Written questions by Moore.

Following notifications by transcription providers of bulk or systematic requests for court transcripts, which individuals or organisations have been (a) approved and (b) refused permission to continue receiving transcripts on that basis; and what reasons were given for any refusals.

Under the terms of HMCTS transcription contracts, transcription providers are required to notify HMCTS where they receive bulk or systematic requests for court transcripts and seek approval before continuing such supply. Any consideration of such notifications is undertaken on a case-by-case basis.HMCTS does not hold a centrally collated record of the individuals or organisations that have been approved or refused permission to continue receiving transcripts following such notifications.Decisions are taken having regard to the specific circumstances of each request, including compliance with reporting restrictions, data protection and security requirements. HMCTS does not record reasons for refusal.

How many notifications transcription providers have made to HMCTS in each of the last five years under the bulk or systematic request provisions of the HMCTS transcription contracts; and what data HMCTS holds on the total number of transcript requests received by providers each year.

Transcription service providers are required, under the terms of their contracts to notify HMCTS where they receive bulk or systematic requests for transcripts and seek approval before continuing such supply. These notifications are made on a case-by-case as they arise. HM Courts and Tribunal Service does not hold a centrally collated record of the total number of such notifications made by providers in each of the last five years. Transcription requests are placed directly with providers by a range of customers, including HMCTS, other public bodies, legal representatives and members of the public. While providers are required to supply management information to HMCTS for contract assurance and performance monitoring purposes, HMCTS does not hold a record of the total number of transcript requests received by providers in each year.

What criteria HMCTS applies when determining whether to approve or refuse bulk or systematic access to court transcripts following notification by a transcription provider; and who within HMCTS is responsible for making such decisions.

HMCTS applies clear contractual and governance criteria when considering whether to approve or refuse bulk or systematic access to court transcripts.Under HMCTS transcription contracts, suppliers must not provide transcripts or grant access to transcripts to third parties on a bulk or standing or systematic basis without the prior approval of HMCTS.Responsibility for these decisions lies with HMCTS, acting through its designated contract management and operational teams with specialist advice sought as necessary. Approval of requests are based on the following:Legal complianceSecurity and information assurance requirementsOperational and reputational riskLawful, proportionate and consistent with the original purpose

With reference to the National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, published in June 2025, what progress his Department has made on implementing recommendation three.

It is horrific that any person was convicted as a child for loitering and soliciting for prostitution. The Government has announced immediate steps to disregard such convictions.Also, my officials are working with the Criminal Cases Review Commission to ensure they are properly resourced to review the applications of the wider cohort of victims of child sexual exploitation who believe they were unjustly convicted when their position as a victim was not properly understood.

With reference to the National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, published in June 2025, what progress his Department has made on implementing recommendation 1.

The Government accepted recommendation 1 of the National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse. We are committed to changing the law and we are aware of the need for urgency. This is a complex area of law and we are carefully considering how we change it to best meet the commitment. We will update Parliament soon about our proposed approach, including when we intend to legislate.

How many and what proportion of (a) suspects were tried and (b) convicted people were sentenced in absentia in the last 12 months.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on trials, convictions and sentencing outcomes at criminal courts in England and Wales (latest data to December 2024), available from the Criminal Justice Statistics page. However, it is not possible to provide the number of people sentenced in their absence, as this is not held. Nor is it possible to provide data on the nationality of convicted defendants who were sentenced in their absence, as this information is not collected. This information may be held in court records, but to examine individual court records would be of disproportionate costs.

What information her Department holds on the (a) number and (b) proportion of people who abscond abroad before (i) trial and (ii) sentencing in the most recent period for which data is available; and how many and what proportion of these people were (A) dual and (B) foreign nationals.

The Ministry of Justice does not centrally hold information on the numbers of people who abscond abroad before trial and sentencing or absconding abroad by dual/foreign nationals. To obtain the data to answer this question would involve a manual interrogation of court records which would result in a disproportionate cost to the department.

How many and what proportion of (a) foreign and (b) dual national offenders were (i) tried and (ii) sentenced in absentia in the last 12 months.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on trials, convictions and sentencing outcomes at criminal courts in England and Wales (latest data to December 2024), available from the Criminal Justice Statistics page. However, it is not possible to provide the number of people sentenced in their absence, as this is not held. Nor is it possible to provide data on the nationality of convicted defendants who were sentenced in their absence, as this information is not collected. This information may be held in court records, but to examine individual court records would be of disproportionate costs.

If she will make it her policy to automatically recall to prison any released offender who (a) seeks and (b) obtains employment in a position they are barred from through the Disclosure and Barring Service.

Recall is a vital tool to protect the public. All offenders on licenced supervision in the community are liable to recall to prison if they fail to comply with the conditions of their licence or if the Probation Service assess that they can no longer be safely managed in the community.

Whether his Department has plans to remove the 28 day cap on the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.

Parliament intended the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme to be an exceptional power, and any expansion of the scheme must be carefully considered. While we understand calls for expansion, it is important for both victims and offenders that there is finality in sentencing. The Law Commission is undertaking a review of the laws governing criminal appeals. Last month, it launched a public consultation which invites views on a range of reforms to the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme, including extending the 28-day time limit. The consultation is open to all and runs until 30 May: Criminal Appeals Consultation Paper - Law Commission.

How many cases were referred to the Court of Appeal under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme between 2019 to 2025.

From 1 January 2019 to 21 February 2025, 781 sentences were referred to the Court of Appeal by the Law Officers under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.The number of referrals by Law Officers to the Court of Appeal each year since 2019 is as follows:2019932020972021155202213920231392024146202512 to dateThis data is available publicly using the Outcome of ULS Referrals Data Tool - Outcome of unduly lenient sentence referrals - GOV.UK.

What steps she is taking to prevent reoffending by people convicted of drug dealing.

We are tackling the causes of reoffending by investing in a range of interventions to address the underlying criminogenic needs of offenders (including those convicted of drug dealing). This includes accommodation, employment and substance misuse treatment services. There are also a range of accredited programmes in prisons and probation designed to address offending behaviour. Those convicted of drug dealing offences may be suitable, for example, for the Building Choices programme, which provides offenders with a structured opportunity to learn, strengthen, and practice skills and behaviour that targets areas of common criminogenic need. Accredited programmes are complemented by a range of interventions that aim to support individuals to change their attitudes, thinking and behaviour, which are commonly delivered by third sector organisations – and may also be suitable for those convicted of drug offences. Furthermore, people convicted of drug dealing are subject to licence conditions on release from prison which aim to protect the public, prevent re-offending and secure the successful re-integration into the community. For those convicted of drug dealing with substance misuse issues, licence conditions may require them to attend appointments with substance misuse services or to submit to drug testing.