Ministry of Justice

The Sentencing Bill will amend the Early Removal Scheme (ERS) to allow eligible Foreign National Offenders (FNO) serving determinate sentences to be removed from prison for the purposes of immediate deportation any time after sentencing. FNOs removed under ERS are not subject to further imprisonment after they are removed from the UK but are barred from ever returning to the UK. If they return unlawfully, they will be liable to serve the rest of their sentence from the point they were deported.

Those serving life and other indeterminate sentences are not eligible for removal under ERS. Offenders serving a terrorism or terrorism-connected offence are also excluded from removal. ERS can be refused by HMPPS in certain circumstances for example if there is serious evidence an offender is planning a further crime.

Prisoner Transfer Agreements, where prisoners continue to serve their sentence in their home countries, will still be used in certain circumstances where we have an agreement in place and there is cooperation with the receiving country. Enhancing our prisoner transfer capability with partner countries remains important to the Ministry of Justice.

We commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to propose bold and ambitious measures to deliver swifter justice for victims, including for victims of sexual violence, in his Independent Review of Criminal Courts. This Review will make recommendations to ensure there is sufficient capacity within the courts to address the record Crown Court caseload, which this Government inherited, across all case types - including rape and other sexual offences. Work on Part 2 of the report, which is looking at how the criminal courts can operate as efficiently as possible, is underway. We expect it to be finalised this year.

Statutory responsibility for judicial training in the courts is held by the Lady Chief Justice. This responsibility is fulfilled by the Judicial College. All judges authorised to hear serious sexual offence (SSO) cases must complete the relevant induction training course before starting to sit and regular continuation training every three years. Presiding judges undertake an annual assessment of the business need for authorised SSO ticketed judges within their respective circuits and new approvals are decided by the senior judiciary.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Advocate Panel is a time limited list of quality assured advocates to undertake criminal prosecution advocacy for CPS. Positive changes made by the CPS to the application process in May 2024 have seen rape and serious sexual offence (RASSO) advocate Panel membership increase by 51%. This includes a 38% increase in advocates prosecuting on the Midlands Circuit. These advocates have received CPS accredited RASSO training within the last 3 years and can demonstrate the experience and ability to undertake RASSO cases.

Details of sentences being served by foreign national offenders are published as part of the Ministry of Justice’s Offender Management Statistics Quarterly. The information requested can be found at Table 1_A_24 in the Annual Prison Population tables at the following link: prison-population-30-June-2025.ods.

Details of sentences being served by foreign national offenders are published as part of the Ministry of Justice’s Offender Management Statistics Quarterly. The information requested can be found at Table 1_A_24 in the Annual Prison Population tables at the following link: prison-population-30-June-2025.ods.

Victims of sexual violence are encouraged to attend a Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC), where trained professionals can provide holistic care and collect forensic evidence in line with established standards. SARCs operate within the framework of the criminal justice system and are equipped to support victims in preserving evidence and accessing justice.

The Ministry of Justice is aware that self-swab kits are being marketed to the public as a means of collecting DNA following sexual violence. These kits are in no way associated with any government department or criminal justice agency, and there is no government guidance about their usage.

We are aware of concerns raised about the promotion of self-swab kits, including those outlined in position statements by the Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine and Rape Crisis England & Wales. Support is available for victims of rape through SARCs and the 24/7 Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Line.

We remain committed to tackling sexual violence and achieving the best outcomes for victims, in line with our goal to halve violence against women and girls within a decade.

The ability to challenge the lawfulness of Government decisions and those of other public bodies is fundamental to the rule of law. The Government remains committed to this principle.

Under the changes being taken forward in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) judicial reviews, only claimants whose cases are deemed ‘totally without merit’ at the oral permission stage in the High Court will be prevented from appealing to the Court of Appeal. In other cases, the claimant can appeal the refusal of permission.

The Government is also working with the judiciary to take forward a number of other procedural changes to speed up the process for NSIP judicial reviews, such as target timescales, to ensure such cases are dealt with promptly. This can benefit all parties, including claimants.

