Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Timpson on 5 February (HL14147), what the deadline is to train and equip 500 prison-based staff to use taser devices.

Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

This capability is being implemented on a phased basis, reflecting the complexity of introducing Conducted Energy Devices (generally known as TASERs) safely into the prison environment. Initial enabling activity is under way, including development of policy and operating procedures, assurance processes, training design, and engagement with key stakeholders.

Training and equipping of staff will be delivered incrementally, with cohorts authorised to access the equipment in stages, once the necessary governance, infrastructure and safeguards are in place.

In view of the need to prioritise safety, operational readiness and learning from early phases of implementation, it would not be appropriate at this stage to set a deadline for completion. Progress will continue to be monitored closely to ensure progress is maintained.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many sniffer dogs there are in England and Wales's prisons; and what plans they have to increase that number.

Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) currently deploys 492 licensed search dogs across prisons in England and Wales. These dogs form a key part of the Department’s approach to tackling the supply of illicit items, including drugs, mobile telephones and other contraband, and are used proactively across the estate.

Decisions on deployment, and any increase in search dog capacity, are made at local and regional level, enabling prisons to respond flexibly to their specific security risks and operational challenges. This includes the ability to scale up provision where intelligence or demand indicates a need.

HMPPS keeps this capability under regular review as part of its wider security strategy and will continue to assess whether additional resources are required to meet any emerging threats.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many job vacancies there currently are in HM Prison and Probation Service.

Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) holds required staffing levels which are subject to regular amendment and managed at a local and regional level. As a result of this discretion, HMPPS does not present vacancy data due to variability in required staffing levels.

We do, however, publish indicative vacancies in the HMPPS Workforce and the most recently published figures can be found via the following link: HM Prison & Probation Service workforce quarterly: December 2025 - GOV.UK.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many crown courts and magistrates’ courts there are in each of the boroughs in West Midlands County; and what is the case backlog in each of those courts.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

Table 1 - Crown Court open cases in West Midlands by court (December 2025)

Table 2 - Magistrates’ courts open cases in West Midlands by court (December 2025)

notes

1) Open cases are those without a final result record. At the Crown Court this excludes cases where one or more defendants is absent and have a live bench warrant.
2) Court location relates to where a case was first received.

3) * signifies magistrates’ courts which have permanently closed. Open cases for these courts will have been transferred to other courts but workload will continue to be reported under the initial location.

The Crown Court backlog currently stands at over 80,000 cases and, without decisive action, would rise to 100,000 by 2028. Behind each of those cases is someone awaiting justice – defendants seeking to clear their name and victims putting their lives on hold. The record and rising Crown Court caseload means that thousands of victims and witnesses are waiting years for their day in court. Justice delayed is justice denied and the status quo is unacceptable.

That is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, to conduct an independent review of the criminal justice system and make recommendations for the modernisation of the system and ways to tackle the backlog. His expert panel gathered evidence over many months. They concluded that reform is essential alongside additional investment in sitting days and the workforce, and a programme of efficiencies. Part 1 of the Review set out a blueprint for pragmatic structural reform in our criminal courts and made clear that action across all aspects of the criminal justice process is needed. Reform, investment and modernisation are all necessary to ensure that our courts deliver justice effectively and efficiently.

The Government has already invested significantly in the system – in record sitting days (increasing judicial capacity), court buildings and technology, and in legal professionals with significant investment in legal aid. However, these investments in growing the workforce, whilst vital, will take years to take effect.

The Government is committed to doing whatever is necessary to deliver swifter justice for victims. Only by pulling every lever we have – investment, efficiency and reform – can we turn the tide on the backlog and begin to deliver faster and fairer justice.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Baroness Levitt on 26 March (HL15521) and 12 March (HL14912), what assessment they have made of the article “Are judicial reviews in the Planning Court taking too long?”, published by the UK Constitutional Law Association on 23 March, having regard to that article being based upon statistical analysis unlike the Written Answers.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Written Answers on 26 March (HL15521) and 12 March (HL14912) were based on the professional knowledge and experience of the Planning Liaison Judge, rather than statistical data, drawing on his role managing claims in the Planning Court. The Planning Court Users Group provides a mechanism for users to raise any specific concerns regarding the timely progress of cases. The Court has confirmed that there is no backlog of cases in the Planning Court relating to challenges to planning permissions granted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Significant Planning Court claims are managed in line with the targets set out in the relevant Practice Direction, while other cases follow the arrangements applicable to the Administrative Court. Overall oversight by the Planning Liaison Judge ensures that claims are progressed efficiently.

HMCTS is committed to improving efficiency, responsiveness and overall quality of service provided. Through collaborative working with the well-established Planning Court Users Group, HMCTS will discuss and consider any further administrative improvements.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure that coronial complaints procedures are independent and transparent; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of measures in place to prevent conflicts of interest within that process.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones

Coroners are independent judges, but operational responsibility for coroner services lies with the lead local authorities which fund and administer of each of the 74 coroner areas in England and Wales. Whist the framework of accountability in the coronial jurisdiction is therefore complex, it is nevertheless robust and transparent.

Complaints about the standard of service provided in the context of a coroner’s investigation should be raised in the first instance with the coroner’s office and/or with the funding local authority. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, the matter can be reported to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (https://www.lgo.org.uk/make-a-complaint), which aims to provide a remedy to complaints through impartial and fair investigation.

The Ombudsman cannot investigate a coroner’s decisions as an independent judge. However, these can be challenged through the judicial review process or, in some circumstances, by applying to the Attorney General for leave to apply to the High Court for a fresh inquest.

Complaints about the personal conduct of coroners should be made to the independent Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/).

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether there has been an impact assessment of clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill on fathers in prison who are trying to retain parental responsibility.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the statutory presumption of parental involvement from section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The aim of repealing this measure is better to protect children from harm, including harm which might result from contact with abusive parents or resulting from decisions made by abusive parents.

The Government has thoroughly assessed the impact of repealing the statutory presumption of parental involvement. The impact assessment for Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill does not look at fathers who are prisoners as a distinct group.

The impact assessment for this measure can be found here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0389/Non-IRCC_impact_assessment.pdf

The equalities statement for this measure can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/699dfa26db2401de164d6c90/courts-tribunals-bill-equalities-statement.pdf

Both documents have also been attached for ease.

Repealing the statutory presumption does not diminish the importance of a parent being involved in their child’s life – through contact or through holding or exercising parental responsibility - where it is safe and beneficial. Rather, it ensures that the child’s welfare continues to be placed first in every decision.

Repealing the presumption means that courts, when making decisions, including applications related to parental responsibility, will adopt an openminded enquiry as to what is in a child’s best interests rather than starting from an assumption about parental involvement. Courts will continue to use the provisions set out in the Children Act 1989. In making decisions about the exercise of parental responsibility, the court will continue to be guided by the welfare checklist in order to ensure a thorough assessment of each child's circumstances.

Courts will continue to make orders for a parent (including a parent who is a prisoner) to be involved in a child's life, where that is safe and in the child’s best interests. HMPPS will continue to provide a range of services to maintain family contact and are updating the Strengthening Family Ties Policy Framework to reaffirm this, setting out clear expectations for how prisons should support people in custody to develop and sustain positive family relationships.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have carried out an assessment of the impact of clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill on the ongoing implementation of the 2017 and 2019 Farmer Reviews on the importance of maintaining male prisoners' and female offenders' family ties to prevent reoffending and intergenerational crime.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the statutory presumption of parental involvement from section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The aim of repealing this measure is to better to protect children from harm, including from harm which might be caused by contact with abusive parents

The Government has thoroughly assessed the impact of repealing the statutory presumption of parental involvement. The impact assessment for Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill does not look at prisoners as a distinct group.

