Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which faith-based (a) charities and (b) organisations are permitted to visit prisons.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Ministry of Justice recognises the vital contribution that charities and wider third sector organisations make to supporting prisoner rehabilitation.
Decisions as to which individuals or organisations may enter, or work in, a prison are taken by the prison governor. These decisions take account of the proposed role, security requirements, and other operational factors.
The Ministry of Justice does not maintain a central database of every organisation contributing to the work of prisons in England and Wales, as there is no operational need to do so.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many illegal marriages have been recorded in each year since 2010, broken down by local authority area.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice does not hold this data.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what representations he has received from counterparts in Five Eyes countries that do not have a statutory duty of candour.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The sovereign capabilities of our security and intelligence agencies, underpinned by appropriate safeguards and oversight, enable us to keep ahead of our adversaries and provide the lynchpin for our collaboration with our Five Eyes partners.
We work incredibly closely with our allies, particularly our Five Eyes partners, to ensure our collective national security.
We are clear that the duty of candour must not undermine national security.
Asked by: Rupert Lowe (Independent - Great Yarmouth)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many nights were spent in hotels by Departmental staff in financial year 2024-25 by the star rating of the hotel.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
This information is not held centrally.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of introducing a statutory duty of candour on (a) military intelligence and (b) Special Forces.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Bill will apply to all public authorities, including military intelligence and the Special Forces.
We have worked closely with representatives across Government on the policy in this Bill – including the impact that a duty of candour would have on military intelligence and Special Forces.
We are clear that the duty of candour applies to all public authorities, including intelligence services, however, the duty of candour and processes for disclosure may need to apply in a different way to ensure that secure information is handled correctly.
We are clear that nothing should undermine our national security.
We are continuing to work closely across government with families, stakeholders and the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee to bring forward amendments that meet those aims. We will update the House in due course.
Asked by: Nick Timothy (Conservative - West Suffolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many Sharia law courts have operated in the UK in each year since 2010 and broken down by local authority area.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
There are no sharia law courts.
Asked by: Gurinder Singh Josan (Labour - Smethwick)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what research he has undertaken into (a) inequalities in the criminal justice system and (b) the impact of DBS checks on those inequalities.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Equality before the law is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system. We are committed to working in partnership with ethnic minority communities, stakeholders and delivery partners to seize opportunities and remove barriers to racial equality across the UK and to hear people’s lived experiences.
Data First is a pioneering data-linkage, research and academic engagement programme, led by the Ministry of Justice. By making linked data across courts, prison and probation services available to accredited academic researchers, Data First continues to facilitate new research on the nature and extent of ethnic disparities in sentencing outcomes that has not been possible before.
DBS checks and the wider criminal records regime must strike a balance between safeguarding and rehabilitation, but we recognise the different ways that they can impact on an individual’s life. Sir Brian Leveson’s recent independent review of the Criminal Courts also highlighted these impacts. On 2 December 2025, the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed in a Written Ministerial Statement, that we are considering Sir Brian’s recommendation, including opportunities to simplify the regime to ensure it is clear and proportionate, particularly in relation to childhood offences.
Asked by: James Naish (Labour - Rushcliffe)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of current notification procedures for County Court Judgments; and whether he will make an assessment of the potential merits of requiring that all notifications of impending County Court Judgments be sent by recorded and tracked delivery to ensure defendants receive proper notice of court proceedings.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Civil Procedure Rule Committee is responsible for the rules that govern the procedure for notifying people of court proceedings, known as the rules of service. In July 2025 it consulted on changes to the service rules including to permit electronic service on parties with whom there has already been electronic communication pre-action. The work to review responses to the consultation and any subsequent Civil Procedure Rules amendments is ongoing. The consultation can be found at - Civil Procedure Rule Committee - service consultation
Asked by: Gurinder Singh Josan (Labour - Smethwick)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what demographic data in relation to ethnicity, gender and age his Department holds on convictions and cautions over the last 30 years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice holds an extract of the Police National Computer (PNC) which holds data on ethnicity, gender and age for convictions and cautions since 2000. A breakdown of this information is published annually in the First Time Entrants and Offenders History publication here: First Time Entrants and Offenders History publication
In addition, the Ministry of Justice holds data on convictions in the Court Proceedings database which includes details of gender and age from 1984. Ethnicity data is included from 2005 onwards. This information, along with a technical guide for each report containing further details around demographic information, is routinely published in Criminal justice statistics quarterly - GOV.UK Information on cautions from the PNC extract is also published within the reports.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, which (a) professional bodies and (b) legal organisations his Department consulted prior to the publication of proposals to restrict jury trials; and what alternative measures his Department has considered to reduce the Crown Court backlog.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
In developing his recommendations, Sir Brian Leveson and his expert advisers, including Professor David Ormerod, engaged with many external bodies and organisations with invaluable expertise of our Criminal Justice System including criminal legal organisations, charities, academics, and members of the judiciary. A full list is at Annex C of Part 1 of his report.
When considering Sir Brian’s recommendations and developing our proposals, I have engaged regularly with stakeholders and relevant sectors including but not limited to representatives from the legal sector (Law Society, Bar Council, Criminal Bar Association), victims and victims representatives (the Victims Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Rape Crisis), judiciary (Circuit leaders, Judicial leadership), magistracy (Magistrates’ Association, Magistrates’ Leadership Executive), non-governmental organisations (Appeal, JUSTICE, Transform Justice), court staff in criminal courts around the country (Wood Green, Snaresbrook, Kingston, Southwark, Telford, Birmingham etc) and similar international jurisdictions. For example, I met judges and visited courts in Canada, which uses types of judge-only trial.
We welcome the recommendations made in Part 1 of Sir Brian’s Review, which provided the blueprint for reform. Sir Brian’s recommendations were ambitious, but he also recognised that the Government might need to take his recommendations further to address the scale of the challenge we are facing. We have three levers for restoring stability and confidence in the criminal courts system – investment, modernisation, and structural reform. Pursuing any one of these levers in isolation would not be enough to meet projected demand into the courts, let alone address the rising caseload. The Government has already invested heavily in the system – in record sitting days, court buildings and technology, and in legal professionals. On 4 February 2026, Sir Brian published Part 2 of his Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, which makes recommendations to improve the efficiency of the criminal courts. We will urgently consider the proposals set out, alongside Sir Brian’s remaining recommendations from Part 1, and respond to them in due course.