Asked by: Ben Goldsborough (Labour - South Norfolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if his department will provide the total number of prisoner days, aggregated across all prisoners, in which an individual prisoner with a disability received a) no time in open air and b) no time out of cell.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested for adult prisoners is not held by the Ministry of Justice, as collecting data on time in and out of cell would require detailed monitoring of cell activity in each prison establishment.
PSI 75/2011 (Residential Services), which includes general guidance on time-out-of-cell, can be found at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residential-services-psi-752011.
Asked by: Ben Goldsborough (Labour - South Norfolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if his department will provide the total number of prisoner days, aggregated across all prisoners, in which an individual prisoner received a) no time in open air and b) no time out of cell.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The information requested for adult prisoners is not held by the Ministry of Justice, as collecting data on time in and out of cell would require detailed monitoring of cell activity in each prison establishment.
PSI 75/2011 (Residential Services), which includes general guidance on time-out-of-cell, can be found at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residential-services-psi-752011.
Asked by: Ben Goldsborough (Labour - South Norfolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many a) reported illnesses or b) hospitalisations of prisoners in each of the last 10 calendar years have been partially or wholly attributed to unhygienic prison conditions.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Statistics on prisoners’ health are the responsibility of the NHS. I am informed that the figures that are collected do not indicate whether an illness or hospitalisation relates to unhygienic conditions or show the causes of illnesses linked to E-coli.
Arrangements are in place to ensure hygiene standards are maintained across the prison estate. These include regular monitoring and cleaning delivered through a combination of prisoner working parties and contracted cleaning services.
Asked by: Lord Rennard (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask His Majesty's Government what sanctions are provided for in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill in response to serious wrongdoing by police officers.
Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill creates four new criminal offences:
Failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance;
Misleading the public;
Seriously improper acts; and
Breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury.
Police officers may be prosecuted for any or all of these.
The offences of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance and misleading the public have a maximum sentence of two years in prison.
The seriously improper acts offence has a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment. The breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury offence has a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment.
Asked by: Ben Goldsborough (Labour - South Norfolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his department is taking to reduce turnover rates of prison governors.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Enable Programme is a workforce transformation programme that aims to change how HMPPS trains, develops, leads, and supports its prison staff to ensure that they feel safe, supported, valued, and confident in their skills and ability to make a difference.
A key focus for the programme is to strengthen prison leadership and operational capability and build a quality pipeline of leaders for the future. To support this work Governor Succession Planning is managed via a National Talent Committee, that monitors tenure, identifies talent and considers succession in line with civil service rules. This senior multi-disciplinary team meet quarterly and are informed by internal management information, the leadership requirements of individual sites and the strengths of individual governors.
Asked by: Ben Goldsborough (Labour - South Norfolk)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps his department is taking to improve or increase provision of training for newly appointed prison governors.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
The Enable Programme is a workforce transformation programme that aims to change how HMPPS trains, develops, leads, and supports its prison staff to ensure that they feel safe, supported, valued, and confident in their skills and ability to make a difference.
A key focus for the programme is to strengthen prison leadership and operational capability and build a quality pipeline of leaders for the future. This includes a new national Governor Induction programme which provides a dedicated package of learning for new Governors, offering professional, personal, and practical support to ensure they have the best start to their governing career.
Asked by: Sarah Dyke (Liberal Democrat - Glastonbury and Somerton)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the financial allowance for jury service in covering the cost of wages, food and travel.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Jury service is a vital civic duty, and the Government is committed to ensuring jurors feel supported throughout their service. All the support provided to jurors throughout their service is kept under review to ensure it remains appropriate and accessible. Jurors can claim subsistence and travel expenses, as well as a loss of earnings allowance from the court. For those individuals facing particular difficulties in serving the jury summoning process provides for applications for deferral or excusal based upon financial hardship.
Asked by: Max Wilkinson (Liberal Democrat - Cheltenham)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his department has made of the potential merits of recognising humanist marriages using existing powers.
Answered by Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
The Government announced on 2 October that it intends to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows. The reforms reflect a commitment to making weddings law fairer, simpler and more modern, whilst also protecting the solemnity and dignity of marriage. We want to create a level playing field for all groups, including allowing Humanist weddings to be legally recognised for the first time. We will be consulting on the details early next year.
The Government is of the view that using the existing order-making power under section 14 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 legally to recognise Humanist weddings would mean introducing new inequalities into existing law. This is because Humanists would gain more freedoms in relation to how they marry than those available to most religious groups. The Government has decided to enable Humanist weddings as part of comprehensive reform that ensures all groups are treated fairly.
Asked by: Wendy Morton (Conservative - Aldridge-Brownhills)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Written Statement entitled Criminal Court Reform, published on 2 December 2025, HCWS1123, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of expanding judge-only trials to a wider class of offences, including fraud cases and triable-either-way cases involving likely sentences of up to three years, on the right to a fair trial and jury participation in the justice system; and what safeguards he intends to put in place to ensure transparency, accountability and public confidence in verdicts reached without a jury.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.
The removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following these reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial.
As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates and only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants, or anyone involved in the justice system.
The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court framework, following the same process and procedures. Safeguards will be in place, including the existing appeals procedure, and judges in the ‘swift courts’ will be required to provide reasoned judgments when delivering decisions to convict or acquit. An impact assessment will accompany our legislative measures, as is usual practice.
Asked by: Wendy Morton (Conservative - Aldridge-Brownhills)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Written Statement entitled Criminal Court Reform, published on 2 December 2025, HCWS1123, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of removing the option for defendants to elect for trial by jury in certain triable-either-way cases on (a) the constitutional role of juries, (b) defendants’ right to a fair trial and (c) public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.
The removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following these reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial.
As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates and only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants, or anyone involved in the justice system.
The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court framework, following the same process and procedures. Safeguards will be in place, including the existing appeals procedure, and judges in the ‘swift courts’ will be required to provide reasoned judgments when delivering decisions to convict or acquit. An impact assessment will accompany our legislative measures, as is usual practice.