These reforms are about ensuring cases move through the courts more quickly and efficiently, not about limiting the ability for the public to challenge decisions.

In Part I of the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, published July 9, Sir Brian Leveson recommends reclassifying certain triable either-way offences, including theft offences. We will set out our response to this and other aspects of his report in due course.

We recognise that there remain significant challenges for the performance of the Employment Tribunals. We are working with the judiciary and across Government with

His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), Acas and the Department of Business and Trade on actions to improve performance in the Employment Tribunals.

HMCTS continues to invest in improving Employment Tribunal processes through the recruitment of additional judges, deployment of Legal Officers to actively manage cases, the development of modern case management systems, and the use of remote hearing technology. A ‘Virtual Region’ of judges has delivered over 1,500 extra sitting days. We are encouraging the uptake of mediation to help individuals resolve their employment issues at the earliest opportunity.

Following recruitment, in 2024 we had 21 more salaried judges in the Employment Tribunals than in 2023, and further recruitment for up to 36 salaried Employment Judges commenced in March 2025. 50 fee paid employment judges were appointed in 2024 and recruitment will commence for another 50 in early 2026. As a result, the Lord Chancellor was able to announce on 5 March a sitting day allocation for the Employment Tribunals of 33,900 in 2025/26, the maximum allocation they are able to sit.

The Government is clear that everyone should have access to Employment Tribunals, to challenge unfair behaviour at work. We recently reiterated this commitment, by announcing that bringing forward a case to an Employment Tribunal will remain free, to ensure that everyone can stand up for their rights at work, no matter their means.

His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has expanded its checks using new digital tools to analyse the full period affected – covering around 700,000 cases – to determine whether any were impacted and to what extent. Based on the first phase of this additional assurance work, which reviewed a sample of 455 potentially affected cases, one has been found to be missing a document where the judge has confirmed it could have affected the case outcome. The parties involved have been contacted directly and offered the opportunity to request that the decision be set aside and the case reheard. As the assurance work continues, HMCTS will contact any additional parties whose case outcomes may have been affected.

The CEO of HMCTS will write to the Justice Select Committee once the assurance process concludes, setting out the total number of affected cases, parties contacted, and outcome of any follow-up action.

The Department remains committed to transparency and to safeguarding the integrity of judicial decision-making. Since the response provided on 22 September 2025, the Ministry of Justice has been conducting an internal assessment of the HMCTS Core Case Data issue.

His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has expanded its checks using new digital tools to analyse the full period affected – covering around 700,000 cases – to determine whether any were impacted and to what extent. Based on the first phase of this additional assurance work, which reviewed a sample of 455 potentially affected cases, one has been found to be missing a document where the judge has confirmed it could have affected the case outcome. The parties involved have been contacted directly and offered the opportunity to request that the decision be set aside and the case reheard. As the assurance work continues, HMCTS will contact any additional parties whose case outcomes may have been affected.

The CEO of HMCTS will write to the Justice Select Committee once the assurance process concludes, setting out the total number of affected cases, parties contacted, and outcome of any follow-up action.

The Department remains committed to transparency and to safeguarding the integrity of judicial decision-making. Since the response provided on 22 September 2025, the Ministry of Justice has been conducting an internal assessment of the HMCTS Core Case Data issue.

His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has expanded its checks using new digital tools to analyse the full period affected – covering around 700,000 cases – to determine whether any were impacted and to what extent. Based on the first phase of this additional assurance work, which reviewed a sample of 455 potentially affected cases, one has been found to be missing a document where the judge has confirmed it could have affected the case outcome. The parties involved have been contacted directly and offered the opportunity to request that the decision be set aside and the case reheard. As the assurance work continues, HMCTS will contact any additional parties whose case outcomes may have been affected.

The CEO of HMCTS will write to the Justice Select Committee once the assurance process concludes, setting out the total number of affected cases, parties contacted, and outcome of any follow-up action.

