Written questions by McMurdock.

What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the Mortgage Guarantee Scheme on the number of first-time buyers.

95% loan-to-value mortgage products can be beneficial for first-time buyers who may struggle to raise larger deposits, and the Mortgage Guarantee Scheme aims to support this segment of the UK mortgage market.The new Mortgage Guarantee Scheme recently launched in July 2025 and remains permanently available to lenders who wish to participate in the scheme. The Treasury will be collecting data about the scheme over its lifespan, including data on first-time buyers taking out mortgages under the scheme.

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of removing the right to elect for a jury trial on perceptions of the justice system of a) victims, b) witnesses and c) defendants.

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.Jury trials are the cornerstone of our justice system and will remain in place for the most serious crimes. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness.The vast majority of criminal cases are already heard in magistrates’ courts without juries, with 90% of all criminal cases being dealt with by magistrates. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants or anyone involved in the justice system. We need to do things differently and prevent defendants from gaming the system. Currently, triable-either-way offences make up around 40% of all cases. Triable-either-way offences allow a defendant to insist on their choice of having a jury trial at the taxpayer’s expense and greater length, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence. What this means it that, currently, according to Crown Prosecution Service figures, over 4,000 defendants, whose cases could have been heard in the magistrates’ court with magistrates’ court sentencing powers, were heard in the Crown Court because the defendant was able to insist on a full jury trial. This means that in each of those cases, money and significant time and resource was spent on a jury trial, not only at taxpayer’s expense but all those in the system.Under the Government’s proposals, the mode of trial will be triaged by the Court, which will determine whether a case needs to be heard in the Crown Court, or could be heard more swiftly in the Magistrates’ Court. The latest figures show offences heard by magistrates already complete more than four times faster than similar cases in the Crown Court. Only reform will free up the space and time needed to prioritise the most serious cases – including those that can and should have a jury trial. We think that will benefit victims, witnesses, and defendants alike.

What steps he is taking to ensure that the removal of a defendant's right to elect a jury trail is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR.

We are confident that the removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst the 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 being dealt with by magistrates. Only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury currently. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants or anyone involved in the justice system.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.As with all reforms, we will conduct full equalities impact assessment ahead of implementation to obtain an understanding of the impact.

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of removing a defendant’s right to choose trial by jury for certain offences on the constitution.

We are confident that the removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst the 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 being dealt with by magistrates. Only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury currently. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants or anyone involved in the justice system.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.As with all reforms, we will conduct full equalities impact assessment ahead of implementation to obtain an understanding of the impact.

With reference to the Written Ministerial Statement of 2 December 2025, what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that, where defendants can no longer elect a jury trial, decisions are (a) consistent and (b) subject to appropriate oversight.

The court reforms, including removing the right to elect for a jury trial, are not intended to impact trial outcomes; the intention is only to change how trials are heard.The vast majority of criminal cases - over 90% - are already heard without a jury, by magistrates. Their decisions will continue to be based on the law and the facts of the case. Safeguards are in place to ensure magistrates’ court decisions are consistent and subject to appropriate oversight. This includes a new appeals process whereby defendants will be able to seek permission to appeal based on an arguable point of law for their case. This new process will mirror the appeals process from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal. Magistrates and judges must also follow sentencing guidelines when making sentencing decisions. These guidelines outline the factors they should consider before reaching a final decision.Under the reformed system, trials taking place in the Magistrates’ Court will be recorded. This transparency measure represents an important modernisation of our Courts but also represents an important safeguard for all parties.We will continue to monitor conviction rates and sentencing outcomes as part of our ongoing assessments of the criminal justice system.

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of removing a defendant’s right to elect trial by jury for triable-either-way offences on public confidence in the criminal justice system.

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.Jury trials are the cornerstone of our justice system and will remain in place for the most serious crimes. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness.The vast majority of criminal cases are already heard in magistrates’ courts without juries, with 90% of all criminal cases being dealt with by magistrates. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants or anyone involved in the justice system. We need to do things differently and prevent defendants from gaming the system. Currently, triable-either-way offences make up around 40% of all cases. Triable-either-way offences allow a defendant to insist on their choice of having a jury trial at the taxpayer’s expense and greater length, irrespective of the seriousness of the offence. What this means it that, currently, according to Crown Prosecution Service figures, over 4,000 defendants, whose cases could have been heard in the magistrates’ court with magistrates’ court sentencing powers, were heard in the Crown Court because the defendant was able to insist on a full jury trial. This means that in each of those cases, money and significant time and resource was spent on a jury trial, not only at taxpayer’s expense but all those in the system.Under the Government’s proposals, the mode of trial will be triaged by the Court, which will determine whether a case needs to be heard in the Crown Court, or could be heard more swiftly in the Magistrates’ Court. The latest figures show offences heard by magistrates already complete more than four times faster than similar cases in the Crown Court. Only reform will free up the space and time needed to prioritise the most serious cases – including those that can and should have a jury trial. We think that will benefit victims, witnesses, and defendants alike.

