for civil legal aid since 1996, investing an estimated £20 million in housing and immigration law once fully implemented. In addition, the Government’s Public Office (Accountability) Bill will provide the largest expansion of civil legal aid in a decade by ensuring bereaved families have access to non-means tested legal aid for all inquests where a public authority is an interested person.

The Government also continues to fund the activities of advice charities to bolster the delivery of legal support services – both in person and online - for people experiencing civil justice problems. The Ministry of Justice is providing nearly £20 million of multi-year funding, extending our existing legal support grant programmes for 59 frontline organisations (including a range of services such as some regional Citizens Advice and Law Centres, other community-based advice services, and online information) to September 2026 to help people resolve legal issues, and providing a new grant that will run from October 2026 to March 2029. We are also working with the sector, via the Legal Support Strategy Delivery Group, to drive improvements to the sector.

I refer the honourable Member to the answer I gave on 14 April to Questions 124155, 124156 and 124157.

I refer the honourable Member to the answer I gave on 14 April to Questions 124155, 124156 and 124157.

I refer the honourable Member to the answer I gave on 14 April to Questions 124155, 124156 and 124157.

Prolific offenders represent nearly 10% of offenders but account for just over 50% of all sentences. That clearly cannot continue. Their offending, while not high harm, hurts local communities through shoplifting and anti-social behaviour.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the courts and parliament has provided the courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors. The courts also have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

Previous convictions are a statutory aggravating factor, with sentencing guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions. For more serious prolific offending, we are clear that custody has a crucial role to play as a robust backstop, within the maximum penalties set out in statute.

The Sentencing Act 2026 introduced a presumption to suspend short sentences of 12 months or less. Around 60% of adults sentenced for under a year reoffend within 12 months, whereas the evidence shows that those given a community order or suspended sentence reoffend less than similar offenders given a short prison sentence. We are following the evidence to reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities. Short prison sentences will continue to be available where an offender has breached a court order, including breaching the requirements of a previous suspended sentence order or committing a further offence, as well as where an individual is at significant risk of harm and in exceptional circumstances.

There are a range of tools in the community available to tackle prolific offenders. Integrated Offender Management (IOM) sees joint management of the most persistent and problematic neighbourhood crime offenders by probation, police, and other partnership agencies providing cross-agency supervision and support. Our new approach on Intensive Supervision Courts will impose tough measures that address the causes of prolific offending.

We are investing up to £700 million in probation and community services by 2028/29 to help rebuild the Probation Service to deliver a strong, professional service at the heart of the criminal justice system. We will continue to work with cross government partners and police forces to consider new ways of targeting and focusing on persistent and prolific offenders.

The HMPPS Victim Contact Scheme provides a service to victims of offenders convicted of specified violent, sexual, or terrorism offences who receive a custodial sentence of 12 months or more. The Victim Contact Scheme enables eligible victims to make representations regarding licence conditions and supervision requirements, and to receive relevant information as appropriate to the circumstances of the case, such as details about the offender’s sentence.

In accordance with policy, victims must be informed about the offender’s immigration status and their eligibility for schemes including the Early Removal Scheme Tariff Expired Removal Scheme, Prisoner Transfer Agreements, or extradition. Eligible victims who have opted into the Victim Contact Scheme are informed by their Victim Liaison Officer if an offender is being considered for deportation or removal, and when deportation or removal has taken place. The Home Office are responsible for the arrangements for deportation of the offender and as a result, victims are not informed of the date in advance and, therefore, the data requested cannot be provided. In addition, information relating to victim contact is not routinely collected or published.

For victims not eligible or engaged with the Victim Contact Scheme, the Victims’ Code sets out that you have the Right to ask for updates regarding the immigration case of the Foreign National Offender directly from the Home Office’s Victim Support Team.

Through the Victim and Courts Bill, we will be updating the legislative framework that establishes the Victim Contact Scheme to bring victims currently served by different post-conviction communication schemes into the Victim Contact Scheme and provide a new route for other victims to request information via a dedicated helpline.

The requested data is provided in the attached file. The data provided covers the number of prisoners serving IPP sentences released for the first time, broken down by prison, for the period 2018 to 2024 in England and Wales. The data does not cover release decisions following recall.

We know that enabling prisoners to maintain and strengthen family ties is a vital contributing factor to their rehabilitation and avoidance of re-offending.

Following negotiations with service providers, we have reduced the cost of telephone calls across the public sector prison estate by 20%. These reduced rates, which took effect on 1 April 2025 and apply until 31 May 2027, were introduced to make communication more affordable and to support rehabilitation.

