Asked by: Oliver Dowden (Conservative - Hertsmere)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the operational effectiveness of multi-agency arrangements for ensuring that individuals found to have done the act in a Trial of the Facts for qualifying sexual offences are automatically placed on the Sex Offenders Register and the Children's Barred List.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Firstly, it was constructive to meet with you and your constituent Katherine Prior to discuss your concerns around the law on fitness to plead and the consequences which can flow from a finding that an individual is unfit to plead. As I indicated in the meeting together with my officials, we will revert to you in relation to the important issues which you raised.
Individuals subject to a Supervision Order can be considered for management under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) where the relevant eligibility and risk criteria are met, but being made subject to a Supervision Order itself does not automatically qualify for MAPPA management.
Accordingly, the expiry of a Supervision Order does not itself determine whether an individual remains subject to MAPPA. The period for which an individual remains under MAPPA depends on the basis on which they qualify for those arrangements, and relevant agencies assess and manage the risk posed through the MAPPA framework.
Asked by: Oliver Dowden (Conservative - Hertsmere)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of a Supervision Order issued under Schedule 1A to the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 reaching its statutory two-year maximum limit in cases involving child sexual abuse on public safety.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Firstly, it was constructive to meet with you and your constituent Katherine Prior to discuss your concerns around the law on fitness to plead and the consequences which can flow from a finding that an individual is unfit to plead. As I indicated in the meeting together with my officials, we will revert to you in relation to the important issues which you raised.
Generally speaking, it is important to distinguish the two-year limit of a Supervision Order from other protection measures that may apply in these cases. The end of the two- year period does not by itself determine whether an individual is eligible for management through other public protection frameworks beyond this timeline. Consideration may be given to MAPPA management where the relevant risk criteria are satisfied and probation and Local Authorities are encouraged to work together to provide multi agency support through existing MAPPA arrangements where appropriate.
The Government recognises that the law relating to unfitness to plead needs updating. We are considering how to implement reforms proposed by the Law Commission including those which will extend the range of disposals available to courts and provide more effective powers to protect victims and the public in these cases.
The Ministry of Justice does not currently hold data on the number of Supervision Orders that reach their statutory two-year maximum.
Asked by: Oliver Dowden (Conservative - Hertsmere)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate his Department has made of the number of Supervision Orders issued under Schedule 1A to the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 following a Trial of the Facts that reached their statutory two-year maximum limit in each of the last five years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Firstly, it was constructive to meet with you and your constituent Katherine Prior to discuss your concerns around the law on fitness to plead and the consequences which can flow from a finding that an individual is unfit to plead. As I indicated in the meeting together with my officials, we will revert to you in relation to the important issues which you raised.
Generally speaking, it is important to distinguish the two-year limit of a Supervision Order from other protection measures that may apply in these cases. The end of the two- year period does not by itself determine whether an individual is eligible for management through other public protection frameworks beyond this timeline. Consideration may be given to MAPPA management where the relevant risk criteria are satisfied and probation and Local Authorities are encouraged to work together to provide multi agency support through existing MAPPA arrangements where appropriate.
The Government recognises that the law relating to unfitness to plead needs updating. We are considering how to implement reforms proposed by the Law Commission including those which will extend the range of disposals available to courts and provide more effective powers to protect victims and the public in these cases.
The Ministry of Justice does not currently hold data on the number of Supervision Orders that reach their statutory two-year maximum.
Asked by: Oliver Dowden (Conservative - Hertsmere)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether his Department has reviewed the statutory two-year maximum duration for Supervision Orders made under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Firstly, it was constructive to meet with you and your constituent Katherine Prior to discuss your concerns around the law on fitness to plead and the consequences which can flow from a finding that an individual is unfit to plead. As I indicated in the meeting together with my officials, we will revert to you in relation to the important issues which you raised.
Generally speaking, it is important to distinguish the two-year limit of a Supervision Order from other protection measures that may apply in these cases. The end of the two- year period does not by itself determine whether an individual is eligible for management through other public protection frameworks beyond this timeline. Consideration may be given to MAPPA management where the relevant risk criteria are satisfied and probation and Local Authorities are encouraged to work together to provide multi agency support through existing MAPPA arrangements where appropriate.
The Government recognises that the law relating to unfitness to plead needs updating. We are considering how to implement reforms proposed by the Law Commission including those which will extend the range of disposals available to courts and provide more effective powers to protect victims and the public in these cases.
The Ministry of Justice does not currently hold data on the number of Supervision Orders that reach their statutory two-year maximum.
Asked by: Oliver Dowden (Conservative - Hertsmere)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether he plans to bring forward legislative proposals to reform the legal criteria for unfitness to stand trial under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964; and what assessment he has made of the suitability of the 1836 Pritchard criteria when evaluating defendants with complex learning disabilities.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Firstly, it was constructive to meet with you and your constituent Katherine Prior to discuss your concerns around the law on fitness to plead and the consequences which can flow from a finding that an individual is unfit to plead. As I indicated in the meeting together with my officials, we will revert to you in relation to the important issues which you raised.