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of changes to the right to jury trial on the number of appeals and judicial review applications.

Following reforms to the criminal courts, appellants will continue to have the right to appeal convictions and sentences received in both magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court. Permission to appeal will be granted by the judiciary where the appeal has a real prospect of success.

What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of reporting mechanisms in capturing breaches of employment law among temporary and seasonal workers.

The Director of the Labour Market Enforcement’s (DLME) Annual Report for 2023 to 2025 (published in November 2025) provides information on enforcement activity across sectors and areas of heightened risk, including in relation to seasonal workers.The Government is establishing the Fair Work Agency (FWA) in April 2026 which will deliver a much-needed upgrade to employment rights enforcement. Once established, the FWA will publish annual reports on its work and lay them before Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

What information his Department holds on the number of breaches of employment law there have been in each sector during seasonal recruitment periods in each of the last three years.

The Director of the Labour Market Enforcement’s (DLME) Annual Report for 2023 to 2025 (published in November 2025) provides information on enforcement activity across sectors and areas of heightened risk, including in relation to seasonal workers.The Government is establishing the Fair Work Agency (FWA) in April 2026 which will deliver a much-needed upgrade to employment rights enforcement. Once established, the FWA will publish annual reports on its work and lay them before Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

What steps he is taking to support the Mid and South Essex Integrated Care Board to reduce its pathways waiting list.

We are clear that the extent of waits for treatment is unacceptable, and cutting waiting lists is a key priority for the Government. We have committed to returning by March 2029 to the NHS constitutional standard that 92% of patients should wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment (RTT).Between July 2024 and June 2025, we delivered 5.2 million additional appointments compared to the previous year, more than double our pledge of two million. This marks a vital first step towards delivering the constitutional standard.As an interim goal, NHS England’s Operational Planning Guidance 2025/26 has set the national ambition for 65% of patients waiting no longer than 18 weeks for treatment, with every trust expected to deliver a minimum five percentage point improvement in performance, and to reduce the proportion of people waiting over 52 weeks for treatment to less than 1% of the total waiting list.To support this improvement across all trusts and systems, there is a robust performance management process in place. The new NHS Oversight Framework 2025/26 ensures that there is public accountability for performance and NHS England works with systems and providers to support improvement.In coordination with the NHS Mid and South Essex Integrated Care Board, NHS England has heightened executive oversight and assurance processes in place with the Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust to monitor and support recovery plans. An extensive targeted recovery plan focuses on orthopaedic mutual aid, optimising and expanding existing capacity, pathway reform, improvements to validation processes and demand management.A new interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer have been appointed at the trust, in addition to a dedicated Executive Elective Recovery Director to drive and oversee turnaround of elective care performance.

What steps he is taking to restore the 18-week referral-to-treatment standard at Mid and South Essex Integrated Care Board; and by what timeframe.

We are clear that the extent of waits for treatment is unacceptable, and cutting waiting lists is a key priority for the Government. We have committed to returning by March 2029 to the NHS constitutional standard that 92% of patients should wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment (RTT).Between July 2024 and June 2025, we delivered 5.2 million additional appointments compared to the previous year, more than double our pledge of two million. This marks a vital first step towards delivering the constitutional standard.As an interim goal, NHS England’s Operational Planning Guidance 2025/26 has set the national ambition for 65% of patients waiting no longer than 18 weeks for treatment, with every trust expected to deliver a minimum five percentage point improvement in performance, and to reduce the proportion of people waiting over 52 weeks for treatment to less than 1% of the total waiting list.To support this improvement across all trusts and systems, there is a robust performance management process in place. The new NHS Oversight Framework 2025/26 ensures that there is public accountability for performance and NHS England works with systems and providers to support improvement.In coordination with the NHS Mid and South Essex Integrated Care Board, NHS England has heightened executive oversight and assurance processes in place with the Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust to monitor and support recovery plans. An extensive targeted recovery plan focuses on orthopaedic mutual aid, optimising and expanding existing capacity, pathway reform, improvements to validation processes and demand management.A new interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer have been appointed at the trust, in addition to a dedicated Executive Elective Recovery Director to drive and oversee turnaround of elective care performance.