The Department remains committed to transparency and to safeguarding the integrity of judicial decision-making. Since the response provided on 22 September 2025, the Ministry of Justice has been conducting an internal assessment of the HMCTS Core Case Data issue.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on prosecutions for a wide range of offences, including death by dangerous driving in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice System statistics quarterly: December 2024 - GOV.UK.

It is not possible to identify those convicted of dangerous driving who go on to be charged with a subsequent motoring offence without exceeding the disproportionate cost limit. This is because we would need to examine the court records for all those convicted of dangerous driving.

The Government recognises the critical role third-party litigation funding plays in access to justice. That is why we are committed to ensuring it works fairly for all.

The Civil Justice Council’s review will help inform the Government’s approach to any potential reforms in this area. The Government welcomes this review and is carefully considering the detailed recommendations in the final report . We will outline next steps in due course.

We recognise that there are significant demand pressures on the Employment Tribunals and are working with the judiciary, HMCTS and Department for Business and Trade on actions to alleviate pressures. For example, we are investing in tribunal productivity through the development of modern case management systems, encouraging the uptake of mediation, and the continued use of remote hearing technology, as well as the recruitment of additional judges and deployment of legal officers.

In 2024, we had 21 more salaried judges in the Employment Tribunals than in 2023, and further recruitment for up to 36 salaried Employment Judges commenced in March 2025. 50 fee paid employment judges were appointed in 2024 and recruitment will commence for another 50 in early 2026. As a result, the previous Lord Chancellor was able to announce on 5 March a sitting day allocation for the Employment Tribunals of 33,900 in 2025/26, the maximum allocation they are able to sit.

Of the complaints brought to the ET involving unfair dismissal, a small proportion are successful at hearing. The majority of ET complaints involving unfair dismissal are settled, withdrawn, dismissed or decided in favour of the respondent (usually the employer) at hearing. In addition, not all unfair dismissal cases are brought to the Employment Tribunal, with some cases being resolved through Acas. The latest data on the number of early conciliation notifications that are received by Acas for unfair dismissal is published annually, and can be found at: https://www.acas.org.uk/about-us/annual-report.

The Ministry of Justice does not have a breakdown of Employment Tribunal statistics by age, however there is published data available on unfair dismissal, as well as age discrimination claims here: Tribunal Statistics Quarterly: April to June 2024 - GOV.UK.

This Government inherited a crumbling court estate – a symbol of a crumbling justice system. Historical underfunding over the last 14 years has resulted in challenges across the court and tribunal estate, with an estimated maintenance backlog of £1.3 billion.

It is vital that the infrastructure of our courts and tribunals does not prevent hearings from taking place and that court conditions are acceptable for the staff who serve within the system and the public that are served by it. It is a government priority to ensure that cases can be heard, and victims can be given the justice that they deserve. That is why this Government announced a boost in court and tribunal capital maintenance and project funding from £120 million last year, to £148.5 million for 2025/26.

HMCTS keeps the condition of court buildings under review. Maintenance funding is prioritised to meet operational priorities and make sure our courts and tribunal are safe, secure, meet statutory requirements and protect continuity of service We are also investing in the courts of the future - delivering new, modern and sustainable buildings that meet the needs of a changing justice system. This includes the new 18 courtroom City of London Law Courts, a new 30 hearing room London Tribunals building, and a purpose-built Magistrates’ and County Court in Blackpool.

We have interpreted “early parole” to mean a release direction made by the Parole Board once a prisoner serving a parole-eligible sentence has completed the minimum custodial term (tariff) set at the point of sentence and so becomes eligible for release.

It is important in the parole process that victims’ voices are heard and that they receive information and support to understand how the Parole Board reaches its decisions. We work closely with the Board on victims’ involvement and how to ensure their rights under the Victims’ Code and Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 are being met. This includes the right for victims to submit a Victim Personal Statement to the Parole Board explaining how the crime has affected them and their families. Eligible victims may also make representations about licence conditions imposed on offenders when released and, since 1 April 2025, we have worked with the Parole Board on measures to support victims to apply to observe parole hearings. Throughout the process victims are kept updated and given support by their Victim Liaison Officer, where they have signed up to the Victim Contact Scheme operated by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service.