The impact assessment for this measure can be found here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0389/Non-IRCC_impact_assessment.pdf

The equalities statement for this measure can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/699dfa26db2401de164d6c90/courts-tribunals-bill-equalities-statement.pdf

Both documents have also been attached for ease.

Repealing the statutory presumption does not diminish the importance of parental involvement and contact where it is safe and beneficial. Rather, it ensures that the child’s welfare continues to be placed first in every decision.

Repealing the presumption means that courts will adopt an openminded inquiry enquiry into what is in a child’s best interests, rather than starting from an assumption about parental involvement. Courts will continue to use the provisions set out in the Children Act 1989 when making decisions, guided by the welfare checklist, in order to ensure a thorough assessment of each child's circumstances.

Courts will continue to make orders for a parent (including a parent who is a prisoner) to be involved in a child's life where that is safe and in the child’s best interests. HMPPS will continue to provide a range of services to maintain family contact and are updating the Strengthening Family Ties Policy Framework to reaffirm this, setting out clear expectations for how prisons should support people in custody to develop and sustain positive family relationships.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to improve the fitting quality of electronic monitoring tags.

Answered by Lord Timpson - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The field and monitoring service contract, with the provider Serco, has clear contractual requirements governing the delivery of the Electronic Monitoring service, including the fitting of electronic monitoring tags. The latest performance data from Serco evidenced continued improved performance with all contractual KPIs met.

The relevant contract can be found on contract finder via the following links, and have also been attached for ease: Electronic Monitoring Field and Monitoring Service (FMS) - Contracts Finder and Electronic Monitoring - MDSS contract - Contracts Finder.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of trends in the level of delayed payments to people who have won employment tribunals.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

The Ministry of Justice does not collect or publish data on delays to awards, whether or not awards have been paid, or data on the outcomes of Employment Tribunal enforcement actions. The Department of Business and Trade will collect additional updated data on payment outcomes through the Survey of Employment Tribunal Applications later this year.

Workers should receive the payments they are entitled to in a timely manner. As part of the Government’s Plan for Change, we will look at ways of strengthening enforcement options and will work closely across Government to do this as effectively as possible, including through the newly established Fair Work Agency (FWA). The FWA will work closely with HMRC, the Insolvency Service and other relevant enforcement bodies to strengthen enforcement options. The proposed powers of the FWA are set out in the Employment Rights Act, and we are committed to ensuring that it has the appropriate resources to discharge its responsibilities.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what plans his Department has to publish an advertisement for the position of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons once it becomes vacant in October 2026.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Following consultation with the Justice Select Committee (JSC) about campaign plans to recruit to this position, we plan to advertise the role shortly. We will update the JSC on the timetable in due course.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many Parental Orders were issued in 2025, 2024 and 2023.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones

The Ministry of Justice publishes regular data on parental orders in our quarterly Family Court statistics bulletin: Family Court Statistics Quarterly - GOV.UK.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 1 April 2026 to Question 123531 on Prisons: Meat, what the annual cost of meat served in prisons has been in each year since 2020, broken down by individual prison.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Department does not hold information on the cost of specific food items, including meat, or on expenditure associated with multi -choice or pre-selected menus. Prison expenditure on food is recorded at an aggregate level in management accounts as total prisoner food costs: it is not broken down by individual prisons, food types, menu options or dietary components. Food budgets are managed locally by Governors in the public estate, or Directors in privately managed prisons, who have flexibility within their overall allocations to meet the needs of their prison population, including religious, cultural and medical dietary requirements.

All prisons across England and Wales provide prisoners with a choice of at least five meal options at both lunch and for the evening meal. As a minimum, these options include one meat dish, one vegan dish, one vegetarian dish, one Halal dish, and one additional alternative option. This requirement was established under PSO 5000 (Prison Catering Services), and was subsequently re-affirmed in its successor policy, PSI 44/2010 Catering: Meals for Prisoners, which came into effect in October 2010.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, to publish a list of all external organisations, including women’s, men’s, and specialist advocacy groups, that received funding, consultancy fees, or formal engagement contracts during the development of revised domestic‑abuse guidance and safeguarding processes in private‑law children cases; and to set out the total expenditure associated with this work.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones

Under this Government the Ministry of Justice has not provided funding, paid consultancy fees, or entered into formal engagement contracts with external organisations in developing revised domestic abuse guidance or safeguarding processes in private law children cases.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the proven reoffending rate is for the adult cohort convicted of shoplifting offences who had been given a suspended sentence or any other non-custodial sentence within the last five years.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The proven reoffending rate for adult offenders with an index offence of shoplifting between 2019/20 and 2023/24 are provided in the attached Excel spreadsheet. This includes the overall adult cohort, as well as breakdowns for adults released from custody, and adults given non-custodial sentences or cautions between 2019/20 and 2023/24.

The proven reoffending rate is calculated using a 12-month follow-up period, allowing an additional 6 months for offences to be proven in court.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the proven reoffending rate is for the adult cohort convicted of shoplifting offences who had been sentenced to immediate custody within the last five years.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The proven reoffending rate for adult offenders with an index offence of shoplifting between 2019/20 and 2023/24 are provided in the attached Excel spreadsheet. This includes the overall adult cohort, as well as breakdowns for adults released from custody, and adults given non-custodial sentences or cautions between 2019/20 and 2023/24.

The proven reoffending rate is calculated using a 12-month follow-up period, allowing an additional 6 months for offences to be proven in court.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the proven reoffending rate is for the adult cohort convicted of shoplifting offences within the last five years.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The proven reoffending rate for adult offenders with an index offence of shoplifting between 2019/20 and 2023/24 are provided in the attached Excel spreadsheet. This includes the overall adult cohort, as well as breakdowns for adults released from custody, and adults given non-custodial sentences or cautions between 2019/20 and 2023/24.

The proven reoffending rate is calculated using a 12-month follow-up period, allowing an additional 6 months for offences to be proven in court.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to help reduce violent reoffending among young people who are on bail.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Government recognises the importance of reducing offending, including violent reoffending, among children who are on bail through close supervision and high levels of support by skilled staff. We are investing £5 million over the next three years in strengthening the bail packages available for children, so that courts have access to more robust community-based options that both support children to make positive changes and help manage the risk of offending. We are also reforming the annual youth remand funding arrangements to further support greater local authority investment in high-quality community alternatives to custodial remand, including suitable community placements (specialist fostering and accommodation), family support and enhanced Bail Intensive Supervision and Support services. This builds on the Greater Manchester Youth Remand Funding pilot, which has demonstrated promising early findings in improving their bail and community remand offer regionally, to keep children and communities safe. We are now offering multi-year funding to local authorities to scale up this regional model, encouraging areas to collaborate in developing a broader range of bail support options to meet the needs of children and protect the public.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what guidance is issued to Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service officers on ensuring neutrality between parents in family court proceedings.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones

Cafcass provides learning for all colleagues on recognising and reflecting on bias as part of its wider approach to equality, diversity and inclusion. All colleagues are required to complete mandatory Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) e‑learning, alongside training entitled Exploring the Impact of Bias, which supports reflection on how personal assumptions and bias can affect professional judgement in work with children and families.