What steps his Department is taking to help support Mid and South Essex Integrated Care Board to reduce the number of pathways waiting more than 52 weeks for treatment.

We are clear that the extent of waits for treatment is unacceptable, and cutting waiting lists is a key priority for the Government. We have committed to returning by March 2029 to the NHS constitutional standard that 92% of patients should wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment (RTT).Between July 2024 and June 2025, we delivered 5.2 million additional appointments compared to the previous year, more than double our pledge of two million. This marks a vital first step towards delivering the constitutional standard.As an interim goal, NHS England’s Operational Planning Guidance 2025/26 has set the national ambition for 65% of patients waiting no longer than 18 weeks for treatment, with every trust expected to deliver a minimum five percentage point improvement in performance, and to reduce the proportion of people waiting over 52 weeks for treatment to less than 1% of the total waiting list.To support this improvement across all trusts and systems, there is a robust performance management process in place. The new NHS Oversight Framework 2025/26 ensures that there is public accountability for performance and NHS England works with systems and providers to support improvement.In coordination with the NHS Mid and South Essex Integrated Care Board, NHS England has heightened executive oversight and assurance processes in place with the Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust to monitor and support recovery plans. An extensive targeted recovery plan focuses on orthopaedic mutual aid, optimising and expanding existing capacity, pathway reform, improvements to validation processes and demand management.A new interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer have been appointed at the trust, in addition to a dedicated Executive Elective Recovery Director to drive and oversee turnaround of elective care performance.

What requirements exist for follow-up contact within 48 hours of discharge from inpatient mental health services; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of NHS compliance with these requirements.

There is no requirement that exists for follow-up contact within 48 hours of discharge from inpatient mental health services. There is, however, a follow up requirement for 72 hours post discharge, based on evidence from the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Safety in Mental Health that there is an increased risk of dying by suicide within this period. This has been part of the NHS Standard Contract since 1 April 2020, which states that all people discharged from integrated care board (ICB) commissioned inpatient mental health services should be followed up within 72 hours. This applies to everyone who is discharged from an ICB-commissioned adult mental health inpatient bed to their place of residence, care home, residential accommodation, or to non-psychiatric care. All avenues need to be exploited to ensure patients are followed up within 72 hours of discharge. This follow up requirement is reinforced through national statutory guidance on Discharge from mental health inpatient settings and data on performance is published on a monthly basis, with 73.3% of discharges in September 2025 meeting the ambition.

What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of trends in the proportion of patients treated within 18 weeks in Mid and South Essex Integrated Care Board facilities over the past year.

We are clear that the extent of waits for treatment is unacceptable, and cutting waiting lists is a key priority for the Government. We have committed to returning by March 2029 to the NHS constitutional standard that 92% of patients should wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment (RTT).Between July 2024 and June 2025, we delivered 5.2 million additional appointments compared to the previous year, more than double our pledge of two million. This marks a vital first step towards delivering the constitutional standard.As an interim goal, NHS England’s Operational Planning Guidance 2025/26 has set the national ambition for 65% of patients waiting no longer than 18 weeks for treatment, with every trust expected to deliver a minimum five percentage point improvement in performance, and to reduce the proportion of people waiting over 52 weeks for treatment to less than 1% of the total waiting list.To support this improvement across all trusts and systems, there is a robust performance management process in place. The new NHS Oversight Framework 2025/26 ensures that there is public accountability for performance and NHS England works with systems and providers to support improvement.In coordination with the NHS Mid and South Essex Integrated Care Board, NHS England has heightened executive oversight and assurance processes in place with the Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust to monitor and support recovery plans. An extensive targeted recovery plan focuses on orthopaedic mutual aid, optimising and expanding existing capacity, pathway reform, improvements to validation processes and demand management.A new interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer have been appointed at the trust, in addition to a dedicated Executive Elective Recovery Director to drive and oversee turnaround of elective care performance.

What steps she is taking to increase the level of prosecutions for immigration-related offences.