The number of Criminal Behaviour Orders issued broken down by local justice area, police force area, sex, age, and the requested ethnicities for the last five years are provided in the attached tables.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions for a wide range of offences, including breach of a Criminal Behaviour Order in the ‘Outcomes by Offences data tool’, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK.

However, it is not possible to state what proportion of orders are breached, as the data does not track individuals who were issued a Criminal Behaviour Order and then subsequently breached the order – they are recorded separately.

Policy responsibility for Criminal Behaviour Orders is a matter for the Home Office.

The number of Criminal Behaviour Orders issued broken down by local justice area, police force area, sex, age, and the requested ethnicities for the last five years are provided in the attached tables.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions for a wide range of offences, including breach of a Criminal Behaviour Order in the ‘Outcomes by Offences data tool’, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK.

However, it is not possible to state what proportion of orders are breached, as the data does not track individuals who were issued a Criminal Behaviour Order and then subsequently breached the order – they are recorded separately.

Policy responsibility for Criminal Behaviour Orders is a matter for the Home Office.

The number of Criminal Behaviour Orders issued broken down by local justice area, police force area, sex, age, and the requested ethnicities for the last five years are provided in the attached tables.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions for a wide range of offences, including breach of a Criminal Behaviour Order in the ‘Outcomes by Offences data tool’, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK.

However, it is not possible to state what proportion of orders are breached, as the data does not track individuals who were issued a Criminal Behaviour Order and then subsequently breached the order – they are recorded separately.

Policy responsibility for Criminal Behaviour Orders is a matter for the Home Office.

The number of Criminal Behaviour Orders issued broken down by local justice area, police force area, sex, age, and the requested ethnicities for the last five years are provided in the attached tables.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions for a wide range of offences, including breach of a Criminal Behaviour Order in the ‘Outcomes by Offences data tool’, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK.

However, it is not possible to state what proportion of orders are breached, as the data does not track individuals who were issued a Criminal Behaviour Order and then subsequently breached the order – they are recorded separately.

Policy responsibility for Criminal Behaviour Orders is a matter for the Home Office.

The number of Criminal Behaviour Orders issued broken down by local justice area, police force area, sex, age, and the requested ethnicities for the last five years are provided in the attached tables.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions for a wide range of offences, including breach of a Criminal Behaviour Order in the ‘Outcomes by Offences data tool’, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK.

However, it is not possible to state what proportion of orders are breached, as the data does not track individuals who were issued a Criminal Behaviour Order and then subsequently breached the order – they are recorded separately.

Policy responsibility for Criminal Behaviour Orders is a matter for the Home Office.

The number of Criminal Behaviour Orders issued broken down by local justice area, police force area, sex, age, and the requested ethnicities for the last five years are provided in the attached tables.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions for a wide range of offences, including breach of a Criminal Behaviour Order in the ‘Outcomes by Offences data tool’, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK.

However, it is not possible to state what proportion of orders are breached, as the data does not track individuals who were issued a Criminal Behaviour Order and then subsequently breached the order – they are recorded separately.

Policy responsibility for Criminal Behaviour Orders is a matter for the Home Office.

The number of Criminal Behaviour Orders issued broken down by local justice area, police force area, sex, age, and the requested ethnicities for the last five years are provided in the attached tables.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on convictions for a wide range of offences, including breach of a Criminal Behaviour Order in the ‘Outcomes by Offences data tool’, that can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK.

However, it is not possible to state what proportion of orders are breached, as the data does not track individuals who were issued a Criminal Behaviour Order and then subsequently breached the order – they are recorded separately.

Policy responsibility for Criminal Behaviour Orders is a matter for the Home Office.