As with all considerations within the Family Court, Cafcass’s primary focus is the best interests and welfare of the child, rather than the interests or viewpoints of parents. Cafcass guidance and practice therefore focuses on assessing what is safe and promotes a child’s welfare, rather than balancing parental rights or perspectives or seeking neutrality between parents.

Cafcass works through a relationship‑based practice framework, Together with Children and Families, which prioritises and values the development of trusting relationships to enable sensitive and complex work with children and families. The framework encourages listening, understanding, clear reasoning, respect and integrity.

In all advice to the Family Court, Family Court Advisers are required to observe Cafcass’s statutory responsibility to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in family proceedings. This includes assessing children’s safety, understanding the harm they have experienced and the risk of further harm in existing and future contact arrangements. The advice provided to the court and the report that is filed are based on this assessment and what is safe and in the best interests of the child.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what training is provided to staff of CAFCASS on unconscious bias, with particular reference to fathers in family court proceedings.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones

Cafcass provides learning for all colleagues on recognising and reflecting on bias as part of its wider approach to equality, diversity and inclusion. All colleagues are required to complete mandatory Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) e‑learning, alongside training entitled Exploring the Impact of Bias, which supports reflection on how personal assumptions and bias can affect professional judgement in work with children and families.

As with all considerations within the Family Court, Cafcass’s primary focus is the best interests and welfare of the child, rather than the interests or viewpoints of parents. Cafcass guidance and practice therefore focuses on assessing what is safe and promotes a child’s welfare, rather than balancing parental rights or perspectives or seeking neutrality between parents.

Cafcass works through a relationship‑based practice framework, Together with Children and Families, which prioritises and values the development of trusting relationships to enable sensitive and complex work with children and families. The framework encourages listening, understanding, clear reasoning, respect and integrity.

In all advice to the Family Court, Family Court Advisers are required to observe Cafcass’s statutory responsibility to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in family proceedings. This includes assessing children’s safety, understanding the harm they have experienced and the risk of further harm in existing and future contact arrangements. The advice provided to the court and the report that is filed are based on this assessment and what is safe and in the best interests of the child.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how CAFCASS ensures that safeguarding considerations are balanced with the rights of both parents to maintain meaningful relationships with children.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones

Cafcass provides learning for all colleagues on recognising and reflecting on bias as part of its wider approach to equality, diversity and inclusion. All colleagues are required to complete mandatory Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) e‑learning, alongside training entitled Exploring the Impact of Bias, which supports reflection on how personal assumptions and bias can affect professional judgement in work with children and families.

As with all considerations within the Family Court, Cafcass’s primary focus is the best interests and welfare of the child, rather than the interests or viewpoints of parents. Cafcass guidance and practice therefore focuses on assessing what is safe and promotes a child’s welfare, rather than balancing parental rights or perspectives or seeking neutrality between parents.

Cafcass works through a relationship‑based practice framework, Together with Children and Families, which prioritises and values the development of trusting relationships to enable sensitive and complex work with children and families. The framework encourages listening, understanding, clear reasoning, respect and integrity.

In all advice to the Family Court, Family Court Advisers are required to observe Cafcass’s statutory responsibility to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in family proceedings. This includes assessing children’s safety, understanding the harm they have experienced and the risk of further harm in existing and future contact arrangements. The advice provided to the court and the report that is filed are based on this assessment and what is safe and in the best interests of the child.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners with at least one life sentence have been transferred to open prison conditions in each year since 2020, broken down by offence.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

To answer the question would incur disproportionate cost as it would require a search of individual prisoner records. Centrally-collated data on prisoner transfers cover transfers between a predominant function closed prison and a predominant function open prison but does not distinguish instances of prisoner movements between a ‘closed’ wing and an ‘open’ wing where a prison has both types of function. Therefore, this would require a search of individual prisoner records.

Public protection remains the priority and prisoners will only be transferred to open conditions if it is assessed that it is safe to do so.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many officers in each prison are a) currently trained in Operation Tornado control and restraint procedures and b) what percentage of operational staff in each prison does this represent.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The number of officers trained in Operation Tornado control and restraint procedures, as of 31 March 2026, and the percentage of operational staff that these staff represent, are set out in the attached table.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many complaints have been made against CAFCASS in each of the last five years alleging (a) discrimination and (b) bias against fathers; and how many such complaints were upheld.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones

Cafcass does not record structured data in its complaints case management system to enable reporting on how many complaints have been made against Cafcass in each of the last five years alleging (a) discrimination and (b) bias against fathers; and how many such complaints were upheld.

This information is not recorded centrally, and the data would only be available from individual case file review at a disproportionate cost.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 1 April 2026 to Question 123531 on Prisons: Meat, what sum his Department spent on providing multi-choice, pre-select menus for (a) lunchtime and (b) evening meals in prisons in each year since 2020.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Department does not hold information on the cost of specific food items, including meat, or on expenditure associated with multi -choice or pre-selected menus. Prison expenditure on food is recorded at an aggregate level in management accounts as total prisoner food costs: it is not broken down by individual prisons, food types, menu options or dietary components. Food budgets are managed locally by Governors in the public estate, or Directors in privately managed prisons, who have flexibility within their overall allocations to meet the needs of their prison population, including religious, cultural and medical dietary requirements.

All prisons across England and Wales provide prisoners with a choice of at least five meal options at both lunch and for the evening meal. As a minimum, these options include one meat dish, one vegan dish, one vegetarian dish, one Halal dish, and one additional alternative option. This requirement was established under PSO 5000 (Prison Catering Services), and was subsequently re-affirmed in its successor policy, PSI 44/2010 Catering: Meals for Prisoners, which came into effect in October 2010.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when were prisons required to provide the option of a (a) vegan dish, (b) vegetarian dish, and (c) Halal dish for their lunch and evening meal menus.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Department does not hold information on the cost of specific food items, including meat, or on expenditure associated with multi -choice or pre-selected menus. Prison expenditure on food is recorded at an aggregate level in management accounts as total prisoner food costs: it is not broken down by individual prisons, food types, menu options or dietary components. Food budgets are managed locally by Governors in the public estate, or Directors in privately managed prisons, who have flexibility within their overall allocations to meet the needs of their prison population, including religious, cultural and medical dietary requirements.

All prisons across England and Wales provide prisoners with a choice of at least five meal options at both lunch and for the evening meal. As a minimum, these options include one meat dish, one vegan dish, one vegetarian dish, one Halal dish, and one additional alternative option. This requirement was established under PSO 5000 (Prison Catering Services), and was subsequently re-affirmed in its successor policy, PSI 44/2010 Catering: Meals for Prisoners, which came into effect in October 2010.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, when the outcomes of the pilot launched in October 2024 to provide free mental health support for jurors who hear distressing cases in Crown Courts across England and Wales will be published.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Jury service is an important civic duty. Whilst many people find it worthwhile, we recognise that some trials can be challenging. There is no formal process for keeping in touch with jurors following service, and if a juror is left distressed by any aspect of their service, they are encouraged to seek specialist support through their GP, the NHS 111 helpline which includes a dedicated mental health option, or the Samaritans.

