Ministry of Justice

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales is a non-departmental public body set up to promote greater transparency and consistency in sentencing, whilst maintaining the independence of the judiciary. Its primary role is to issue guidelines on sentencing, which the courts must follow unless it is in the interests of justice not to do so.

There are a range of matters to which the Council must have regard when producing guidelines, one of which is the relative costs and effectiveness of sentences in reducing reoffending.  In order to help inform the way in which it has regard to such matters, the Council, as part of its strategic objectives for 2021-26, committed to reviewing the evidence on the effectiveness of sentencing and has published two independent literature reviews: The Effectiveness of Sentencing Options on Reoffending (2022) and Reconceptualising the Effectiveness of Sentencing: four perspectives (2024). The 2022 review brought together evidence on factors associated with reoffending and desistance; the (direct and indirect) costs of different types of sentences currently available in England and Wales and how sociodemographic characteristics impact these issues. The 2024 review focused on the effectiveness of sentencing from the perspectives of offenders, the general public, victims and sentencers.

The Council monitors and evaluates all definitive guidelines, as per its statutory duty to do so. These evaluations assess the impact the guideline has had on sentencing outcomes and seek to determine whether the guideline has been implemented as intended, so that any issues can be identified and rectified. These evaluations use a wide range of quantitative and qualitative methods.

The guidelines, strategic objectives, literature reviews and evaluations can be found online at the Council’s website: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/.

In October 2024, we commissioned the Independent Sentencing Review, led by former Lord Chancellor Rt. Hon. David Gauke. The Review was tasked with re-evaluating the sentencing framework to ensure that there is always a place in prison for dangerous offenders and victims will always know that justice will be done. It also aimed to ensure that sentences are consistent and make sense to victims and the public.

The Sentencing Bill, currently being considered before Parliament, implements many of the Review’s recommendations. The Bill represents a once in a generation change to our criminal justice system, making significant changes to the sentencing framework, the way in which offenders are managed and serve sentences in the community. It also aims to create a justice system that better serves victims.

When sentencing, courts must follow any relevant sentencing guidelines, issued by the Sentencing Council, unless not in the interests of justice to do so. The guidelines provide a structured approach for sentencers to follow and are designed to help enhance consistency and transparency in sentencing decisions.

The data below shows the annual spend for Community Payback services in the Greater Manchester Probation Region since 2021.

To note:

Data cannot be broken down below regional level.

Data prior to July 2021 is unable to be reported on, due to probation regions being under the management of Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs). The unification of CRCs and the National Probation Service (NPS) in England and Wales took place on 26 June 2021, marking a significant restructuring of the probation system.

A unified Probation Service operates throughout England and Wales, under the leadership of the Chief Probation Officer, who provides both professional guidance and system oversight for probation staff.

We recognise that probation works best when delivering in partnership, and Regional Probation Directors and their teams have significant flexibility to collaborate with local partner agencies. Examples of that local collaboration and innovation include joint delivery of Integrated Offender Management with police forces and co-commissioning of services for offenders with metro mayors.

The probation service needs investment and strong leadership – which we are delivering. It is our assessment that further structural changes at this time would be disruptive and detrimental.

We recognise and respect the right of prisoners to register and practice their faith or belief while in custody. Chaplaincy plays a critical and unique role in the work of prisons and the life of prisoners. It not only provides advice on faith and belief matters but also offers pastoral care regardless of an individual’s faith or belief, in support of HM Prison and Probation Service’s commitment to decency, safety and rehabilitation.

Specifically Humanist/Non-Religious pastoral support is available from chaplains at the following prisons:

Aylesbury

Bullingdon

Channings Wood

Dovegate

Durham

Frankland

Highpoint

Isis

Pentonville

Stafford

Wayland

Wormwood Scrubs

Hearing cases without a jury negates the need for jury selection, judges explaining legal concepts to jurors, and jury deliberation. There is no denying that these add to the time it takes to hear a case.

The latest figures show offences heard by magistrates already complete more than four times faster than similar cases in the Crown Court.

In Part I of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, Sir Brian Leveson, one of the foremost judges of his generation, and his Expert Advisers have estimated a new Crown Court bench division would speed up cases by at least 20%. Sir Brian himself has indicated that he believes this was a conservative estimate and could be significantly more in practice.

