Ministry of Justice

We are aware that non-religious belief organisations, such as humanists, have long been campaigning to conduct legally binding weddings. Given marriage is such a valued part of our society, I hope you will understand that as a new Government we will need time to properly consider our marriage law, including the Law Commission’s 2022 wedding report, before publicly setting out our position.

This Government supports the use of restorative justice, which is why, under the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (‘the Victims’ Code’), all adult victims must be told about the option of restorative justice and how to access it. We also provide Police and Crime Commissioners with grant funding for victim support services, including restorative justice services. They are best placed to assess local need and commission services based on the needs of the population in the local area. Restorative justice can also be used as part of out of court resolutions, depending on the circumstances of the case.

We know that restorative justice can improve victim satisfaction and reduce reoffending when delivered in the right circumstances. This not only benefits the victims and the offender but also their community.

I refer the honourable Member to the response I gave on 11 November 2024 to PQ 13567.

The effectiveness of the acquisitive crime project is currently subject to robust evaluation and conclusions will be made available following the publication of the upcoming process and impact evaluations. It is not possible to provide any information prior to the impact evaluation being published.

The effectiveness of the acquisitive crime project is currently subject to robust evaluation and conclusions will be made available following the publication of the upcoming process and impact evaluations. It is not possible to provide any information prior to the impact evaluation being published.

The number of individuals subject to an alcohol monitoring tag on release from prison and as part of a community sentence can be found here: Electronic Monitoring Statistics Annual Publication, March 2024 - GOV.UK.

We are unable to produce data on the proportion of offenders with convictions related to alcohol use have been subject to an alcohol monitoring tag.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the number of defendants convicted under Section 53A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

This can be obtained by selecting HO offence code ‘16702 – Paying or promising to pay a person to provide sexual services, where that person is subject to exploitative conduct to induce or encourage them to provide those services’ in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, which can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-december-2023.

Data is not available separately for Gower, however, there have been no convictions for this offence at any courts in Wales (including Gower) since the offence was introduced.

Delays attributable to prisoner escort supplier failure are calculated from the point at which court proceedings are ready to commence, provided this is within the agreed court start times and the delay is greater than 15 minutes. Penalties (known as service credits) are applicable for every subsequent 15 minutes of delay, or part thereof, whereupon the supplier is penalised for a full 15 minutes.

The following information relates to application of service credits for late delivery of a prisoner to either the Crown Court or a magistrates’ court.

In 2023, out of 299,470 journeys to court undertaken by the Prisoner Escort and Custody Service, 484 instances of supplier failure resulted in service credits being paid by suppliers.

In 2024, up to 31 October, out of 274,606 journeys to court, there were 228 instances of supplier failure that resulted in service credits being paid by suppliers. 99.92% of all journeys arrive on time.

As delays are recorded in periods of 15 minutes, it is not possible to calculate a precise average length of delay.

The breakdown requested between the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts is not available, and the work needed to provide it could not be undertaken without incurring disproportionate cost.

Delays attributable to prisoner escort supplier failure are calculated from the point at which court proceedings are ready to commence, provided this is within the agreed court start times and the delay is greater than 15 minutes. Penalties (known as service credits) are applicable for every subsequent 15 minutes of delay, or part thereof, whereupon the supplier is penalised for a full 15 minutes.

The following information relates to application of service credits for late delivery of a prisoner to either the Crown Court or a magistrates’ court.

In 2023, out of 299,470 journeys to court undertaken by the Prisoner Escort and Custody Service, 484 instances of supplier failure resulted in service credits being paid by suppliers.

In 2024, up to 31 October, out of 274,606 journeys to court, there were 228 instances of supplier failure that resulted in service credits being paid by suppliers. 99.92% of all journeys arrive on time.

As delays are recorded in periods of 15 minutes, it is not possible to calculate a precise average length of delay.

The breakdown requested between the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts is not available, and the work needed to provide it could not be undertaken without incurring disproportionate cost.

Delays attributable to prisoner escort supplier failure are calculated from the point at which court proceedings are ready to commence, provided this is within the agreed court start times and the delay is greater than 15 minutes. Penalties (known as service credits) are applicable for every subsequent 15 minutes of delay, or part thereof, whereupon the supplier is penalised for a full 15 minutes.

The following information relates to application of service credits for late delivery of a prisoner to either the Crown Court or a magistrates’ court.

In 2023, out of 299,470 journeys to court undertaken by the Prisoner Escort and Custody Service, 484 instances of supplier failure resulted in service credits being paid by suppliers.

In 2024, up to 31 October, out of 274,606 journeys to court, there were 228 instances of supplier failure that resulted in service credits being paid by suppliers. 99.92% of all journeys arrive on time.