We have interpreted “early parole” to mean a release direction made by the Parole Board once a prisoner serving a parole-eligible sentence has completed the minimum custodial term (tariff) set at the point of sentence and so becomes eligible for release.

The information on how many prisoners have been granted parole can be found at: The Parole Board for England & Wales Annual Report 2024/25 - GOV.UK.

We have interpreted ‘subsequently committed (a) violent and (b) sexual offence’ as those qualifying offences under the Probation Serious Further Offence (SFO) Procedures as set out in Annex A of the SFO Policy Framework: Probation Service Serious Further Offence procedures Policy Framework - GOV.UK.

The table below sets out the total number of convictions for a) violent offence or b) a sexual offence, where the offender was released by the Parole Board (either from an indeterminate sentence, an extended sentence or following a recall to custody) and where cases were notified to HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2023.

1. Figures are based on conviction data that was produced on 30 September 2024.

2. Data are based on the year the notification of the SFO was received by HMPPS and not the date of conviction.

3. Violent and sexual offences are defined by the Serious Further Offences Policy Framework and do not include all violent or sexual offences. The list can be accessed at annex A via the following link Serious_Further_Offences_2024.ods

4. The number of SFO cases released by the Parole Board include those released from indeterminate sentences, extended sentences for public protection and those released following a recall to custody.

5. SFO cases don’t necessarily come from the general Parole Board releases. If the Parole Board released people in 2022/23, it does not mean the 2022/23 SFO cases came from those Parole Board releases.

6. Provisional figures are subject to change as outstanding cases are concluded at court.

7. Data Sources and Quality. We have drawn these figures from administrative IT systems which, as with some large-scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

Figures are published based on the date of SFO notification (ie, when the offender was charged with an SFO) as received by the National SFO Team in HMPPS. The lag between the date of publication and the conviction figures is to allow time for most cases to complete the criminal justice process. Conviction Figures for 2023/2024 will be published on 30 October 2025.

SFOs are incredibly rare, with fewer than 0.5% of offenders supervised by the Probation Service going on to commit serious further offences but each one is investigated fully so we can take action where necessary.

We have interpreted “early parole” to mean a release direction made by the Parole Board once a prisoner serving a parole-eligible sentence has completed the minimum custodial term (tariff) set at the point of sentence and so becomes eligible for release. Eligibility for release at the discretion of the Parole Board is determined by the type of sentence a prisoner is serving. All prisoners serving an indeterminate sentence – life or imprisonment for public protection (IPP) – must serve the minimum term in prison set by the judge before they become eligible to be considered for parole. Prisoners serving an extended determinate sentence (EDS) or sentence for offenders of particular concern (SOPC) must serve two-thirds of their custodial term in prison before being referred to the Parole Board to consider release. By their nature, sentences which involve release by the Parole Board are imposed on the most serious and dangerous offenders, including those convicted of violent offences. In all cases, the Parole Board may only direct release if they are satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the offender remain confined.

The recent Independent Sentencing Review recommended that EDS prisoners should be subject to a new ‘progression model’ but the Government rejected that proposal because we do not think it would be right to allow for prisoners who have been deemed dangerous by the courts to have their parole eligibility date brought forward.

We have interpreted “early parole” to mean a release direction made by the Parole Board once a prisoner serving a parole-eligible sentence has completed the minimum custodial term (tariff) set at the point of sentence and so becomes eligible for release. Most prisoners, even those who have committed serious offences, will become eligible for release once they have served the minimum term of their sentence set by the court. We know that Parole Board decisions can be difficult for victims but we are committed to ensuring victims understand release decisions, can contribute to the process and are supported through it. This support is provided to eligible victims through the Victim Contact Scheme which includes Victim Liaison Officers who offer tailored guidance, keep victims informed, and help them navigate the parole process.

A number of changes have been made to the parole process in recent years including the introduction of decision summaries which can be provided by the Parole Board, the Reconsideration Mechanism (which allows parties to a case to ask for Parole Board decisions to be looked at again), public parole hearings and the ability for victims to apply to observe private hearings. We support these and other measures to improve transparency, victim involvement and public confidence in the system.

