Ministry of Justice

Since section 199 of the Equality Act 2010 was enacted, no date has been set for this section to come into force. Section 199 relates to a longstanding common law presumption dating back centuries.

As part of its ongoing duty to consider equalities impacts, the Government considers that husbands and wives have equal access to financial remedy orders under Part II of the Matrimonial Causes Act (MCA) 1973.

Transcription service providers are required, under the terms of their contracts to notify HMCTS where they receive bulk or systematic requests for transcripts and seek approval before continuing such supply. These notifications are made on a case-by-case as they arise.

HM Courts and Tribunal Service does not hold a centrally collated record of the total number of such notifications made by providers in each of the last five years.

Transcription requests are placed directly with providers by a range of customers, including HMCTS, other public bodies, legal representatives and members of the public. While providers are required to supply management information to HMCTS for contract assurance and performance monitoring purposes, HMCTS does not hold a record of the total number of transcript requests received by providers in each year.

Under the terms of HMCTS transcription contracts, transcription providers are required to notify HMCTS where they receive bulk or systematic requests for court transcripts and seek approval before continuing such supply. Any consideration of such notifications is undertaken on a case-by-case basis.

HMCTS does not hold a centrally collated record of the individuals or organisations that have been approved or refused permission to continue receiving transcripts following such notifications.

Decisions are taken having regard to the specific circumstances of each request, including compliance with reporting restrictions, data protection and security requirements. HMCTS does not record reasons for refusal.

HMPPS holds regular contract management boards and strategic partnership boards with Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (PECS) suppliers to review performance, including any instances where late arrival at court has been attributed to supplier actions. These discussions are informed by assured Court Exception Report data from courts and focus on identifying root causes, agreeing corrective actions and applying contractual levers where appropriate. To strengthen system wide oversight, a Prisoner Delivery Oversight Board has been established, chaired by Lord Timpson and Minister Sackman, with representation from key Criminal Justice System partners, and will meet quarterly.

Evidence from recent performance reporting shows consistent levels of PECS Supplier delivery to court, with supplier attributable delays remaining low relative to overall court production volumes. In 2025, overall criminal justice system delivery to court was on time in 98.19% of cases; PECS suppliers met contractual expectations by delivering prisoners to court on time in 99.91% of cases. PECS supplier attributable delays represent a small proportion of overall court delays, which are approximately 8% as a whole.

The Department continually assesses the effectiveness of service credits within PECS contracts as part of its performance management framework. Service credits are applied where outcomes fall below contractual standards and act as an incentive to maintain high levels of punctuality and operational performance. Where performance concerns arise, service credits are accompanied by improvement plans and closer operational scrutiny to drive sustained improvement rather than relying on financial levers alone.

HMPPS holds regular contract management boards and strategic partnership boards with Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (PECS) suppliers to review performance, including any instances where late arrival at court has been attributed to supplier actions. These discussions are informed by assured Court Exception Report data from courts and focus on identifying root causes, agreeing corrective actions and applying contractual levers where appropriate. To strengthen system wide oversight, a Prisoner Delivery Oversight Board has been established, chaired by Lord Timpson and Minister Sackman, with representation from key Criminal Justice System partners, and will meet quarterly.

Evidence from recent performance reporting shows consistent levels of PECS Supplier delivery to court, with supplier attributable delays remaining low relative to overall court production volumes. In 2025, overall criminal justice system delivery to court was on time in 98.19% of cases; PECS suppliers met contractual expectations by delivering prisoners to court on time in 99.91% of cases. PECS supplier attributable delays represent a small proportion of overall court delays, which are approximately 8% as a whole.

The Department continually assesses the effectiveness of service credits within PECS contracts as part of its performance management framework. Service credits are applied where outcomes fall below contractual standards and act as an incentive to maintain high levels of punctuality and operational performance. Where performance concerns arise, service credits are accompanied by improvement plans and closer operational scrutiny to drive sustained improvement rather than relying on financial levers alone.

The Women’s Justice Board report, published on 16 March 2026, sets out independent recommendations to reduce the number of women in prison, including a recommendation to develop a Young Women’s Strategy. The Government is carefully considering the report’s recommendations and how best to deliver reform in this area.

The Government has also established the Girls in Youth Justice Advisory Board, which is an independent advisory group focused on improving policy, practice and outcomes for girls who are under 18 in contact with the youth justice system.

The Women’s Justice Board report, published on 16 March 2026, sets out independent recommendations to reduce the number of women in prison, including a recommendation to develop a Young Women’s Strategy. The Government is carefully considering the report’s recommendations and how best to deliver reform in this area.