As delays are recorded in periods of 15 minutes, it is not possible to calculate a precise average length of delay.

The breakdown requested between the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts is not available, and the work needed to provide it could not be undertaken without incurring disproportionate cost.

Parole Board staff are not civil servants. As public servants, the Parole Board is independent and sets its own policies on office attendance.

The Parole Board is a nationally dispersed organisation with its headquarters located at 10 South Colonnade. As public servants, the Parole Board is responsible for determining the level of monitoring required on office attendance in accordance with its own HR policies and is not required to report on this to the Ministry of Justice.

Data relating to the leaving rates in prisons, broken down by the financial years and prison categories requested, has been provided in table 1 (below).

Table 1: Underlying leaving rate of permanent staff, by prison category - financial years 2014/15 to 2023/24

Notes

1. Movements due to machinery of Government changes or due to staff transferring to or from the private sector as a result of changes in the management of establishments are not included in these tables.

2. Permanent staff are those with a permanent contract of employment with HMPPS.

3. The leavers figures relate to those who have left HMPPS but do not include voluntary early departure or redundancy.

4. Prisons assigned to the category they were on 31 March 2024 or the category they were when they closed. Does not include prisons in the Women’s Estate.

5. Coverage is public sector prisons in England and Wales.

Parole Board staff are public servants, not civil servants. The Parole Board has 54 desks allocated to it at 10 South Colonnade, London, part of the core Ministry of Justice estate.

The table below shows the number of Magistrates’ Courts that have permanently closed in each financial year (FY) since 2010/11. The figures do not include integrations, where workload remained in the local area by transferring to a building in close proximity, or courts that are temporarily closed.

There are no plans to reform the law. The courts determine individual applications for interim injunctions to restrain publication of confidential information (and the existence of the injunction) on the merits of each case, and in accordance with the law and specific Practice Guidance.

The Practice Guidance on Interim Non-Disclosure Orders was issued by the then-Master of the Rolls as part of the implementation of the Superinjunctions Committee’s recommendations, which he chaired and whose final report was published in 2011. It provides detailed guidance on the law, principle of open justice and model court orders.

The Ministry of Justice has had no recent discussions with the Law Officers on this topic.

The Review will be chaired by the former Lord Chancellor, the Rt Hon David Gauke, supported by a panel which includes expertise drawn from prisons and probation operations, prosecution, academia, law enforcement, victims, and the judiciary.

The process for the appointment of the panel follows the usual public law principles which are applicable to all ministerial decision-making, and within the scope of direct ministerial appointments. Appointments must be rational, procedurally fair, and non-discriminatory.

This Sentencing Review aims to ensure that there is always a place in prison for violent offenders, and victims will always know that justice will be done. It will also aim to ensure that sentences are consistent and make sense to victims and the public. That is why a victims’ representative forms part of the multidisciplinary panel conducting the Review.

Following the launch of the Review on 22 October, appointments were finalised in early and mid-November, and subsequently published on 14 November on GOV.UK.

The Review will be chaired by the former Lord Chancellor, the Rt Hon David Gauke, supported by a panel which includes expertise drawn from prisons and probation operations, prosecution, academia, law enforcement, victims, and the judiciary.

The process for the appointment of the panel follows the usual public law principles which are applicable to all ministerial decision-making, and within the scope of direct ministerial appointments. Appointments must be rational, procedurally fair, and non-discriminatory.

This Sentencing Review aims to ensure that there is always a place in prison for violent offenders, and victims will always know that justice will be done. It will also aim to ensure that sentences are consistent and make sense to victims and the public. That is why a victims’ representative forms part of the multidisciplinary panel conducting the Review.

Following the launch of the Review on 22 October, appointments were finalised in early and mid-November, and subsequently published on 14 November on GOV.UK.

The Review will be chaired by the former Lord Chancellor, the Rt Hon David Gauke, supported by a panel which includes expertise drawn from prisons and probation operations, prosecution, academia, law enforcement, victims, and the judiciary.

The process for the appointment of the panel follows the usual public law principles which are applicable to all ministerial decision-making, and within the scope of direct ministerial appointments. Appointments must be rational, procedurally fair, and non-discriminatory.

This Sentencing Review aims to ensure that there is always a place in prison for violent offenders, and victims will always know that justice will be done. It will also aim to ensure that sentences are consistent and make sense to victims and the public. That is why a victims’ representative forms part of the multidisciplinary panel conducting the Review.

Following the launch of the Review on 22 October, appointments were finalised in early and mid-November, and subsequently published on 14 November on GOV.UK.