We are committed to supporting probation staff and value their hard work, commitment and dedication. We recognise that fair and competitive pay is essential not only for staff wellbeing and retention, but also for maintaining the resilience of the Probation Service in its critical public safety role.

In recent years, we have made significant investments in pay through a multi-year pay deal (2022–2025), which provided certainty in pay increases and addressed longstanding structural issues. In June 2025, we secured exceptional agreement to pay the Competency Based Framework (CBF) Progression element of the award to eligible staff, recognising their contribution during a period of exceptional operational pressure.

We are currently working with senior leaders, ministers and recognised Trade Unions to agree the best possible outcome for the 2025/26 pay award, in line with Civil Service Pay Remit Guidance and our priorities for attraction and retention.

We also recognise the link between pay, workload and public safety. To address workload pressures, we have implemented initiatives such as “Probation Reset” and “Impact” and launched the “Our Future Probation Service” programme, which aims to reduce workload by 25% by April 2027. Recruitment remains a priority, with significant numbers of probation officer trainees onboarded in 2024/25 and a commitment to onboard a further 1,300 by March 2026.

These efforts are supported by a new wellbeing support model across HMPPS, including regional plans such as the Midlands wellbeing strategy, to ensure staff are supported in delivering their vital public safety responsibilities.

We have interpreted “early parole” to mean a release direction made by the Parole Board once a prisoner serving a parole-eligible sentence has completed the minimum custodial term (tariff) set at the point of sentence and so becomes eligible for release. The Ministry of Justice and the Parole Board are committed to ensuring victims, and their families in the case of deceased victims, can participate in and are supported through the parole decision-making process. As part of this commitment, a national policy was rolled out earlier this year to enable victims to apply to observe parole hearings remotely, supported by trained staff from the Victim Contact Scheme. Victims also have the right to submit a Victim Personal Statement, which may be read aloud during the hearing and eligible victims can make representations about licence conditions imposed on offenders when they are released. There is also a process by which victims can make representations to the Secretary of State if they think there are grounds for the Secretary of State to apply for a release decision to be reconsidered by the Parole Board. These measures aim to improve transparency, support victim engagement, and ensure their voices are heard throughout the parole process.

The Ministry of Justice recognises the vital role prison educators play in supporting rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. Prison educators are employed by Further Education or Training Providers contracted to deliver education in custody. As such, their pay and terms and conditions are set by those providers. Providers typically align prison educator pay with equivalent roles in community-based further education settings.

The Criminal Justice Action Group, chaired by the Ministry of Justice Permanent Secretary and attended by core criminal justice partners (the police, Home Office, AGO, CPS, Judicial Office, HMCTS and HMPPS), is actively considering the risks to the criminal justice system of AI-enabled criminality and a collective response. This is part of the Government’s wider response to tackling AI enabled crime and emerging risks from AI, working closely with the AI sector, law enforcement and international partners.

Using ‘Splink’ (Splink: MoJ’s open source library for probabilistic record linkage at scale - GOV.UK), the Department has made significant progress in linking offender data through both the BOLD and Data First programmes, as follows:

1. Through BOLD: Data has been shared and linked across Government Departments and other agencies to produce 16 offender-related datasets linking cases and people across contact with the criminal courts, police, prisons, and probation services, drug treatment services, local authorities (in relation to homelessness) as well as assessments of offender risks and needs and child benefit. To date, these datasets have been used to address key critical evidence gaps in policy (leading to 8 offender-related analytical publications), and to develop new operational tools for frontline staff. Details on the BOLD programme and its outputs to date can be found at: Ministry of Justice: Better Outcomes through Linked Data (BOLD) - GOV.UK. More recently, BOLD have developed a software package, Laurium, which uses AI to extract structured insights from free-text data (like case notes), thereby extracting more value from linked datasets.

