Ministry of Justice

Jury service is a vital civic duty, and the Government is committed to ensuring jurors feel supported throughout their service. All the support provided to jurors throughout their service is kept under review to ensure it remains appropriate and accessible. Jurors can claim subsistence and travel expenses, as well as a loss of earnings allowance from the court. For those individuals facing particular difficulties in serving the jury summoning process provides for applications for deferral or excusal based upon financial hardship.

The Enable Programme is a workforce transformation programme that aims to change how HMPPS trains, develops, leads, and supports its prison staff to ensure that they feel safe, supported, valued, and confident in their skills and ability to make a difference.

A key focus for the programme is to strengthen prison leadership and operational capability and build a quality pipeline of leaders for the future. This includes a new national Governor Induction programme which provides a dedicated package of learning for new Governors, offering professional, personal, and practical support to ensure they have the best start to their governing career.

The Enable Programme is a workforce transformation programme that aims to change how HMPPS trains, develops, leads, and supports its prison staff to ensure that they feel safe, supported, valued, and confident in their skills and ability to make a difference.

A key focus for the programme is to strengthen prison leadership and operational capability and build a quality pipeline of leaders for the future. To support this work Governor Succession Planning is managed via a National Talent Committee, that monitors tenure, identifies talent and considers succession in line with civil service rules. This senior multi-disciplinary team meet quarterly and are informed by internal management information, the leadership requirements of individual sites and the strengths of individual governors.

Drone incidents around prisons in England and Wales pose a major threat to prison security. We are working hard to deter, detect and disrupt the illegal use of drones. This includes working across government and international partners on this global issue.

We publish the number of drone incidents in England and Wales in the HMPPS Annual Digest, please see table 6_1 in the Finds tables. The latest issue covers the 12-month period to March 2025, with a time series of drone incidents starting from the 12-months to March 2021. We published Official Statistics on drone incidents for the first time in July 2025, with data back to April 2020. Drone statistics back to 2015 cannot be provided, having not been equivalently recorded or assured.

Any increase in reported drone incidents should not be interpreted as an increase in incursions; it may reflect more focused reporting. Drone incidents should not be interpreted as definitive evidence of the delivery of contraband into prisons, as they include all incidents where a drone is sighted. Data specific to deliveries of illicit items cannot be disclosed for security reasons.

To ensure people with severe mental health needs access the right treatment in the right setting, the landmark Mental Health Bill, which is due to receive Royal Assent imminently, will introduce a new statutory time limit of 28 days for transfers from prison and other places of detention to hospital.

This time limit, together with operational improvements, aims to reduce unnecessary delays and deliver swifter access to treatment. The Bill will also stop courts temporarily detaining people with severe mental illness in prison as a ‘place of safety’ whilst awaiting a hospital bed for treatment or assessment under the Mental Health Act and will end the use of remand for own protection under the Bail Act where the court’s sole concern is the defendant’s mental health. We recognise that delays in accessing hospital treatment can affect mental health stability and increase distress for individuals requiring acute care. Regional oversight arrangements and escalation processes are designed to minimise such delays and protect the safety and wellbeing of affected individuals. During any period of delay, prison mental health teams provide enhanced monitoring, therapeutic interventions and regular reassessment.

For individuals who do not meet the threshold for detention under the Mental Health Act, mental health care continues to be delivered within the prison environment in line with national clinical standards. This includes psychological therapies, medication management, risk assessment, crisis planning and ongoing reviews to ensure needs are met and that escalation is reconsidered where clinically indicated.

In addition to this, HMP Bronzefield, Downview and Send (in Surrey) have Offender Personality Disorder (OPD) Pathway services and Send has a Democratic Therapeutic Community. Women from across the estate can access these services if they meet the criteria for the pathway and offender managers can also refer women in.

The delivery of healthcare in prison is the responsibility of the NHS in England and Wales. Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care System and Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust have delegated responsibility for the commissioning and management of pathways.

To ensure people with severe mental health needs access the right treatment in the right setting, the landmark Mental Health Bill, which is due to receive Royal Assent imminently, will introduce a new statutory time limit of 28 days for transfers from prison and other places of detention to hospital.