Further details of the work undertaken to arrive at this assumption can be found below:

• Quantitative analyses explored potential proxies for jury trial savings by drawing comparisons within the current system. Whilst there is no directly comparable proxy for judge only trials within our own systems, this provided a framework for elicitation workshops and judicial engagement.

• A structured elicitation workshop with expert operational staff from HMCTS. The quantitative analysis was shared with participants, and the workshop generated a suggested estimated range of 10-30% for lower to upper end plausible time savings, with 20% given as a median value.

• Engagement session with judges to understand their personal expectations of potential time-savings, intended to provide an anecdotal indication of where and how the judiciary thought time savings may or may not become apparent in a CCBD. Their views were in keeping with wider estimates.

The 20% assumption is also broadly in line with international evidence from New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research who compared quantitative data from judge only and jury trials. Whilst time savings varied by offence type, for all offences it found a 16% reduction in trial length for judge only trials, and a 29% time saving for complex and prejudicial offences.

A full Impact Assessment of the policy measures announced will be published alongside legislation as is usual.

We will continue to monitor conviction rates and sentencing outcomes as part of our ongoing assessments of the criminal justice system.

The information requested is not held centrally, we do not hold data on the average time for an application to enforce a Temporary Stop Notice to be heard in the Planning Court.

In the last 12 months, the Ministry of Justice has spent £68 million on software licenses from Microsoft. This represents approximately 11% of the Department’s total technology spend.

Releases in error have been increasing for several years and are another symptom of the prison system crisis inherited by this Government. On 11 November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a five-point action plan setting out initial steps to address the issue.

Locating and re-apprehending suspects relate to policing and are a matter for the Home Office. There is no inherent court cost involved in the release in error cases.

The Government is determined to fix the issue of mistaken releases and ensure the public is properly protected.

Releases in error have been increasing for several years and are another symptom of the prison system crisis inherited by this Government. On 11 November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a five-point action plan setting out initial steps to address the issue.

Locating and re-apprehending suspects relate to policing and are a matter for the Home Office. There is no inherent court cost involved in the release in error cases.

The Government is determined to fix the issue of mistaken releases and ensure the public is properly protected.

The Government welcomes the Chief Medical Officer’s review of the health of people in prison, on probation and in the secure NHS estate in England. This is an important area of focus and the report makes a range of recommendations to improve health outcomes for those in contact with the criminal justice system.

Improving health outcomes for people in prison and on probation is a shared challenge across the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England, and we will continue to work in close partnership, as reflected by our National Partnership Agreement, as we carefully consider how to address the recommendations highlighted in the report.

We recognise that more can be done to ensure children with a parent in prison are identified so that they get the support they need. This is why the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education are working together to determine the best mechanism to identify these children.

We will continue to engage with those with those who have direct experience of having a parent in prison and with the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise sector to inform our approach. For example, 25 November marked the first-ever National Day to recognise children with a parent in prison. This provided a powerful opportunity for Ministers and officials from both Departments to attend a conference hosted by the charity Children Heard and Seen to hear directly from children and young people with lived experience of parental imprisonment. This demonstrates our commitment to putting children’s voices at the heart of our policymaking.

HMPPS has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Children Act (2004) to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. HMPPS staff are required to check if prisoners received into custody have caring responsibilities for any children, to make enquiries with children’s services and record known safeguarding concerns. HMPPS works in partnership with police forces, children’s services and other relevant agencies to fulfil its safeguarding responsibilities. Where HMPPS professionals are concerned about the welfare of a child of a prisoner, they must consider whether a referral to local authority children’s social care is required and should always refer immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering, or likely to, suffer significant harm. Additionally, HMPPS provides a comprehensive range of staff training and learning opportunities for staff, including an annual “Think Child” campaign, aimed at promoting children’s safety.

The Prison and Probation Ombudsman’s investigation published on 12 November set out in stark detail the horrific abuse that boys and young men experienced at Medomsley Detention Centre (MDC). The PPO asked the Government to consider three issues – that the Government make an apology, that the complaints process should be reformed, and that children should be asked about their experiences of custody by a trained independent member of staff.