2. Through Data First: The Ministry of Justice has linked and shared eight justice datasets, connecting cases and people across civil, family and criminal courts, prisons, and probation services, as well as assessments of offender risks and needs. These datasets are made available to accredited academic researchers via trusted research environments, facilitating powerful new research insights both within individual domains, where repeat service users can be identified for the first time, as well as on end-to-end cross justice system journeys. To date, this has resulted in over 50 academic projects. Details on Data First datasets and outputs to date can be found at: Ministry of Justice: Data First - GOV.UK.

We are continuing to explore the potential for a single, secure digital identity for each person interacting with the justice system. The Core Person Record service, which links existing data across courts, prisons and probation, is currently being piloted and represents an early step towards this ambition. Delivering a single, secure identity will form part of a wider programme of long-term transformation, supported by investment in data quality, interoperability and infrastructure across the justice system.

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill reforms abolish the common law offence of misconduct in public office and introduce two new offences: seriously improper acts and breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury. These new offences apply to elected officials, including town and parish councillors.

There has been one instance in the last 24 months of a prisoner at HMP/YOI Downview leaving the secure perimeter without formal authorisation. Swift action was taken by other staff to correct the breach.

The Prison Group Director has commissioned an investigation into the breach, and an immediate assessment of risks has been undertaken pending the outcome of the investigation.

Once the investigation is complete, action will be taken based on the findings.

There has been one instance in the last 24 months of a prisoner at HMP/YOI Downview leaving the secure perimeter without formal authorisation. Swift action was taken by other staff to correct the breach.

The Prison Group Director has commissioned an investigation into the breach, and an immediate assessment of risks has been undertaken pending the outcome of the investigation.

Once the investigation is complete, action will be taken based on the findings.

There has been one instance in the last 24 months of a prisoner at HMP/YOI Downview leaving the secure perimeter without formal authorisation. Swift action was taken by other staff to correct the breach.

The Prison Group Director has commissioned an investigation into the breach, and an immediate assessment of risks has been undertaken pending the outcome of the investigation.

Once the investigation is complete, action will be taken based on the findings.

The incident referred to did not involve a prisoner on E Wing, and does not affect the management of the unit.

The incident referred to did not involve a prisoner on E Wing, and does not affect the management of the unit.

Improving education standards in prisons and young offender institutions (YOIs) is a priority for the Ministry of Justice. Governors and Heads of Education, Skills and Work tailor provision to meet local needs, supported by regional managers and strengthened oversight of contracts. Investment in digital infrastructure is widening access across the estate to enable secure and flexible learning opportunities. Governors can commission both enrichment and vocational courses via the Dynamic Purchasing System, and pathways to employment are further supported by apprenticeships and the Future Skills Programme which provides short-sector specific training opportunities in areas like construction and waste management for those nearing the end of their sentence and provides a guaranteed job interview on release. Ofsted and HMIP feedback are closely monitored, and establishments are held to account for improvements.

To support inclusive education, all prisons, including YOIs, have Neurodiversity Support Managers, and public YOIs have qualified Special Educational Needs Coordinators. The Youth Custody Service has launched ‘Roadmaps to Effective Practice’ in partnership with NHS England, education providers and psychology services, focused on improving safety, behaviour and education. Each YOI has a site-specific plan for education with performance monitored, and broad, balanced curriculums are being developed to support trauma-informed child-centred rehabilitation.

The removal of Foreign National Offenders (FNOs) is a priority of this Government. Deporting FNOs as quickly as possible protects the public, reduces pressures on prison capacity and lessens the associated expense to the taxpayer.

From 5 July 2024 to 4 July 2025 there were 2,632 Early Removal Scheme (ERS) removals from prison, which is a 10% increase compared to the 2,385 in the same period 12 months prior.

And this Government is going further: on 23 September we changed the law to reduce the time that FNOs must serve in prison before removal to 30% of their prison sentence. In steady state we expect this change will free up approximately 500 additional prison spaces a year.

Additionally, the Sentencing Bill currently before Parliament proposes to remove the minimum time to serve requirement altogether so that FNOs can be eligible for deportation immediately after they are sentenced.