This time limit, together with operational improvements, aims to reduce unnecessary delays and deliver swifter access to treatment. The Bill will also stop courts temporarily detaining people with severe mental illness in prison as a ‘place of safety’ whilst awaiting a hospital bed for treatment or assessment under the Mental Health Act and will end the use of remand for own protection under the Bail Act where the court’s sole concern is the defendant’s mental health. We recognise that delays in accessing hospital treatment can affect mental health stability and increase distress for individuals requiring acute care. Regional oversight arrangements and escalation processes are designed to minimise such delays and protect the safety and wellbeing of affected individuals. During any period of delay, prison mental health teams provide enhanced monitoring, therapeutic interventions and regular reassessment.

For individuals who do not meet the threshold for detention under the Mental Health Act, mental health care continues to be delivered within the prison environment in line with national clinical standards. This includes psychological therapies, medication management, risk assessment, crisis planning and ongoing reviews to ensure needs are met and that escalation is reconsidered where clinically indicated.

In addition to this, HMP Bronzefield, Downview and Send (in Surrey) have Offender Personality Disorder (OPD) Pathway services and Send has a Democratic Therapeutic Community. Women from across the estate can access these services if they meet the criteria for the pathway and offender managers can also refer women in.

The delivery of healthcare in prison is the responsibility of the NHS in England and Wales. Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care System and Surrey & Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust have delegated responsibility for the commissioning and management of pathways.

We continue to work closely with partners from across the criminal justice system to manage the growth in the prison remand population. The Sentencing Bill, currently being considered before parliament, introduces a package of amendments to the Bail Act 1976, which, alongside the presumption to suspend short sentences of 12 months or less, will help to address the unsustainable growth in the prison remand population.

This package of amendments includes changing the “no real prospect” test in the Bail Act 1976 so that fewer exceptions to bail will apply where the court considers that a sentence of immediate custody is unlikely. We are also adding to the factors that the courts must consider when deciding whether to refuse or grant bail to include consideration of whether the defendant is pregnant, a primary caregiver, or a victim of domestic abuse.

We continue to work closely with partners from across the criminal justice system to manage the growth in the prison remand population. The Sentencing Bill, currently being considered before parliament, introduces a package of amendments to the Bail Act 1976, which, alongside the presumption to suspend short sentences of 12 months or less, will help to address the unsustainable growth in the prison remand population.

This package of amendments includes changing the “no real prospect” test in the Bail Act 1976 so that fewer exceptions to bail will apply where the court considers that a sentence of immediate custody is unlikely. We are also adding to the factors that the courts must consider when deciding whether to refuse or grant bail to include consideration of whether the defendant is pregnant, a primary caregiver, or a victim of domestic abuse.

Reducing reoffending is a top priority for this Government. Our approach is led by evidence on what works to support offenders in turning away from crime, focusing on addressing the underlying needs linked to offending behaviour, including housing, employment and education, substance misuse treatment, family ties and improving personal skills and behaviours.

Peer mentoring already plays an important role in supporting rehabilitation within prison and probation services. It is used in various ways, including providing lived experience insights into probation requirements and direct one-to-one mentoring. Some peer-led services are also delivered by external organisations, further supporting rehabilitation efforts. Overall, there is national variation in delivery of peer-led services.

While there is external evidence that peer mentoring can be beneficial, there is currently no centrally collated data on how many people in custody have served as a peer mentor or had access to one over the last 10 years.

A recent study by HMPPS (Ministry of Justice, 2024, Education, Skills, and Work, Peer Mentoring in Men’s Prisons, Ministry of Justice Analytical Series) found that peer mentoring can positively influence inmates' engagement with educational programmes and enhance their skills, as well as improving staff/prisoner relationships.

Every prison has been encouraged to deliver peer mentoring as part of the prison regime. This will help embed peer support across the custodial estate, promoting rehabilitative engagement and enhancing prisoners’ access to mentoring opportunities and supporting.

