Written questions by McMurdock.

With reference to his Department’s press release entitled Government action to avert summer prison disaster, published on 29 January 2026, on what date the 2,900 prison spaces were approved for construction.

This Government has delivered c.2,900 additional prison places and construction on these began between 2022 and 2024. We have invested £4.7 billion over the spending review period to enable the delivery of these additional prison places at pace and have maintained our target to deliver a total of 14,000 by 2031. The places delivered by this Government so far were approved for construction between 2020 and 2024.

With reference to his Department's research entitled Alcohol monitoring on licence: process and interim impact evaluation, published 30 October 2025, whether he plans to repeat research on the impact of the Alcohol and Monitoring on Licence scheme with larger sample group sizes.

Alcohol monitoring on licence was introduced in Wales in 2021 and England in 2022 and enables probation to include an additional licence condition banning or restricting the consumption of alcohol, where a criminogenic need related to alcohol misuse is identified as an increase to risk. The alcohol monitoring on licence: process and interim impact evaluation was published on 30 October 2025: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/alcohol-monitoring-on-licence-process-and-interim-impact-evaluation. A further impact evaluation exploring reoffending will be published in due course which will measure longer-term outcomes than the existing published evaluation. The sample size is not confirmed but we expect it to be broadly similar.The process and interim impact evaluation of Alcohol Monitoring on Licence scheme was based on a sample of the overall tagged population. The process evaluation reported some instances where tag wearers experienced pain or discomfort and had the tag changed or removed. These issues did not indicate widespread concerns about the reliability of alcohol tag readings.

With reference to his Department's research entitled Alcohol monitoring on licence: process and interim impact evaluation, published 30 October 2025, what assessment his Department have made of the adequacy of alcohol monitoring readings from people on Alcohol Monitoring Licence orders whose tags were later removed due to potentially incorrect fittings.

Alcohol monitoring on licence was introduced in Wales in 2021 and England in 2022 and enables probation to include an additional licence condition banning or restricting the consumption of alcohol, where a criminogenic need related to alcohol misuse is identified as an increase to risk. The alcohol monitoring on licence: process and interim impact evaluation was published on 30 October 2025: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/alcohol-monitoring-on-licence-process-and-interim-impact-evaluation. A further impact evaluation exploring reoffending will be published in due course which will measure longer-term outcomes than the existing published evaluation. The sample size is not confirmed but we expect it to be broadly similar.The process and interim impact evaluation of Alcohol Monitoring on Licence scheme was based on a sample of the overall tagged population. The process evaluation reported some instances where tag wearers experienced pain or discomfort and had the tag changed or removed. These issues did not indicate widespread concerns about the reliability of alcohol tag readings.

Pursuant to his Department’s press release entitled ‘Free access to sentencing remarks for all victims’ published on 19 January 2026, whether his Department has any plans to extend free access for victims to judge's remarks to cases heard in magistrates courts.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on (a) the amounts victims of crime have paid to obtain sentencing remarks, (b) the number of victims who have withdrawn their request, or (c) the reasons for any withdrawal.Currently, bereaved families of homicide victims and victims of rape and other sexual offences are eligible to apply for a free transcript of the relevant sentencing remarks. This provision is being expanded to all victims where the case in question was sentenced in the Crown Court, through the Sentencing Act. Sentencing remarks were selected for this provision as they provide a clear summary of the case and explain how the trial outcome was reached. Extending free provision to cases resulting in an acquittal is not possible as there would be no equivalent to sentencing remarks to transcribe and provide.We continue to work closely with the judiciary and criminal justice partners to ensure victims are provided with clear, accessible information at every stage of the process, including where a defendant is acquitted. This includes through existing channels such as Witness Care Units, who hold a responsibility under Right 9 of the Victims Code to update victims on the outcome of the case or trial including, where available, a brief summary of reasons for the decision.Expansion of free provision to summary remarks in the magistrates’ courts is not currently under consideration. As trial and sentencing proceedings in the magistrates’ courts are not currently recorded, transcripts cannot be provided either through payment or free of charge. This is being kept under review as the system moves towards the recording of magistrates’ proceedings.