On 12 November, the Government published a Written Ministerial Statement and sent an open letter to victims and survivors. In both, we made a full apology for the abuse which victims and survivors endured and recognised the ineffective governance structures and failures of leadership at every level, which meant the abuse was allowed to continue for such a long time. In the Government response, we also committed to setting up a Youth Custody Safeguarding Panel to make recommendations to improve safeguarding across the youth estate today, including reviewing the ways children can make complaints and are asked about their experiences in custody. This panel has now been established and will be chaired by Isabelle Trowler (the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families), who will consider the issues raised in the PPO report and report to ministers by spring 2026.

In terms of support for victims and survivors, the Ministry of Justice put in place a settlement scheme to provide compensation. To date, this has settled over 2,700 claims, totalling over £10 million. Whilst no amount of compensation can change what has happened in the past, this scheme remains open and we have encouraged anyone who has not already, to make a claim.

There are not any plans to establish a public inquiry into MDC. The PPO report is forensic and follows criminal investigations by the Durham Constabulary – Operations Halter One and Two in the 2000s, and the comprehensive Operation Seabrook beginning in 2013. Due to the breadth and depth of these investigations, a public inquiry would be very unlikely to uncover any new information or insight. Adrian Usher, the Ombudsman, has shared this view – “It is my opinion that should a public inquiry arise following the publication of my report, I cannot see how it would produce a more comprehensive account of what happened at Medomsley, and the causes of it, than my investigation has revealed.”

The Prison and Probation Ombudsman’s investigation published on 12 November set out in stark detail the horrific abuse that boys and young men experienced at Medomsley Detention Centre (MDC). The PPO asked the Government to consider three issues – that the Government make an apology, that the complaints process should be reformed, and that children should be asked about their experiences of custody by a trained independent member of staff.

On 12 November, the Government published a Written Ministerial Statement and sent an open letter to victims and survivors. In both, we made a full apology for the abuse which victims and survivors endured and recognised the ineffective governance structures and failures of leadership at every level, which meant the abuse was allowed to continue for such a long time. In the Government response, we also committed to setting up a Youth Custody Safeguarding Panel to make recommendations to improve safeguarding across the youth estate today, including reviewing the ways children can make complaints and are asked about their experiences in custody. This panel has now been established and will be chaired by Isabelle Trowler (the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families), who will consider the issues raised in the PPO report and report to ministers by spring 2026.

In terms of support for victims and survivors, the Ministry of Justice put in place a settlement scheme to provide compensation. To date, this has settled over 2,700 claims, totalling over £10 million. Whilst no amount of compensation can change what has happened in the past, this scheme remains open and we have encouraged anyone who has not already, to make a claim.

There are not any plans to establish a public inquiry into MDC. The PPO report is forensic and follows criminal investigations by the Durham Constabulary – Operations Halter One and Two in the 2000s, and the comprehensive Operation Seabrook beginning in 2013. Due to the breadth and depth of these investigations, a public inquiry would be very unlikely to uncover any new information or insight. Adrian Usher, the Ombudsman, has shared this view – “It is my opinion that should a public inquiry arise following the publication of my report, I cannot see how it would produce a more comprehensive account of what happened at Medomsley, and the causes of it, than my investigation has revealed.”

The Prison and Probation Ombudsman’s investigation published on 12 November set out in stark detail the horrific abuse that boys and young men experienced at Medomsley Detention Centre (MDC). The PPO asked the Government to consider three issues – that the Government make an apology, that the complaints process should be reformed, and that children should be asked about their experiences of custody by a trained independent member of staff.

On 12 November, the Government published a Written Ministerial Statement and sent an open letter to victims and survivors. In both, we made a full apology for the abuse which victims and survivors endured and recognised the ineffective governance structures and failures of leadership at every level, which meant the abuse was allowed to continue for such a long time. In the Government response, we also committed to setting up a Youth Custody Safeguarding Panel to make recommendations to improve safeguarding across the youth estate today, including reviewing the ways children can make complaints and are asked about their experiences in custody. This panel has now been established and will be chaired by Isabelle Trowler (the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families), who will consider the issues raised in the PPO report and report to ministers by spring 2026.

In terms of support for victims and survivors, the Ministry of Justice put in place a settlement scheme to provide compensation. To date, this has settled over 2,700 claims, totalling over £10 million. Whilst no amount of compensation can change what has happened in the past, this scheme remains open and we have encouraged anyone who has not already, to make a claim.