Reducing reoffending is a top priority for this Government. Our approach is led by evidence on what works to support offenders in turning away from crime, focusing on addressing the underlying needs linked to offending behaviour, including housing, employment and education, substance misuse treatment, family ties and improving personal skills and behaviours.

Peer mentoring already plays an important role in supporting rehabilitation within prison and probation services. It is used in various ways, including providing lived experience insights into probation requirements and direct one-to-one mentoring. Some peer-led services are also delivered by external organisations, further supporting rehabilitation efforts. Overall, there is national variation in delivery of peer-led services.

While there is external evidence that peer mentoring can be beneficial, there is currently no centrally collated data on how many people in custody have served as a peer mentor or had access to one over the last 10 years.

A recent study by HMPPS (Ministry of Justice, 2024, Education, Skills, and Work, Peer Mentoring in Men’s Prisons, Ministry of Justice Analytical Series) found that peer mentoring can positively influence inmates' engagement with educational programmes and enhance their skills, as well as improving staff/prisoner relationships.

Every prison has been encouraged to deliver peer mentoring as part of the prison regime. This will help embed peer support across the custodial estate, promoting rehabilitative engagement and enhancing prisoners’ access to mentoring opportunities and supporting.

The Ministry of Justice is committed to enabling prisoners to access higher education while in custody and, alongside HMPPS, works with partners such as the Prisoners Education Trust and the Open University to widen access to higher education for prisoners.

The Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education will continue to consider access to student finance for prisoners.

The Ministry of Justice is committed to ensuring that individuals held on custody, including those on remand, have access to appropriate rehabilitative and educational support while in prison.

Remand prisoners are eligible to access core education provision within prisons. This may include literacy, numeracy, English for Speakers of Other Languages, basic digital skills, as well as library services. On arrival, all prisoners undergo initial screening for learning needs and receive an individual Learning and Work Plan to support progression. Governors must ensure that education is available to all prisoners who can benefit, in line with Prison Rule 32, and prisoners on remand are given the choice to participate in these opportunities. While remand prisoners cannot access advanced learning funded through student loans or the Prisoner Education Trust, they are encouraged to participate in the core educational offer within their prison setting.

Accredited offending behaviour programmes are generally reserved for sentenced individuals, as remand periods and uncertain outcomes make it impractical to deliver these interventions before sentencing. We are focused on expanding appropriate rehabilitative provision for people on remand; probation pre-release teams support all people in prison, including on remand, with pre-release planning. The scope of the Commissioned Rehabilitative Services has been extended to include remand prisoners, offering practical support such as accommodation and for women, additional services addressing finance, family and social inclusion.

This information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

However, a report about Social Contact in Prison published 11 December provides information about visit frequencies. The report notes that in the 12 months prior to June 2024, almost two thirds of prisoners (63%) had at least one face-to-face visit. 31% of prisoners received remote contact only and 5% of prisoners appeared to have had no contact.

The report can be accessed via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-contact-in-prison-april-2019-to-june-2024.

We know that visits are crucial to sustaining relationships with close relatives, partners and friends, and help prisoners maintain links with the community. HMPPS aims to encourage and assist the maintenance of relationships between prisoners and their families to support their social rehabilitation. The Help With Prison Visits scheme (HWPV) supports visitors on low incomes by providing a contribution towards visits costs for close relatives, partners or sole visitors.

All visits areas must be accessible for all, including disabled prisoners and visitors.

The information requested for adult prisoners is not held by the Ministry of Justice, as collecting data on time in and out of cell would require detailed monitoring of cell activity in each prison establishment.

PSI 75/2011 (Residential Services), which includes general guidance on time-out-of-cell, can be found at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residential-services-psi-752011.

The information requested for adult prisoners is not held by the Ministry of Justice, as collecting data on time in and out of cell would require detailed monitoring of cell activity in each prison establishment.

PSI 75/2011 (Residential Services), which includes general guidance on time-out-of-cell, can be found at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residential-services-psi-752011.

The value and performance of the Department’s private-sector service providers is reviewed through routine contract and performance management and, in addition, ministers meet regularly with each provider’s Chief Executive Officers to hold them personally to account for their performance.

