Written questions by Jenrick.

What recent assessment she has made of the potential impact of (a) staffing shortages and (b) interpreter availability on delays in magistrates’ courts.

The Ministry of Justice does not collect data on ineffective trials specifically caused by staffing shortages within HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). However, we monitor staffing levels closely and do not assess them to be a significant driver of ineffective trials in magistrates’ courts. Staffing levels across HMCTS have remained broadly stable, with administrative staffing at junior grades (AA–EO) holding steady, and staffing at more senior grades (HEO–G6), including legal and administrative roles, showing an upward trend. These patterns reflect continued investment in workforce capacity and ongoing recruitment activity. We recognise the importance of a reliable and efficient court system, and the impact on victims when trials do not proceed as planned. That is why the Lord Chancellor has appointed Sir Brian Leveson to conduct an Independent Review of the Criminal Courts. Phase 2 of the review will consider the efficiency and timeliness of processes of the criminal courts through charge to conviction/acquittal. The Ministry of Justice regularly monitors the impact of interpreter availability on court proceedings. According to the latest data published in the “Trial effectiveness in the courts” tool (covering up to December 2024), there were 364 ineffective trials in magistrates’ courts between July and December 2024 due to the unavailability of an interpreter. This represents 4% of all ineffective trials and less than 1% of all listed trials during that period.

What estimate she has made of the proportion of magistrates’ court trials listed that did not go ahead on the scheduled day since July 2024; and what the primary recorded reasons were for such delays.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the number of ineffective trials at the magistrates’ courts across England and Wales in the “Trial effective in the courts” data tool (latest to December 2024). This can be downloaded from the Criminal Court Statistics landing page here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/criminal-court-statistics.

How many people serving sentences in closed prisons will become eligible for transfer to open prisons under the early transfer rules that came into force on 9 June 2025; and how many prisoners are eligible by (a) primary offence type and (b) sentence length.

The Temporary Presumptive Recategorisation Scheme (TPRS) is not a new scheme; it was first introduced in March 2023 under the previous Government. On 9 June 2025, the scheme was extended to allow eligible prisoners to transfer to the open estate 36 months prior to release. Due to being in the early stages of operationalising this change, our staff are still in the process of conducting risk assessments to determine eligibility.There is limited eligibility for the scheme; all sexual, terrorist and violent offenders serving a sentence of at least four years are barred. Furthermore, prisoners are assessed against clear criteria to ensure that their move will not pose a serious risk to the public. We can immediately return any offender in the Category D estate back to closed conditions at any point if there is any evidence of an increased risk, and Governors retain the discretion to rule prisoners out of moves if there are serious concerns.

If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of mandating the use of (a) scanners and (b) enhanced security screening upon entry to secure prisons for all prison officers.

HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) maintains a zero-tolerance approach to smuggling contraband into prisons, including weapons, drugs and mobile phones, which can fuel violence and create instability.Airport-style Enhanced Gate Security, comprising of metal detectors and X-ray baggage scanners, is used in 52 highest-risk prison sites (both private and public sector), including all of the High Security prisons in the Long Term High Security Estate.

With reference to her oral contribution in response to a question from the Rt hon. Member for Newark on 3 June 2025, Official Report, col 161, if she will write to the Council of Europe in support of the open letter produced by nine Council members calling for reform of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The UK participates in regular engagement with the Council of Europe and its member States – including on the important issues raised in this letter.

For what reason the interim Permanent Secretary spoke at the televised Ministerial press conference on prisons of 14 May 2025.

The interim Permanent Secretary attended the televised press conference on 14 May to provide a factual update on prison capacity.

How many offenders released on licence were not tagged in accordance with their licence conditions in the last 12 months for which data is available; and what proportion of that total were due to (a) equipment shortages and (b) administrative delays.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost by manually going through each individual’s record on the Electronic Monitoring (EM) supplier’s and probation service’s systems where this detail is recorded.

When she plans to appoint a chair to conduct the independent review of the attack on prison officers at HMP Frankland on 12 April 2025; and when the review will conclude.

On Thursday 15 May, we announced the appointment of Jonathan Hall KC as the reviewer of the HMP Frankland Independent Review. The Lord Chancellor has asked for the review to report back promptly, and to leave no stone unturned so we can prevent such an incident ever happening again.

Whether her Department has received reports on the operation of informal (a) adjudication mechanisms and (b) dispute resolution systems within prisons based on (i) Sharia and (ii) other (A) religious and (B) ideological codes.

Extremist gang activity is not tolerated in prisons. Staff act swiftly to clamp down on intimidating or threatening behaviour regardless of cultural or religious sensitivities. Anyone who threatens assaults or attempts to control others faces tough sanctions, including time added on to their sentence. Our message is clear: follow the rules or pay for breaking them.We do not tolerate any attempts by extremists to coerce others. Where we do identify evidence that this may be happening, we take a zero-tolerance approach. We have robust measures in place to manage offenders and prevent them from radicalising others. This includes specialist staff training, monitoring of communications, and targeted interventions, both in custody and upon release, to prevent the spread of harmful ideologies and reduce reoffending.