There are not any plans to establish a public inquiry into MDC. The PPO report is forensic and follows criminal investigations by the Durham Constabulary – Operations Halter One and Two in the 2000s, and the comprehensive Operation Seabrook beginning in 2013. Due to the breadth and depth of these investigations, a public inquiry would be very unlikely to uncover any new information or insight. Adrian Usher, the Ombudsman, has shared this view – “It is my opinion that should a public inquiry arise following the publication of my report, I cannot see how it would produce a more comprehensive account of what happened at Medomsley, and the causes of it, than my investigation has revealed.”

The Prison and Probation Ombudsman’s investigation published on 12 November set out in stark detail the horrific abuse that boys and young men experienced at Medomsley Detention Centre (MDC). The PPO asked the Government to consider three issues – that the Government make an apology, that the complaints process should be reformed, and that children should be asked about their experiences of custody by a trained independent member of staff.

On 12 November, the Government published a Written Ministerial Statement and sent an open letter to victims and survivors. In both, we made a full apology for the abuse which victims and survivors endured and recognised the ineffective governance structures and failures of leadership at every level, which meant the abuse was allowed to continue for such a long time. In the Government response, we also committed to setting up a Youth Custody Safeguarding Panel to make recommendations to improve safeguarding across the youth estate today, including reviewing the ways children can make complaints and are asked about their experiences in custody. This panel has now been established and will be chaired by Isabelle Trowler (the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families), who will consider the issues raised in the PPO report and report to ministers by spring 2026.

In terms of support for victims and survivors, the Ministry of Justice put in place a settlement scheme to provide compensation. To date, this has settled over 2,700 claims, totalling over £10 million. Whilst no amount of compensation can change what has happened in the past, this scheme remains open and we have encouraged anyone who has not already, to make a claim.

There are not any plans to establish a public inquiry into MDC. The PPO report is forensic and follows criminal investigations by the Durham Constabulary – Operations Halter One and Two in the 2000s, and the comprehensive Operation Seabrook beginning in 2013. Due to the breadth and depth of these investigations, a public inquiry would be very unlikely to uncover any new information or insight. Adrian Usher, the Ombudsman, has shared this view – “It is my opinion that should a public inquiry arise following the publication of my report, I cannot see how it would produce a more comprehensive account of what happened at Medomsley, and the causes of it, than my investigation has revealed.”

The Department ensures compliance with its obligations under the Human Rights Act, and other legal requirements, through operational policies communicated to prisons and probation, and oversight by bodies such as HM Inspectorate of Prisons and Independent Monitoring Boards.

The Department works hard to ensure we maintain safe, lawful conditions and uphold prisoners’ rights.

We recognise that fair and competitive pay is a key part of supporting and retaining our valued probation workforce. We continue to work to deliver on the 2025-26 pay awards for Probation Staff who are members of the Civil Service. We could not start the process until the Civil Service Pay Remit Guidance was published on 22 May 2025, and since then we have worked hard to develop options and are now seeking the necessary approvals to move to the next part of the process which is to start formal negotiations with the trade unions and work towards making a final offer.

In the meantime, we have taken steps to acknowledge the continued dedication of staff during this challenging period. As part of this, we secured agreement to pay the Competency-Based Framework (CBF) progression payments, as an interim award, to eligible staff in June 2025. This recognises their vital contribution to delivering on our operational priorities.

Once the pay award has been determined it will be back dated to April 2025 for eligible staff.

We recognise that fair and competitive pay is a key part of supporting and retaining our valued probation workforce.

Staff retention and morale is vitally important to us, and we continuously monitor staff workload and retention. The first Recruitment and Retention Strategy was published in 2021. Since its launch, the Strategy has delivered a range of initiatives aimed at increasing recruitment and improving retention across the Probation Service. A full evaluation of the strategy was undertaken to measure progress and identify further areas for future improvement in the recruitment and retention space.

The latest retention data can be found in the HMPPS Official Workforce Statistics which were published on 19 November 2025: HM Prison & Probation Service workforce quarterly: September 2025 - GOV.UK. As these statistics show, the leaving rate for staff in the Probation Service has decreased.

We have taken steps to acknowledge the continued dedication of staff during this challenging period. As part of this, we secured agreement to pay the Competency-Based Framework progression payments, as an interim award, to eligible staff in June 2025. This recognises their vital contribution to delivering on our operational priorities.