Statistics on prisoners’ health are the responsibility of the NHS. I am informed that the figures that are collected do not indicate whether an illness or hospitalisation relates to unhygienic conditions or show the causes of illnesses linked to E-coli.

Arrangements are in place to ensure hygiene standards are maintained across the prison estate. These include regular monitoring and cleaning delivered through a combination of prisoner working parties and contracted cleaning services.

Statistics on prisoners’ health are the responsibility of the NHS. I am informed that the figures that are collected do not indicate whether an illness or hospitalisation relates to unhygienic conditions or show the causes of illnesses linked to E-coli.

Arrangements are in place to ensure hygiene standards are maintained across the prison estate. These include regular monitoring and cleaning delivered through a combination of prisoner working parties and contracted cleaning services.

The Government recognises the value of autonomy for governors and the innovation this can drive, whilst also balancing this with the level of central control to achieve consistency between prisons.

In 2023, HMPPS launched a framework for governor empowerment – the Free, Flex, Fixed (FFF) framework of operational policy. This clarifies the extent of governor freedoms and flexibilities to ensure that they are used to their full potential. It also provides an opportunity for governors to challenge areas of fixed policy and is a clear framework for increasing flexibility if agreed centrally.

Some examples of the flexibility set out in the FFF framework are: governors are free to recruit locally for roles other than prison officer and operational support grades; they have flexibility to vary regime beyond the mandated elements; they have freedom to decide how staff time is allocated; and they flexibilities within their local budgets, such as the number of staff at different grades, provided it is within their overall pay budget.

We will continue to review governor autonomy, looking at what we can do to support governors whilst maintaining value for money and national consistency. Regular HMPPS leadership meetings adopt a continuous improvement approach to finding new flexibilities and freedoms for governors. We will continue to update governors so that they are aware of how to access all their freedoms.

The latest published HMPPS workforce statistics covers the period up to 30 September 2025 so the latest calendar year available is for 2024. Figures showing the average length of time spent in post for public sector prison governors in England and Wales as at 31 December 2015 to 2024 and 30 September 2025 are given in the table below.

The figures relate to the governing governors’ time in the role they were in on the given date only and exclude previous governor service. In addition, figures do not include deputy governors temporarily covering a governing governor role.

Table 1 - Average (mean) length of service (in years) of governors in the public sector prison role they were in on the given date, as at 31 December 2015 to 2024, and as at 30 September 2025.

Notes:

1. Figures show average length of service of the prison governor role on the given date.

2. Figures relate to governing governors only (band 10-11) and do not include deputy governors temporarily covering the role.

3. The number of governors and prisons change over time, as vacancies arise and as prisons transfer between the public and private sector.

4. Each governor is only included once per given date, though it is possible to temporarily be governor of more than one prison at a time.

5. As with all HR databases, extracts are taken at a fixed point in time and is dependent on staff completing the details correctly. The database itself is dynamic and where updates to the database are made late, subsequent to the taking of the extract, or are incorrect then these updates will not be reflected in figures produced by the extract. For this reason, HR data are unlikely to be precisely accurate and may not match local data.

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill creates four new criminal offences:

1. Failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance;

2. Misleading the public;

3. Seriously improper acts; and

4. Breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury.

Police officers may be prosecuted for any or all of these.

The offences of failing to comply with the duty of candour and assistance and misleading the public have a maximum sentence of two years in prison.

The seriously improper acts offence has a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment. The breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury offence has a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment.

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation service (HMPPS) has a layered approach to tackling criminality that emanates from within prisons. It deploys countermeasures such as X-ray body and baggage scanners, archway metal detectors and Enhanced Search Gates in place to stop smuggling of illicit items, such as mobile phones that are key enablers of crime in prisons.

Criminality in prisons is often orchestrated by Serious Organised Crime (SOC) nominals. HMPPS has a dedicated national SOC team that works collaboratively with law enforcement agencies and partners to identify and disrupt organised criminal activity in prison.