Prosecutions themselves are a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service.The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 provides an array of new and stronger powers for law enforcement agencies to prevent organised immigration crime and bring further prosecutions against immigration related offences. These powers will, for example, make it a criminal offence to put lives in danger during a small boat crossing and will allow law enforcement to intercept smuggling gangs’ criminal activity earlier on in the investigations process. The Crown Prosecution Service has welcomed the package of new offences as it equips prosecutors with another tool to fight organised immigration crime, especially those involving dangerous Channel crossings. The full Act can be found at legislation.co.uk: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2025/31/part/3/enacted and part 3 provides for ‘Offences relating to things for use in serious crime’. Statistics published last week show there has been a 33% surge in smuggling arrests, convictions and seizures of criminal cash and assets over the last 12 months. More information on this can be read at What is being done to stop organised immigration crime? - GOV.UK

What steps he is taking to reduce the level of reoffending rates of people convicted of immigration offences and sentenced to short custodial terms.

The term “immigration related offences” covers a wide range of offending behaviour including making illegal entry to the country, overstaying leave to remain, employing illegal workers and facilitating breaches of immigration law.As a result, providing reoffending data across all of these offence types would come at disproportionate cost and it is difficult to make generalised assumptions about future risk of offending.More broadly the Government is tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

What plans he has to review the effectiveness of custodial sentences of under 12 months in reducing levels of reoffending.

We publish proven reoffending statistics quarterly, including detailed data by sentence type, offence type, and offender characteristics. The next publication is due at the end of January 2026 (Proven reoffending statistics - GOV.UK).We are tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.For example, to support employment, we are delivering vocational courses, a future skills programme, and expanding the prisoner apprenticeship scheme. All 93 resettlement prisons have key roles in place to prepare prisoners for employment on release, and we have launched regional Employment Councils, which for the first time bring businesses together with prisons, probation, and the Department for Work and Pensions to support prison leavers.Reoffending rates for adults sentenced to less than 12 months in custody remain high – in the latest data, just over 60% reoffended within a year. Ministry of Justice research shows that community orders and suspended sentences are up to 4 percentage points more effective at reducing reoffending than short custodial sentences. That is why we are introducing a presumption to suspend custodial sentences of 12 months or less via the Sentencing Bill, and expanding Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs), which aim to reduce reoffending by diverting individuals from short custodial sentences into enhanced community-based orders.We are not, however, abolishing short sentences. Judges will always have the power to send offenders to prison where they have breached a court order, where there is a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to a particular individual, or in exceptional circumstances.

What assessment he has made of the risk of reoffending of individuals convicted of immigration-related offences.

The term “immigration related offences” covers a wide range of offending behaviour including making illegal entry to the country, overstaying leave to remain, employing illegal workers and facilitating breaches of immigration law.As a result, providing reoffending data across all of these offence types would come at disproportionate cost and it is difficult to make generalised assumptions about future risk of offending.More broadly the Government is tackling the root causes of reoffending by investing in a range of services which address offenders’ underlying criminogenic needs and support their rehabilitation journey. This includes education, employment, accommodation and access to substance misuse treatment.

What assessment she has made of the adequacy of sentencing levels for immigration-related offences under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

The Government is committed to protecting the UK’s border security and is working very closely with the National Crime Agency and law enforcement partners to ensure they have the funding, tools and expertise to identify, disrupt and dismantle organised crime groups involved in illegal migration.The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 created the offence of illegal arrival which carries a maximum sentence of 4 years imprisonment on indictment. The Act also raised the maximum penalties for the illegal entry and arriving without an Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA) to four years and entering in breach of a Deportation Order to five years. Notably, it also raised the maximum sentence for the offence of facilitating a breach of immigration law to life in prison. Prosecutions are pursued for all of the above offences, as they are for all immigration offences, wherever there is sufficient evidence to do so. These cases are then referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) where a decision on whether or not to prosecute is made. This decision is dependent upon the CPS’ assessment of the available evidence and whether or not it passes the CPS’ own public interest test. Information about the CPS’ decision making can be found here The Code for Crown Prosecutors | The Crown Prosecution Service.

What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the current level of conviction and sentencing patterns for immigration offences on immigration enforcement policy.

Statistics published last week show there has been a 33% surge in smuggling arrests, convictions and seizures of criminal cash and assets over the last 12 months. What is being done to stop organised immigration crime? - GOV.UK To maintain the highest standards of accuracy, the Home Office prefers to refer to published data, as this has been subject to rigorous quality assurance under National Statistics protocols prior to publication. Information about convictions of immigration offences is not available in our published data. Our published national data on enforcement activity is available at the following link and includes data on detected irregular arrivals to the UK Immigration system statistics, year ending June 2025 - GOV.UK