This Government has delivered on a manifesto commitment to bring sentencing up to date and ensure the framework is consistent, by launching an Independent Review of Sentencing on 22 October 2024.

The Review will be guided by the Terms of Reference published on 21 October 2024. In developing their recommendations, the independent Chair and panel will consider how to collect and publish evidence.

The Department has not provided guidance, and it will be up to the independent Review, with the expectation that views of a diverse range of stakeholders, including the public, will be important.

The Review has published an eight-week Call for Evidence to gather evidence from all those with an interest, closing early January 2025. The Review is estimated to run for 6 months and should submit its findings in full by Spring 2025. Following the publication of the report, and recommendations, the Government intends to respond to the Review.

The Ministry of Justice has allocated funding for the Independent Sentencing Review; it will be for the Review to consider how it meets its Terms of Reference, including if it wishes to commission primary research.

This Government has delivered on a manifesto commitment to bring sentencing up to date and ensure the framework is consistent, by launching an Independent Review of Sentencing on 22 October 2024.

The Review will be guided by the Terms of Reference published on 21 October 2024. In developing their recommendations, the independent Chair and panel will consider how to collect and publish evidence.

The Department has not provided guidance, and it will be up to the independent Review, with the expectation that views of a diverse range of stakeholders, including the public, will be important.

The Review has published an eight-week Call for Evidence to gather evidence from all those with an interest, closing early January 2025. The Review is estimated to run for 6 months and should submit its findings in full by Spring 2025. Following the publication of the report, and recommendations, the Government intends to respond to the Review.

The Ministry of Justice has allocated funding for the Independent Sentencing Review; it will be for the Review to consider how it meets its Terms of Reference, including if it wishes to commission primary research.

This Government has delivered on a manifesto commitment to bring sentencing up to date and ensure the framework is consistent, by launching an Independent Review of Sentencing on 22 October 2024.

The Review will be guided by the Terms of Reference published on 21 October 2024. In developing their recommendations, the independent Chair and panel will consider how to collect and publish evidence.

The Department has not provided guidance, and it will be up to the independent Review, with the expectation that views of a diverse range of stakeholders, including the public, will be important.

The Review has published an eight-week Call for Evidence to gather evidence from all those with an interest, closing early January 2025. The Review is estimated to run for 6 months and should submit its findings in full by Spring 2025. Following the publication of the report, and recommendations, the Government intends to respond to the Review.

The Ministry of Justice has allocated funding for the Independent Sentencing Review; it will be for the Review to consider how it meets its Terms of Reference, including if it wishes to commission primary research.

This Government has delivered on a manifesto commitment to bring sentencing up to date and ensure the framework is consistent, by launching an Independent Review of Sentencing on 22 October 2024.

The Review will be guided by the Terms of Reference published on 21 October 2024. In developing their recommendations, the independent Chair and panel will consider how to collect and publish evidence.

The Department has not provided guidance, and it will be up to the independent Review, with the expectation that views of a diverse range of stakeholders, including the public, will be important.

The Review has published an eight-week Call for Evidence to gather evidence from all those with an interest, closing early January 2025. The Review is estimated to run for 6 months and should submit its findings in full by Spring 2025. Following the publication of the report, and recommendations, the Government intends to respond to the Review.

The Ministry of Justice has allocated funding for the Independent Sentencing Review; it will be for the Review to consider how it meets its Terms of Reference, including if it wishes to commission primary research.

No Ministry of Justice (excluding HMPPS) recognised trade union, or trade union recognised by Ministry of Justice contractors, currently holds a mandate to call industrial action.

HMPPS has one industrial dispute. NAPO (National Association of Probation Officers) is in dispute with HMPPS on pay and workload. Industrial action would potentially range from refusal to work overtime to days of strike action. HMPPS is in full pro-active engagement with NAPO to avert this.

The intention of HMPPS is to resolve the workload situation through resetting the work of probation with some tasks already removed.

On pay, at present, NAPO is content that without prejudice talks for 25/26 will commence in the near future. On workload reduction they are actively engaged in talks with HMPPS.

I am pleased to announce that on 15 November, the Lord Chancellor laid the first IPP Annual Report and a newly updated IPP Action Plan before Parliament. The Report and Plan can be accessed using the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hmpps-annual-report-on-the-ipp-sentence-2023-to-24.

The Government is committed to ensuring that the updated Plan drives effective frontline delivery in our prisons, to ensure that those serving IPP sentences are given every chance to make further progress in reducing their risk and eventually obtaining a release direction from the Parole Board in a way that prioritises public protection.