We have taken immediate steps to reduce probation workload where possible. “Probation Reset” was fully implemented on 1 July 2024, followed by the introduction of “Impact” on 28 April 2025. These initiatives are among several designed to alleviate workload pressures by refocusing resources to manage those on probation more efficiently.

Further to these immediate steps, the Our Future Probation Service Programme has been established which aims to ensure that workloads for probation staff are sustainable by deploying new technologies, reforming processes, and ensuring prioritisation of probation staff time. We are committed to supporting the wellbeing of staff by ensuring workloads are sustainable.

I recognise the ongoing workload pressures on the Probation Service and supporting staff wellbeing and safety is critical for us. To address this, a new wellbeing support model has been established across HMPPS, with staff support and well-being leads for both prison and probation.

The Government does not publish or hold centralised data on the number of super-injunctions currently in place, due to the sensitive and often confidential nature of such orders.

Where such orders are made, they are typically issued by the High Court under strict judicial oversight and may include provisions that prevent disclosure of their very existence.

The Government recognises the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in access to justice and is committed to ensuring it works fairly for all.

The Government welcomes the Civil Justice Council review of litigation funding, which will help inform the approach to potential reforms. We are considering the report carefully and will outline next steps in due course.

The Government recognises the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in access to justice and is committed to ensuring it works fairly for all.

The Government welcomes the Civil Justice Council review of litigation funding, which will help inform the approach to potential reforms. We are considering the report carefully and will outline next steps in due course.

When tenants commit anti-social behaviour (ASB) it can cause misery for housemates, neighbours, and the wider community. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 introduced specific measures designed to give victims and communities a say in the way that complaints of ASB are dealt with. As well as trying to resolve issues through housing management companies, depending on circumstances, tenants are able to contact their local authority or the police for support. It is also open for individuals to take legal action against the people behaving anti-socially and for an individual, or a freeholder to apply to the First-tier Residential Property Tribunal for forfeiture of the lease.

The Ministry of Justice published data concerning the average length of hearings in complete cases at the Crown Court as part of the Criminal Court Statistics series which is available at the following link: Criminal court statistics - GOV.UK

The average hearing time for cases completed at the Crown Court in England and Wales has fallen 14% compared to the previous year.

The Ministry of Justice does not collate hearing time information for the magistrates’ court or other jurisdictions.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on criminal court prosecutions that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK.

The Ministry of Justice cannot provide data on cases that are not progressed due to lost, missing or damaged of evidence. This information would only be held in the individual court records and examination of these records would be of disproportionate cost.

In 2021, the Government commissioned PACTS (Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety) to publish a report on alcohol interlocks: https://www.pacts.org.uk/locking-out-the-drink-driver-using-alcohol-interlocks-to-reduce-drink-driving-in-the-uk/.

We, in the Ministry of Justice, believe that courts should have the flexibility they need to sentence offenders appropriately and, as part of a community or suspended sentence the courts have a range of robust powers to punish and rehabilitate offenders and protect the public. This includes the option for an Alcohol Abstinence and Monitoring Requirement which imposes an alcohol ban for up to 120 days, with compliance electronically monitored using an alcohol tag.

Published statistics show a compliance rate with the ban of 97.2% for days monitored, since introduction, Electronic Monitoring Statistics Publication, June 2023 - GOV.UK. The courts also have powers to include treatment requirements as part of a sentence served in the community, with the aim of addressing the root causes of offending.

The Government keeps motoring offences under review, including those for drink driving. The Ministry of Justice is committed to continuous improvement and innovation, and we will continue to assess the capabilities and reliability of technology.

It is vital that those who need legal aid – including some of the most vulnerable people in society - can access it wherever they live.

Between January 2023 and March 2025, the Ministry of Justice undertook a comprehensive Review of Civil Legal Aid (RoCLA) to identify issues facing the system and improve its sustainability. The review has concluded, and all reports are available at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/civil-legal-aid-review, this includes a deep dive on legal aid in family law cases.