We bear down on crime in prison through adjudications, and prisoners who misbehave can face extra time in custody. The most serious crimes, including those where a mobile phone is being used to coordinate criminal activity, are referred to the police in line with the Crime in Prisons Referral Arrangement (CiPRA). We work closely with law enforcement partners through the Crime in Prisons Taskforce which was established to work closely with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure serious crimes are addressed through the criminal justice system, rather than solely through internal disciplinary measures.

In parallel, we are tackling the root causes of reoffending by addressing offenders’ underlying needs and supporting their rehabilitation journey. This includes providing a range of rehabilitative interventions, including education, employment and substance misuse support.

In November 2024, the Home Office introduced Respect Orders to give police and local councils powers to ban persistent offenders from town centres. As well as prison sentences of up to two years, criminal courts will be able to issue unlimited fines and community orders, such as unpaid work, and curfews as punishment for breaching a Respect Order.

For those who persistently break the law, we are building 14,000 new prison places to make sure they are removed from the streets. Whilst in prison they will be expected to take part in education or learn new skills to make them more useful contributors to society after release.

The Probation Service's first priority is to protect the public. Anyone released from prison is subject to strict licence conditions, including exclusion zones where appropriate. If found to have breached these conditions they can be returned to prison.

The Probation Service puts in place services aimed at reducing re-offending by supporting the needs of people on probation in Great Yarmouth. These include providing support in obtaining and maintaining suitable accommodation, help with drug and alcohol dependency issues, assistance with personal wellbeing needs and a holistic service addressing all needs for women.

Please see the attached table showing the number of incidents of assault on (a) prison officers and (b) other prison staff at HMP Hewell in each of the last five years, and accompanying notes.

Fly-tipping is a serious crime which blights communities and the environment and dealing with it imposes significant costs on both taxpayers and businesses. Anyone caught fly-tipping may be prosecuted and faces potentially serious punishment.

The Ministry of Justice publishes data on prosecutions relating to fly tipping in the Outcomes by Offences data tool, which can be downloaded from the Criminal Justice Statistics landing page here: Criminal Justice Statistics.

Relevant offences can be filtered by using the offence filter and selecting 91.1 Offences related to fly-tipping - Triable either way.

Data is not published separately for Great Yarmouth, however, there have been no prosecutions for this offence at Great Yarmouth magistrates court in year ending June 2025.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the courts. Parliament has provided the courts with a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders, including discharges, fines, community sentences, suspended sentences and custodial sentences.

The maximum penalty for fly-tipping is 5 years custody. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors. The courts also have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.

The Government keeps the sentencing framework under ongoing review to ensure that it remains fit for purpose.

The Government announced on 2 October that it intends to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows. The reforms reflect a commitment to making weddings law fairer, simpler and more modern, whilst also protecting the solemnity and dignity of marriage. We want to create a level playing field for all groups, including allowing Humanist weddings to be legally recognised for the first time. We will be consulting on the details early next year.

The Government is of the view that using the existing order-making power under section 14 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 legally to recognise Humanist weddings would mean introducing new inequalities into existing law. This is because Humanists would gain more freedoms in relation to how they marry than those available to most religious groups. The Government has decided to enable Humanist weddings as part of comprehensive reform that ensures all groups are treated fairly.

The Government recognises the sensitivities surrounding burial grounds linked to former psychiatric institutions, including Horton Cemetery, and is committed to upholding the dignity of these sites and the memory of those interred within them.

All applications for exhumation are assessed individually and require consents from next of kin, the owner of any related exclusive right of burial and the burial authority to ensure that respect for the deceased person is balanced with a legitimate request from the family or burial authority. A general ban would remove this balance and prevent valid cases from being considered. All applications undergo rigorous scrutiny, and disturbing remains without authority is a criminal offence.

The Law Commission is currently reviewing burial legislation, including the legal provision for exhumation, as part of its Burial, Cremation and New Funerary Methods project (Burial, cremation, and new funerary methods – Law Commission). Its report on this issue is expected to be published in early 2026, and the Government will respond in due course.

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.

The removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following these reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial.

As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates and only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants, or anyone involved in the justice system.