We are also committed to ensuring that the Plan improves the support for IPP offenders to comply with licence in the community, so that they can see the eventual termination of the licence and a definitive end to their sentence.

We will review the IPP Action Plan annually and will continue thoroughly to scrutinise the progress made.

Data on the reoffending rate of foreign national offenders, broken down by the crime category of the index offence, can be found in the attached table.

We refer all foreign national offenders in receipt of custodial sentences to the Home Office. Those sentenced to 12 months, or more are automatically considered for deportation.

Foreign national offenders who commit crime should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced and, where appropriate, we will work with the Home Office to pursue their deportation. This will help to manage prison pressures, keep the public safe and reduce crime. We are currently on track to remove more foreign national offenders this year than at any time in recent years and we are working across government to explore the ways we accelerate this work further.

The information requested is provided in the table attached. This table includes data on the:

• Proportion of the records on the Police National Computer (PNC) in each category specified, by offenders of working age.

This analysis looks at the proportion of records that fall into the categories a – d. It does not provide the proportion of individuals as each individual offender may have a record in each category. It is not possible to answer parts (e) and (f), as the Ministry of Justice extract of the PNC does not contain the information required. Arrest information (part e) is a matter for the Home Office.

The Review will be guided by the Terms of Reference published on 21 October 2024. In developing their recommendations, the independent Chair and panel will consider how to collect evidence and launched a call for evidence on 14 November.

The Department has not provided formal guidance, and it will be up to the independent review, with the expectation that views of a diverse range of stakeholders will be important, including the public and hon. Members.

A memorandum of understanding has been developed to establish and govern the relationship between the Independent Sentencing Review, and the wider Department and Ministers.

The Review will be guided by the Terms of Reference published on 21 October 2024. In developing their recommendations, the independent Chair and panel will consider how to collect evidence and launched a call for evidence on 14 November.

The Department has not provided formal guidance, and it will be up to the independent review, with the expectation that views of a diverse range of stakeholders will be important, including the public and hon. Members.

A memorandum of understanding has been developed to establish and govern the relationship between the Independent Sentencing Review, and the wider Department and Ministers.

The Review will be guided by the Terms of Reference published on 21 October 2024. In developing their recommendations, the independent Chair and panel will consider how to collect evidence and launched a call for evidence on 14 November.

The Department has not provided formal guidance, and it will be up to the independent review, with the expectation that views of a diverse range of stakeholders will be important, including the public and hon. Members.

A memorandum of understanding has been developed to establish and govern the relationship between the Independent Sentencing Review, and the wider Department and Ministers.

The Government has inherited a criminal justice system in crisis. This has placed an unacceptable strain on the Children and Young People Estate. We are determined to tackle the challenges – giving staff the support they need to reduce violence, increase access to education and help these children to turn their lives around.

Following the Education Thematic Review recently published by Ofsted and H M Inspectorate of Prisons, education delivery in young offender institutions, as well as wider performance, is under review.

The Youth Custody Service (YCS) is committed to promoting the development of each child in its care by delivering a range of learning and enrichment activities that are individualised, responsive to children’s needs, and aligned with trauma-informed care. This is an integrated whole-systems approach involving various professionals. Education providers are working alongside subject-matter experts (Heads of Education, Skills and Work) and Governors to develop broad and balanced curriculums that facilitate the holistic development of all children in the YCS’s care. This includes access to vocational training and creative learning.

The Children and Young People’s Strategy that is being developed will provide greater detail about our long-term vision for the future of the youth estate, with education and wellbeing at its centre.

The Government has inherited a criminal justice system in crisis. This has placed an unacceptable strain on the Children and Young People Estate. We are determined to tackle the challenges – giving staff the support they need to reduce violence, increase access to education and help these children to turn their lives around.

Following the Education Thematic Review recently published by Ofsted and H M Inspectorate of Prisons, education delivery in young offender institutions, as well as wider performance, is under review.

The Youth Custody Service (YCS) is committed to promoting the development of each child in its care by delivering a range of learning and enrichment activities that are individualised, responsive to children’s needs, and aligned with trauma-informed care. This is an integrated whole-systems approach involving various professionals. Education providers are working alongside subject-matter experts (Heads of Education, Skills and Work) and Governors to develop broad and balanced curriculums that facilitate the holistic development of all children in the YCS’s care. This includes access to vocational training and creative learning.

The Children and Young People’s Strategy that is being developed will provide greater detail about our long-term vision for the future of the youth estate, with education and wellbeing at its centre.

The Government has inherited a criminal justice system in crisis. This has placed an unacceptable strain on the Children and Young People Estate. We are determined to tackle the challenges – giving staff the support they need to reduce violence, increase access to education and help these children to turn their lives around.