The enhanced support for jurors pilot concluded in March 2025 and the evaluation is expected to be published soon. The Government recognises the important role jurors play and is considering how best to strengthen support in light of the pilot evaluation.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether HMCTS, the Ministry or another body has a formal process for keeping in contact with jurors hearing the most distressing cases after their jury service is complete.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Jury service is an important civic duty. Whilst many people find it worthwhile, we recognise that some trials can be challenging. There is no formal process for keeping in touch with jurors following service, and if a juror is left distressed by any aspect of their service, they are encouraged to seek specialist support through their GP, the NHS 111 helpline which includes a dedicated mental health option, or the Samaritans.

The enhanced support for jurors pilot concluded in March 2025 and the evaluation is expected to be published soon. The Government recognises the important role jurors play and is considering how best to strengthen support in light of the pilot evaluation.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what support mental health support is available to jurors in Crown Courts that were not part of the pilot launched in October 2024.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Jury service is an important civic duty. Whilst many people find it worthwhile, we recognise that some trials can be challenging. There is no formal process for keeping in touch with jurors following service, and if a juror is left distressed by any aspect of their service, they are encouraged to seek specialist support through their GP, the NHS 111 helpline which includes a dedicated mental health option, or the Samaritans.

The enhanced support for jurors pilot concluded in March 2025 and the evaluation is expected to be published soon. The Government recognises the important role jurors play and is considering how best to strengthen support in light of the pilot evaluation.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of distressing cases on the health of jurors who hear those cases.

Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)

Jury service is an important civic duty. Whilst many people find it worthwhile, we recognise that some trials can be challenging. There is no formal process for keeping in touch with jurors following service, and if a juror is left distressed by any aspect of their service, they are encouraged to seek specialist support through their GP, the NHS 111 helpline which includes a dedicated mental health option, or the Samaritans.

The enhanced support for jurors pilot concluded in March 2025 and the evaluation is expected to be published soon. The Government recognises the important role jurors play and is considering how best to strengthen support in light of the pilot evaluation.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he is taking steps to modernise the Inheritance Act to reflect a) common law partners and b) common law partners whose marriage plans were underway before one of those partners passed away.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones

There is no legal status of “common law partners” in England and Wales. Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, cohabitants (where they were living together as if married or in a civil partnership for at least two years) may apply for reasonable financial provision from a deceased partner’s estate.

The Government recognises concerns about the current position and has committed to strengthening the rights of cohabitants. We will consult in due course on potential reforms, including enhancing inheritance rights for cohabitants.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether they expect a reduction in the average time it takes for a landlord to regain possession through the courts as a result of the Renters' Rights Act 2025; and if so, when.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Ministry of Justice publishes quarterly possession statistics which monitor the volume and timeliness of possession claims in the County Court. The Civil Procedure Rules state that possession hearings should be listed between 4 and 8 weeks of a claim being issued. The latest possession statistics for October to December 2025, show a mean average of 7.3 weeks from claim to order, down from 8.0 weeks for the same period in 2024.

In the longer term, we expect the reforms to reduce the volume of possession claims as only those cases where there is a clear, well-evidenced ground for possession will be able to proceed. We are also developing a new digital possession service – doing away with outdated paper processes and reducing the chance of mistakes being made.

The timeliness of the court possession process is influenced by a number of factors including user behaviour.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether civil servants in the Ministry of Justice have been allowed or instructed to continue working on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill when this parliamentary session ends.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

Once the current parliamentary session ends, civil servants will cease to work on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Any remaining activity is limited to the management of parliamentary business and correspondence. This may include tasks such as responding to Parliamentary Questions and maintaining appropriate records, in line with normal procedures.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government how many civil servants in the Ministry of Justice are working on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The number of civil servants working on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill has varied over time. As of 21 April 2026, there were 2.8 full-time equivalent (FTE) officials in the Ministry of Justice.

Where necessary, specialist input has also been provided by officials from other teams and Departments on specific issues. This input is drawn from existing resources and cannot be reliably quantified as a separate FTE figure.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask His Majesty's Government, in the context of the Civil Justice Council's review of litigation funding and the Government's plans to regulate litigation funding, (1) what definition of litigation funding agreements they propose to adopt; (2) whether portfolio funding will be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority as a form of loan in line with the Council's recommendation 28, or under any proposed litigation funding regulations; and (3) what steps they are taking to ensure that both forms of funding are subject to appropriate and distinct regulatory oversight.

Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)

The Government welcomes the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review and is carefully considering all its recommendations.

As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government’s priority is to accept the CJC’s two primary recommendations and legislate to clarify that Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) are not Damages-Based Agreements and introduce light-touch regulation of LFAs. As we determine the appropriate form of regulation, we will consider the most suitable definition of a LFA. We will continue to engage with stakeholders as we develop this policy to ensure that any future framework provides for proportionate and effective regulation.

Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations, including those relating to portfolio funding, in more detail. We will provide further information in due course.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of bail conditions in reducing reoffending and protecting the public in cases involving persons under the age of 18 accused of violent offences.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Government is clear that when the courts are considering bail for children charged with violent offences, public protection should always be the foremost priority, alongside reducing the risk of offending. For children, there is the option of imposing Bail Intensive Support and Supervision which includes high levels of contact, monitoring, structured activity and in some cases electronic tags.

While evidence specifically on the effectiveness of different bail conditions on reducing offending or protection of the public is limited, there is evidence on the factors that reduce the chances of a child offending. The key principles of lowering the risk of offending include therapeutic rather than punitive responses, and family-based interventions that draw on community support and address wider needs, such as education and health. A strong and robust bail package is expected to address these key principles to ensure public safety.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what comparative assessment he has made of the level of support in prisons for parents on remand or serving custodial sentences with the potential impact on rehabilitation.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

We know that supporting and maintaining positive family relationships, where safe and appropriate, is an important factor in reducing reoffending and desistance from crime, with recently published research finding that prisoners who received visits were 3 percentage points less likely to reoffend within one year of release (25% vs 28%). Prisons will assess the need for individual, tailored family support on a case-by-case basis, noting that this is not always appropriate for all prisoners or their families.

Family support is a central component of a rehabilitative prison environment and is recognised as critical to the wellbeing of individuals in custody, regardless of their legal status. To support this, prisons across England and Wales offer a range of services to maintain family relationships including social visits, family days and the award-winning charity led initiative Storybook Mums and Dads, enabling parents in prison to record bedtime stories for their children. Both remand and convicted prisoners can access the full range of family support services, which includes access to family support workers, parenting support, and signposting to advice and external agencies.

Support for maintaining family contact is consistent across remand and convicted prisoners, who can contact their family through visits, telephone and video calls, and letters. Under Prison Rules, remand prisoners are entitled to a greater number of visits than convicted prisoners which reflects the legal distinction between those awaiting a trial or sentencing, and those who are convicted. Additionally, remand prisoners can spend more money on phone credit or postage stamps, should they wish to send additional mail. This is a result of statutory entitlements, and beyond these distinctions, there is no difference in the family support offer between remand and convicted prisoners.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, (a) what steps his Department has taken to implement the recommendations of Lord Farmer's 2017 review and (b) whether further steps are planned.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Lord Farmer’s 2017 review highlighted the importance of family and supportive relationships in rehabilitation and reducing re-offending. Since then, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has taken extensive action to put those recommendations into practice, with the majority now completed. All prisons are required to publish local family and ‘significant other’ strategies, to seek and respond to the views of families in supporting people in custody, including in relation to release planning, and to identify and support prisoners without family or relationship contact. These principles are now embedded within HMPPS Family Services and continue to inform practice across the prison estate.