The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court framework, following the same process and procedures. Safeguards will be in place, including the existing appeals procedure, and judges in the ‘swift courts’ will be required to provide reasoned judgments when delivering decisions to convict or acquit. An impact assessment will accompany our legislative measures, as is usual practice.

The Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with a record and rising open caseload of nearly 80,000 criminal cases waiting to be heard and too many victims waiting years for justice. One of the first priorities of this Government has been to tackle this crisis, which is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to undertake his independent review. On 2 December, the Deputy Prime Minister responded to the first part of that review and set out why reform is necessary, alongside investment and modernisation.

The removal of the defendants’ right to elect is compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. Whilst jury trial will remain an important feature of the criminal justice system following these reforms, it is important to recognise that there is no constitutional right to a jury trial.

As you will be aware, the vast majority of criminal trials in this country are conducted fairly, without a jury. 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates and only around 3% of all criminal trials are heard by a jury. It is the obligation of Government to guarantee everybody a fair trial and timely justice is fundamental to fairness. But the status quo is not working for victims, defendants, or anyone involved in the justice system.

The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court framework, following the same process and procedures. Safeguards will be in place, including the existing appeals procedure, and judges in the ‘swift courts’ will be required to provide reasoned judgments when delivering decisions to convict or acquit. An impact assessment will accompany our legislative measures, as is usual practice.

The annual official Diversity of the Judiciary statistics includes the total numbers of Recorders in post, as of 1 April of the relevant year (Data tables: Tab 3_1_JO_Appt):

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2025-statistics.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2024-statistics.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2023-statistics.

Recorders can be authorised to sit in multiple courts and jurisdictions, and the judiciary is responsible for assigning them to sit in specific Crown or County Courts.

Sentencing decisions are a matter for our independent courts, following any relevant sentencing guidelines, issued by the Sentencing Council. Sentencing guidelines are designed to increase consistency and transparency in sentencing.

The Council has issued a package of guidelines on sexual offences, as well as an overarching guideline to assist courts when sentencing offenders with any mental disorder, neurological impairment or developmental disorder. These are available on its website at: https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/guidelines/crown-court/.

As the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned during Justice Oral Questions on 16 December, I will bring your particular concerns to the attention of the Chair of the Council.

The Government recognises the sensitivities surrounding burial grounds linked to former psychiatric institutions, including Horton Cemetery, and is committed to upholding the dignity of these sites and the memory of those interred within them.

The Law Commission is currently reviewing burial legislation, including the legal framework for the management of burial grounds, as part of its Burial, Cremation and New Funerary Methods project (Burial, cremation, and new funerary methods – Law Commission).

The project includes an assessment of the existing legal safeguards for burial and disinterment, the options for improved regulation and oversight of burial sites taking into account their nature and context, and potential reforms to ensure appropriate protection for private burial grounds.

The Government welcomes the Law Commission’s consideration of these issues and will respond in due course to its report, which is expected to be published in early 2026.

The Ministry of Justice will be investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years – the biggest investment in these services to date.

We are introducing a package of legislative measures to improve victims’ experiences and stop practitioners and juries relying on so-called myths and misconceptions in court.

The Ministry of Justice annual report and accounts include information on the average number of working lost across the Department including its executive agencies. The report is available here with the relevant information on page 141 - Ministry of Justice annual report and accounts: 2024 to 2025 - GOV.UK.

The Ministry of Justice does not issue performance warnings to employees whose sickness absence exceeds departmental trigger points. Under the supporting attendance policy, sickness absence is managed through a separate attendance management process.

The Ministry of Justice operates a continuous performance management approach based on a rolling cycle of regular performance conversations between line managers and staff members. As such, the Department does not hold the data requested.

Number and Rate of Promotions for Ministry of Justice (excluding HMPPS) employees by Grade between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025

Caveats

Data on the number and proportion of promotions in HMPPS by grade for 24/25 can be found in the HM Prison & Probation Service Staff Equalities Report: 2024-2025 in Table 4b.