According to the RoCLA Provider Survey, a higher proportion of family legal aid providers reported being profitable compared to providers in all other categories of law. Family legal aid providers were also significantly less likely to report that they would leave the sector in the next five years. On the other hand, the evidence from the review also indicated that the housing and debt, and immigration and asylum sectors face particularly more acute challenges with service provision and high demand. Therefore, following a consultation, we announced uplifts to housing and debt, and immigration and asylum legal aid fees, which will inject £20 million into the sector each year once fully implemented. This investment will help the Government to reduce the asylum backlog, end hotel use, increase returns and ensure the most vulnerable can access justice. The evidence gathered by RoCLA informed this consultation and the review will continue to shape future policy direction.

The Ministry of Justice is looking at other potential changes that could support providers and aid recruitment and retention. This includes, (civil) contractual requirements regarding provider offices and limits to the provision of remote legal aid that providers say are burdensome. Any changes would aim to give providers more autonomy in meeting client need, while maintaining effective in-person provision for clients who need this. We are committed to supporting the recruitment and retention of legal aid practitioners and have provided up to £1.4 million in 2024 and up to a further £1.7 million in 2025 to meet the costs of accrediting and reaccrediting caseworkers to conduct immigration and asylum legal aid work, and we have provided £1.5 million in grant funding for the recruitment of trainee housing solicitors.

The Legal Aid Agency regularly reviews available supply to make sure there is adequate provision for legal aid, in all categories of law, and works with the Ministry of Justice to take operational action where it can respond to market pressures that may arise.

It is vital that those who need legal aid – including some of the most vulnerable people in society - can access it wherever they live.

Between January 2023 and March 2025, the Ministry of Justice undertook a comprehensive Review of Civil Legal Aid (RoCLA) to identify issues facing the system and improve its sustainability. The review has concluded, and all reports are available at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/civil-legal-aid-review, this includes a deep dive on legal aid in family law cases.

According to the RoCLA Provider Survey, a higher proportion of family legal aid providers reported being profitable compared to providers in all other categories of law. Family legal aid providers were also significantly less likely to report that they would leave the sector in the next five years. On the other hand, the evidence from the review also indicated that the housing and debt, and immigration and asylum sectors face particularly more acute challenges with service provision and high demand. Therefore, following a consultation, we announced uplifts to housing and debt, and immigration and asylum legal aid fees, which will inject £20 million into the sector each year once fully implemented. This investment will help the Government to reduce the asylum backlog, end hotel use, increase returns and ensure the most vulnerable can access justice. The evidence gathered by RoCLA informed this consultation and the review will continue to shape future policy direction.

The Ministry of Justice is looking at other potential changes that could support providers and aid recruitment and retention. This includes, (civil) contractual requirements regarding provider offices and limits to the provision of remote legal aid that providers say are burdensome. Any changes would aim to give providers more autonomy in meeting client need, while maintaining effective in-person provision for clients who need this. We are committed to supporting the recruitment and retention of legal aid practitioners and have provided up to £1.4 million in 2024 and up to a further £1.7 million in 2025 to meet the costs of accrediting and reaccrediting caseworkers to conduct immigration and asylum legal aid work, and we have provided £1.5 million in grant funding for the recruitment of trainee housing solicitors.

The Legal Aid Agency regularly reviews available supply to make sure there is adequate provision for legal aid, in all categories of law, and works with the Ministry of Justice to take operational action where it can respond to market pressures that may arise.

Ensuring victims receive the right and timely support is a key part of this Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls.

We provide funding to all 42 Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) which includes ringfenced funding for domestic abuse and sexual violence services. These services are commissioned based on local need.

I have protected dedicated VAWG victims spending in the Department by maintaining 2024-25 funding levels for ringfenced domestic abuse and sexual violence support this year. This includes combined ringfenced funding for PCCs to spend on domestic abuse and sexual violence support services.

As announced on 2 December 2025, Ministry of Justice will be investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years of this Spending Review period – the biggest investment in victim support services to date. This includes a 2% uplift year on year for the next two years to funding for PCCs. The breakdown of grant funding is also publicly available on the Government Grants Information System (GGIS), which is released annually in March covering the previous financial period of grant spending.

The Government shares concerns that existing protections for cohabiting couples are limited and the weakness of these protections can disproportionately affect women, children and the vulnerable. The Government considers this to be an issue that affects communities across England and Wales, including in rural constituencies like West Dorset.

Cohabitation reform is a matter of utmost importance. That is why the Government committed in its manifesto to strengthen rights and protections for cohabiting couples. We will be launching a public consultation by Spring next year to explore how best to strengthen cohabitants’ rights, while maintaining marriage as one of our most important institutions.