What information his Department holds on the number of victims of crime who withdrew their request for a copy of a judge's sentencing remarks due to the cost since 2020.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on (a) the amounts victims of crime have paid to obtain sentencing remarks, (b) the number of victims who have withdrawn their request, or (c) the reasons for any withdrawal.Currently, bereaved families of homicide victims and victims of rape and other sexual offences are eligible to apply for a free transcript of the relevant sentencing remarks. This provision is being expanded to all victims where the case in question was sentenced in the Crown Court, through the Sentencing Act. Sentencing remarks were selected for this provision as they provide a clear summary of the case and explain how the trial outcome was reached. Extending free provision to cases resulting in an acquittal is not possible as there would be no equivalent to sentencing remarks to transcribe and provide.We continue to work closely with the judiciary and criminal justice partners to ensure victims are provided with clear, accessible information at every stage of the process, including where a defendant is acquitted. This includes through existing channels such as Witness Care Units, who hold a responsibility under Right 9 of the Victims Code to update victims on the outcome of the case or trial including, where available, a brief summary of reasons for the decision.Expansion of free provision to summary remarks in the magistrates’ courts is not currently under consideration. As trial and sentencing proceedings in the magistrates’ courts are not currently recorded, transcripts cannot be provided either through payment or free of charge. This is being kept under review as the system moves towards the recording of magistrates’ proceedings.

How many victims of crime paid (a) £40 and (b) more than £40 to access sentencing remarks since 2020.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on (a) the amounts victims of crime have paid to obtain sentencing remarks, (b) the number of victims who have withdrawn their request, or (c) the reasons for any withdrawal.Currently, bereaved families of homicide victims and victims of rape and other sexual offences are eligible to apply for a free transcript of the relevant sentencing remarks. This provision is being expanded to all victims where the case in question was sentenced in the Crown Court, through the Sentencing Act. Sentencing remarks were selected for this provision as they provide a clear summary of the case and explain how the trial outcome was reached. Extending free provision to cases resulting in an acquittal is not possible as there would be no equivalent to sentencing remarks to transcribe and provide.We continue to work closely with the judiciary and criminal justice partners to ensure victims are provided with clear, accessible information at every stage of the process, including where a defendant is acquitted. This includes through existing channels such as Witness Care Units, who hold a responsibility under Right 9 of the Victims Code to update victims on the outcome of the case or trial including, where available, a brief summary of reasons for the decision.Expansion of free provision to summary remarks in the magistrates’ courts is not currently under consideration. As trial and sentencing proceedings in the magistrates’ courts are not currently recorded, transcripts cannot be provided either through payment or free of charge. This is being kept under review as the system moves towards the recording of magistrates’ proceedings.

With reference to his Department’s press release entitled Free access to sentencing remarks for all victims, published on 19 January 2026, whether his Department has considered the potential merits of including free access for victims to judges' remarks on cases that result in acquittal.

The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on (a) the amounts victims of crime have paid to obtain sentencing remarks, (b) the number of victims who have withdrawn their request, or (c) the reasons for any withdrawal.Currently, bereaved families of homicide victims and victims of rape and other sexual offences are eligible to apply for a free transcript of the relevant sentencing remarks. This provision is being expanded to all victims where the case in question was sentenced in the Crown Court, through the Sentencing Act. Sentencing remarks were selected for this provision as they provide a clear summary of the case and explain how the trial outcome was reached. Extending free provision to cases resulting in an acquittal is not possible as there would be no equivalent to sentencing remarks to transcribe and provide.We continue to work closely with the judiciary and criminal justice partners to ensure victims are provided with clear, accessible information at every stage of the process, including where a defendant is acquitted. This includes through existing channels such as Witness Care Units, who hold a responsibility under Right 9 of the Victims Code to update victims on the outcome of the case or trial including, where available, a brief summary of reasons for the decision.Expansion of free provision to summary remarks in the magistrates’ courts is not currently under consideration. As trial and sentencing proceedings in the magistrates’ courts are not currently recorded, transcripts cannot be provided either through payment or free of charge. This is being kept under review as the system moves towards the recording of magistrates’ proceedings.