HMPPS has also implemented recommendations on the positive role of prisoner-to-prisoner relationships, strengthening peer support and mentoring through existing roles such as peer mentors, Listeners, wing representatives and learning tutors. Work is under way to develop a common set of standards for peer support and mentoring, using an evidence-led approach to testing, evaluation and potential future scaling up, to improve quality, consistency and safeguards.

The Ministry of Justice and HMPPS continue to work with Lord Farmer and delivery partners to monitor and strengthen delivery through inspection and performance frameworks. Further work is planned to build on this foundation, particularly to strengthen family engagement and pro-social peer relationships as part of a wider rehabilitative culture informed by desistance principles and psychologically informed practice.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions he has had with representatives from prisons on making prison visits more suitable for children and families.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Ministry of Justice Ministers have frequent discussions with prison staff on all aspects of the prison experience. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) encourages prisons to make the experience of those visiting prisoners the ‘best it can be’, and to seek feedback from visitors on how to improve services. Information on the quality of social visits, including feedback from stakeholders, is included in the HMPPS Families Performance Improvement Measure.

Supporting consistent contact between parents in prison and their children where it is safe and appropriate, helps to mitigate the harm arising from separation caused by imprisonment.

Making prison visits family‑friendly is an important element of maintaining family ties and supporting effective rehabilitation. Visiting a prison can be a daunting experience for anyone, particularly those already coping with the emotional impact of having a loved-one in custody. A welcoming visiting environment helps to reduce fear, anxiety and stigma, enabling families to feel safe and supported during what may be a stressful experience.

Family‑friendly visits allow relations to interact more naturally, supporting healthy attachment and emotional wellbeing. Simple measures such as clear information, trained staff, suitable facilities and access to play or activity areas can make a significant difference to the experience. These features help visits to feel more like a normal family interaction and allow parents in custody to maintain a meaningful role in their child’s life.

Prison video calling is already an established part of the prison communications offer. The provision of secure social video calls, as a supplement to letters, telephone calls and in‑person visits, supports the maintenance of family ties and reflects key recommendations made in Lord Farmer’s reviews, which highlighted the importance of strong family relationships in reducing the risk of re‑offending.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners were released early in Lincolnshire in the last 12 months.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

This Government inherited prisons days from collapse. We had no choice but to take decisive action to stop our prisons overflowing and keep the public safe.

Without the changes this Government made, courts would have had to halt trials and the police cancel arrests, undermining public safety and leading to a disastrous impact on public confidence in the criminal justice system.

We regularly publish data on release from prison, including on forms of early release – for example we publish SDS40 data alongside the quarterly Offender Management statistics: Standard Determinate Sentence (SDS40) release data - GOV.UK.

Whilst measures like the SDS40 change provided the intended medium-term relief to the system, this was only ever a temporary change as a bridge to a more sustainable solution. That is why the Sentencing Act has now been passed, to ensure we never run out of prison space again and to deliver a more sustainable solution to the prison capacity crisis.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will publish the list of training programmes used by civil servants in his Department since 2020.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions he has had with representatives from prisons on allowing prisoners to have virtual visits with their children through longer and high-quality video calls.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Ministry of Justice Ministers have frequent discussions with prison staff on all aspects of the prison experience. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) encourages prisons to make the experience of those visiting prisoners the ‘best it can be’, and to seek feedback from visitors on how to improve services. Information on the quality of social visits, including feedback from stakeholders, is included in the HMPPS Families Performance Improvement Measure.

Supporting consistent contact between parents in prison and their children where it is safe and appropriate, helps to mitigate the harm arising from separation caused by imprisonment.

Making prison visits family‑friendly is an important element of maintaining family ties and supporting effective rehabilitation. Visiting a prison can be a daunting experience for anyone, particularly those already coping with the emotional impact of having a loved-one in custody. A welcoming visiting environment helps to reduce fear, anxiety and stigma, enabling families to feel safe and supported during what may be a stressful experience.

Family‑friendly visits allow relations to interact more naturally, supporting healthy attachment and emotional wellbeing. Simple measures such as clear information, trained staff, suitable facilities and access to play or activity areas can make a significant difference to the experience. These features help visits to feel more like a normal family interaction and allow parents in custody to maintain a meaningful role in their child’s life.

Prison video calling is already an established part of the prison communications offer. The provision of secure social video calls, as a supplement to letters, telephone calls and in‑person visits, supports the maintenance of family ties and reflects key recommendations made in Lord Farmer’s reviews, which highlighted the importance of strong family relationships in reducing the risk of re‑offending.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of making support for parents in prisons a Key Performance Indicator.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Decisions on changes to prison key performance indicators, including whether to introduce new or more explicit measures focused on support for parents in prison, must balance the benefits of clearer accountability with the need to ensure performance frameworks remain proportionate, measurable and focused on outcomes.

Any proposed changes are considered alongside inspection evidence and operational priorities.

Families provision in prisons is currently monitored by the family ties performance measure. The Department will continue to consider how best to reflect the role of family and parental support in prison performance measures as we develop the prison performance framework.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he plans to respond to the Ipsos MORI research project on the retributive benefit of prison before summer recess 2026.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Department is working to start an academic Peer Review of the Ipsos Mori Retribution survey ahead of publication to ensure it is analytically robust and the results are interpreted correctly. The process will begin in Summer this year.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether representatives of prison officers were consulted over the (a) design, and (b) procurement of new protective body armour.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) is committed to equipping up to 10,000 staff with protective body armour by March 2027. Work is continuing to support delivery against this commitment, ensuring it is implemented in a controlled and proportionate manner, with appropriate governance and oversight in place.

Both the Prison Officers Association and the Prison Governors Association were consulted in the initial stages about all aspects of the protective body armour project, including in relation to the product selection. Monthly engagement takes place with both unions to enable ongoing consultation.

HMPPS engages in quarterly discussions with recognised trade unions. These meetings form part of HMPPS’s formal engagement and allow unions to raise concerns on safety matters.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many bids were accepted for the contract to provide up to 10,000 sets of protective body armour for prison officers; and whether any provider of new sets of protective body armour for prison officers has previously provided similar equipment for use by police officers.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice has awarded a contract to Safariland UK LTD for 6,250 sets of Body Armour for Prison Officers. The Ministry of Justice received two bids from suppliers and accepted one.

This contract was tendered via a Bluelight Commercial Framework. This initial opportunity for this Framework was published by BlueLight Commercial on 8 July 2022 [Provision of General Patrol and Firearms Body Armour - Find a Tender] and then awarded on 16 March 2023 [Provision of General Patrol and Firearms Body Armour - Find a Tender]. The Ministry of Justice, following Cabinet Office guidelines to utilise frameworks where appropriate, conducted a further competition via this framework and subsequently published the award on 22 January 2026 [Supply of Protective Body Armour - Find a Tender].

The Bluelight Framework at the initial opportunity was available for all the market to bid for, so therefore open. The Ministry of Justice has followed all the guidelines and published notices in accordance with the regulations. The process was effective as Frameworks offer the shortest route to contract award and in line with Cabinet Office policy.