The Government has also established the Girls in Youth Justice Advisory Board, which is an independent advisory group focused on improving policy, practice and outcomes for girls who are under 18 in contact with the youth justice system.

The Women’s Justice Board report, published on 16 March 2026, sets out independent recommendations to reduce the number of women in prison, including a recommendation to develop a Young Women’s Strategy. The Government is carefully considering the report’s recommendations and how best to deliver reform in this area.

The Government has also established the Girls in Youth Justice Advisory Board, which is an independent advisory group focused on improving policy, practice and outcomes for girls who are under 18 in contact with the youth justice system.

We have interpreted these Parliamentary Questions as relating to transgender women in the prison estate.

Transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of sexual or violent offences – including individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate – cannot be held in the general women’s estate other than in exceptional circumstances, where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.

Placement decisions for transgender prisoners are determined by a Complex Case Board (CCB) - a multidisciplinary panel of experts. Whilst possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate is a consideration, it is one of a range of risk and vulnerabilities that are considered - including offending history and mental health conditions - and does not take precedence. CCBs assess both risk that the individual may face to and from others.

The very small number of transgender women who fail to meet the high-risk threshold we have set for being accommodated in the general women’s estate, but who are too vulnerable to be held in the men’s estate are housed on E Wing at HMP/YOI Downview. They are accommodated completely separately to biological women, in a discrete building behind a gated fence. Despite being on the site of HMP/YOI Downview, E Wing is not part of the general women’s estate, and E Wing prisoners can only access the prison's wider regime under supervision, and where a local risk assessment deems this appropriate.

As of 1 April 2026, fewer than five transgender women were being held in the general women's prison estate. None of these has convictions for sexual or stalking offences. We cannot comment on individual cases.

There have been no assaults or sexual assaults committed by transgender women in the general women's estate in the last five years. The number of safeguarding alerts involving transgender prisoners placed in the women’s estate over the last five years can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

We are working through the implications of the 2025 Supreme Court ruling on the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010, and the Government is considering the draft updated Code of Practice produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Once this process has been completed, we will confirm any updates to the transgender prisoner allocation policy.

We have interpreted these Parliamentary Questions as relating to transgender women in the prison estate.

Transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of sexual or violent offences – including individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate – cannot be held in the general women’s estate other than in exceptional circumstances, where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.

Placement decisions for transgender prisoners are determined by a Complex Case Board (CCB) - a multidisciplinary panel of experts. Whilst possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate is a consideration, it is one of a range of risk and vulnerabilities that are considered - including offending history and mental health conditions - and does not take precedence. CCBs assess both risk that the individual may face to and from others.

The very small number of transgender women who fail to meet the high-risk threshold we have set for being accommodated in the general women’s estate, but who are too vulnerable to be held in the men’s estate are housed on E Wing at HMP/YOI Downview. They are accommodated completely separately to biological women, in a discrete building behind a gated fence. Despite being on the site of HMP/YOI Downview, E Wing is not part of the general women’s estate, and E Wing prisoners can only access the prison's wider regime under supervision, and where a local risk assessment deems this appropriate.

As of 1 April 2026, fewer than five transgender women were being held in the general women's prison estate. None of these has convictions for sexual or stalking offences. We cannot comment on individual cases.

There have been no assaults or sexual assaults committed by transgender women in the general women's estate in the last five years. The number of safeguarding alerts involving transgender prisoners placed in the women’s estate over the last five years can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

We are working through the implications of the 2025 Supreme Court ruling on the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010, and the Government is considering the draft updated Code of Practice produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Once this process has been completed, we will confirm any updates to the transgender prisoner allocation policy.

We have interpreted these Parliamentary Questions as relating to transgender women in the prison estate.

Transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of sexual or violent offences – including individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate – cannot be held in the general women’s estate other than in exceptional circumstances, where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.

Placement decisions for transgender prisoners are determined by a Complex Case Board (CCB) - a multidisciplinary panel of experts. Whilst possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate is a consideration, it is one of a range of risk and vulnerabilities that are considered - including offending history and mental health conditions - and does not take precedence. CCBs assess both risk that the individual may face to and from others.

The very small number of transgender women who fail to meet the high-risk threshold we have set for being accommodated in the general women’s estate, but who are too vulnerable to be held in the men’s estate are housed on E Wing at HMP/YOI Downview. They are accommodated completely separately to biological women, in a discrete building behind a gated fence. Despite being on the site of HMP/YOI Downview, E Wing is not part of the general women’s estate, and E Wing prisoners can only access the prison's wider regime under supervision, and where a local risk assessment deems this appropriate.