The Government agrees that this area of law needs to be updated. The Law Commission reviewed the law on unfitness to plead, and the Government has accepted the majority of its recommendations including a revised test for unfitness to plead.
The Government is actively considering how best to take these reforms forward, alongside potential changes to the defence of insanity, which is also being considered by the Law Commission. This is a complex area of law and it is important that any future reforms are considered carefully to ensure that the legislation is coherent, workable and provides protections for defendants, victims and the public.
As set out in the answer of 7 July 2026 to UIN 13835, the Ministry of Justice does not hold specific data on trials which do not go ahead because the defendant was found unfit to stand trial. The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data on outcomes in the criminal courts; however, this does not currently allow us to identify whether a trial did not proceed specifically because the defendant was found unfit to stand trial. Our Satiations regularly reviewing the content of publications to ensure they meet the needs of users in line with our commitments to the code of practice
Asked by: Oliver Dowden (Conservative - Hertsmere)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the answer of 7 July 2026, to UIN 13835, if he will make it his policy to keep data on trials which do not go ahead because the defendant was found unfit to stand trial.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Firstly, it was constructive to meet with you and your constituent Katherine Prior to discuss your concerns around the law on fitness to plead and the consequences which can flow from a finding that an individual is unfit to plead. As I indicated in the meeting together with my officials, we will revert to you in relation to the important issues which you raised.
The Government agrees that this area of law needs to be updated. The Law Commission reviewed the law on unfitness to plead, and the Government has accepted the majority of its recommendations including a revised test for unfitness to plead.
The Government is actively considering how best to take these reforms forward, alongside potential changes to the defence of insanity, which is also being considered by the Law Commission. This is a complex area of law and it is important that any future reforms are considered carefully to ensure that the legislation is coherent, workable and provides protections for defendants, victims and the public.
As set out in the answer of 7 July 2026 to UIN 13835, the Ministry of Justice does not hold specific data on trials which do not go ahead because the defendant was found unfit to stand trial. The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data on outcomes in the criminal courts; however, this does not currently allow us to identify whether a trial did not proceed specifically because the defendant was found unfit to stand trial. Our Satiations regularly reviewing the content of publications to ensure they meet the needs of users in line with our commitments to the code of practice
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of legal aid for people who have extended or multiple hearings in family courts.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
This Government recognises the vital role that legal aid plays in supporting individuals involved in family proceedings, including long and complex cases that involve multiple hearings.
Legal aid remains available throughout eligible family proceedings regardless of length or complexity. This ensures that individuals who qualify for support can continue to receive legal advice and representation where required, as long as they continue to satisfy the relevant statutory requirements. The family legal aid fee schemes make provision for representation at multiple hearings, including fact-finding and final hearings. There is no prescribed upper limit on the number of hearings for which representation may be provided, nor the overall length of proceedings.
The Government keeps family legal aid provision under review and we regularly engage with legal aid providers and representative bodies to understand how legal aid is operating in practice.
Asked by: Neil Shastri-Hurst (Conservative - Solihull West and Shirley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what discussions his Department has had with the Senior President of the Tribunals on the potential merits of introducing a pre-action protocol for matters arising before the Employment Tribunals (England and Wales).
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Ministry of Justice regularly engages with the judiciary on a wide range of issues in relation to the Employment Tribunal. The Ministry of Justice and the Department of Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (DBIST) have set up the Dispute Resolution System Taskforce to support the Government in considering options to reform the employment dispute system, so it works better for both workers and businesses. This Taskforce consists of unions, businesses, legal representatives and third sector organisations. DBIST and my Department are currently considering the introduction of a range of measures to encourage early dispute resolution to alleviate pressures on the employment tribunal.
Asked by: Neil Shastri-Hurst (Conservative - Solihull West and Shirley)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the answer of 15 September 2026 to question 28953, what assessment he has made of the need for primary legislation in the medium and long-term.
Answered by Catherine McKinnell - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Primary legislation is not required to enforce the offence exclusions, which have been implemented using secondary legislation.
A full list of exclusions can be found here: Sentencing Act 2026 offence exclusions - GOV.UK.
Asked by: Gideon Amos (Liberal Democrat - Taunton and Wellington)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment has his Department made of the average costs incurred by jurors since 2011, and a) whether they plan to update remuneration for travel and subsistence costs to be in line with current government rates, and b) whether they have plans to revise the day rates claimable for loss of earning to reflect the rise in the National Minimum Wage.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Jury service is an important civic duty, and the Government is committed to ensuring jurors feel supported throughout their service.
Jurors do not receive direct payment for jury service but may claim allowances towards financial loss – albeit there has been no recent assessment or current plans to align juror travel and subsistence allowances with current government rates or to revise loss-of-earnings allowances to reflect increases in the National Minimum Wage. All support to jurors is kept under review to ensure it remains appropriate and accessible.
However, courts may be able to arrange to pay expenses during the trial if a juror is facing financial hardship. Applications for a deferral or excusal based upon financial hardship can also be made when summoned.