HM Prison & Probation Service Staff Equalities Report: 2024-2025 - GOV.UK

It is not possible to provide the requested data on ‘in-grade promotion’ as this definition does not exist within the Department.

It is not possible to provide the data requested broken down by performance marking because the Ministry of Justice uses a rolling cycle of regular performance management conversations – there is no set reporting year or end of year markings. Since 2019, the flexible Performance Management Framework in the Civil Service has enabled Departments to adopt a Performance Management approach to best suit their organisational and cultural needs. There is no common performance rating across Government, and there is no common definition of ‘performance year’.

For the last financial year, the total cost to the Ministry of Justice of payments associated with settlement agreements is set out in Annual Report and Accounts. Where relevant, this includes special severance payments that have associated settlement agreements.

The Ministry of Justice holds all staff to high standards of professional conduct. Where behaviour falls short of those standards, appropriate action is taken in line with established policies and procedures.

Number of Conduct and Discipline cases in the Ministry of Justice broken down by agency and outcome (1st April 2024 to 31st March 2025)

The central ePM case management system cannot identify the main allegation in a case or distinguish whether each allegation concerns performance or conduct. Its categorisation structure does not allow disciplinary data to be separated into conduct versus performance cases. Additionally, poor performance issues are handled through a separate policy and system, which is not included in the disciplinary case data.

Caveats

1. The above table is created from Conduct and Discipline records held in the ePM case management system. This only includes formal disciplinary actions and will exclude any local disciplinary actions taken.

2. Due to differences in the data matching processes, very slightly different methodologies have been used to calculate the figures for HMPPS compared to the non-HMPPS agencies.

3. This information only includes cases that concluded between 1st April 2024 and 31st March 2025 where the case had a known and recorded outcome and where the agency of the individual could be determined.

4. Cases can have multiple outcomes, and therefore the highest level penalty has been used to determine the outcome in the table. If the outcome was appealed, the outcome of the appeal has been taken as the final outcome of the case. The 'Dismissal' category includes summary dismissals and 'Any other penalty' includes both disciplinary action and financial penalties.

5. Within the centrally held ePM case management system, it is not possible to determine the primary allegation made against the individual or whether each allegation is specifically related to performance or conduct.

6. This data is based on the latest information available as at the end of June 2025. Further data regarding the 2024 - 2025 financial year may be received in future data provisions and therefore these figures may be subject to change.

7. For some cases, information is incomplete and we have conducted data cleaning to improve data quality where possible. We are in the process of improving the ePM data pipeline. Figures may change slightly in the future as data quality improves.

~ denotes values of 2 or fewer, suppressed for reasons of data protection, or values suppressed for reasons of secondary suppression to prevent disclosure in cases where totals would reveal suppressed values

8. The case categorisations on the system does not allow the breakdown of figures into conduct and performance groups. There is a separate poor performance policy and case management system which is separate to the disciplinary cases presented in the table

The Ministry of Justice makes information on its direct ministerial appointments available in line with Cabinet Office guidance on transparency. This information is available on GOV.UK and kept under review to ensure it is up to date.

Releases in error are never acceptable, and we are bearing down on those errors that do occur.

On 11 November, the Deputy Prime Minister announced a five-point action plan. This includes strengthening prison release checks, investment in new technology, and an independent review, which will report its recommendations in spring next year.

We provide a range of rehabilitative interventions for prisoners, including education, employment and substance misuse support.

In 93 prisons, we have established dedicated in-prison roles to strengthen educational opportunities and prepare prisoners for work on release.

We have Incentivised Substance Free Living units in 85 prisons, supporting engagement with treatment in custody.

The latest published workforce statistics for HM Prison & Probation Service cover the period up to 30 September 2025 and contain figures for the last five years for working days lost, average staff and average working days lost for each public sector prison and for different grades, but not by prison and grade combined. The published figures are for the 12 months to 31 March each year and latest figures are for the 12 months to 30 September 2025. These figures for HMP Hewell, split by band 3-5 prison officers and other prison staff, are given in the table below.

Working days lost to sickness absence, for HMP Hewell, by band 3-5 prison officers and other staff – for 12 months to 31 March 2021 to 2025 and for 12 months to 30 September 2025.

