Asked by: Lord Bradley (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many and what proportion of Parole Board recommendations to move prisoners (1) serving an Imprisonment for Public Protection sentence, and (2) serving a life sentence, to open conditions were rejected in each month in 2025.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
For many years the Secretary of State has asked the independent Parole Board for advice on whether a prisoner serving an imprisonment for public protection (IPP) or a life sentence is suitable for transfer to open conditions. Where the Parole Board recommends that a prisoner is so suitable, the Secretary of State is not bound to accept the recommendation, and it is the Secretary of State who is ultimately responsible for determining whether a life or IPP prisoner is safe to be managed in an open prison.
The following tables provide the number and proportion of recommendations made by the Parole Board which were rejected in each month in 2025 for prisoners serving (1) an IPP sentence and (2) a life sentence.
Table 1: Outcomes of consideration of IPP open condition recommendations
Period considered | Accepted | Rejected | Total | % Rejected |
January 2025 | 10 | 2 | 12 | 17% |
February 2025 | 7 | 7 | 14 | 50% |
March 2025 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 25% |
Table 2: Outcomes of Consideration of life sentence open condition recommendations
Period considered | Accepted | Rejected | Total | % Rejected |
January 2025 | 19 | 7 | 26 | 27% |
February 2025 | 23 | 3 | 26 | 12% |
March 2025 | 23 | 3 | 26 | 12% |
Data have been provided for the period 1 January 2025 to 31 March 2025 to align with the publication of the Parole Board’s data on recommendations for open conditions.
Public protection remains the priority and prisoners will only be approved for a move to open conditions if it is assessed that it is safe to do so.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will take steps with the Health and Safety Executive to review the level of criminal penalties and enforcement mechanisms for illegal gas work; and if the Health and Safety Executive will issue guidance to police on prioritising such cases.
Answered by Stephen Timms - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is responsible for the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998 (GSIUR) which address the safe installation, maintenance, and use of gas systems, in commercial and domestic premises. These regulations require that no employer or self-employed person shall carry out gas work without Gas Safe Registration. HSE and Local Authorities regulate this through enforcement powers set under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. Enforcement powers available to regulators include prosecution, prohibition notices and improvement notices.
HSE will apply the principles laid down in the Enforcement Policy Statement (EPS), Enforcement Management Model (EMM) and internal gas procedures to ensure that enforcement action is proportional to the health and safety risks and the seriousness of the breach.
HSE cannot review the level of criminal penalties for illegal gas cases. The Health and Safety Sentencing Guidelines are set by the Sentencing Council. HSE and Local Authorities are the enforcing authorities under GSIUR and the police investigate homicide cases. Where a person dies because of illegal and/or poor-quality gas work; the police must decide whether a manslaughter offence has been committed, the priority given to the case is a matter for the investigating police force. Guidance is in place to support the HSE and police in the event of a fatal gas incident though the Work-Related Death Protocol.
Asked by: Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat - Twickenham)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of the findings of the report by the Brain Tumour Charity entitled The Price You Pay: The Financial Impact of a Brain Tumour.
Answered by Stephen Timms - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The welfare system is there to support people with their living costs in times of need. Universal Credit provides means-tested support including a standard allowance and additional amounts to provide for individual needs such as housing, children, disability, and childcare costs.
Attendance Allowance, Disability Living Allowance and Personal Independence Payment provide a contribution towards the extra costs that may arise from a long-term disability or health condition. These benefits are non-contributory, non-means-tested and can be worth up to £9,747.40 a year, tax free.
Additionally, we have launched the Timms Review to ensure PIP is fair and fit for the future. To ensure lived experience is at the heart of its work, the Review will be co-produced with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, and other experts.
More details about the Review’s scope can be found in its Terms of Reference, available here: Timms Review of PIP: Terms of Reference.
Asked by: Lord Wasserman (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the additional cost of including Police and Crime Commissioners in the elections of (1) 2016, (2) 2021 and (3) 2024.
Answered by Baroness Taylor of Stevenage - Baroness in Waiting (HM Household) (Whip)
The cost of the 2016 Police and Crime Commissioner elections was £49.6m. A detailed report on the cost of that election can be found at (attached) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-costs-of-the-2016-police-and-crime-commissioner-elections.
The cost of the 2021 Police and Crime Commissioner election was £49.3m and a detailed report will be published shortly.
The final cost of the 2024 PCC election will not be known until all the Returning Officer claims have been scrutinised and settled. However, the estimated cost is approximately £87m as set out in the (attached) The Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Local Returning Officers’ and Police Area Returning Officers’ Charges) Order 2024.
These figures represent the total cost of running the PCC elections. Where PCC elections were combined with other polls, some costs – such as for polling stations – were shared across all polls. This reduced the overall cost for each election compared to running them separately. The cost of PCC elections is met from the Consolidated Fund.
