Written questions by Vickers.

What steps he is taking to ensure that lessons are learned from the systemic failings at Medomsley Detention Centre to prevent similar abuse in youth detention facilities in the future.

The Prison and Probation Ombudsman’s investigation published on 12 November set out in stark detail the horrific abuse that boys and young men experienced at Medomsley Detention Centre (MDC). The PPO asked the Government to consider three issues – that the Government make an apology, that the complaints process should be reformed, and that children should be asked about their experiences of custody by a trained independent member of staff.On 12 November, the Government published a Written Ministerial Statement and sent an open letter to victims and survivors. In both, we made a full apology for the abuse which victims and survivors endured and recognised the ineffective governance structures and failures of leadership at every level, which meant the abuse was allowed to continue for such a long time. In the Government response, we also committed to setting up a Youth Custody Safeguarding Panel to make recommendations to improve safeguarding across the youth estate today, including reviewing the ways children can make complaints and are asked about their experiences in custody. This panel has now been established and will be chaired by Isabelle Trowler (the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families), who will consider the issues raised in the PPO report and report to ministers by spring 2026.In terms of support for victims and survivors, the Ministry of Justice put in place a settlement scheme to provide compensation. To date, this has settled over 2,700 claims, totalling over £10 million. Whilst no amount of compensation can change what has happened in the past, this scheme remains open and we have encouraged anyone who has not already, to make a claim.There are not any plans to establish a public inquiry into MDC. The PPO report is forensic and follows criminal investigations by the Durham Constabulary – Operations Halter One and Two in the 2000s, and the comprehensive Operation Seabrook beginning in 2013. Due to the breadth and depth of these investigations, a public inquiry would be very unlikely to uncover any new information or insight. Adrian Usher, the Ombudsman, has shared this view – “It is my opinion that should a public inquiry arise following the publication of my report, I cannot see how it would produce a more comprehensive account of what happened at Medomsley, and the causes of it, than my investigation has revealed.”

What steps the Government has taken or plans to take to implement the recommendations of the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman report into abuse at Medomsley Detention Centre.

The Prison and Probation Ombudsman’s investigation published on 12 November set out in stark detail the horrific abuse that boys and young men experienced at Medomsley Detention Centre (MDC). The PPO asked the Government to consider three issues – that the Government make an apology, that the complaints process should be reformed, and that children should be asked about their experiences of custody by a trained independent member of staff.On 12 November, the Government published a Written Ministerial Statement and sent an open letter to victims and survivors. In both, we made a full apology for the abuse which victims and survivors endured and recognised the ineffective governance structures and failures of leadership at every level, which meant the abuse was allowed to continue for such a long time. In the Government response, we also committed to setting up a Youth Custody Safeguarding Panel to make recommendations to improve safeguarding across the youth estate today, including reviewing the ways children can make complaints and are asked about their experiences in custody. This panel has now been established and will be chaired by Isabelle Trowler (the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families), who will consider the issues raised in the PPO report and report to ministers by spring 2026.In terms of support for victims and survivors, the Ministry of Justice put in place a settlement scheme to provide compensation. To date, this has settled over 2,700 claims, totalling over £10 million. Whilst no amount of compensation can change what has happened in the past, this scheme remains open and we have encouraged anyone who has not already, to make a claim.There are not any plans to establish a public inquiry into MDC. The PPO report is forensic and follows criminal investigations by the Durham Constabulary – Operations Halter One and Two in the 2000s, and the comprehensive Operation Seabrook beginning in 2013. Due to the breadth and depth of these investigations, a public inquiry would be very unlikely to uncover any new information or insight. Adrian Usher, the Ombudsman, has shared this view – “It is my opinion that should a public inquiry arise following the publication of my report, I cannot see how it would produce a more comprehensive account of what happened at Medomsley, and the causes of it, than my investigation has revealed.”

What measures are currently in place, or planned, to provide ongoing support and redress for survivors of abuse at Medomsley Detention Centre.