Pursuant to his Department's press release entitled Battlefield tactics to inspire UK fight against prison drones, published on 16 January 2026, what proportion of the 1,712 drone incidents referenced resulted in prison officers intercepting and seizing contraband.

We publish the number of drone incidents in prisons in England and Wales in the HMPPS Annual Digest. Data specific to the recoveries of illicit items cannot be disclosed for security reasons.We are working hard to deter, detect and disrupt the use of drones to deliver contraband into prisons, which poses a major threat to prison security. In this 2025-26 financial year, we are investing over £40 million in physical security across 34 prisons. This includes circa £10 million on anti-drone measures such as secure windows and robust netting at 15 prisons.Our approach is multi-faceted and includes physical security countermeasures, legislation, and working closely across Government, with law enforcement, the private sector, and international partners on this global issue. Due to operational sensitives, we are not able to discuss in detail the tactics used, as that would aid those seeking to exploit prison security.

Pursuant to his Department's press release entitled Battlefield tactics to inspire UK fight against prison drones, published on 16 January 2026, what proportion of the 1,712 drone incidents at prisons were related to (a) drug and (b) weapons smuggling.

We publish the number of drone incidents in prisons in England and Wales in the HMPPS Annual Digest. Data specific to the recoveries of illicit items cannot be disclosed for security reasons.We are working hard to deter, detect and disrupt the use of drones to deliver contraband into prisons, which poses a major threat to prison security. In this 2025-26 financial year, we are investing over £40 million in physical security across 34 prisons. This includes circa £10 million on anti-drone measures such as secure windows and robust netting at 15 prisons.Our approach is multi-faceted and includes physical security countermeasures, legislation, and working closely across Government, with law enforcement, the private sector, and international partners on this global issue. Due to operational sensitives, we are not able to discuss in detail the tactics used, as that would aid those seeking to exploit prison security.

What assessment he has made of the potential implication for his policies of the news story from the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales entitled The evolving response to ethnic disproportionality in youth justice, published on 19 December 2025.

The Ministry of Justice has not made an assessment of the impact of Islington’s changes to pre-sentence reports which the independent Youth Justice Board (YJB) included in its news story. We encourage YOTs to make full and effective use of pre-sentence reports in order to ensure judges make the most informed decision possible when sentencing a child.Research commissioned by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) in 2021 highlighted that disproportionate outcomes for some ethnic groups persist, including more restrictive remand outcomes, fewer out-of-court disposals, and harsher court sentences, even when accounting for demographic and offence-related factors.While these disparities cannot be attributed solely to adultification bias, evidence indicates that differential practitioner assessments can inflate the perceived reoffending risk for ethnic minority children, increasing the likelihood of disproportionate outcomes. Research commissioned by the YJB in 2024 found that pre-sentence reports for Black children gave less consideration to their health, life experiences and trauma than those for White children, which may contribute to Black children being viewed through a less safeguarding- and support-focused lens. However, the small sample size means these findings may not be representative.The Government is clear that racial disparities within the youth justice system must be addressed. The YJB’s news story highlighted a number of issues, including poorer remand outcomes for Black and Mixed children even after accounting for offence severity. The Ministry of Justice is committed to tackling unnecessary custodial remands, and is currently developing a package of reforms to ensure that custody for children is only used as a last resort.

With reference to the news story from the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales entitled The evolving response to ethnic disproportionality in youth justice, published on 19 December 2025, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of Islington’s change to pre-sentencing reports to include statements on local over-representation data and adultification on local reoffending rates.