The requirements of the body armour for prison officers are ballistic, knife and spike and the product sourced meets the Home Office Standard [Body armour standard 2017: [CAST Publication number: 012/17 Body armour standard 2017 - GOV.UK]. The Home Office standard is frequently used by other Government agencies, so in that respect the Police will have similar body armour. For example, Safariland UK Ltd has supplied various Police forces and the Ministry of Defence Police with body armour that meets the Home Office Standard.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to ensure that the process of procuring up to 10,000 sets of protective body armour for prison officers is (a) open, (b) transparent, and (c) effective.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice has awarded a contract to Safariland UK LTD for 6,250 sets of Body Armour for Prison Officers. The Ministry of Justice received two bids from suppliers and accepted one.

This contract was tendered via a Bluelight Commercial Framework. This initial opportunity for this Framework was published by BlueLight Commercial on 8 July 2022 [Provision of General Patrol and Firearms Body Armour - Find a Tender] and then awarded on 16 March 2023 [Provision of General Patrol and Firearms Body Armour - Find a Tender]. The Ministry of Justice, following Cabinet Office guidelines to utilise frameworks where appropriate, conducted a further competition via this framework and subsequently published the award on 22 January 2026 [Supply of Protective Body Armour - Find a Tender].

The Bluelight Framework at the initial opportunity was available for all the market to bid for, so therefore open. The Ministry of Justice has followed all the guidelines and published notices in accordance with the regulations. The process was effective as Frameworks offer the shortest route to contract award and in line with Cabinet Office policy.

The requirements of the body armour for prison officers are ballistic, knife and spike and the product sourced meets the Home Office Standard [Body armour standard 2017: [CAST Publication number: 012/17 Body armour standard 2017 - GOV.UK]. The Home Office standard is frequently used by other Government agencies, so in that respect the Police will have similar body armour. For example, Safariland UK Ltd has supplied various Police forces and the Ministry of Defence Police with body armour that meets the Home Office Standard.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the tender for providing up to 10,000 sets of protective body armour for prison officers was made public, and if he will make a statement.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

The Ministry of Justice has awarded a contract to Safariland UK LTD for 6,250 sets of Body Armour for Prison Officers. The Ministry of Justice received two bids from suppliers and accepted one.

This contract was tendered via a Bluelight Commercial Framework. This initial opportunity for this Framework was published by BlueLight Commercial on 8 July 2022 [Provision of General Patrol and Firearms Body Armour - Find a Tender] and then awarded on 16 March 2023 [Provision of General Patrol and Firearms Body Armour - Find a Tender]. The Ministry of Justice, following Cabinet Office guidelines to utilise frameworks where appropriate, conducted a further competition via this framework and subsequently published the award on 22 January 2026 [Supply of Protective Body Armour - Find a Tender].

The Bluelight Framework at the initial opportunity was available for all the market to bid for, so therefore open. The Ministry of Justice has followed all the guidelines and published notices in accordance with the regulations. The process was effective as Frameworks offer the shortest route to contract award and in line with Cabinet Office policy.

The requirements of the body armour for prison officers are ballistic, knife and spike and the product sourced meets the Home Office Standard [Body armour standard 2017: [CAST Publication number: 012/17 Body armour standard 2017 - GOV.UK]. The Home Office standard is frequently used by other Government agencies, so in that respect the Police will have similar body armour. For example, Safariland UK Ltd has supplied various Police forces and the Ministry of Defence Police with body armour that meets the Home Office Standard.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his department plans to recognise independent celebrants as part of marriage law reform.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones

The Government recognises the contribution that independent celebrants make to the wedding industry. We have been seeking their views, together with a range of others, in order to inform the development of a consultation. We will invite views as to allowing independent officiants to carry out legally binding weddings and the potential consequences of this as part of the consultation

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he plans to conduct a public consultation on wedding reform.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones

Yes, we will be consulting on the reform of weddings law in England and Wales.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether the new Deputy Prime Minister will have an office in 70 Whitehall office; how many staff he will have; and whether he plans to create an Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

Answered by David Lammy - Deputy Prime Minister

The Deputy Prime Minister has an office in Dover House. He is supported by an Office of Deputy Prime Minister which coordinates work across Departments and supports the delivery of the Deputy Prime Minister’s priorities.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the policy responsibilities will be of the new Deputy Prime Minister; and whether he will have responsibility for (a) industrial relations and (b) employment law.

Answered by David Lammy - Deputy Prime Minister

Responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister are published on gov.uk.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his Department taking to help prevent prisoners from avoiding their Release on Temporary Licence.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) is a key part of preparing individuals for safe resettlement into the community. The Ministry of Justice takes the risk of prisoners failing to return from ROTL extremely seriously. I have assumed that it is this risk that you are referring to when you ask about preventing prisoners from ‘avoiding their Release on Temporary Licence'.

ROTL is only granted following a rigorous risk assessment and is available only to prisoners who meet strict eligibility criteria. Decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the prisoner’s behaviour and compliance in custody, the nature of their index offence, and the purpose of the release.

Where ROTL is approved, prisoners are subject to clear licence conditions, monitoring requirements and, where appropriate, curfews and checks on employment or resettlement placements. The inherent risk that offenders breach the trust placed in them is closely managed through robust controls.

Any failure to return from ROTL is a criminal offence and can result in recall to custody, removal of future ROTL, and prosecution with a custodial sentence imposed. Where a prisoner fails to return, prisons and the police act promptly to locate and return the individual to custody.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if his Department will make an assessment of the adequacy of the timescale permitted for a second post-mortem examination.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones

Once a death has been reported to a coroner, the deceased person’s body remains in the legal control of the coroner until released for burial or cremation. During this time, decisions relating to the body, including on whether to order a post-mortem examination or permit a second post‑mortem examination, are a matter for the coroner as an independent judge.

The Chief Coroner has provided guidance for coroners which makes clear that, where a second post‑mortem examination is permitted, it should be carried out as quickly as possible following the first examination and, unless there are exceptional circumstances, within 28 days of the death being reported to the coroner. The coroner must inform the deceased person’s next of kin or personal representative if the body cannot be released for burial or cremation within this period.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will take steps to reduce the timescale allowed for a second post-mortem examination.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones

Once a death has been reported to a coroner, the deceased person’s body remains in the legal control of the coroner until released for burial or cremation. During this time, decisions relating to the body, including on whether to order a post-mortem examination or permit a second post‑mortem examination, are a matter for the coroner as an independent judge.

The Chief Coroner has provided guidance for coroners which makes clear that, where a second post‑mortem examination is permitted, it should be carried out as quickly as possible following the first examination and, unless there are exceptional circumstances, within 28 days of the death being reported to the coroner. The coroner must inform the deceased person’s next of kin or personal representative if the body cannot be released for burial or cremation within this period.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department is responsible for reforming the regulation of funeral directors.

Answered by Alex Davies-Jones

The Department of Health and Social Care will lead on co-ordinating cross‑government work to raise standards in relation to the care and treatment of the deceased, supported by the Department of Business and Trade, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what minimum English language proficiency requirements apply to probation officers and probation services staff; and whether his Department or HM Prison and Probation Service has conducted any audits or assessments in the last five years of the ability of non‑native English‑speaking staff in those roles to communicate effectively in English with offenders under supervision.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to WPQ 125951 submitted on the 30th March, what the new cost per minute of call is under the rates agreed for the period between 1 April 2025 to 31 May 2027.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what minimum English language proficiency requirements apply to prison officers in England and Wales; and whether his Department or HM Prison and Probation Service has conducted any audits or assessments in the last five years of the ability of non‑native English‑speaking officers to communicate effectively in English with prisoners and colleagues.

Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip

It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.

