Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the case of Mohammed Alazawi who has been sentenced to nine years' imprisonment for crimes related to the non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
The Ministry of Justice has no responsibility for non-therapeutic male circumcision or its regulation.
The Government, however, sympathises with the children and families affected by the harm caused by unregulated and irresponsible individuals who claim to be medical practitioners. It is right that those who act outside the law, as in the case of Mr Alazawi, are held accountable and brought to justice in these cases.
Non-therapeutic male circumcision refers to procedures not medically necessary. While the Government respects that some parents seek this for religious or cultural reasons, it would urge all families to ensure the procedure is carried out safely, with the child’s wellbeing given the highest priority. We would also encourage parents, before such a procedure is undertaken on their child, to discuss the matter first with their GP or healthcare practitioner.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the case of R v Mohammad Siddiqui [2025], in particular the remarks of HHJ Lucas KC that “safeguards and protections must now be put in place and put in place as a matter of urgency, to ensure that babies and young children are protected” from ritual circumcision.
Answered by Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
The Ministry of Justice has no responsibility for non-therapeutic male circumcision or its regulation. The Government does, however, understand and sympathise with the children and their families who experience harm or trauma as a result of the behaviour of unregulated and irresponsible practitioners. It is important that those who engage in these activities, and do not comply with the required regulations, are brought to justice.
Male circumcision performed for any other reason than a physical clinical need is termed as “non-therapeutic male circumcision”. The Government is aware that parents for religious reasons, or to incorporate a child into a community, may request such a procedure. The Government would encourage all parents to ensure that in seeking such a procedure, that they discuss the matter first with their GP or healthcare practitioner.
Where a registered healthcare professional wishes to carry out non-therapeutic male circumcision, they must be registered with the Care Quality Commission to carry out the regulated activity of surgical procedures. Even where a healthcare professional is acting in a religious or spiritual role, they cannot ‘opt out’ of their core duties and responsibilities.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many Deprivation of Liberty orders were issued each month since July to individuals in care who were under 16 years old.
Answered by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar - Shadow Attorney General
The Ministry of Justice does not collect data on the number of deprivation of liberty orders in relation to individuals in care who were under 16 years old.
Applications for deprivation of liberty orders can be made by local authorities when they need to accommodate a child in a non-secure placement. Cafcass – the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service – collect the data on these applications from local authorities and 164 deprivation of liberty applications were made in the period 1 July – 31 October 2021.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what safeguards they have put in place to ensure equitable outcomes for prosecutions using the single justice procedure introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Answered by Baroness Scott of Bybrook - Shadow Minister (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
No additional safeguards have been put in place for Single Justice Procedure cases due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A case dealt with under the Single Justice Procedure is dealt with in the same way as any other case, except that a single magistrate can deal with it (rather than two) and the hearing need not be in public. Therefore, the magistrate must comply with the same legislative safeguards as all other proceedings, and the Sentencing Council Sentencing Guidelines apply in the same way.
In addition, the Single Justice Procedure has a number of further safeguards in place. All defendants can veto the procedure and insist on a hearing in open court. In addition, the magistrate can decide to refer the case to open court if they deem the case is not appropriately dealt with using the Procedure. As with any conviction and sentence by a magistrates’ court, the defendant has the right of appeal against conviction and sentence to the Crown Court.
If a defendant was unaware of the proceedings they are entitled to make a statutory declaration which revokes the conviction and recommences the proceedings.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Leader of the House why the question for Topical Written Answer (1) HL3844, tabled on 5 May and due for answer on 13 May, and (2) HL4440, tabled on 13 May and due for answer on 20 May, have not been answered. [T]
Answered by Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The Department of Health and Social Care has received unprecedented levels of written parliamentary questions this year, numbering over 6,000 of which 4,496 have been answered. The department has had to re-allocate staff to deal with this pandemic and are working extremely hard to manage the Covid-19 crisis and to provide updates, advice and guidance to parliament and the public. In addition, my office and I are in regular contact with the Department of Health and Social Care with regards to written questions.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what information they hold centrally on Personal Independent Payment appeal waiting times.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie - Shadow Minister (Justice)
HM Courts and Tribunals Service records, and publishes, information about clearance times for appeals to the Tribunal. Clearance times are calculated from receipt of the appeal to the final disposal decision. The final outcome of any appeal is not necessarily achieved at its first hearing (i.e. waiting time for a Tribunal). The final disposal decision may be reached after an earlier hearing had been adjourned (which may be directed by the judge for a variety of reasons, such as to seek further evidence), or after an earlier hearing date had been postponed (again, for a variety of reasons, often at the request of the appellant). An appeal may also have been decided at an earlier date by the First-tier Tribunal, only for the case to have gone on to the Upper Tribunal, to be returned once again to the First-tier, for its final disposal.
Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) appeals are listed into the hearing venue nearest to the appellant’s home address and statistics are collated according to the venue where the case is heard. Clearance times for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) appeals by SSCS venue are held centrally, as are overall waiting times. For the period June to September 2019, the latest period for which data are available, the average overall clearance time for a PIP appeal was 30 weeks.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the longest wait in days for each Job Centre Plus District for people waiting for an appeal hearing for Personal Independence Payment.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie - Shadow Minister (Justice)
The information requested is not held centrally.
Asked by: Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of reports that people in West Yorkshire have waited over 100 weeks for their Personal Independence Payment appeal hearings; and, if there is such a backlog, why.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie - Shadow Minister (Justice)
For the period 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 (the latest period for which data are available) there were a total of 571 appeals where people in West Yorkshire2 waited more than 100 weeks for their Personal Independence Payment (PIP)3 appeal hearing. This represents 1.5% of the total number of cases cleared at hearing.
1Data includes cases cleared at a Tribunal hearing. A Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) appeal may be captured more than once as a hearing should the original decision be overturned, set aside or an Upper Tribunal re-hearing is granted. The data are based on the time from receipt in HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) to the last decision within the period.
2SSCS data are recorded by the office that dealt with the case, and if the case went to oral hearing, the location of the tribunal hearing, normally the hearing venue nearest to the appellant’s home address. Cases relating to the West Yorkshire region are attributed to the following SSCS venues: Bradford, Leeds, Huddersfield and Wakefield
3 PIP (New Claim Appeals), which replaced Disability Living Allowance was introduced on 8 April 2013, also includes Disability Living Allowance Reassessed cases.
4Percentage exceeding 100 wks. is based on the number of cases cleared in over 100 weeks as a percentage of those cleared.
Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and are the best data that are available. These data may differ slightly from those in the published statistics as these data were run on a different date.
It is important that appeals are heard as quickly as possible. HMCTS recognises there are delays in the system and it is in the process of recruiting more judicial office holders in order to increase capacity and help to reduce waiting times for appellants. This includes 250 judges across the First-tier Tribunal, 125 disability qualified members and up to 230 medical members.
In addition, HMCTS has recently launched a new digital service with a view to enabling speedier processing of appeals. Information on the new digital service can be found at: www.gov.uk/appeal-benefit-decision/submit-appeal.
HMCTS is also working with the Department for Work and Pensions to understand what could be done to reduce the number of appeals being submitted to the Tribunal, through their focus on improving decision-making and the mandatory reconsideration process.