As of 1 April 2026, fewer than five transgender women were being held in the general women's prison estate. None of these has convictions for sexual or stalking offences. We cannot comment on individual cases.

There have been no assaults or sexual assaults committed by transgender women in the general women's estate in the last five years. The number of safeguarding alerts involving transgender prisoners placed in the women’s estate over the last five years can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

We are working through the implications of the 2025 Supreme Court ruling on the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010, and the Government is considering the draft updated Code of Practice produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Once this process has been completed, we will confirm any updates to the transgender prisoner allocation policy.

We have interpreted these Parliamentary Questions as relating to transgender women in the prison estate.

Transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of sexual or violent offences – including individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate – cannot be held in the general women’s estate other than in exceptional circumstances, where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.

Placement decisions for transgender prisoners are determined by a Complex Case Board (CCB) - a multidisciplinary panel of experts. Whilst possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate is a consideration, it is one of a range of risk and vulnerabilities that are considered - including offending history and mental health conditions - and does not take precedence. CCBs assess both risk that the individual may face to and from others.

The very small number of transgender women who fail to meet the high-risk threshold we have set for being accommodated in the general women’s estate, but who are too vulnerable to be held in the men’s estate are housed on E Wing at HMP/YOI Downview. They are accommodated completely separately to biological women, in a discrete building behind a gated fence. Despite being on the site of HMP/YOI Downview, E Wing is not part of the general women’s estate, and E Wing prisoners can only access the prison's wider regime under supervision, and where a local risk assessment deems this appropriate.

As of 1 April 2026, fewer than five transgender women were being held in the general women's prison estate. None of these has convictions for sexual or stalking offences. We cannot comment on individual cases.

There have been no assaults or sexual assaults committed by transgender women in the general women's estate in the last five years. The number of safeguarding alerts involving transgender prisoners placed in the women’s estate over the last five years can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

We are working through the implications of the 2025 Supreme Court ruling on the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010, and the Government is considering the draft updated Code of Practice produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Once this process has been completed, we will confirm any updates to the transgender prisoner allocation policy.

We have interpreted these Parliamentary Questions as relating to transgender women in the prison estate.

Transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of sexual or violent offences – including individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate – cannot be held in the general women’s estate other than in exceptional circumstances, where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.

Placement decisions for transgender prisoners are determined by a Complex Case Board (CCB) - a multidisciplinary panel of experts. Whilst possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate is a consideration, it is one of a range of risk and vulnerabilities that are considered - including offending history and mental health conditions - and does not take precedence. CCBs assess both risk that the individual may face to and from others.

The very small number of transgender women who fail to meet the high-risk threshold we have set for being accommodated in the general women’s estate, but who are too vulnerable to be held in the men’s estate are housed on E Wing at HMP/YOI Downview. They are accommodated completely separately to biological women, in a discrete building behind a gated fence. Despite being on the site of HMP/YOI Downview, E Wing is not part of the general women’s estate, and E Wing prisoners can only access the prison's wider regime under supervision, and where a local risk assessment deems this appropriate.

As of 1 April 2026, fewer than five transgender women were being held in the general women's prison estate. None of these has convictions for sexual or stalking offences. We cannot comment on individual cases.

There have been no assaults or sexual assaults committed by transgender women in the general women's estate in the last five years. The number of safeguarding alerts involving transgender prisoners placed in the women’s estate over the last five years can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

We are working through the implications of the 2025 Supreme Court ruling on the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010, and the Government is considering the draft updated Code of Practice produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Once this process has been completed, we will confirm any updates to the transgender prisoner allocation policy.

We have interpreted these Parliamentary Questions as relating to transgender women in the prison estate.

Transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of sexual or violent offences – including individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate – cannot be held in the general women’s estate other than in exceptional circumstances, where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.

Placement decisions for transgender prisoners are determined by a Complex Case Board (CCB) - a multidisciplinary panel of experts. Whilst possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate is a consideration, it is one of a range of risk and vulnerabilities that are considered - including offending history and mental health conditions - and does not take precedence. CCBs assess both risk that the individual may face to and from others.

The very small number of transgender women who fail to meet the high-risk threshold we have set for being accommodated in the general women’s estate, but who are too vulnerable to be held in the men’s estate are housed on E Wing at HMP/YOI Downview. They are accommodated completely separately to biological women, in a discrete building behind a gated fence. Despite being on the site of HMP/YOI Downview, E Wing is not part of the general women’s estate, and E Wing prisoners can only access the prison's wider regime under supervision, and where a local risk assessment deems this appropriate.