The Government shares concerns that existing protections for cohabiting couples are limited and the weakness of these protections can disproportionately affect women, children and the vulnerable. The Government considers this to be an issue that affects communities across England and Wales, including in rural constituencies like West Dorset.

Cohabitation reform is a matter of utmost importance. That is why the Government committed in its manifesto to strengthen rights and protections for cohabiting couples. We will be launching a public consultation by Spring next year to explore how best to strengthen cohabitants’ rights, while maintaining marriage as one of our most important institutions.

The Government shares concerns that existing protections for cohabiting couples are limited and the weakness of these protections can disproportionately affect women, children and the vulnerable. The Government considers this to be an issue that affects communities across England and Wales, including in rural constituencies like West Dorset.

Cohabitation reform is a matter of utmost importance. That is why the Government committed in its manifesto to strengthen rights and protections for cohabiting couples. We will be launching a public consultation by Spring next year to explore how best to strengthen cohabitants’ rights, while maintaining marriage as one of our most important institutions.

The Government shares concerns that existing protections for cohabiting couples are limited and the weakness of these protections can disproportionately affect women, children and the vulnerable. The Government considers this to be an issue that affects communities across England and Wales, including in rural constituencies like West Dorset.

Cohabitation reform is a matter of utmost importance. That is why the Government committed in its manifesto to strengthen rights and protections for cohabiting couples. We will be launching a public consultation by Spring next year to explore how best to strengthen cohabitants’ rights, while maintaining marriage as one of our most important institutions.

The latest available figures for transgender prisoners are set out in the table below:

The Ministerial exemption process only applies to the placement of transgender women (defined in HMPPS as biological males who identify as females) in women's prisons. Transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of violent or sexual offending can only be placed in the general women's estate in exceptional circumstances and where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.

The latest available figures for transgender prisoners are set out in the table below:

The Ministerial exemption process only applies to the placement of transgender women (defined in HMPPS as biological males who identify as females) in women's prisons. Transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of violent or sexual offending can only be placed in the general women's estate in exceptional circumstances and where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.

The latest available figures for transgender prisoners are set out in the table below:

The Ministerial exemption process only applies to the placement of transgender women (defined in HMPPS as biological males who identify as females) in women's prisons. Transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of violent or sexual offending can only be placed in the general women's estate in exceptional circumstances and where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.

The Government will not delay bringing the measures in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill into force.

We are urgently looking at what is required effectively to implement each of the measures.

We will update the House in due course on the planned timeline for implementation and commencement.

The Sentencing Code came into force in December 2020 and was the product of a Law Commission project that involved extensive public consultation. Prior to its creation sentencing procedural law was significantly convoluted, spanning across multiple different pieces of legislation. The Code consolidated the law in this area, helping make it more accessible.

More broadly, the Government keeps the sentencing framework under regular review. In October 2024, we commissioned the Independent Sentencing Review, led by former Lord Chancellor Rt. Hon. David Gauke. The Sentencing Bill, currently being considered before Parliament, implements many of the Review’s recommendations.

In the last full financial year (2024/25), the Department has spent £3,131,757 on property projects that include creating new jury enabled Crown courtrooms. Some of these courtrooms are flexible use and can be used for multiple purposes. This figure includes all property costs, such as design and development, as well as construction costs.

We have no plans to introduce a new Bill of Rights extending across the UK. The Human Rights Act 1998 provides human rights protections across the UK. It is an important part of our constitutional arrangements and will remain part of our law.

Statutory responsibility for housing and homelessness provision in both England and Wales lies with local authorities. To supplement this, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) offers a three-tier structure of temporary accommodation, known as the Community Accommodation Service (CAS), for a small proportion of prison leavers and persons on bail. Many offenders leaving custody will have their own accommodation to return to.

CAS properties are sourced according to a demand analysis undertaken by HMPPS, with as wide a geographical spread as possible. They are normally in areas close to local amenities, to assist with effective rehabilitation and sentence management planning. Services have been expanded across the country in recent years to meet demand for places. This serves both to help prison leavers at risk of homelessness and to protect the public.