We recognise the important role that community-based organisations, including those offering peer-to- peer support, can play in assisting offenders in custody and on release, including with regard to family relationships and resettlement. A common set of standards for peer support and mentoring schemes is being developed across the estate, to ensure consistency, quality, and appropriate safeguards. While the existing evidence base points to promising benefits, it is not yet strong or consistent enough to justify large scale investment. An incremental, evidence led approach is therefore being taken: testing models, improving data collection, and working with academic partners to strengthen evaluation. H M Prison & Probation Service is focusing on the value of pro-social peer relationships as part of a wider rehabilitative culture model. This aligns with the principles of psychologically informed practice, desistance, and supporting people in custody to build problem-solving skills, positive identities, and constructive relationships.

We know that enabling prisoners to maintain and strengthen family ties is a vital contributing factor to their rehabilitation and avoidance of re-offending.

Following negotiations with service providers, we have reduced the cost of telephone calls across the public sector prison estate by 20%. These reduced rates, which took effect on 1 April 2025 and apply until 31 May 2027, were introduced to make communication more affordable and to support rehabilitation.

We recognise the important role that community-based organisations, including those offering peer-to- peer support, can play in assisting offenders in custody and on release, including with regard to family relationships and resettlement. A common set of standards for peer support and mentoring schemes is being developed across the estate, to ensure consistency, quality, and appropriate safeguards. While the existing evidence base points to promising benefits, it is not yet strong or consistent enough to justify large scale investment. An incremental, evidence led approach is therefore being taken: testing models, improving data collection, and working with academic partners to strengthen evaluation. H M Prison & Probation Service is focusing on the value of pro-social peer relationships as part of a wider rehabilitative culture model. This aligns with the principles of psychologically informed practice, desistance, and supporting people in custody to build problem-solving skills, positive identities, and constructive relationships.

We know that enabling prisoners to maintain and strengthen family ties is a vital contributing factor to their rehabilitation and avoidance of re-offending.

Following negotiations with service providers, we have reduced the cost of telephone calls across the public sector prison estate by 20%. These reduced rates, which took effect on 1 April 2025 and apply until 31 May 2027, were introduced to make communication more affordable and to support rehabilitation.

We recognise the important role that community-based organisations, including those offering peer-to- peer support, can play in assisting offenders in custody and on release, including with regard to family relationships and resettlement. A common set of standards for peer support and mentoring schemes is being developed across the estate, to ensure consistency, quality, and appropriate safeguards. While the existing evidence base points to promising benefits, it is not yet strong or consistent enough to justify large scale investment. An incremental, evidence led approach is therefore being taken: testing models, improving data collection, and working with academic partners to strengthen evaluation. H M Prison & Probation Service is focusing on the value of pro-social peer relationships as part of a wider rehabilitative culture model. This aligns with the principles of psychologically informed practice, desistance, and supporting people in custody to build problem-solving skills, positive identities, and constructive relationships.

The number of band 3 Community Payback supervisors employed by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service in each of the last five years is given in the following table. Figures are provided for 31 December each year and are on a full-time equivalent (FTE) basis.

Table: Number of FTE band 3 Community Payback supervisors in post on 31 December: 2021 to 2025

Notes:

1. Only includes band 3 staff with the job title of ‘community payback supervisor’. Any staff with that job title but are not band 3 are not included.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 (the 2012 Scheme) does not prescribe a time limit for applications to be decided.

Most applications are decided within 12 months. Each case must be considered on its own facts. In most cases, CICA requires information from third parties such as the police and medical authorities in order to decide a claim.

Some applications will by necessity take longer to decide. This could be where information is not available due to ongoing court proceedings, where CICA needs time to assess the long-term impact of complex injuries (e.g. brain injuries), or where there is an application for loss of earnings (which requires at least 28 weeks of loss).

CICA understands the importance of its role in giving recognition, redress and closure to its applicants. It works closely with a range of victims’ organisations including those that are members of its biannual Stakeholder Engagement Forum. This continues to provide valuable insights which help to inform how it can further improve its service.

On 4 August 2025 I visited CICA staff at their offices in Glasgow to see for myself and better understand the work that they do, both to process applications and to make future improvements to their service. I hope it will reassure you that throughout my visit, it was very clear to me that staff are committed to making the compensation application process as straightforward as possible and to minimise its potential for re-traumatisation of victims. Clear and sensitive communication is a clear priority. I was struck on my visit by the organisation’s clear dedication to supporting victims through their application journey.

No data is held regarding outstanding caseloads in the County Court in England and Wales. Civil cases do not progress through the court system in a linear way. The vast majority of civil cases settle, are resolved by default judgment, or conclude outside of a final court hearing. Only about 3% of cases are disposed of at a final hearing. Given this, and the fact that civil claims are often driven by party behaviour, an outstanding caseload figure would not provide a fair or meaningful reflection of County Court demand or performance.