As of 1 April 2026, fewer than five transgender women were being held in the general women's prison estate. None of these has convictions for sexual or stalking offences. We cannot comment on individual cases.

There have been no assaults or sexual assaults committed by transgender women in the general women's estate in the last five years. The number of safeguarding alerts involving transgender prisoners placed in the women’s estate over the last five years can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

We are working through the implications of the 2025 Supreme Court ruling on the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010, and the Government is considering the draft updated Code of Practice produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Once this process has been completed, we will confirm any updates to the transgender prisoner allocation policy.

We have interpreted these Parliamentary Questions as relating to transgender women in the prison estate.

Transgender women with birth genitalia and/or any history of sexual or violent offences – including individuals with a Gender Recognition Certificate – cannot be held in the general women’s estate other than in exceptional circumstances, where an exemption has been granted by Ministers. No transgender women have received such an exemption under this Government.

Placement decisions for transgender prisoners are determined by a Complex Case Board (CCB) - a multidisciplinary panel of experts. Whilst possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate is a consideration, it is one of a range of risk and vulnerabilities that are considered - including offending history and mental health conditions - and does not take precedence. CCBs assess both risk that the individual may face to and from others.

The very small number of transgender women who fail to meet the high-risk threshold we have set for being accommodated in the general women’s estate, but who are too vulnerable to be held in the men’s estate are housed on E Wing at HMP/YOI Downview. They are accommodated completely separately to biological women, in a discrete building behind a gated fence. Despite being on the site of HMP/YOI Downview, E Wing is not part of the general women’s estate, and E Wing prisoners can only access the prison's wider regime under supervision, and where a local risk assessment deems this appropriate.

As of 1 April 2026, fewer than five transgender women were being held in the general women's prison estate. None of these has convictions for sexual or stalking offences. We cannot comment on individual cases.

There have been no assaults or sexual assaults committed by transgender women in the general women's estate in the last five years. The number of safeguarding alerts involving transgender prisoners placed in the women’s estate over the last five years can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

We are working through the implications of the 2025 Supreme Court ruling on the definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010, and the Government is considering the draft updated Code of Practice produced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Once this process has been completed, we will confirm any updates to the transgender prisoner allocation policy.

Transgender women who cannot be held safely in the male or female estate can be placed on E Wing, where this is approved by a multi-disciplinary panel of officials. E Wing is a separate unit for transgender women at HMP & YOI Downview: it is not part of the general women's prison estate. E Wing prisoners may only have access to the wider regime at Downview in limited circumstances, and only where this is supervised by staff and following a thorough risk assessment.

As of 1 April 2026, seven prisoners were being held on E Wing.

An Impact Assessment, published on 1 September 2025, set out the expected effects of the automatic release following the implementation of the recall provisions in the Sentencing Act 2026, including their implications for public protection. Eligible offenders will be released from prisons across England and Wales; the precise number of offenders released via each tranche will be known once individual cases are processed. Details of changes to the recall population are published regularly in Offender Management Statistics.

Public protection remains paramount. We have gone further than the Independent Sentencing Review recommended by excluding offenders assessed as posing a greater risk, including those managed at the higher levels of Multi‑Agency Public Protection Arrangements. Furthermore, over 17,000 prisoners are serving sentences that will not be affected by these reforms: this includes those serving Extended Determinate Sentences, along with Life and Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences.

Additionally, the Secretary of State can convert a fixed‑term recall to a standard recall in exceptional circumstances, where an offender is assessed as presenting a high risk of serious harm at the end of their recall period, according to the specific criteria outlined in the legislation.

The Ministry of Justice is committed to thorough performance management and has in place robust processes to ensure that those who fall below the expected standards are supported to improve in a timely manner.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

Those who cannot improve their performance, despite this additional support, may be dismissed.

Waste crime blights communities, harms the environment, and undermines legitimate businesses.

The Government is clear, penalties for waste crime must match the harm it causes. As part of the Waste Crime Action Plan, published on 20 March, the Ministry of Justice has committed to work closely with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs to explore what more can be done to further ensure that those who commit these types of offences are appropriately punished. This would aim to reinforce the effectiveness of current systems and strengthen our overall approach to tackling illegal behaviour.

Sentencing decisions in individual cases are a matter for the independent judiciary and it would therefore not be right for the Ministry of Justice to engage with individual local authorities on sentencing decisions in specific local areas. Parliament has provided the courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders, and the courts take into account any aggravating and mitigating factors in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council.