The Prison and Probation Ombudsman’s investigation published on 12 November set out in stark detail the horrific abuse that boys and young men experienced at Medomsley Detention Centre (MDC). The PPO asked the Government to consider three issues – that the Government make an apology, that the complaints process should be reformed, and that children should be asked about their experiences of custody by a trained independent member of staff.On 12 November, the Government published a Written Ministerial Statement and sent an open letter to victims and survivors. In both, we made a full apology for the abuse which victims and survivors endured and recognised the ineffective governance structures and failures of leadership at every level, which meant the abuse was allowed to continue for such a long time. In the Government response, we also committed to setting up a Youth Custody Safeguarding Panel to make recommendations to improve safeguarding across the youth estate today, including reviewing the ways children can make complaints and are asked about their experiences in custody. This panel has now been established and will be chaired by Isabelle Trowler (the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families), who will consider the issues raised in the PPO report and report to ministers by spring 2026.In terms of support for victims and survivors, the Ministry of Justice put in place a settlement scheme to provide compensation. To date, this has settled over 2,700 claims, totalling over £10 million. Whilst no amount of compensation can change what has happened in the past, this scheme remains open and we have encouraged anyone who has not already, to make a claim.There are not any plans to establish a public inquiry into MDC. The PPO report is forensic and follows criminal investigations by the Durham Constabulary – Operations Halter One and Two in the 2000s, and the comprehensive Operation Seabrook beginning in 2013. Due to the breadth and depth of these investigations, a public inquiry would be very unlikely to uncover any new information or insight. Adrian Usher, the Ombudsman, has shared this view – “It is my opinion that should a public inquiry arise following the publication of my report, I cannot see how it would produce a more comprehensive account of what happened at Medomsley, and the causes of it, than my investigation has revealed.”

Whether he plans to establish a statutory public inquiry into the abuse of young men at Medomsley Detention Centre and the systemic failures highlighted in the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman’s report.

The Prison and Probation Ombudsman’s investigation published on 12 November set out in stark detail the horrific abuse that boys and young men experienced at Medomsley Detention Centre (MDC). The PPO asked the Government to consider three issues – that the Government make an apology, that the complaints process should be reformed, and that children should be asked about their experiences of custody by a trained independent member of staff.On 12 November, the Government published a Written Ministerial Statement and sent an open letter to victims and survivors. In both, we made a full apology for the abuse which victims and survivors endured and recognised the ineffective governance structures and failures of leadership at every level, which meant the abuse was allowed to continue for such a long time. In the Government response, we also committed to setting up a Youth Custody Safeguarding Panel to make recommendations to improve safeguarding across the youth estate today, including reviewing the ways children can make complaints and are asked about their experiences in custody. This panel has now been established and will be chaired by Isabelle Trowler (the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families), who will consider the issues raised in the PPO report and report to ministers by spring 2026.In terms of support for victims and survivors, the Ministry of Justice put in place a settlement scheme to provide compensation. To date, this has settled over 2,700 claims, totalling over £10 million. Whilst no amount of compensation can change what has happened in the past, this scheme remains open and we have encouraged anyone who has not already, to make a claim.There are not any plans to establish a public inquiry into MDC. The PPO report is forensic and follows criminal investigations by the Durham Constabulary – Operations Halter One and Two in the 2000s, and the comprehensive Operation Seabrook beginning in 2013. Due to the breadth and depth of these investigations, a public inquiry would be very unlikely to uncover any new information or insight. Adrian Usher, the Ombudsman, has shared this view – “It is my opinion that should a public inquiry arise following the publication of my report, I cannot see how it would produce a more comprehensive account of what happened at Medomsley, and the causes of it, than my investigation has revealed.”

What (a) number and (b) proportion of final death certificates remained unissued by the Teesside Coroner's Office for (i) 3 months (ii) 6 months, (iii) 12 months, (iv) 18 months and (v) 24 months after the deaths of individuals referred to the coroners office in each of the last five years.

At the conclusion of an inquest or if it is suspended pending the conclusion of proceedings associated with the death the coroner certifies the cause of death for the purposes of registration. The registration of the death itself is carried out by the Registrar. The Ministry of Justice publishes annual Coroners Statistics which can be found at Coroners statistics 2024 - GOV.UK The information requested on the number and proportion of unissued final death certificates for the Teesside and Hartlepool coroner area and nationally is not collected but comparable data is available in, or can be extrapolated from, these statistical publications.

What the average time taken was for (a) Teesside Coroner's Officer and (b) Coroner's Offices in England and Wales to issue a final death certificate from the date of when deaths are referred to them in each of the last five years.

At the conclusion of an inquest or if it is suspended pending the conclusion of proceedings associated with the death the coroner certifies the cause of death for the purposes of registration. The registration of the death itself is carried out by the Registrar. The Ministry of Justice publishes annual Coroners Statistics which can be found at Coroners statistics 2024 - GOV.UK The information requested on the number and proportion of unissued final death certificates for the Teesside and Hartlepool coroner area and nationally is not collected but comparable data is available in, or can be extrapolated from, these statistical publications.

What steps his Department plans to take to encourage an increased uptake of coronial post-mortems by pathologists.