The Ministry of Justice has not made an assessment of the impact of Islington’s changes to pre-sentence reports which the independent Youth Justice Board (YJB) included in its news story. We encourage YOTs to make full and effective use of pre-sentence reports in order to ensure judges make the most informed decision possible when sentencing a child.Research commissioned by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) in 2021 highlighted that disproportionate outcomes for some ethnic groups persist, including more restrictive remand outcomes, fewer out-of-court disposals, and harsher court sentences, even when accounting for demographic and offence-related factors.While these disparities cannot be attributed solely to adultification bias, evidence indicates that differential practitioner assessments can inflate the perceived reoffending risk for ethnic minority children, increasing the likelihood of disproportionate outcomes. Research commissioned by the YJB in 2024 found that pre-sentence reports for Black children gave less consideration to their health, life experiences and trauma than those for White children, which may contribute to Black children being viewed through a less safeguarding- and support-focused lens. However, the small sample size means these findings may not be representative.The Government is clear that racial disparities within the youth justice system must be addressed. The YJB’s news story highlighted a number of issues, including poorer remand outcomes for Black and Mixed children even after accounting for offence severity. The Ministry of Justice is committed to tackling unnecessary custodial remands, and is currently developing a package of reforms to ensure that custody for children is only used as a last resort.

Pursuant to his Department's press release entitled Battlefield tactics to inspire UK fight against prison drones, published on 16 January 2026, whether his Department have had discussions with private drone companies to consult on anti-drone measures in prisons.

We publish the number of drone incidents in prisons in England and Wales in the HMPPS Annual Digest. Data specific to the recoveries of illicit items cannot be disclosed for security reasons.We are working hard to deter, detect and disrupt the use of drones to deliver contraband into prisons, which poses a major threat to prison security. In this 2025-26 financial year, we are investing over £40 million in physical security across 34 prisons. This includes circa £10 million on anti-drone measures such as secure windows and robust netting at 15 prisons.Our approach is multi-faceted and includes physical security countermeasures, legislation, and working closely across Government, with law enforcement, the private sector, and international partners on this global issue. Due to operational sensitives, we are not able to discuss in detail the tactics used, as that would aid those seeking to exploit prison security.

With reference to the news story from the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales entitled The evolving response to ethnic disproportionality in youth justice, published on 19 December 2025, what recent assessment he has made of the trends in the level of adultification bias within youth justice decision making.

The Ministry of Justice has not made an assessment of the impact of Islington’s changes to pre-sentence reports which the independent Youth Justice Board (YJB) included in its news story. We encourage YOTs to make full and effective use of pre-sentence reports in order to ensure judges make the most informed decision possible when sentencing a child.Research commissioned by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) in 2021 highlighted that disproportionate outcomes for some ethnic groups persist, including more restrictive remand outcomes, fewer out-of-court disposals, and harsher court sentences, even when accounting for demographic and offence-related factors.While these disparities cannot be attributed solely to adultification bias, evidence indicates that differential practitioner assessments can inflate the perceived reoffending risk for ethnic minority children, increasing the likelihood of disproportionate outcomes. Research commissioned by the YJB in 2024 found that pre-sentence reports for Black children gave less consideration to their health, life experiences and trauma than those for White children, which may contribute to Black children being viewed through a less safeguarding- and support-focused lens. However, the small sample size means these findings may not be representative.The Government is clear that racial disparities within the youth justice system must be addressed. The YJB’s news story highlighted a number of issues, including poorer remand outcomes for Black and Mixed children even after accounting for offence severity. The Ministry of Justice is committed to tackling unnecessary custodial remands, and is currently developing a package of reforms to ensure that custody for children is only used as a last resort.

How many alerts were triggered by alcohol monitoring tags in December 2024; and what proportion of those alerts resulted in enforcement action, including recall to prison and return to court.