Following the Education Thematic Review recently published by Ofsted and H M Inspectorate of Prisons, education delivery in young offender institutions, as well as wider performance, is under review.

The Youth Custody Service (YCS) is committed to promoting the development of each child in its care by delivering a range of learning and enrichment activities that are individualised, responsive to children’s needs, and aligned with trauma-informed care. This is an integrated whole-systems approach involving various professionals. Education providers are working alongside subject-matter experts (Heads of Education, Skills and Work) and Governors to develop broad and balanced curriculums that facilitate the holistic development of all children in the YCS’s care. This includes access to vocational training and creative learning.

The Children and Young People’s Strategy that is being developed will provide greater detail about our long-term vision for the future of the youth estate, with education and wellbeing at its centre.

Information as to whether social media was used (at any point) in the commission of an offence is not centrally recorded – therefore the information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

Magistrates that sit at Telford Magistrates’ Court are appointed to the Shropshire Bench. The Shropshire Bench covers Telford and Kidderminster Magistrates Court and the magistrates may be required to sit at any of these courts. The table below shows the number of magistrates on the Shropshire Bench (existing members and new appointments) for the years requested:

The Staffordshire and West Mercia Advisory Committee on Justices of the Peace’s recruitment plans are published here: Advisory Committee Recruitment Plan - Magistrates Recruitment.

Restorative justice can, when delivered in the right circumstances, improve victim satisfaction and reduce reoffending. This not only benefits the victims and the offender but also their community.

That is why, under the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (‘the Victims’ Code’), all adult victims must be told about the option of restorative justice and how to access it. We also provide Police and Crime Commissioners with grant funding for victim support services, including restorative justice services. They are best placed to assess local need and commission services based on the needs of the population in the local area.

Restorative justice can also already be used as part of out of court resolutions, depending on the circumstances of the case.

The information is not available in the form requested. As it does not employ the people concerned, the Ministry of Justice does not hold the data requested.

A preventative and risk-based decision to not allow the internal storage of e-bikes and their batteries on HMCTS premises was made in early 2024 pending further assessment of the risks and mitigations available.

This decision took into consideration emerging national fire service data and a serious fire incident that had occurred in the Royal Courts of Justice related to an e-bike battery.

A survey is being undertaken to establish where e-bikes may be safely stored within interior areas of HMCTS buildings. If a site has the physical capacity to store the e-bikes internally, building fire risk assessments are being reviewed to consider whether e-bikes can be safely stored.

The Government is committed to supporting all parties to access justice when making or defending a possession claim through the county courts. To support this, HMCTS is developing a digital service for possession claims. Plans for the delivery of this service are currently under development.

Information about appeals to the First-Tier Tribunal for Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) is published at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics.

The table below sets out the number of appeals to the SEND Tribunal against decisions made by Surrey County Council about education, health and care plans for the period 2020(1) to 2023 (the latest period for which data have been published) which were overturned(2) at Tribunal.

1 - Data on appeals in 2019 are not available due to HMCTS Record and Retention policy requirements that data is deleted after three years from the conclusion of the appeal and six months if the appeal is withdrawn for SEND Tribunals. The full policy on Record and Retention can be found at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62b47cfcd3bf7f0af821efef/health-education-social-care-chamber-rrds.pdf.

2 - The Tribunal reports a successful appeal if majority of appeals is found in favour of the parent or young person.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the number of offenders prosecuted and convicted which can be filtered to specific offences. This can be obtained in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, which can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-december-2023.

It is not possible to separately identify cases of domestic abuse, which will be recorded under the specific offences for which they are convicted, for example, intentional strangulation or suffocation. This information may be held on court records but to examine individual court records would be of disproportionate costs.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on the number of offenders convicted, which can be filtered to specific offences and broken down by defendant ethnicity. This can be obtained in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, which can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-december-2023.

However, data held centrally does not include an offender’s nationality. This information may be held on court records but to examine individual court records would be of disproportionate cost.

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service routinely publishes information about Probation Service regions’ performance as part of the Community Performance Annual Statistics. The most recent data, published in July, cover the financial year 2023-24, and includes the performance of East Midlands Probation.

This publication includes details of performance against key performance indicators, a set of ‘Probation Service Scorecard Ratings,’ and other supporting information, which can all be accessed using the following link: Community Performance Annual, update to March 2024 - GOV.UK.

The information is not available in the form requested.

It is not the practice to cancel courses, but they may be restricted on a day-to-day basis owing to staff unavailability. As part of the annual review of the curriculum, governors and their teams may decide to replace one course with another, based on the children’s needs.