The Ministry of Justice recognises that the system for commissioning pathologists to undertake post-mortems for coroners needs to function effectively to help coroners determine causes of death and meet the needs of bereaved families. Ministry of Justice officials are working closely with other government departments and wider stakeholders in the pathology sector, to understand the issues for the coronial pathology workforce and those of the wider system. The Ministry of Justice has recently undertaken a data-gathering exercise intended to better-understand the profile of this workforce. We will continue to work across Whitehall and with external stakeholders to ensure that there is a secure number of pathologists ready to undertake this vital work for coroners and ensure the needs of bereaved families are met.

What (a) number and (b) proportion of final death certificates remained unissued by Coroner's Offices in England and Wales after (i) 3 months (ii) 6 months, (iii) 12 months, (iv) 18 months and (v) 24 months after the deaths of individuals referred to the coroners office in each of the last five years.

At the conclusion of an inquest or if it is suspended pending the conclusion of proceedings associated with the death the coroner certifies the cause of death for the purposes of registration. The registration of the death itself is carried out by the Registrar. The Ministry of Justice publishes annual Coroners Statistics which can be found at Coroners statistics 2024 - GOV.UK The information requested on the number and proportion of unissued final death certificates for the Teesside and Hartlepool coroner area and nationally is not collected but comparable data is available in, or can be extrapolated from, these statistical publications.

What assessment his Department has made of the impact of delays in parole hearings on victims awaiting (a) closure and (b) notification of release outcomes.

The Parole Board plays a vital role in public protection. It can only direct release if it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the offender must remain in custody. To ensure each case can receive thorough scrutiny, once a case is referred to the Board there is no time limit in which a decision must be made. Each case is considered individually and the proceedings are managed according to the specific circumstances involved.We recognise the uncertainty and distress that parole hearings will cause for victims. Prolonged reviews are regrettable but the nature of parole proceedings means that the Board’s panel will often need to direct additional information or specialist reports to complete their risk assessment and this must be the priority for public protection reasons.Eligible victims registered with the Victim Contact Scheme are kept up to date during the parole review by dedicated Victim Liaison Officers.

What assessment his Department has made of the Parole Board’s capacity to process cases within the 18-month review cycle.

We have interpreted the reference to an ‘18-month review cycle’ to be the frequency that cases are referred to the Parole Board and the review cycle varies depending on the type of sentence being served. Standard Determinate Sentence prisoners who have been recalled are referred to the Board within 28 days of their recall and then every 12 months. Indeterminate sentence prisoners must have a parole review just prior to tariff expiry and then at a minimum, every two years thereafter. HMPPS sets the period between reviews, and offenders are referred every 12 to 24 months after their first review depending on the outstanding risk reduction work that the offender needs to complete.Once a case has been referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State, the conduct of the review process and the scheduling of hearings is entirely a matter for the Board. The Parole Board has made efforts to improve timeliness and a number of measures have been implemented to improve throughput and reduce delays. These include the introduction of temporary fee uplifts, targeted recruitment campaigns, and the delegation of certain case management functions to secretariat staff.The Board’s published Annual Review and Account for 2024/25 reports that despite making more individual decisions than the previous year, the number of cases waiting for paper decisions and or oral hearings have both fallen. The Department continues to monitor performance closely and remains committed to supporting the Parole Board in meeting its statutory obligations whilst maintaining public protection.

What assessment his Department has made of the impact of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 on victims’ participation in parole hearings.

Victims’ participation in parole is managed through the Victim Contact Scheme run by HMPPS. Victims can submit a Victim Personal Statement to the Parole Board explaining the effect that the crime has had on them and their family. They can also make representations, which may inform the Parole Board’s consideration of licence conditions, should release be directed. Additionally, victims can also apply to observe a Parole Board oral hearing to see how parole panels assess the offender’s risk.The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 legislated for the codified public protection test, which requires the Parole Board to have particular regard to the protection of the victim when considering release. Other measures in the Act, once implemented, will ensure victims know about their rights under the Victims’ Code and that these entitlements are met by criminal justice agencies, as well as driving more strategic commissioning through the Duty to Collaborate.

What steps his Department is taking to ensure that victims are kept informed throughout the criminal justice process.

This Government inherited a record and rising courts backlog which has created unacceptable delays meaning victims are waiting too long for justice. This is why this Government commissioned the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson, to propose bold and ambitious reforms to improve timeliness in the courts and deliver swift justice for victims. We know how important support services are in keeping victims engaged and supported through the Criminal Justice process, particularly with regards to delays in their case. The Ministry of Justice provides funding for victim and witness support services, in addition to core funding for Police and Crime Commissioners to allocate at their discretion, based on their assessment of local need.This Government is committed to ensuring victims have the information they need. The Victims’ Code is statutory guidance that sets out the minimum level of service that victims of crime should receive from the criminal justice system. Under the Code, victims have the right to information when reporting the crime, during investigation and prosecution, during the trial, and at the outcome of the trial.We will be consulting on a new Code in due course to make sure we get the foundations for victims right. We are also taking steps through the Victims and Courts Bill to provide all victims with a clear route to request information about their offender, where they receive a custodial sentence.