Whether she plans to publish the outcome of her Department's review into whether protective body armour should be made available to frontline prison staff.

HM Prison & Probation Service has commissioned an internal review to establish whether it is necessary for our brave and hard-working prison officers to wear Protective Body Armour either routinely or when working in high-risk environments within the prison estate which will report in early June. We will announce the outcome of the review and next steps to be taken following the review’s conclusion.

Whether her Department has received reports of (a) instances where inmates have been physically punished for failing to comply with informal interpretations of Sharia law and (b) other forms of (i) coercive violence and (ii) informal disciplinary practices within prisons.

Extremist gang activity is not tolerated in prisons. Staff act swiftly to clamp down on intimidating or threatening behaviour regardless of cultural or religious sensitivities. Anyone who threatens assaults or attempts to control others faces tough sanctions, including time added on to their sentence. Our message is clear: follow the rules or pay for breaking them.We do not tolerate any attempts by extremists to coerce others. Where we do identify evidence that this may be happening, we take a zero-tolerance approach. We have robust measures in place to manage offenders and prevent them from radicalising others. This includes specialist staff training, monitoring of communications, and targeted interventions, both in custody and upon release, to prevent the spread of harmful ideologies and reduce reoffending.

Whether her Department has received (a) intelligence and (b) operational reports referencing a group known as the Brotherhood; and whether such reports describe that group as exercising (i) influence and (ii) control over other prisoners.

Extremist gang activity is not tolerated in prisons. Staff act swiftly to clamp down on intimidating or threatening behaviour regardless of cultural or religious sensitivities. Anyone who threatens assaults or attempts to control others faces tough sanctions, including time added on to their sentence. Our message is clear: follow the rules or pay for breaking them.We do not tolerate any attempts by extremists to coerce others. Where we do identify evidence that this may be happening, we take a zero-tolerance approach. We have robust measures in place to manage offenders and prevent them from radicalising others. This includes specialist staff training, monitoring of communications, and targeted interventions, both in custody and upon release, to prevent the spread of harmful ideologies and reduce reoffending.

What steps she has taken to suspend the use of kitchen facilities in Separation Centres within prisons.

Access to kitchen facilities in Separation Centres and Close Supervision Centres was immediately suspended following the horrific attack at HMP Frankland on 12 April. A rapid review of access to, and use of, self-cook areas across the prison estate, including special units, is due to report with recommendations in June.R (De Silva) v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EWHC 128 (Admin) concerned an individual placement review decision, rather than general use of Separation Centres. We have continued to refer and place dangerous radicalisers into Separation Centres where they meet the criteria in Rule 46A of the Prison Rules 1999. Our use of Close Supervision Centres, designed to hold the most physically violent and disruptive prisoners, has not been affected.Specialist counter-terrorism staff undertake regular assessments on the scale and nature of the terrorist threat across HMPPS, including on the radicalisation of inmates by other inmates. Assessments are conducted at establishment level, regional level, and national level to support day-to-day decision making and inform wider strategic priorities.The Joint Extremism Unit maintains a consolidated list of extremist materials that are banned within the prison estate. This list is shared with relevant teams to ensure these materials are not available to prisoners. Prison Governors also have discretion over additional materials that may not be permitted within their establishments.

Whether her Department has assessed the potential impact for her policies of the judgement in R (De Silva) v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EWHC 128 (Admin) on the ability of prison governors to isolate (a) extremist prisoners and (b) prisoners that present a high-risk to officers.

Access to kitchen facilities in Separation Centres and Close Supervision Centres was immediately suspended following the horrific attack at HMP Frankland on 12 April. A rapid review of access to, and use of, self-cook areas across the prison estate, including special units, is due to report with recommendations in June.R (De Silva) v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EWHC 128 (Admin) concerned an individual placement review decision, rather than general use of Separation Centres. We have continued to refer and place dangerous radicalisers into Separation Centres where they meet the criteria in Rule 46A of the Prison Rules 1999. Our use of Close Supervision Centres, designed to hold the most physically violent and disruptive prisoners, has not been affected.Specialist counter-terrorism staff undertake regular assessments on the scale and nature of the terrorist threat across HMPPS, including on the radicalisation of inmates by other inmates. Assessments are conducted at establishment level, regional level, and national level to support day-to-day decision making and inform wider strategic priorities.The Joint Extremism Unit maintains a consolidated list of extremist materials that are banned within the prison estate. This list is shared with relevant teams to ensure these materials are not available to prisoners. Prison Governors also have discretion over additional materials that may not be permitted within their establishments.

How many a) Separation Centres and b) segregation wings in the prison estate are currently in use; and what is their total available capacity.