Found: DWP, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Home Office and Ministry of Justice have

Found: Transfer to Cabinet Office for Civil Service Live 2026-0.18=C22+D22(Section A) Transfer to Ministry of Justice

Found: of the reform programme in Technical & Vocational Qualification 0.0 (2.0) (2.0) 0.0 Ministry of Justice

Found: educational needs (income from the DfE) ▪ Inspection of education and training in prisons (income from MoJ

Found: sustainability of children’s care homes HC 1233 60th DWP follow-up: Autumn 2025 HC 1447 59th Ministry of Justice

Found: T +4420 3334 3555 F +44870 761 7753 E https://contact-moj.service.justice.gov.uk/ www.gov.uk/moj

Found: of the first legally binding international AI treaty on 5 September 2024 is a key step.105 Ministry of Justice

Found: Ministry of Justice NIO Northern Ireland Office OFCOM Office of Communications OfS Office for Students

Found: T +4420 3334 3555 F +44870 761 7753 E https://contact-moj.service.justice.gov.uk/ www.gov.uk/moj

Found: We have been greatly supported by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the (a) Ministry of Justice, (b) Department for Education and (c) Government Equalities Office including in their workstreams into the work of the Men's Health Strategy Stakeholder Group.

Answered by Sharon Hodgson - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Men’s Health Stakeholder Group is an advisory group that provides advice to the Department on the implementation of the Men’s Health Strategy. It reports to the Men’s Health Project Board. The project board coordinates delivery across the Department and works with other relevant Government departments that are responsible for actions in the strategy. The project board reports to the Minister responsible for men’s health.

Information relating to the Men’s Health Stakeholder Group, including membership and meeting minutes, is available at the following link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/mens-health-strategy-governance

The Department is closely engaged with the work of the Deputy Prime Minister, who is leading a cross-Government agenda on improving outcomes for men and boys. The Deputy Prime Minister is convening departments and partners to deliver coordinated action, focusing on three core themes: education and employment; health and wellbeing; and masculinities and connection. The Deputy Prime Minister recently chaired the first Inter-Ministerial Group on this issue, to which the Department of Health and Social Care heavily contributed and a minister attended.

Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, with reference to item 105 of the letter sent from Lord Strathclyde, Chair of the Constitution Committee to Stephen Doughty MP, Minister of State for Europe, North America and Overseas Territories regarding the UK-Overseas Joint Declaration, published 17 April 2026, which Ministers have (a) designated responsibility for Overseas Territories matters and (b) attend the cross-governmental Ministerial group on the Territories by Department.

Answered by Stephen Doughty - Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)

Ministers who currently hold designated responsibility for Overseas Territories matters are: the Cabinet Office Minister of State; Economic Secretary to the Treasury; Ministry of Justice Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Sentencing, Youth Justice and International; Home Office Minister of State (House of Lords); Department for Energy Security and Net Zero Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Climate); Ministry of Defence Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for the Armed Forces); Department of Business and Trade Minister of State (Minister for Trade); Department for Culture Media and Sport Minister of State (Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts); Department for Science, Innovation and Technology Minister of State (Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear); Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Nature); Department of Health and Social Care Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health Innovation and Safety; Department for Transport Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Aviation, Maritime and Decarbonisation); Solicitor General; Department for Education Minister of State (Minister for Skills); Secretary of State for Scotland and one of the Wales Office Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State.

All these Ministers are invited to attend the cross-governmental Ministerial Group on the Overseas Territories.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that families and carers of patients affected by changes to services at St Andrew’s Hospital in Northampton are involved in decisions about alternative care arrangements.

Answered by Zubir Ahmed

The failings exposed at St Andrew’s Hospital in Northampton site are completely unacceptable. The accounts of poor care, patient harm, and sustained risks to vulnerable people are deeply distressing, and the safety and wellbeing of patients remains our foremost priority throughout this process.

NHS England has required commissioners to begin identifying alternative inpatient placements for patients at St Andrew’s Hospital in Northampton following ongoing concerns about patient safety. Transfers are being managed carefully and in phases, based on individual clinical assessments, and patients will only move when a suitable alternative placement has been identified that can safely meet their needs. Enhanced clinical oversight has been put in place at the site, and NHS England is working closely with placing commissioners and provider networks to ensure transfers prioritise patient safety, continuity of care and compliance with the Mental Health Act where applicable.

We recognise that many patients at St Andrew’s will have limited capacity to advocate for themselves. Their voices, and those of their families and representatives, must be central to this process. Enhanced advocacy provision is already in place, and patient communications including accessible and Easy Read formats are being developed to support understanding and reduce anxiety.

After discussing with the NHS, a patient’s placing commissioner will talk with them to explain the options being considered for the best place for them to go next. They will listen to each patient’s preferences and feed these back to the NHS so they can be taken into account when making plans. Advanced advocacy support for patients is also in place. However, the final decision will also depend on the care needs of each patient and what services are available.

Where a patient is receiving care in an adult secure service, decisions will also need to consider risk and any requirements from the Ministry of Justice that may apply. These factors help the team decide the most appropriate place for ongoing care.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that patients affected by changes to services at St Andrew’s Hospital in Northampton are transferred safely to appropriate alternative mental health provision.

Answered by Zubir Ahmed

The failings exposed at St Andrew’s Hospital in Northampton site are completely unacceptable. The accounts of poor care, patient harm, and sustained risks to vulnerable people are deeply distressing, and the safety and wellbeing of patients remains our foremost priority throughout this process.

NHS England has required commissioners to begin identifying alternative inpatient placements for patients at St Andrew’s Hospital in Northampton following ongoing concerns about patient safety. Transfers are being managed carefully and in phases, based on individual clinical assessments, and patients will only move when a suitable alternative placement has been identified that can safely meet their needs. Enhanced clinical oversight has been put in place at the site, and NHS England is working closely with placing commissioners and provider networks to ensure transfers prioritise patient safety, continuity of care and compliance with the Mental Health Act where applicable.

We recognise that many patients at St Andrew’s will have limited capacity to advocate for themselves. Their voices, and those of their families and representatives, must be central to this process. Enhanced advocacy provision is already in place, and patient communications including accessible and Easy Read formats are being developed to support understanding and reduce anxiety.

After discussing with the NHS, a patient’s placing commissioner will talk with them to explain the options being considered for the best place for them to go next. They will listen to each patient’s preferences and feed these back to the NHS so they can be taken into account when making plans. Advanced advocacy support for patients is also in place. However, the final decision will also depend on the care needs of each patient and what services are available.

Where a patient is receiving care in an adult secure service, decisions will also need to consider risk and any requirements from the Ministry of Justice that may apply. These factors help the team decide the most appropriate place for ongoing care.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of whether the number of deaths from anorexia nervosa recorded by the Office of National Statistics is in line with the mortality rates suggested by clinical prevalence data; and, if there is a disparity between the two, what assessment they have made of the reasons why.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

The Office for National Statistics’ mortality data comes from the information collected at death registration on death certificates and would be the most accurate source for the information. For this reason, the Department has not made an assessment of the number of deaths from anorexia nervosa.

However, the Government shares concerns about the accurate recording of deaths, including when eating disorders may have been a contributing factor. The statutory medical examiner and coroner systems provide a clear framework to ensure deaths are appropriately investigated and recorded, so that lessons are identified and patient safety is strengthened.

Ultimately, the Ministry of Justice owns coroner policy, and it is for the coroner, exercising independent judicial discretion, to determine what is recorded on the medical cause of death.