Asked by: Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many pension schemes have entered the Financial Assistance Scheme; and for what proportion of (1) schemes, and (2) scheme members, does the Pension Protection Fund have definitive copies of the original scheme's trust deed and rules in relation to pre-1997 pension increases.
Answered by Baroness Sherlock - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
As of 16 December 2025, 1,045 schemes have transferred into the Financial Assistance Scheme.
The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) holds a significant amount of scheme information. We are confident that the PPF will be able to identify the information needed and successfully implement the reforms to award pre-97 indexation uplifts to compensation payments.
The PPF is reviewing the information it holds for each scheme. Alongside scheme rules, the PPF will use additional data sources, including scheme return data, member booklets, data provided on transfer, valuation reports, annuity reports, and bulk buyout schedules.
Where the position is unclear, the clauses within the Pension Schemes Bill provide that the presumption is in favour of the members. In such cases, the PPF will award pre-97 indexation.
Asked by: Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask His Majesty's Government how many young people are not in education, employment or training because they are waiting for mental health, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or autism services or diagnosis.
Answered by Baroness Sherlock - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
Data is not available on the number of young people who are not in education, employment, or training (NEET) because they are waiting for mental health, attention deficit hyperactive disorder or autism services or diagnosis.
Asked by: Peter Lamb (Labour - Crawley)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, within Crawley constituency in the most recent 12 months for which data is available, what is the total amount resulting from (a) deductions and (b) sanctions applied to Universal Credit claims.
Answered by Stephen Timms - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
a) Universal Credit deductions statistics are published quarterly with the latest figures available in table 6, row 365 in Universal Credit deductions statistics, September 2024 to August 2025, supplementary data tables, at Universal Credit statistics, 29 April 2013 to 9 October 2025 - GOV.UK
b) The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.
The Deductions policy in Universal Credit is to support customers by providing a repayment method for arrears of essential services, such as, housing, electricity, and gas and enable customers with a child maintenance liability meet their obligation to make child maintenance payments. The deductions policy also enables obligations, such as, paying Court Fines and Council Tax arrears to be enforced when other repayment methods have failed, or are not cost effective, and ensures that benefit debt is recovered in a cost-effective manner.
From April 2025 the Government introduced the Fair Repayment Rate which reduced the level of deduction taken from Universal Credit from 25% to 15%, and meant that 1.2m households retained on average £420 per year enabling these UC households to have more of their award to meet their day-to-day needs.
Asked by: Adam Jogee (Labour - Newcastle-under-Lyme)
Question to the Department for Work and Pensions:
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of (a) Health and Safety Executive policy not to adopt new hazard classes in GB CLP unless agreed at the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of classification and labelling of chemicals (UN GHS) and (b) proposed legislative changes by HSE that would remove the statutory obligation on it to respond to new EU hazard classifications within a statutory timeframe on trade within the UK internal market.
Answered by Stephen Timms - Minister of State (Department for Work and Pensions)
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) recently sought views on the application of a consistent UK-wide Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) regime as part of the Chemicals Legislative Reform Proposals consultation which took place from 23 June 2025 to 18 August 2025. This included seeking views on whether the adoption of EU CLP measures in GB, including the EU hazard classes, would be one way of minimising possible trade disruption in the UK Internal Market. The consultation response is expected to be published in early 2026 subject to ministerial approval and the responses received will be used to inform future work to deliver a consistent UK-wide CLP regime. In the meantime, the current GB CLP framework allows duty holders to self-classify against the new EU hazard classes and for HSE to evaluate proposals for substances covered by the EU hazard classes to be added to the GB Mandatory Classification and Labelling List on a case-by-case basis.
Asked by: Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the use of artificial intelligence tools within the courts of England and Wales, and what guidance or safeguards are in place to ensure judicial independence, accuracy and transparency.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The independent judiciary have their own procedures and policies. Guidance for judicial office holders on the appropriate and responsible use of AI has been issued by the judiciary and is publicly available on the judiciary’s website.
The judiciary’s approach to AI is designed to ensure that any use of AI by judicial office holders is safe, transparent, and consistent with the principles of fairness and non-discrimination, while preserving judicial independence.
HM Courts & Tribunals Service has developed its own Responsible AI Principles to provide guardrails for the development, delivery and maintenance of AI systems to ensure use of AI in the courts and tribunals is appropriate, safe and controlled.
Asked by: Baroness Noakes (Conservative - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have a role in arranging for Royal Assent to be given to the Isle of Man’s assisted dying bill.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The UK Government is currently in the process of reviewing the Isle of Man’s Assisted Dying Bill as part of our constitutional responsibilities towards the Crown Dependencies.
The Lord Chancellor is responsible for making a recommendation as to whether Crown Dependency primary legislation should receive Royal Assent.