The timing of when prison place savings will be realised from deporting FNOs is dependent on the Home Office’s rate of removals which will continue to be monitored over the coming months.

His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has committed to delivering the Deputy Prime Minister's pledge to equip up to 10,000 staff with protective body armour (PBA). The provision of custom-made body armour to prison officers in the long-term and high-security estate (LTHSE) represents a significant undertaking. Our priority is to ensure we continue to provide the most appropriate and effective protective equipment, as swiftly as possible. We are currently preparing for further procurement and delivery into the long-term high security estate. This work is progressing at pace, and we expect to begin rollout across the estate during 2026.

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) is in the early stages of reviewing criteria for exemption and remission of fees, including in relation to the gross annual income threshold for a 50% remission of fees. Any proposed changes to current processes will require an SI amendment to the Public Guardian (Fees, etc.) Regulations 2007.

The regulations currently allow for a 100% exemption of fees in relation to the supervision of deputyships if the protected person is in receipt of one of a number of qualifying benefits including Employment Support Allowance.

This exemption applies regardless of the protected person’s income.

If the protected person is not in receipt of one of the qualifying benefits, they may nonetheless qualify for a 50% remission of fees if their annual income does not exceed £12,000.

The OPG does not collect data on the reasons for granting exemptions. The OPG does not have data on the number of persons in receipt of Employment and Support Allowance who may have ceased to qualify for exemption. Applications for an exemption are assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The table below shows the number of supervision fee exemptions and remissions in place over the past five financial years. Protected persons may be eligible for an extended award whereby an application for an exemption or remission of fees remains in place for up to three years. The volume of applications has remained relatively stable over the period. The figure reported for the 2025/26 financial year reflects data collected to date.

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) is in the early stages of reviewing criteria for exemption and remission of fees, including in relation to the gross annual income threshold for a 50% remission of fees. Any proposed changes to current processes will require an SI amendment to the Public Guardian (Fees, etc.) Regulations 2007.

The regulations currently allow for a 100% exemption of fees in relation to the supervision of deputyships if the protected person is in receipt of one of a number of qualifying benefits including Employment Support Allowance.

This exemption applies regardless of the protected person’s income.

If the protected person is not in receipt of one of the qualifying benefits, they may nonetheless qualify for a 50% remission of fees if their annual income does not exceed £12,000.

The OPG does not collect data on the reasons for granting exemptions. The OPG does not have data on the number of persons in receipt of Employment and Support Allowance who may have ceased to qualify for exemption. Applications for an exemption are assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The table below shows the number of supervision fee exemptions and remissions in place over the past five financial years. Protected persons may be eligible for an extended award whereby an application for an exemption or remission of fees remains in place for up to three years. The volume of applications has remained relatively stable over the period. The figure reported for the 2025/26 financial year reflects data collected to date.

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) is in the early stages of reviewing criteria for exemption and remission of fees, including in relation to the gross annual income threshold for a 50% remission of fees. Any proposed changes to current processes will require an SI amendment to the Public Guardian (Fees, etc.) Regulations 2007.

The regulations currently allow for a 100% exemption of fees in relation to the supervision of deputyships if the protected person is in receipt of one of a number of qualifying benefits including Employment Support Allowance.

This exemption applies regardless of the protected person’s income.

If the protected person is not in receipt of one of the qualifying benefits, they may nonetheless qualify for a 50% remission of fees if their annual income does not exceed £12,000.

The OPG does not collect data on the reasons for granting exemptions. The OPG does not have data on the number of persons in receipt of Employment and Support Allowance who may have ceased to qualify for exemption. Applications for an exemption are assessed on a case-by-case basis.

The table below shows the number of supervision fee exemptions and remissions in place over the past five financial years. Protected persons may be eligible for an extended award whereby an application for an exemption or remission of fees remains in place for up to three years. The volume of applications has remained relatively stable over the period. The figure reported for the 2025/26 financial year reflects data collected to date.