I can confirm County Court performance is improving, with the median time taken from claim issue to hearing falling for all tracks. The median time taken for small claims to go to trial was 36.1 weeks in October to December 2025, 6.4 weeks faster than the same period in 2024. The median time taken for fast/intermediate/multi track claims to go to trial was 9.3 weeks faster than the same period last year, at 57.4 weeks in the current quarter.

The information requested is not held centrally. The terms “document handling errors” and “lost filings” are broad and may encompass a wide range of issues, making it difficult to provide a specific or reliable answer. HMCTS is reducing the risk of administrative errors in civil claims through work to digitalise processes.

The Deputy Prime Minister has announced further modernisation of civil justice with £50 million investment to continue digitalising the County Court.

The Government is committed to strengthening the regulation of the private enforcement (bailiff) sector and establishing an independent regulatory framework as soon as parliamentary time allows. Last year, we consulted on how to do so in a way that ensures that regulation is targeted, proportionate, as well as ensuring fair treatment for everyone, including people in vulnerable circumstances. This will build on the excellent work that the Enforcement Conduct Board (ECB) is already doing on a voluntary basis to improve standards in the sector. This includes the recent publication in March 2026 of Vulnerability and Ability to Pay Standards, strengthening expectations on the identification of vulnerability, affordability assessments and the use of sustainable repayment arrangements.

The Government is committed to strengthening the regulation of the private enforcement (bailiff) sector and establishing an independent regulatory framework as soon as parliamentary time allows. Last year, we consulted on how to do so in a way that ensures that regulation is targeted, proportionate, as well as ensuring fair treatment for everyone, including people in vulnerable circumstances. This will build on the excellent work that the Enforcement Conduct Board (ECB) is already doing on a voluntary basis to improve standards in the sector. This includes the recent publication in March 2026 of Vulnerability and Ability to Pay Standards, strengthening expectations on the identification of vulnerability, affordability assessments and the use of sustainable repayment arrangements.

HMCTS applies clear contractual and governance criteria when considering whether to approve or refuse bulk or systematic access to court transcripts.

Under HMCTS transcription contracts, suppliers must not provide transcripts or grant access to transcripts to third parties on a bulk or standing or systematic basis without the prior approval of HMCTS.

Responsibility for these decisions lies with HMCTS, acting through its designated contract management and operational teams with specialist advice sought as necessary. Approval of requests are based on the following:

• Legal compliance

• Security and information assurance requirements

• Operational and reputational risk

• Lawful, proportionate and consistent with the original purpose

All the programmes of work detailed in the answer to Question 106177 are expected to be completed by implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 on 1 May 2026. This includes recruitment exercises for additional administrative staff, establishment of a centralised operational hub, updates to operational processes, availability of suitable estates capacity for hearings and enhancements to technology systems.

Recruitment of judges and members for the Property Chamber is ongoing, with further recruitment exercises planned throughout 2026.

The figures below show the total number of reported delays to hearings and trials over the last three years where the defendant was not produced from prison as required on time. The figures reflect overall reported incidents rather than being attributed solely to the PECS supplier.

2023 = 1072

2024 = 1272

2025 = 1297

Evidence from recent performance reporting shows consistent sustained levels of PECS supplier delivery to court, with supplier-attributable delays remaining low relative to overall court production volumes. In 2025, overall criminal justice system delivery to court was timely in 98.19% of cases; PECS suppliers met contractual expectations by delivering prisoners to court on time in 99.91% of cases.

We recognise the problems we inherited in prisoner transfer with delays occurring at prisons, en route between prison and court and at courts themselves in bringing prisoners to the dock. The Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending and I have launched a new oversight body established to review prisoner transfer from end to end. This will monitor and drive performance improvements in prisoner transfer across the country.

An ineffective trial is defined as a trial that does not proceed on the scheduled trial date and therefore requires a further listing. This may arise due to action or inaction by the prosecution, the defence, the court, or a combination of these factors.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on the number of delayed hearings or trials specifically attributable to the court failing to book an interpreter. While published data includes ineffective trials recorded under the reason “no interpreter available”, this category covers a range of circumstances. These include situations where the supplier was unable to fulfil a booking, or where a booked interpreter cancelled at short notice and there was insufficient time to secure a replacement, as well as the court having failed to book an interpreter. The data cannot be disaggregated further to distinguish between a failure to make a booking and other interpreter related issues that may have caused the delay.

Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) have a chilling effect on public participation and freedom of expression, posing a threat to our legal system and democracy. The Government is committed to tackling SLAPPs and is considering all options for reform to address this issue.

The legislative programme for the second session will be set out in the King’s Speech on 13 May 2026.