In 2014, the Council issued guidelines on environmental offences for individuals and organisations which capture offences involving the unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal of waste as well as illegal discharges to air, land and water. The guidelines are designed to increase consistency and transparency in sentencing for these offences. In 2016, it published an assessment of the impact of the guideline on sentencing trends.

The Council keeps its guidelines under regular review. In 2024, following consultation and after carefully considering representations from those concerned with prosecuting fly-tipping offences, the Council updated the guideline for individuals to provide for greater use of community orders (over fines) in recognition of the seriousness of this offending. Further information is available on the Council’s website: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/crown-court/.

Waste crime blights communities, harms the environment, and undermines legitimate businesses.

The Government is clear, penalties for waste crime must match the harm it causes. As part of the Waste Crime Action Plan, published on 20 March, the Ministry of Justice has committed to work closely with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs to explore what more can be done to further ensure that those who commit these types of offences are appropriately punished. This would aim to reinforce the effectiveness of current systems and strengthen our overall approach to tackling illegal behaviour.

Sentencing decisions in individual cases are a matter for the independent judiciary and it would therefore not be right for the Ministry of Justice to engage with individual local authorities on sentencing decisions in specific local areas. Parliament has provided the courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders, and the courts take into account any aggravating and mitigating factors in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council.

In 2014, the Council issued guidelines on environmental offences for individuals and organisations which capture offences involving the unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal of waste as well as illegal discharges to air, land and water. The guidelines are designed to increase consistency and transparency in sentencing for these offences. In 2016, it published an assessment of the impact of the guideline on sentencing trends.

The Council keeps its guidelines under regular review. In 2024, following consultation and after carefully considering representations from those concerned with prosecuting fly-tipping offences, the Council updated the guideline for individuals to provide for greater use of community orders (over fines) in recognition of the seriousness of this offending. Further information is available on the Council’s website: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/crown-court/.

Waste crime blights communities, harms the environment, and undermines legitimate businesses.

The Government is clear, penalties for waste crime must match the harm it causes. As part of the Waste Crime Action Plan, published on 20 March, the Ministry of Justice has committed to work closely with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs to explore what more can be done to further ensure that those who commit these types of offences are appropriately punished. This would aim to reinforce the effectiveness of current systems and strengthen our overall approach to tackling illegal behaviour.

Sentencing decisions in individual cases are a matter for the independent judiciary and it would therefore not be right for the Ministry of Justice to engage with individual local authorities on sentencing decisions in specific local areas. Parliament has provided the courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders, and the courts take into account any aggravating and mitigating factors in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council.

In 2014, the Council issued guidelines on environmental offences for individuals and organisations which capture offences involving the unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal of waste as well as illegal discharges to air, land and water. The guidelines are designed to increase consistency and transparency in sentencing for these offences. In 2016, it published an assessment of the impact of the guideline on sentencing trends.

The Council keeps its guidelines under regular review. In 2024, following consultation and after carefully considering representations from those concerned with prosecuting fly-tipping offences, the Council updated the guideline for individuals to provide for greater use of community orders (over fines) in recognition of the seriousness of this offending. Further information is available on the Council’s website: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/crown-court/.

Civil Servants are appointed on merit on the basis of fair and open competition and are expected to carry out their role with dedication and a commitment to the Civil Service and its core values: integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) recognises that faith and belief can support rehabilitation and may act as a protective factor in reducing re-offending.

The statutory duties of prison chaplains are set out in the Prison Act 1952 and reflected in the Prison Rules 1999 and Young Offender Institution Rules 2000. They include visiting prisoners on reception; when held in segregation or residential healthcare; and before release.

HMPPS does not hold a complete historical record, by establishment and year, of the number of chaplains since 2010, as there is no operational requirement to do so. Chaplaincy provision is arranged locally according to operational need, and includes employed, sessional and voluntary chaplains, totalling over 1,200 people.

The Probation Service continues to face capacity and workload pressures. The Probation Service uses management information to support local and national oversight of workloads.

The Government recognises the pressures created by increased demand and is determined to bring probation capacity into balance with caseloads. We are doing so through sustained recruitment of probation officers, improving staff retention, and reducing workloads through the Our Future Probation Service (OFPS) Programme, with a target to have released 25% additional capacity by April 2027.

The Government is committed to investing significant funds to improve the Probation Service and has announced a new commitment to onboard at least 1,300 additional new trainee probation officers in 2026/27. This is on top of the 1,000 brought in in 2024/25 and the 1,300 committed to for 2025/26.