Accurate recording does matter, and we will continue to work with partners, including colleagues at the Ministry of Justice, to ensure that learning is captured and reflected in improvements to care.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of mental health crisis and inpatient provision in Northamptonshire following changes to services at St Andrew’s Hospital.

Answered by Zubir Ahmed

St Andrew’s site in Northampton provides care for a complex mix of patients on both an inpatient and outpatient basis. The decision by NHS England relates to inpatients at St Andrew’s Northampton site only. It is important to note that Care Quality Commission enforcement against St Andrew’s meant that no new patients have been admitted to the inpatient unit at Northampton for some time.

Of the inpatients at St Andrew’s Northampton site, the majority are adult secure commissioned patients. Many of these patients are subject to Ministry of Justice restrictions. The decision will mean limitation upon the number of available adult secure beds in Northamptonshire, however alternative placements are being sought for patients in the region as well as in surrounding areas. The majority of other patients in St Andrew’s, Northamptonshire are patients placed by integrated care boards (ICB) into other core mental health services provided by St Andrew’s.

NHS England is working with all placing commissioners, including Northamptonshire ICB, the East Midlands provider collaboratives and local providers, asking them to identify and transfer patients to alternative placements (within the community, other health or detained settings) in line with clinical need and informed by patient and family wishes. This approach is being informed by available capacity, impact across services and enabling the identification of specific additional requirements. This is a live situation; therefore, the assessment and response are evolving. An Ethics Framework has been used to guide decision making recognising that there are a range of risks which need to be carefully balanced. Recognising the wider health and economic context for the county, Northamptonshire ICB have also convened a local system response forum to ensure that local partners are informed and engaged.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government, from the allocations of gambling levy funds already announced, how many allocations have been given to projects targeted at prisoners or people on probation; and what is the total amount of those allocations.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

In April 2025, the statutory levy on gambling operators came into effect to fund the research, prevention, and treatment of gambling-related harm in Great Britain. As part of the transition to the new levy system, commissioners are working collaboratively on the development of their programmes, drawing on expertise from across the system.

The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) and NHS England ran separate voluntary, community, and social enterprise (VCSE) prevention and treatment grants, commissioning various projects to support people at risk of, or experiencing, gambling-related harms, and affected others.

On 7 April, OHID published a list of 33 organisations provisionally awarded over £25.4 million of funding for 2026 to 2028 through the prevention grant. Funding has been provided to organisations supporting a range of population groups, including those working with prisoners and people on probation. This will support OHID’s 'test and learn' approach to better understanding which interventions are most effective in preventing gambling harm.

NHS England has also made provisional grant funding offers to 19 VCSE organisations providing a range of treatment and support services across England.

Whilst work to finalise grant agreements is underway, it is not possible to confirm the number of levy allocations or a total funding amount targeting specific groups, including prisoners or people on probation.

The Government remains committed to tackling gambling-related harms and will continue to work with partners across the Government, including the Ministry of Justice, HM Prison and Probation Service, and the sector to identify priority populations and settings where levy-funded action may have the greatest impact. OHID is also separately distributing £12 million to upper-tier local councils for 2026 to 2027 to help them prevent and reduce gambling-related harms.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to commission non-NHS community-based programmes or peer support programmes to reduce gambling and gambling-related harms among prisoners and those on probation using gambling levy funds.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

In April 2025, the statutory levy on gambling operators came into effect to fund the research, prevention, and treatment of gambling-related harm in Great Britain. As part of the transition to the new levy system, commissioners are working collaboratively on the development of their programmes, drawing on expertise from across the system.

The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) and NHS England ran separate voluntary, community, and social enterprise (VCSE) prevention and treatment grants, commissioning various projects to support people at risk of, or experiencing, gambling-related harms, and affected others.

On 7 April, OHID published a list of 33 organisations provisionally awarded over £25.4 million of funding for 2026 to 2028 through the prevention grant. Funding has been provided to organisations supporting a range of population groups, including those working with prisoners and people on probation. This will support OHID’s 'test and learn' approach to better understanding which interventions are most effective in preventing gambling harm.

NHS England has also made provisional grant funding offers to 19 VCSE organisations providing a range of treatment and support services across England.

Whilst work to finalise grant agreements is underway, it is not possible to confirm the number of levy allocations or a total funding amount targeting specific groups, including prisoners or people on probation.

The Government remains committed to tackling gambling-related harms and will continue to work with partners across the Government, including the Ministry of Justice, HM Prison and Probation Service, and the sector to identify priority populations and settings where levy-funded action may have the greatest impact. OHID is also separately distributing £12 million to upper-tier local councils for 2026 to 2027 to help them prevent and reduce gambling-related harms.

Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to use funds from the gambling levy for interventions for gambling disorders for prisoners and people on probation.

Answered by Baroness Merron - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department of Health and Social Care)

In April 2025, the statutory levy on gambling operators came into effect to fund the research, prevention, and treatment of gambling-related harm in Great Britain. As part of the transition to the new levy system, commissioners are working collaboratively on the development of their programmes, drawing on expertise from across the system.

The Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) and NHS England ran separate voluntary, community, and social enterprise (VCSE) prevention and treatment grants, commissioning various projects to support people at risk of, or experiencing, gambling-related harms, and affected others.

On 7 April, OHID published a list of 33 organisations provisionally awarded over £25.4 million of funding for 2026 to 2028 through the prevention grant. Funding has been provided to organisations supporting a range of population groups, including those working with prisoners and people on probation. This will support OHID’s 'test and learn' approach to better understanding which interventions are most effective in preventing gambling harm.

NHS England has also made provisional grant funding offers to 19 VCSE organisations providing a range of treatment and support services across England.

Whilst work to finalise grant agreements is underway, it is not possible to confirm the number of levy allocations or a total funding amount targeting specific groups, including prisoners or people on probation.

The Government remains committed to tackling gambling-related harms and will continue to work with partners across the Government, including the Ministry of Justice, HM Prison and Probation Service, and the sector to identify priority populations and settings where levy-funded action may have the greatest impact. OHID is also separately distributing £12 million to upper-tier local councils for 2026 to 2027 to help them prevent and reduce gambling-related harms.

Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:

To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 26 November 2025 to Question 92754, on Rents: Appeals, whether (a) suitable arrangements for monitoring data relating to rent increase challenges in the Residential Property Tribunal and (b) all other necessary work to prepare the justice system has been or will be completed prior to implementation of the Renters' Rights Act 2025 on 1 May 2026.

Answered by Matthew Pennycook - Minister of State (Housing, Communities and Local Government)

My Department continues to work closely with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunal Service to ensure that the justice system is well prepared for the implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act, including the potential impact of the Act on the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

This includes ensuring that suitable arrangements are in place for monitoring data relating to rent increase challenges in the Residential Property Tribunal.

The justice system will be supported with appropriate funding to ensure that the courts and tribunals have the resources and capacity they need to handle the workload that implementation of the Act will generate.

All other necessary work to prepare the justice system is expected to be completed by 1 May 2026.

The UK stands for justice and human rights, yet many life-sentence prisoners remain in custody for excessive periods despite clear evidence of rehabilitation and reform. We ask the Ministry of Justice to introduce a structured review process allowing tariff reductions, early parole or deportation.

Found: We ask the Ministry of Justice to introduce a structured review process allowing tariff reductions, early

Found: govuk-template--rebranded" lang="en">