What plans his Department has to help ensure victims can contribute to parole decisions via (a) victim personal statements and (b) in general.

The HMPPS Victim Contact Scheme (VCS) is a service for the victims of offenders who are convicted of specified violent, sexual or terrorism offences and are sentenced to twelve months or more imprisonment. Where it falls to the Parole Board to determine whether to release any one of those offenders, and the victim has chosen to receive the VCS service, victims may make representations about licence conditions to which the offender should be subject if the Board makes a release direction. The Scheme also allows the victim to submit a victim personal statement, to explain to the Board what has been the effect of offender’s crime(s) on them and their family.Since 1 April 2025, victims may apply to observe an oral hearing conducted by the Parole Board, and the presumption is that the Board will approve applications unless there are compelling reasons not to. Observing an oral hearing provides victims with access to vital information about the prisoner and how parole panels assess the prisoner’s risk. In addition to support from their allocated Victim Liaison Officer, victims are assigned a Victim Representative from the Public Protection Group in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). The Representative is experienced in the parole process. In addition, victims can also apply directly to the Parole Board for the parole hearing to be held in public and, if granted, they would also be allocated a Victim Representative to support them through this process.We keep these arrangements and processes under regular review, taking account of feedback from victims. Indeed, victims are provided with an opportunity to submit feedback to HMPPS on their experience.Through the Victim and Courts Bill, we will be updating the legislative framework that establishes the Victim Contact Scheme to bring victims currently served by different post-conviction communication schemes into the Victim Contact Scheme and provide a new route for other victims to request information via a dedicated helpline. This will give victims confidence about the routes available to receive information about their offender’s release.

What recent assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of the Parole Board’s approach to managing the risk posed by offenders convicted of serious (a) violent and (b) sexual crimes.

The Parole Board applies a statutory test when determining whether to release an offender. The test requires the Board to be satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the offender remain confined. The test was codified in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, following the Ministry of Justice’s Root and Branch Review of the parole system, published in March 2022. The review assessed the system as a whole, including how risk is assessed in cases involving serious violent and sexual offenders, and led to reforms that strengthened statutory safeguards and public protection measures.The Parole Board does not manage risk following the release of offenders. Where release is directed, responsibility for managing risk lies with probation services, who develop and implement robust supervision plans tailored to the individual’s risk profile. The Parole Board will only direct release if it is satisfied that the release plan is sufficient to safely manage the offender in the community.

What recent assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of funding for victims’ support services.

The Ministry of Justice provides funding for victim and witness support services, including community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence services, in addition to core funding for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) to allocate at their discretion, based on their assessment of local need. For the 2025/2026 financial year, funding for services supporting victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence has been protected at 2024/2025 levels. While there has been a modest reduction to the core funding provided to PCCs, the Department has consolidated previous ringfenced grants into a single funding stream, enabling greater flexibility for local areas to address specific needs. In 2023/2024 over 1.5 million victims were supported through the services commissioned by PCCs. The Department continues to work closely with local partners to ensure funding is targeted effectively and is focused on delivering its commitments to repairing and strengthening the justice system, so that victims can receive swift access to justice. Funding after March 2026 will be agreed through the allocations process which follows on the latest Spending Review, and we are unable to pre-empt the outcome of this.

What steps his Department is taking to improve communication with victims during the parole process.

The HMPPS Victim Contact Scheme (VCS) is a service for the victims of offenders who are convicted of specified violent, sexual or terrorism offences and are sentenced to twelve months or more imprisonment. Where it falls to the Parole Board to determine whether to release any one of those offenders, and the victim has chosen to receive the VCS service, victims may make representations about licence conditions to which the offender should be subject if the Board makes a release direction. The Scheme also allows the victim to submit a victim personal statement, to explain to the Board what has been the effect of offender’s crime(s) on them and their family.Since 1 April 2025, victims may apply to observe an oral hearing conducted by the Parole Board, and the presumption is that the Board will approve applications unless there are compelling reasons not to. Observing an oral hearing provides victims with access to vital information about the prisoner and how parole panels assess the prisoner’s risk. In addition to support from their allocated Victim Liaison Officer, victims are assigned a Victim Representative from the Public Protection Group in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). The Representative is experienced in the parole process. In addition, victims can also apply directly to the Parole Board for the parole hearing to be held in public and, if granted, they would also be allocated a Victim Representative to support them through this process.We keep these arrangements and processes under regular review, taking account of feedback from victims. Indeed, victims are provided with an opportunity to submit feedback to HMPPS on their experience.Through the Victim and Courts Bill, we will be updating the legislative framework that establishes the Victim Contact Scheme to bring victims currently served by different post-conviction communication schemes into the Victim Contact Scheme and provide a new route for other victims to request information via a dedicated helpline. This will give victims confidence about the routes available to receive information about their offender’s release.