There is a comprehensive approach by HMPPS to tackle retention challenges across both the Probation and Prison Services. Central to this effort is the Retention Framework, which sets out how data, research and insight should be used to understand local and national drivers of attrition, guide targeted interventions, and embed retention as a core, ongoing workforce priority aligned to the People Strategy.

We recognise the ongoing workload pressures across our services, and that supporting staff wellbeing is critical. To address this, a comprehensive wellbeing support offer has been established across HMPPS, with Staff Support and Wellbeing Leads in place to drive wellbeing priorities consistently across both prison and probation areas.

The Ministry of Justice routinely publishes data in Offender Management Statistics Quarterly (OMSQ) on licence recalls.

Further breakdowns of this information are not held by the Ministry of Justice.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the number of convictions across England and Wales for a wide range of offences in the Outcomes by Offences data tool available at: Criminal justice statistics - GOV.UK.

However, data centrally held does not contain information on specific terrorist organisation affiliation.

Data published by the Home Office in relation to the operation of police powers under TACT 2000, shows that, as of 31 December 2025, there were 267 prisoners in custody for terrorism or terrorism‑connected offences in England and Wales. Of these, 58% (155) were assessed as holding an Islamist ideology, 29% (77) an Extreme Right‑Wing ideology, and 13% (35) were categorised as holding other ideologies.

The Government takes robust action to manage the risks posed by terrorist offenders. In custody, the most dangerous and influential radicalisers can be held in Separation Centres, away from the mainstream prison population, while Close Supervision Centres are used to manage the most physically violent prisoners. Upon release, terrorists are subject to strict licence conditions which severely limit their activity. These can include extended periods of electronic monitoring, accommodation in Approved Premises and polygraph testing. HMPPS, Counter Terrorism Policing and the Security Service work jointly to manage the risk of terrorism-related releases.

Relevant teams keep the commencement and implementation of past Acts under review in light of operational readiness, wider priorities and with consideration to developments across the justice system.

This is conducted alongside established post legislative scrutiny processes where appropriate.

This Government is committed to improving early intervention and proportionality in the justice system, and Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts has been an important part of shaping that direction.

The Independent Review highlights the significant potential of Out of Court Resolutions to secure better outcomes by addressing the underlying causes of crime before offending can escalate. This subsequently benefits the community as it reduces the risk of reoffending, preventing future crime, and delivers quicker justice for victims.

We are working with the Home Office as we consider the best options for strengthening the use of Out of Court Resolutions and will respond to the recommendations in the Review in due course.

The legal framework for the provision of water and sewage services varies significantly across the UK. In England and Wales, services are delivered by private companies (including not-for-profit organisations), whilst in Scotland and Northern Ireland services are delivered by publicly owned companies. The Bill is drafted so that the duty of candour and offence of misleading the public apply to all water companies when they exercise public functions. The Code of Conduct provisions would apply to the publicly owned water companies in Scotland and Northern Ireland and their workers, but not private companies in England and Wales.

In relation to the Misconduct in Public Office offences at Part 3 of the Bill, Schedule 4 sets out a definitive list of roles which make someone a “public office holder” for the purposes of these offences. Most roles are listed specifically in the Schedule, paragraph 22 is more general. It captures “Other public bodies and offices” who fulfil three criteria: (a) the body or office is established by statute, a Minister, government department, or under the Royal Prerogative; (b) appointments to the office are made by the Crown, a Minister, or government department, or (in the case of a body) appointments to the body are wholly or mainly made in that way; and (c) in that office or body they are exercising functions of a public nature.

Coroners are independent judges and the Chief Coroner is responsible for providing national guidance and training. In 2014, the Chief Coroner issued joint guidance for coroners regarding investigations into potential cardiac causes of deaths in young people: https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/joint-guidance-for-coroners-and-coroners-officers-sudden-cardiac-death-inherited-heart-conditions/.

This guidance was developed in conjunction with the British Heart Foundation, Cardiac Risk in the Young, the Department for Health and Social Care and NHS England.

Supporting access to justice for everyone in England and Wales is a key objective for this Government.

We recognise that accessing legal services can be more challenging in some areas than others, and that some people are digitally excluded and will require access to in-person provision. We support a mix of legal aid service provision including face-to-face, telephone and remote support for eligible people. People can use the ‘Find a legal aid adviser’ tool on GOV.UK to locate nearby solicitors or call the Civil Legal Advice helpline for advice on housing, debt, education and discrimination. Where local provision is limited, we signpost users to providers able to support clients remotely. Through our legal support grants and online advice services such as Advice Now, the Ministry of Justice is supporting delivery of in-person and online legal support for people with social welfare problems in England and Wales.