Other individuals under probation supervision who are in need of assistance on release from custody may be accommodated by the local authority or in accordance with private arrangements. When deciding whether to approve a proposed address, the probation practitioner will make a risk assessment and will also have regard to the offender’s sentence planning objectives

We publish the number of drone incidents in England and Wales in the HMPPS Annual Digest, please see table 6_1 in the Finds tables. The latest issue covers the 12-month period to March 2025, with a time series of drone incidents starting from the 12-months to March 2021.

Any increase in reported drone incidents should not be interpreted as an increase in incursions; it may reflect more focused reporting. Drone incidents should not be interpreted as definitive evidence of the delivery of weapons and drugs into prisons, as they include all incidents where a drone is sighted. Data specific to deliveries of illicit items cannot be disclosed for security reasons.

The Ministry of Justice remains committed to improving support for neurodivergent individuals in the criminal justice system.

Neurodiversity Action Plan

The Cross-Government Neurodiversity Action Plan, along with subsequent progress updates published in January and September 2023 set out how the department, working alongside health and justice partners, has made progress and monitored delivery and outcomes across the criminal justice system. We are committed to publishing a final update to the Action Plan shortly, which will set out the significant improvements made in improving support for those with neurodiverse needs and next steps.

Cross-Government Collaboration

NHS England is responsible for commissioning healthcare services in prisons, including the provision of clinical interventions. We continue to work closely with partners including the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) through the Health and Justice National Neurodiversity Programme Board to improve support for neurodiverse individuals in the criminal justice system.

The Youth Custody Service operates under the Framework of Integrated Care (SECURE STAIRS) co-commissioned by NHS England. Young Offender Institutions have Neurodiversity Support Managers (NSMs), and qualified Special Educational Needs Coordinators and psychologists to meet the needs of children. Education, Health, and Care Plans (EHCP) are requested from the community, and we work closely with Department for Education and DHSC to ensure effective delivery.

Funding

We do not hold data centrally on the funding allocated to interventions for neurodivergent people in prison or on probation. HMPPS provides a range of interventions, including educational interventions delivered as part of the Prisoner Education Service, therapeutic interventions specifically for neurodivergent individuals and tailoring of interventions, including Accredited Offending Behaviour Programmes, to be inclusive of neurodivergence.

Screening

HMPPS screens all prisoners as part of the induction process following entry into prison to identify any needs that may affect their ability to engage with the regime and navigate its environment and opportunities.

To improve prison screening practices, a new Additional Learning Needs tool was introduced in October 2025 as part of the new Prisoner Education Service. This tool identifies individual strengths, and any additional learning needs they may have as well as what adjustments might help support them.

Reasonable adjustments differ at each stage and therefore, a universal screening tool would not be practical to identify individual needs across the criminal justice system.

Neurodiversity leads

NSMs have been successfully rolled out across the prison service. As of November 2025, there are NSMs in 116 prisons across England and Wales, with seven sites recruiting. NSMs use a range of methods to ensure that sufficient support for neurodiversity is available in their prisons, including introducing Neurodiversity Staff Champions or Neurodiversity Peer mentors. Regular networking and training opportunities are provided to NSMs, providing them with ongoing support and development.

As of September 2025, 99 prisons had reported progress on implementing this support. 45 reported having Neurodiversity Support Champions and 66 (two-thirds) reported having Neurodiversity Reps or Peer mentors.

Training and support for staff

We do not hold data centrally on the proportion of staff who have completed neurodiversity training. However, a key priority for NSMs is to provide training and guidance to prison staff to equip them to better support neurodivergent individuals. This includes training on neurodiversity supportive practice and ensuring that all staff members have the support, and resources they need to facilitate reasonable adjustments as required.

In probation, HMPPS offer neurodiversity learning packages for all staff as part of the Probation Learning and Development curriculum, and new Probation Service Officers and those undertaking the Professional Qualification in Probation are required to undertake learning that includes neurodiversity.

Easy Reads

We aim for all prisoner-facing documents to be written in clear, simple English. When our staff write new or revised policies, or other documents which prisoners need to read, we require them to use plain language, keep text brief, spell out acronyms on first use, and avoid unnecessary words or jargon.

NSMs have received training on creating easy-read documents. As part of their role in making prison environments more supportive of neurodivergence, many have produced easy-read versions of key prison documents, including a Prison Induction Handbook for prisoners with low literacy.