The Department keeps the use of alcohol monitoring under review and has commissioned a programme of evaluations to assess impact on compliance and reoffending. For community sentences, compliance with court‑imposed alcohol bans is high. Published statistics show a compliance rate with the ban of over 97% for days monitored, since introduction, as shown here: Electronic Monitoring MI Publication, June 2025 - GOV.UK.For post‑custody use, we published the Alcohol Monitoring on Licence (AML) process and interim impact evaluation in October 2025, linked here: Alcohol monitoring on licence: process and interim impact evaluation - GOV.UK.Enforcement decisions are recorded within individual probation case management records and are taken on a case‑by‑case basis by supervising practitioners. To collate this locally held information could only be done at a disproportionate cost. Non‑compliance can lead to proportionate enforcement ranging from further engagement with the person on probation through formal warnings and breach action, up to recall where risk or persistent non‑compliance warrants it.We publish regular Alcohol Monitoring Statistics. The latest publication sets out statistics on AAMR orders and the use of AML orders from 31 July 2025 to 30 November 2025 and can be found here: Ad-Hoc Alcohol Monitoring Statistics Publication, Dec 2025 - GOV.UK.

Pursuant to Answer of 12 January 2026 to Question 102638, what assessment he has made of the cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for individuals convicted of immigration-related offences.

The Ministry of Justice has not made an assessment of the cost effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions for individuals convicted of immigration-related offences. Rehabilitation pathways (including for this cohort) are determined by an individual’s assessed risk and needs, ensuring interventions are targeted and proportionate. Reoffending more broadly imposes a significant financial burden on the public, costing an estimated £22.7 billion per year (adjusted to 2024/25 prices). Our rehabilitative interventions are delivered in line with the evidence base which suggests that employment and education programmes and substance misuse treatment can reduce the risk of reoffending. For example, offenders who leave custody into employment are up to 9 percentage points less likely to reoffend, and a similar percentage reduction in reoffending for those who have engaged in any form of in-prison education. Similarly, an MoJ experimental statistical report found a 19-percentage point reduction in the 2-year rate of reoffending for offenders who successfully completed treatment compared to those who dropped out.

Pursuant to the Answer of 21 November 2024 to Question 14399 on Offenders: Electronic Tagging, what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of alcohol monitoring tags in reducing the level of alcohol related reoffending.

The Department keeps the use of alcohol monitoring under review and has commissioned a programme of evaluations to assess impact on compliance and reoffending. For community sentences, compliance with court‑imposed alcohol bans is high. Published statistics show a compliance rate with the ban of over 97% for days monitored, since introduction, as shown here: Electronic Monitoring MI Publication, June 2025 - GOV.UK.For post‑custody use, we published the Alcohol Monitoring on Licence (AML) process and interim impact evaluation in October 2025, linked here: Alcohol monitoring on licence: process and interim impact evaluation - GOV.UK.Enforcement decisions are recorded within individual probation case management records and are taken on a case‑by‑case basis by supervising practitioners. To collate this locally held information could only be done at a disproportionate cost. Non‑compliance can lead to proportionate enforcement ranging from further engagement with the person on probation through formal warnings and breach action, up to recall where risk or persistent non‑compliance warrants it.We publish regular Alcohol Monitoring Statistics. The latest publication sets out statistics on AAMR orders and the use of AML orders from 31 July 2025 to 30 November 2025 and can be found here: Ad-Hoc Alcohol Monitoring Statistics Publication, Dec 2025 - GOV.UK.

How many enforcement actions or penalties have been issued for age discrimination in recruitment in each of the past three years.

Data on compensation and costs awarded for Employment Tribunal on age discrimination is published within the official statistics: Employment_and_EAT_2023_24.ods.

What the total cost was of procuring, fitting, and monitoring alcohol tags in each of the last three years.