(Full Time Equivalent)

Notes

1. Band 3-5 Officers includes Band 3-4 / Prison Officers (including specialists), Band 4 / Supervising Officers, and Band 5 / Custodial Managers.
2. Figures relating to the most recent 12 months are provisional, and may be subject to change in the future

A comparison between target staffing levels and staff in post can be found in the following link: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/691da96221ef5aaa6543ef83/annex-prison-and-probation-officer-recruitment-Sep-2025_final.ods.

Internal management information has long been used for workforce planning to monitor vacancies and other resource monitoring purposes. However, target staffing and parallel staff in post data has only been produced for the purpose of official statistics for the last few years. As a result, the full historic time series is not available in a consistent format for the grade breakdowns requested.

Turnover rates¹ at HMP Hewell for (i) band 3-5 officers² and (ii) all other prison staff, in the 12 months to 31 March 2021-2025 and in the 12 months to 30 September 2025

Notes:

1. Turnover rates include all reasons for leaving and include both permanent and temporary staff.
2. Band 3-5 officers include: Bands 3-4 / Prison Officer (incl. specialists), Band 4 / Supervising Officer and Band 5 / Custodial Managers

3. As with all HR databases, extracts are taken at a fixed point in time and is dependent on staff completing the details correctly. The database itself is dynamic and where updates to the database are made late, subsequent to the taking of the extract, or are incorrect then these updates will not be reflected in figures produced by the extract. For this reason, HR data are unlikely to be precisely accurate and may not match local data.

Figures relating to the most recent 12 months are provisional, and may be subject to change in the future.

The latest published workforce statistics for HM Prison & Probation Service cover the period up to 30 September 2025 and contain figures for the last five years for working days lost, average staff and average working days lost for each public sector prison and for different grades, but not by prison and grade combined. The published figures are for the 12 months to 31 March each year and latest figures are for the 12 months to 30 September 2025. These figures for HMP Hewell, split by band 3-5 prison officers and other prison staff, are given in the table below.

Working days lost to sickness absence, for HMP Hewell, by band 3-5 prison officers and other staff – for 12 months to 31 March 2021 to 2025 and for 12 months to 30 September 2025.

(Full Time Equivalent)

Notes

1. Band 3-5 Officers includes Band 3-4 / Prison Officers (including specialists), Band 4 / Supervising Officers, and Band 5 / Custodial Managers.
2. Figures relating to the most recent 12 months are provisional, and may be subject to change in the future

A comparison between target staffing levels and staff in post can be found in the following link: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/691da96221ef5aaa6543ef83/annex-prison-and-probation-officer-recruitment-Sep-2025_final.ods.

Internal management information has long been used for workforce planning to monitor vacancies and other resource monitoring purposes. However, target staffing and parallel staff in post data has only been produced for the purpose of official statistics for the last few years. As a result, the full historic time series is not available in a consistent format for the grade breakdowns requested.

Turnover rates¹ at HMP Hewell for (i) band 3-5 officers² and (ii) all other prison staff, in the 12 months to 31 March 2021-2025 and in the 12 months to 30 September 2025

Notes:

1. Turnover rates include all reasons for leaving and include both permanent and temporary staff.
2. Band 3-5 officers include: Bands 3-4 / Prison Officer (incl. specialists), Band 4 / Supervising Officer and Band 5 / Custodial Managers

3. As with all HR databases, extracts are taken at a fixed point in time and is dependent on staff completing the details correctly. The database itself is dynamic and where updates to the database are made late, subsequent to the taking of the extract, or are incorrect then these updates will not be reflected in figures produced by the extract. For this reason, HR data are unlikely to be precisely accurate and may not match local data.

Figures relating to the most recent 12 months are provisional, and may be subject to change in the future.

We have seen an improving picture on retention nationally – with resignation rates at their lowest level for four years for Band 3-5 prison officers.

We recognise that pension age is an important issue for frontline staff and our recognised trade unions. Ministers regularly engage with the POA and the Deputy Prime Minister is due to meet with the POA early in the new year.