There are three separation centres, all within the Long-Term High Security Estate, with a total capacity of 28 prisoner places. Two are currently operational, and the third is available for use when required.109 segregation wings or units in the prison estate are currently in use, with a capacity of 1,747 places.

Whether her Department has issued to prison governors a consolidated list of extremist material banned in prisons.

Access to kitchen facilities in Separation Centres and Close Supervision Centres was immediately suspended following the horrific attack at HMP Frankland on 12 April. A rapid review of access to, and use of, self-cook areas across the prison estate, including special units, is due to report with recommendations in June.R (De Silva) v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EWHC 128 (Admin) concerned an individual placement review decision, rather than general use of Separation Centres. We have continued to refer and place dangerous radicalisers into Separation Centres where they meet the criteria in Rule 46A of the Prison Rules 1999. Our use of Close Supervision Centres, designed to hold the most physically violent and disruptive prisoners, has not been affected.Specialist counter-terrorism staff undertake regular assessments on the scale and nature of the terrorist threat across HMPPS, including on the radicalisation of inmates by other inmates. Assessments are conducted at establishment level, regional level, and national level to support day-to-day decision making and inform wider strategic priorities.The Joint Extremism Unit maintains a consolidated list of extremist materials that are banned within the prison estate. This list is shared with relevant teams to ensure these materials are not available to prisoners. Prison Governors also have discretion over additional materials that may not be permitted within their establishments.

Whether her Department has recently assessed the (a) scale and (b) nature of the threat from (i) Islamist and (ii) far-right prisoners radicalising other inmates.

Access to kitchen facilities in Separation Centres and Close Supervision Centres was immediately suspended following the horrific attack at HMP Frankland on 12 April. A rapid review of access to, and use of, self-cook areas across the prison estate, including special units, is due to report with recommendations in June.R (De Silva) v Secretary of State for Justice [2025] EWHC 128 (Admin) concerned an individual placement review decision, rather than general use of Separation Centres. We have continued to refer and place dangerous radicalisers into Separation Centres where they meet the criteria in Rule 46A of the Prison Rules 1999. Our use of Close Supervision Centres, designed to hold the most physically violent and disruptive prisoners, has not been affected.Specialist counter-terrorism staff undertake regular assessments on the scale and nature of the terrorist threat across HMPPS, including on the radicalisation of inmates by other inmates. Assessments are conducted at establishment level, regional level, and national level to support day-to-day decision making and inform wider strategic priorities.The Joint Extremism Unit maintains a consolidated list of extremist materials that are banned within the prison estate. This list is shared with relevant teams to ensure these materials are not available to prisoners. Prison Governors also have discretion over additional materials that may not be permitted within their establishments.

With reference to the Sentencing Council's guidance entitled Imposition of community and custodial sentences - Effective from 1 April 2025, whether her Department has made an (a) estimate of the (i) additional number of pre-sentence reports required and (ii) costs of those reports and (b) assessment of the potential impact of that guidance on the (A) quality of pre-sentence reports, (B) probation service, (C) time taken for sentencing and (D) number of appeals of sentencing decisions.

Where a court is considering whether an offender should receive a sentence of immediate custody, a pre-sentence report must be obtained and considered before forming an opinion unless, in the circumstances of the case, the court considers that it is unnecessary to obtain a pre-sentence report. The Probation Service plays an essential role by providing an expert assessment of the nature and causes of the offender's behaviour and the risk the offender poses. Our priority remains the safety of the public and rehabilitation of offenders, and we will take all necessary steps to support the probation service in achieving these goals.The Sentencing Council is responsible for carrying out its own impact assessments of its guidelines. The assessment for the recent Imposition of community and custodial sentences guidelines published on 5 March 2025, can be found here: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/html-publication/item/imposition-of-community-and-custodial-sentences-overarching-guideline-final-resource-assessment/#Resource%20impacts.The Lord Chancellor has been clear that these guidelines regarding pre-sentencing reports do not represent the views of this Government. The Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of the Sentencing Council have had a constructive discussion. It was agreed that the Lord Chancellor will set out her position more fully in writing, which the Sentencing Council will then consider before the guideline is due to come into effect. It remains the case that the Lord Chancellor is reviewing the role and responsibilities of the Sentencing Council – and look at whether a greater role for elected officials is needed.

Whether she plans to set a target date to achieve a representative (a) judiciary and (b) magistracy.

The Government is strongly committed to achieving a judiciary which better represents the diversity of the population. This comprises of judges, non-legal members and magistrates.We continue to work closely with the judiciary, the Judicial Appointments Commission, the legal professions, magistrates’ representatives and employers to improve the diversity of the judiciary.

Whether she has visited HMP Long Lartin since 4 July 2024.

The Lord Chancellor has been closely involved in the response to the urgent notifications we have received. Each is a reminder of the state of crisis that the last Government left behind in our prisons.The Prisons Minister will be visiting HMP Long Lartin in the coming days and we are working closely with the prison leadership to turn these prisons around.