Financial records allow us to provide the direct contractual costs of alcohol monitoring which include the cost of the tag purchases and system monitoring but do not distinguish between case type for Electronic Monitoring in terms of tag installation or physical monitoring and therefore the table below excludes these costs for the three years. Costs also exclude probation and other criminal justice system partners’ resource supporting EM in the community.As a result of our record investment in electronic monitoring, we are tagging more offenders than ever before. The technology is playing a significant role in the Government’s mission to take back our streets from alcohol-fuelled harm, which the National Audit Office estimate costs the UK economy £21 billion a year. Evidence is increasingly proving the effectiveness of tags, with offenders banned from drinking alcohol staying sober for 97% of the days they were tagged. 2023/242024/252025/26(Actual)(Actual)(Actual)Procurement and System Monitoring of Alcohol Monitoring tags£8.1m £12.5m £15.2m

What evidence his Department has that culturally sensitive and anti‑racist youth justice programmes funded by the Youth Justice Board deliver sustained, long‑term reductions in reoffending beyond initial pilot phases.

The Youth Justice Board (YJB) is funding a ‘pathfinder’ pilot project in the West Midlands to better understand why interventions are achieving better outcomes for White children than for Black and Mixed heritage children. It was established in 2024 and its total cost is estimated at £750,000 over four years. The YJB has not yet provided the Ministry of Justice with evidence about the project’s early impact – the project is due to run until spring 2027 and be evaluated subsequently.The factors contributing to custodial remand outcomes are complex and multi-layered. Outcomes for children of different ethnic backgrounds show disparities. The YJB’s 2021 report ‘Ethnic Disproportionality Remand and Sentencing in the Youth Justice System’ outlines these in more detail. The report found that even after controlling for demographic and offence-related factors, children of Mixed ethnicity and Black children remained more likely to receive a custodial remand than White children. The Ministry of Justice recognises that remand outcomes reflect a combination of factors across the system, including assessments provided to the court and judicial discretion.All local authorities are required by the YJB’s Data Recording Requirements to submit data that includes consistent and accurate recording of ethnicity data, with quality regularly monitored. The YJB Data Recording Requirements require all YOTs to submit mandatory case level and summary level data to the YJB. This includes the requirements that:All YOTs need to accurately record the ethnicity of all children they are supervising and supporting. Ethnicity is self-identified by the child.YOTs must use the Government harmonised classifications for ethnicity so as to ensure consistency and comparability.

What assessment he has made of the extent to which judicial decision‑making, rather than youth justice practitioner assessments, accounts for disparities in custodial remand outcomes for children of different ethnic backgrounds.

The Youth Justice Board (YJB) is funding a ‘pathfinder’ pilot project in the West Midlands to better understand why interventions are achieving better outcomes for White children than for Black and Mixed heritage children. It was established in 2024 and its total cost is estimated at £750,000 over four years. The YJB has not yet provided the Ministry of Justice with evidence about the project’s early impact – the project is due to run until spring 2027 and be evaluated subsequently.The factors contributing to custodial remand outcomes are complex and multi-layered. Outcomes for children of different ethnic backgrounds show disparities. The YJB’s 2021 report ‘Ethnic Disproportionality Remand and Sentencing in the Youth Justice System’ outlines these in more detail. The report found that even after controlling for demographic and offence-related factors, children of Mixed ethnicity and Black children remained more likely to receive a custodial remand than White children. The Ministry of Justice recognises that remand outcomes reflect a combination of factors across the system, including assessments provided to the court and judicial discretion.All local authorities are required by the YJB’s Data Recording Requirements to submit data that includes consistent and accurate recording of ethnicity data, with quality regularly monitored. The YJB Data Recording Requirements require all YOTs to submit mandatory case level and summary level data to the YJB. This includes the requirements that:All YOTs need to accurately record the ethnicity of all children they are supervising and supporting. Ethnicity is self-identified by the child.YOTs must use the Government harmonised classifications for ethnicity so as to ensure consistency and comparability.