We are taking steps to improve access to and availability of legal support and legal aid. We have announced nearly £20 million of multi-year grant funding up to March 2029, for the delivery of legal support. In December 2025, we announced uplifts to immigration and housing legal aid fees in civil legal aid – the first major uplift since 1996. This will inject an additional £20 million into the civil legal aid sector each year once fully implemented. We are also providing additional funding of up to £34 million a year for criminal legal aid advocates, alongside a commitment to match-fund a number of criminal barrister pupillages. This is on top of the £92 million a year of additional funding for solicitors which we have recently introduced.

There were more than 1.9 million civil claims issued in the County Court in 2025. County Court claims can be made via HMCTS’ modern digital services (Online Civil Money Claims and Damages Claims services), older digital services (Money Claims Online and Possession Claims Online) or on paper.

HMCTS keeps the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) service under routine operational monitoring.

No assessment has been undertaken specifically on the reliability of recording and processing defendants’ submissions. Issues identified through live running have been limited in number and resolved promptly and have not indicated a need for a wider assessment.

In 2025, of incidents and complaints received by HMCTS relating to civil claims, 342 complaints were classified as ‘documents or information went missing’, 222 complaints classified as ‘my documents were not filed’; 92 data incidents recorded as ‘loss or theft of paper documents inside HMCTS premises’ and 31 data incidents recorded as ‘loss or theft of paper documents outside HMCTS premises’. There will be further instances of lost or unprocessed documents which have not been recorded, for example because they have not caused a complaint or data incident.

HMCTS is reducing the risk of administrative errors in civil claims though work to digitalise processes. The OCMC and Damages Claims services enable parties to manage a civil claim digitally from start to finish, including the ability to upload evidence, make applications and view judicial orders online. A digital Possession Service is being developed. The Deputy Prime Minister has announced further modernisation of the Civil Courts with an over £50 million investment to continue digitalising the County Court. HMCTS is also improving internal electronic document management and replacing paper-based and email processes with a digital, centrally stored case file, reducing reliance on manual handling and physical transfer of documents between teams and courts.

HMCTS has processes to reduce the risk of default judgment being entered where a defence has been submitted but not yet processed. Defences provided by paper are prioritised and judgment requests returned; Money Claims Online (MCOL) applies a buffer to check for paper responses; and responses provided on paper to claims made via OCMC are processed on receipt, with functionality to set aside judgments where a response and judgment request coincide.

“Properly processed” means received and recorded by the court. Where a defence has not been received, default judgment cannot be prevented, but urgent set-aside processes are in place where court error is identified.

There were more than 1.9 million civil claims issued in the County Court in 2025. County Court claims can be made via HMCTS’ modern digital services (Online Civil Money Claims and Damages Claims services), older digital services (Money Claims Online and Possession Claims Online) or on paper.

HMCTS keeps the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) service under routine operational monitoring.

No assessment has been undertaken specifically on the reliability of recording and processing defendants’ submissions. Issues identified through live running have been limited in number and resolved promptly and have not indicated a need for a wider assessment.

In 2025, of incidents and complaints received by HMCTS relating to civil claims, 342 complaints were classified as ‘documents or information went missing’, 222 complaints classified as ‘my documents were not filed’; 92 data incidents recorded as ‘loss or theft of paper documents inside HMCTS premises’ and 31 data incidents recorded as ‘loss or theft of paper documents outside HMCTS premises’. There will be further instances of lost or unprocessed documents which have not been recorded, for example because they have not caused a complaint or data incident.

HMCTS is reducing the risk of administrative errors in civil claims though work to digitalise processes. The OCMC and Damages Claims services enable parties to manage a civil claim digitally from start to finish, including the ability to upload evidence, make applications and view judicial orders online. A digital Possession Service is being developed. The Deputy Prime Minister has announced further modernisation of the Civil Courts with an over £50 million investment to continue digitalising the County Court. HMCTS is also improving internal electronic document management and replacing paper-based and email processes with a digital, centrally stored case file, reducing reliance on manual handling and physical transfer of documents between teams and courts.

HMCTS has processes to reduce the risk of default judgment being entered where a defence has been submitted but not yet processed. Defences provided by paper are prioritised and judgment requests returned; Money Claims Online (MCOL) applies a buffer to check for paper responses; and responses provided on paper to claims made via OCMC are processed on receipt, with functionality to set aside judgments where a response and judgment request coincide.

“Properly processed” means received and recorded by the court. Where a defence has not been received, default judgment cannot be prevented, but urgent set-aside processes are in place where court error is identified.