What recent steps his Department has taken to balance the rights of prisoners to timely parole review with the need to (a) protect the public and (b) support victims.

The Parole Board plays a vital role in public protection. It can only direct release if it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the offender must remain in custody. To ensure each case can receive thorough scrutiny, once a case is referred to the Board there is no time limit in which a decision must be made. Each case is considered individually and the proceedings are managed according to the specific circumstances involved.We recognise the uncertainty and distress that parole hearings will cause for victims. Prolonged reviews are regrettable but the nature of parole proceedings means that the Board’s panel will often need to direct additional information or specialist reports to complete their risk assessment and this must be the priority for public protection reasons.Eligible victims registered with the Victim Contact Scheme are kept up to date during the parole review by dedicated Victim Liaison Officers.

What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of training provided to Parole Board members on assessing the risk of reoffending.

Parole Board members receive training in risk assessment that covers interpreting professional evaluations and assessing written and oral evidence to decide if statutory release criteria are satisfied.The Parole Board, as an independent body, is responsible for developing and delivering its own training programmes.The Ministry of Justice is confident that the training provided on assessing the risk of reoffending is robust.

What steps his Department is taking to increase administrative efficiency in scheduling parole hearings.

We have interpreted the reference to an ‘18-month review cycle’ to be the frequency that cases are referred to the Parole Board and the review cycle varies depending on the type of sentence being served. Standard Determinate Sentence prisoners who have been recalled are referred to the Board within 28 days of their recall and then every 12 months. Indeterminate sentence prisoners must have a parole review just prior to tariff expiry and then at a minimum, every two years thereafter. HMPPS sets the period between reviews, and offenders are referred every 12 to 24 months after their first review depending on the outstanding risk reduction work that the offender needs to complete.Once a case has been referred to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State, the conduct of the review process and the scheduling of hearings is entirely a matter for the Board. The Parole Board has made efforts to improve timeliness and a number of measures have been implemented to improve throughput and reduce delays. These include the introduction of temporary fee uplifts, targeted recruitment campaigns, and the delegation of certain case management functions to secretariat staff.The Board’s published Annual Review and Account for 2024/25 reports that despite making more individual decisions than the previous year, the number of cases waiting for paper decisions and or oral hearings have both fallen. The Department continues to monitor performance closely and remains committed to supporting the Parole Board in meeting its statutory obligations whilst maintaining public protection.

What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of victim support during parole hearings.

The HMPPS Victim Contact Scheme (VCS) is a service for the victims of offenders who are convicted of specified violent, sexual or terrorism offences and are sentenced to twelve months or more imprisonment. Where it falls to the Parole Board to determine whether to release any one of those offenders, and the victim has chosen to receive the VCS service, victims may make representations about licence conditions to which the offender should be subject if the Board makes a release direction. The Scheme also allows the victim to submit a victim personal statement, to explain to the Board what has been the effect of offender’s crime(s) on them and their family.Since 1 April 2025, victims may apply to observe an oral hearing conducted by the Parole Board, and the presumption is that the Board will approve applications unless there are compelling reasons not to. Observing an oral hearing provides victims with access to vital information about the prisoner and how parole panels assess the prisoner’s risk. In addition to support from their allocated Victim Liaison Officer, victims are assigned a Victim Representative from the Public Protection Group in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). The Representative is experienced in the parole process. In addition, victims can also apply directly to the Parole Board for the parole hearing to be held in public and, if granted, they would also be allocated a Victim Representative to support them through this process.We keep these arrangements and processes under regular review, taking account of feedback from victims. Indeed, victims are provided with an opportunity to submit feedback to HMPPS on their experience.Through the Victim and Courts Bill, we will be updating the legislative framework that establishes the Victim Contact Scheme to bring victims currently served by different post-conviction communication schemes into the Victim Contact Scheme and provide a new route for other victims to request information via a dedicated helpline. This will give victims confidence about the routes available to receive information about their offender’s release.