There were more than 1.9 million civil claims issued in the County Court in 2025. County Court claims can be made via HMCTS’ modern digital services (Online Civil Money Claims and Damages Claims services), older digital services (Money Claims Online and Possession Claims Online) or on paper.

HMCTS keeps the Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC) service under routine operational monitoring.

No assessment has been undertaken specifically on the reliability of recording and processing defendants’ submissions. Issues identified through live running have been limited in number and resolved promptly and have not indicated a need for a wider assessment.

In 2025, of incidents and complaints received by HMCTS relating to civil claims, 342 complaints were classified as ‘documents or information went missing’, 222 complaints classified as ‘my documents were not filed’; 92 data incidents recorded as ‘loss or theft of paper documents inside HMCTS premises’ and 31 data incidents recorded as ‘loss or theft of paper documents outside HMCTS premises’. There will be further instances of lost or unprocessed documents which have not been recorded, for example because they have not caused a complaint or data incident.

HMCTS is reducing the risk of administrative errors in civil claims though work to digitalise processes. The OCMC and Damages Claims services enable parties to manage a civil claim digitally from start to finish, including the ability to upload evidence, make applications and view judicial orders online. A digital Possession Service is being developed. The Deputy Prime Minister has announced further modernisation of the Civil Courts with an over £50 million investment to continue digitalising the County Court. HMCTS is also improving internal electronic document management and replacing paper-based and email processes with a digital, centrally stored case file, reducing reliance on manual handling and physical transfer of documents between teams and courts.

HMCTS has processes to reduce the risk of default judgment being entered where a defence has been submitted but not yet processed. Defences provided by paper are prioritised and judgment requests returned; Money Claims Online (MCOL) applies a buffer to check for paper responses; and responses provided on paper to claims made via OCMC are processed on receipt, with functionality to set aside judgments where a response and judgment request coincide.

“Properly processed” means received and recorded by the court. Where a defence has not been received, default judgment cannot be prevented, but urgent set-aside processes are in place where court error is identified.

The Department published its evaluation of the Online Civil Money Claims service on 11 September 2025, available on GOV.UK at: HM Courts & Tribunals Service Reform: Digital Services Evaluation - GOV.UK. This evaluation included assessments of case timeliness, equality outcomes and perceptions of fairness, and user experiences of and trust in case management.

When administrative errors result in financial loss or procedural disadvantage, individuals or businesses can seek redress through the HMCTS administrative complaints process. The aim of the complaints process is to put the complainant back to the position they were in before any error occurred. HMCTS will consider making goodwill (ex-gratia) offers to cover any direct financial losses that have occurred, and to recognise the impact the error has had.

The Independent Monitoring Authority (IMA) is operationally independent from the Ministry of Justice. The IMA’s inquiry work is, like its other functions, delivered within its overall allocated budget.

This means that, unlike a stand-alone statutory or public inquiry which is established with dedicated funding and resource, no additional or dedicated funds are allocated to individual IMA inquiries.

The IMA does not charge inspection fees to any relevant public authority involved in an inquiry. As a result, unit costs for individual inquiries have not been developed.

The overall costs of the IMA are published in its Annual Report and Accounts, which details all staffing costs and administrative costs.

Currently, HM Courts and Tribunals Services (HMCTS) publishes quarterly data on the Residential Property Chamber. The latest data is attached but can also be found via the following link: Tribunals statistics quarterly: January to March 2025 - GOV.UK.

HMCTS is reviewing the data captured, drawn and published from the supporting systems for the Tribunal as part of preparations for the Renters’ Rights Act.

Sentencing guidelines are developed by the Sentencing Council, in fulfilment of its statutory duty to do so. The Council has issued guidelines on environmental offences for individuals and organisations which capture offences involving the unauthorised or harmful deposit, treatment or disposal of waste as well as illegal discharges to air, land and water. The guidelines are designed to increase consistency and transparency in sentencing for these offences.

In 2024, following consultation, the Council updated the guideline for individuals to provide for greater use of community orders (over fines) across the sentence tables included within the guideline, in recognition of the seriousness of this offending. Further information is available on the Council’s website: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/crown-court/

The Government is clear, penalties for waste crime must match the harm it causes. The Ministry of Justice will work closely with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs following the recent publication of the Waste Crime Action Plan to explore what more can be done to further ensure that those who commit these types of offences are appropriately punished. This would aim to reinforce the effectiveness of current systems and strengthen our overall approach to tackling illegal behaviour.

As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:

We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.

We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.

We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.

The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.

The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.

As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:

We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.

We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.

We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.

The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.

The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.

As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:

We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.

We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.

We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.

The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.

The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.

As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:

We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.

We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.

We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.

The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.

The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions.