Ministry of Justice

The spend by the Ministry of Justice on its IT infrastructure as set out in the question is provided in the table below, covering the previous three years:

It has not been possible to separate out costs in a meaningful way between current and legacy systems, or identify costs for pre-2013 systems. This is due to both the complexity of the IT estate, which includes outsourced services, and the finance systems in use across the department not being set up to operate in that way that facilitates this.

The costs in the table include the costs of networks, devices, voice and video infrastructure, print services, wifi, software licences that underpin the operation of the department (eg Oracle, Microsoft) and hosting. They do not include costs of bespoke software. The costs are the external (contract) costs to purchase infrastructure outright or as a service but do not include costs related to people or processes or documentation within MoJ.

The Ministry of Justice is actively managing its legacy estate and are either seeking to fund or are seeking to exit legacy systems via our existing change plans. The right approach varies: work under way includes upgrades, complete system replacements and migration to public cloud.

The Ministry of Justice regularly assesses the most critical services within its IT estate including those using legacy systems against its own framework. There is a significant programme of activity in place to mitigate these risks through decommissioning, migration to more modern environments and upgrades.

Earlier in 2023, an assessment was carried out on the top 10 most critical legacy IT systems. Out of these 10 systems, 5 were identified as red-rated IT systems as defined in the Central Digital and Data Office (CDDO) Legacy IT Risk Assessment Framework

The Ministry of Justice is in the process of assessing all of its critical systems against the CDDO framework which will provide data on how many of these are red-rated within this framework.

The spend by the Ministry of Justice on its IT infrastructure as set out in the question is provided in the table below, covering the previous three years:

It has not been possible to separate out costs in a meaningful way between current and legacy systems, or identify costs for pre-2013 systems. This is due to both the complexity of the IT estate, which includes outsourced services, and the finance systems in use across the department not being set up to operate in that way that facilitates this.

The costs in the table include the costs of networks, devices, voice and video infrastructure, print services, wifi, software licences that underpin the operation of the department (eg Oracle, Microsoft) and hosting. They do not include costs of bespoke software. The costs are the external (contract) costs to purchase infrastructure outright or as a service but do not include costs related to people or processes or documentation within MoJ.

The Ministry of Justice is actively managing its legacy estate and are either seeking to fund or are seeking to exit legacy systems via our existing change plans. The right approach varies: work under way includes upgrades, complete system replacements and migration to public cloud.

The Ministry of Justice regularly assesses the most critical services within its IT estate including those using legacy systems against its own framework. There is a significant programme of activity in place to mitigate these risks through decommissioning, migration to more modern environments and upgrades.

Earlier in 2023, an assessment was carried out on the top 10 most critical legacy IT systems. Out of these 10 systems, 5 were identified as red-rated IT systems as defined in the Central Digital and Data Office (CDDO) Legacy IT Risk Assessment Framework

The Ministry of Justice is in the process of assessing all of its critical systems against the CDDO framework which will provide data on how many of these are red-rated within this framework.

Legal aid is available for immigration and asylum cases, including those involving victims of domestic abuse and modern slavery, for separated migrant children, and for cases where someone is challenging a detention decision.

Earlier in November, the Legal Aid Agency published a list of immigration legal services providers that are willing and able to provide remote advice to clients in the South West of England; the list is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-providers-south-west-support-directory.

The ongoing Review of Civil Legal Aid is considering the broader economic context of the civil legal aid market as a whole across eleven categories (including immigration) so that it can operate sustainably in the long-term; the Review’s final report is expected in March 2024. When the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is implemented, individuals who receive a removal notice under the IMA will have access to free legal advice in relation to that notice.

Section 27(2) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 allows the Lord Chancellor to make arrangements for legal services to be provided by telephone or by other electronic means. Whether legal advice in a particular case is delivered remotely or in-person is down to the discretion of the legal provider. As set out in the Government’s response of 28 September 2023 to the consultation on legal aid fees for IMA work, which included an equality impact assessment (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/legal-aid-fees-in-the-illegal-migration-bill/outcome/legal-aid-fees-in-the-illegal-migration-act-government-response), a great deal of legal advice is already provided “remotely”, largely by telephone. The Government intends to allow advice to be provided remotely at Detained Duty Advice Scheme surgeries for those detained at Immigration Removal Centres. The Government acknowledges and agrees with stakeholder feedback on the need for some clients to continue to be seen face-to-face. Accordingly, conducting remote advice will be enabled at provider discretion, thus ensuring the continuation of appropriate decisions on the delivery of advice in relation to vulnerable clients.

The Department does not have data on how the advice is ultimately provided to the clients (whether face-to-face or remotely) because the decision on how to provide the service is at the discretion of the service providers, taking into account the best interests of the client. Data on the number of legal aid matters started on immigration and asylum is publicly available as part of the quarterly legal aid statistics (see tables 5.1 and 6.2 in the tables published at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/legal-aid-statistics-april-to-june-2023). Under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, all immigration advisers must be registered with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) or be regulated by a Designated Qualifying Regulator (DQR). The OISC and the DQRs are responsible for ensuring immigration advisers are fit, competent, and act in their clients’ best interests. In relation to work funded under legal aid, the “Standard Civil Contract 2018: Immigration and Asylum Specification” includes a number of measures to ensure immigration and asylum advice is only provided by caseworkers who hold appropriate accreditation.

Legal aid is available for immigration and asylum cases, including those involving victims of domestic abuse and modern slavery, for separated migrant children, and for cases where someone is challenging a detention decision.

Earlier in November, the Legal Aid Agency published a list of immigration legal services providers that are willing and able to provide remote advice to clients in the South West of England; the list is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-providers-south-west-support-directory.

The ongoing Review of Civil Legal Aid is considering the broader economic context of the civil legal aid market as a whole across eleven categories (including immigration) so that it can operate sustainably in the long-term; the Review’s final report is expected in March 2024. When the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is implemented, individuals who receive a removal notice under the IMA will have access to free legal advice in relation to that notice.

Section 27(2) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 allows the Lord Chancellor to make arrangements for legal services to be provided by telephone or by other electronic means. Whether legal advice in a particular case is delivered remotely or in-person is down to the discretion of the legal provider. As set out in the Government’s response of 28 September 2023 to the consultation on legal aid fees for IMA work, which included an equality impact assessment (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/legal-aid-fees-in-the-illegal-migration-bill/outcome/legal-aid-fees-in-the-illegal-migration-act-government-response), a great deal of legal advice is already provided “remotely”, largely by telephone. The Government intends to allow advice to be provided remotely at Detained Duty Advice Scheme surgeries for those detained at Immigration Removal Centres. The Government acknowledges and agrees with stakeholder feedback on the need for some clients to continue to be seen face-to-face. Accordingly, conducting remote advice will be enabled at provider discretion, thus ensuring the continuation of appropriate decisions on the delivery of advice in relation to vulnerable clients.

The Department does not have data on how the advice is ultimately provided to the clients (whether face-to-face or remotely) because the decision on how to provide the service is at the discretion of the service providers, taking into account the best interests of the client. Data on the number of legal aid matters started on immigration and asylum is publicly available as part of the quarterly legal aid statistics (see tables 5.1 and 6.2 in the tables published at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/legal-aid-statistics-april-to-june-2023). Under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, all immigration advisers must be registered with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) or be regulated by a Designated Qualifying Regulator (DQR). The OISC and the DQRs are responsible for ensuring immigration advisers are fit, competent, and act in their clients’ best interests. In relation to work funded under legal aid, the “Standard Civil Contract 2018: Immigration and Asylum Specification” includes a number of measures to ensure immigration and asylum advice is only provided by caseworkers who hold appropriate accreditation.

Legal aid is available for immigration and asylum cases, including those involving victims of domestic abuse and modern slavery, for separated migrant children, and for cases where someone is challenging a detention decision.

Earlier in November, the Legal Aid Agency published a list of immigration legal services providers that are willing and able to provide remote advice to clients in the South West of England; the list is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-providers-south-west-support-directory.

The ongoing Review of Civil Legal Aid is considering the broader economic context of the civil legal aid market as a whole across eleven categories (including immigration) so that it can operate sustainably in the long-term; the Review’s final report is expected in March 2024. When the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is implemented, individuals who receive a removal notice under the IMA will have access to free legal advice in relation to that notice.

Section 27(2) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 allows the Lord Chancellor to make arrangements for legal services to be provided by telephone or by other electronic means. Whether legal advice in a particular case is delivered remotely or in-person is down to the discretion of the legal provider. As set out in the Government’s response of 28 September 2023 to the consultation on legal aid fees for IMA work, which included an equality impact assessment (https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/legal-aid-fees-in-the-illegal-migration-bill/outcome/legal-aid-fees-in-the-illegal-migration-act-government-response), a great deal of legal advice is already provided “remotely”, largely by telephone. The Government intends to allow advice to be provided remotely at Detained Duty Advice Scheme surgeries for those detained at Immigration Removal Centres. The Government acknowledges and agrees with stakeholder feedback on the need for some clients to continue to be seen face-to-face. Accordingly, conducting remote advice will be enabled at provider discretion, thus ensuring the continuation of appropriate decisions on the delivery of advice in relation to vulnerable clients.

The Department does not have data on how the advice is ultimately provided to the clients (whether face-to-face or remotely) because the decision on how to provide the service is at the discretion of the service providers, taking into account the best interests of the client. Data on the number of legal aid matters started on immigration and asylum is publicly available as part of the quarterly legal aid statistics (see tables 5.1 and 6.2 in the tables published at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/legal-aid-statistics-april-to-june-2023). Under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, all immigration advisers must be registered with the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) or be regulated by a Designated Qualifying Regulator (DQR). The OISC and the DQRs are responsible for ensuring immigration advisers are fit, competent, and act in their clients’ best interests. In relation to work funded under legal aid, the “Standard Civil Contract 2018: Immigration and Asylum Specification” includes a number of measures to ensure immigration and asylum advice is only provided by caseworkers who hold appropriate accreditation.

The Government supports the President of the Family Division’s ambition to increase transparency in the family courts. The Media Reporting Pilots, led by the President, are running from January 2023 to January 2024 and will be independently evaluated. The Government will carefully consider the findings of the evaluation once complete, and publish an assessment as appropriate.

The Government supports the President of the Family Division’s ambition to increase transparency in the family courts. The Media Reporting Pilots, led by the President, are running from January 2023 to January 2024 and will be independently evaluated. The Government will carefully consider the findings of the evaluation once complete, and publish an assessment as appropriate.

We are considering this report with interest.

We remain committed to reducing the outstanding crown court caseload and have introduced a raft of measures to allow courts to work at full capacity, including removing the cap on sitting days for the third year running and recruiting up to 1,000 judges across all jurisdictions.

We have already delivered 5,600 new prison places as part of our commitment to deliver 20,000 additional, modern prison places to ensure the right conditions are in place to rehabilitate prisoners, cut crime, and protect the public. We are also investing in a range of interventions to tackle the causes of reoffending, including delivering our temporary accommodation service for prison-leavers, offering more offenders work opportunities in prison, and expanding the number of Incentivised Substance-Free Living wings.

The Government recognises the importance of enabling the media to access family court proceedings to increase transparency in the Family Justice system while at the same time ensuring the privacy of vulnerable children and families going through court are protected.

Transparency Orders and privacy injunctions are made by the independent judiciary, taking all relevant factors, including freedom of speech, into consideration.

Transparency Orders are used by the court to set the parameters on what may or may not be reported in a particular case without amounting to contempt of court. The template Transparency Order, drafted by the judiciary, is cast in injunctive terms. If a Transparency Order is made in a case, then it is binding on members of the media to whom it applies. The Media Reporting Pilots in the family courts are being independently evaluated before any decisions are made on whether there should be changes to provision on media access to, and disclosure of information from family proceedings.

The Government recognises the importance of enabling the media to access family court proceedings to increase transparency in the Family Justice system while at the same time ensuring the privacy of vulnerable children and families going through court are protected.

Transparency Orders and privacy injunctions are made by the independent judiciary, taking all relevant factors, including freedom of speech, into consideration.

Transparency Orders are used by the court to set the parameters on what may or may not be reported in a particular case without amounting to contempt of court. The template Transparency Order, drafted by the judiciary, is cast in injunctive terms. If a Transparency Order is made in a case, then it is binding on members of the media to whom it applies. The Media Reporting Pilots in the family courts are being independently evaluated before any decisions are made on whether there should be changes to provision on media access to, and disclosure of information from family proceedings.

The Lord Chancellor has not yet had an opportunity to meet the Health Secretary on this issue since her appointment this month.

However, we are determined to reduce unnecessary delays and ensure that people in prison who meet the criteria for detention under the Mental Health Act and require a transfer to hospital can access the specialist care and treatment they need in a timely manner.

Working closely with our health and justice partners, we are driving forward work to introduce a non-statutory independent role designed to improve oversight and monitor delivery of the 28-day time limit set out in NHS England’s good practice guidance.

There is no official policy to issue tents as part of releasing people from prison, therefore the Ministry of Justice does not collect data on the number of tents issued. As such no information can be provided.

Our Prisons Strategy White Paper set out our plans to reduce reoffending, including improving prison leavers’ access to accommodation. This includes delivering our transitional accommodation service, known as Community Accommodation Service – Tier 3 (CAS-3), which provides up to 84 nights of basic temporary accommodation for prison leavers who would otherwise be homeless.

CAS-3 launched in five initial probation regions in July 2021. The service was expanded to Wales in June 2022, with expansion to the remaining six probation regions in England by the end of the year, to support the thousands of offenders who leave prison homeless.

Between 01 July 2021 and 31 March 2023 5,796 individuals, who would have otherwise been homeless, were accepted on to CAS-3.

There has been no compensation paid to prisoners for items lost in transit from HMP Swansea in 2023.

We do not hold information about items not delivered to the prison. Information about any items that may have gone missing after delivery could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

We do not hold information centrally relating to compensation paid for missing parcels, and it could not be collected without incurring disproportionate cost.

One prison had to replace locks due to the loss of keys in 2022. The cost of this was £28,650.

There have been no such incidents to date in 2023. All incidents are thoroughly investigated to ensure the safety of and security of staff and prisoners.

On 16 October 2023, the Lord Chancellor announced he would be looking at options to curtail the licence period to restore greater proportionality to IPP sentences in line with recommendation 8 of the report by the Justice Select Committee (JSC), published on 28 September 2022.

These changes are being taken forward in the Victims and Prisoners Bill. The measures will make it quicker and easier to terminate an IPP licence (and therefore the IPP sentence as a whole) whilst balancing public protection considerations.

The new measure will:

1. Reduce the qualifying period which triggers the duty of the Secretary of State to refer an IPP licence to the Parole Board for termination from ten years to three years;
2. Include a clear statutory presumption that the IPP licence will be terminated by the Parole Board at the end of the three-year qualifying period;
3. Introduce a provision that will automatically terminate the IPP licence two years after the three-year qualifying period, in cases where the Parole Board has not terminated the licence; and
4. Introduce a power to amend the qualifying period by Statutory Instrument.

The Lord Chancellor was persuaded by the Committee’s recommendation to reduce the qualifying licence period from 10 years to 5 years and is going further: reducing the period to 3 years. These amendments will restore greater proportionality to IPP sentences and provide a clear pathway to a definitive end to the licence and, therefore, the sentence.

In addition to these changes, the actions this Government are taking are working; the number of prisoners serving the IPP sentence who have never been released now stands at 1,269 as of September 2023, down from more than 6000 in 2012.

Table 1: The tariff-expired Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) prisoner population at least 10 years over tariff, 30 September 2023.

Please note:

(1) The figures in these tables have been drawn from administrative IT systems which, as with any large scale recording system, are subject to possible errors with data entry and processing.

All beds used across the prison estate are required to comply with quality standards. Any issues are addressed by Property Services in His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service.

The quality standards take account of specific needs relating to use in the prison estate, including health and safety considerations that are additional to those for commercially available beds.

Where beds are already in situ, prison staff report identified faults for rectification or replacement using the facilities management reporting system.

In September, the Lord Chancellor appointed Keith Bristow QPM to conduct an independent investigation into Daniel Khalife’s alleged escape from HMP Wandsworth. Public protection is of the utmost importance and the investigation was asked to identify shortcomings and ensure lessons are learned to help prevent incidents of this nature occurring again in future. Mr Bristow has submitted his findings and recommendations. We are considering these carefully and will update Parliament in due course, taking into account the ongoing criminal proceedings.

The proportion of the prison population that was on remand in each year since 2015 can be calculated from the figures for the total remand population and those for the total prison population (males and females) that are set out in Table A1.1 of the latest published Offender Management Statistics Quarterly - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1173712/Population_30June2023_Annual.ods.

The Government does not seek to influence the outcome of trial processes, which are underpinned by judicial independence and the right to a fair trial. Instead, through our Rape Review Action Plan, we are delivering a programme of work to significantly increase the number of adult rape cases reaching court.

We have already exceeded each of our ambitions to return the number of adult rape cases referred by the police, charged by the CPS and reaching court to 2016 levels ahead of schedule, with the number of adult rape cases reaching court now 13% higher than in 2016. In addition, the latest data shows that prosecutions and convictions for adult rape have increased on the previous year, with prosecutions volumes now higher than they were in 2010, when we came into Government.

But we are determined to go further. We continue to deliver a range of actions that will allow us to go further in increasing the number of adult rape cases reaching court. This includes:

• Through Operation Soteria, we are transforming the way that the police investigate an CPS prosecute adult rape, focusing on suspect behaviour over victim credibility through our new, transformative National Operating Models.
• Having recruited 20,000 new police officers, bringing the total number to a record peak, we will train over 2,000 officers to become specialist rape investigators by April 2024, making sure the police have the skills and resources to deal with these complex cases.
• We are quadrupling victims funding by 2024/25, up from £41 million in 2009/10, which will enable us to increase the number of Independent Sexual Violence and Domestic Abuse Advisors by 300 to over 1,000 – a 43% increase by 2024/5.
• Our national rollout of pre-recorded cross examination for victims of sexual and modern slavery offences is being used in over 150 cases per month, sparing victims from the glare of court and ensuring they can give their best evidence.
• And to ensure we reduce victim attrition, we have made great strides in tackling the intrusive investigation process. This includes our commitment to no adult rape victim being left without a phone for more than 24 hours, as well as legislating to ensure that police requests for Third Party Materials are only made by the police when it is necessary and proportionate to do so.

This information is not collected or collated. The procedure for applying for warrants is designed to provide timely access to the courts as required by applicant law enforcement agencies.

Marriage will always be one of our most important institutions, and the Government has a duty to consider the implications of any changes to the law in this area very carefully.

The Government is considering the Law Commissions’ 57 recommendations for legislative reform and a response will be published in due course.

I refer the honourable Member to the answer I gave on Monday 27 November to Question 2868: Written questions and answers - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament.

HM Prison and Probation Service takes all reasonable steps to manage waste appropriately at prison sites to reduce the likelihood of infestation. Routine planned pest control regimes are in place, facilitated by the Facilities Management providers as part of their core service. In addition to this, reactive pest control visits are undertaken as required.

a) A police cell was used as part of operation safeguard 219 times in October 2023

b) A police cell was used as part of operation safeguard 1 time in November 2023 before the full deactivation of Operation Safeguard in that month.

Operation Safeguard is a contingency measure that provides additional headroom for use if prisoners cannot be accepted from the courts or police custody. It is a temporary measure to provide a short-term solution. When Operation Safeguard is active, tactical and operational governance reviews take place at regular intervals, as agreed with police partners.

There are no additional costs to the taxpayer and any spend under Operation Safeguard comes from within existing departmental budgets. Every aspect of Operation Safeguard – including compensation for cells – is based on agreements between HMPPS, the police and the Home Office. Spend is recorded on a cost-recovery basis.

Operation Safeguard costs between February 2023 and November 2023 are provided below. Costs are estimated for November.

Operation Safeguard is not currently active.

Transfers of residency orders, incidences of findings of child sexual abuse in private law proceedings, and cases involving allegations of parental alienation or alienating behaviours are not recorded centrally. Such information could only be obtained by analysis of individual case files at disproportionate costs.

Regarding the term “parental alienation”: as part of his judgment in the case of Re C, the President of the Family Division outlined that most family judges regard the label of “parental alienation”, and the idea that it “may be a diagnosable syndrome” as being “unhelpful”. He noted that instead the courts should focus on identifying any specific “alienating behaviours”.

Transfers of residency orders, incidences of findings of child sexual abuse in private law proceedings, and cases involving allegations of parental alienation or alienating behaviours are not recorded centrally. Such information could only be obtained by analysis of individual case files at disproportionate costs.

Regarding the term “parental alienation”: as part of his judgment in the case of Re C, the President of the Family Division outlined that most family judges regard the label of “parental alienation”, and the idea that it “may be a diagnosable syndrome” as being “unhelpful”. He noted that instead the courts should focus on identifying any specific “alienating behaviours”.

Transfers of residency orders, incidences of findings of child sexual abuse in private law proceedings, and cases involving allegations of parental alienation or alienating behaviours are not recorded centrally. Such information could only be obtained by analysis of individual case files at disproportionate costs.

Regarding the term “parental alienation”: as part of his judgment in the case of Re C, the President of the Family Division outlined that most family judges regard the label of “parental alienation”, and the idea that it “may be a diagnosable syndrome” as being “unhelpful”. He noted that instead the courts should focus on identifying any specific “alienating behaviours”.

The Ministry of Justice has significantly increased investment in custodial Facilities Management over the period, including in pest control activity. The amount spent on pest control in the prison estate for each financial year since 2018 is in the table below:

So far, c.5,600 additional prison places have been delivered. This includes our two new c.1,700-place prisons: HMP Five Wells, which opened last year; and HMP Fosse Way, which opened in May. It also includes, among others, c.380 Rapid Deployment Cells now in place across six sites, c.350 places brought online by re-rolling HMP Morton Hall, and a workshop at HMP High Down to support 90 new places which was delivered ahead of schedule in March.

By the end of 2025, we will have delivered over 10,000 places in total. This will include our third new prison, HMP Millsike, delivering c.1,500 places, new houseblocks at HMP Stocken and HMP Guys Marsh, as well as hundreds more Rapid Deployment Cells.

We have secured outline planning permission for our fourth new prison, near the existing HMP Gartree in Leicestershire, which will deliver a further c.1,700 modern places.

We have also put in place short-term measures across the prison estate to expand useable capacity in the estate by an extra c.2,500 places since September 2022 while ensuring our prisons remain safe for staff and offenders.

The welfare of the child is the family court’s paramount concern and any decisions about future arrangements for children are based on this fundamental principle.

In February 2022, we launched the Investigative Approach Pathfinder court pilot in Dorset and North Wales. This pilot aims to improve the experiences for children and their parents in private law proceedings and particularly those who may need additional support, such as domestic abuse survivors. A key part of this is a stronger ‘voice of the child’ approach to ensure that, where appropriate, children’s wishes and views are central to proceedings. Evaluation of the pilot is ongoing.

In May 2023, the government published an update to the Implementation Plan for the “Assessing risk of harm to children and parents in private law children cases” report, which demonstrates the good progress we have made to date and reiterates our determination to continue to respond recommendations of the report.

The quarterly HMPPS workforce statistics publication covers staffing information, including number of staff in post by length of service and grade. The latest publication covers data for up to the period 30 September 2023.

Table 1: Band 4 Probation Officers in post by region and length of service¹, as at 30 September 2023 (Full-time equivalent)

1: The length of service in HMPPS is calculated from most recent hire date. Where staff have transferred in from another Government Department or have transferred in through HMPPS taking over a function, length of service is calculated from entry to HMPPS.

Note:

1. Someone with more than five years’ experience is counted in both columns.
2. This table only includes those who are a band 4 Probation Officer on the 30 September 2023 (so will not include anyone who has been promoted, including to a Senior Probation Officer role).

On 16 October 2023, the Lord Chancellor announced he would be looking at options to curtail the licence period to restore greater proportionality to IPP sentences in line with recommendation 8 of the report by the Justice Select Committee (JSC), published on 28 September 2022.

These changes are being taken forward in the Victims and Prisoners Bill. The measure will make it quicker and easier to terminate the IPP licence (and therefore the IPP sentence as a whole) whilst balancing public protection considerations.

The new measure will:

1. Reduce the qualifying period which triggers the duty of the Secretary of State to refer an IPP licence to the Parole Board for termination from ten years to three years;
2. Include a clear statutory presumption that the IPP licence will be terminated by the Parole Board at the end of the three-year qualifying period;
3. Introduce a provision that will automatically terminate the IPP licence two years after the three-year qualifying period, in cases where the Parole Board has not terminated the licence; and
4. Introduce a power to amend the qualifying period by Statutory Instrument.

The Lord Chancellor was persuaded by the Committee’s recommendation to reduce the qualifying licence period from 10 years to 5 years and is going further: reducing the period to 3 years. These amendments will restore greater proportionality to IPP sentences and provide a clear pathway to a definitive end to the licence and, therefore, the sentence, while balancing public protection considerations.

There were 18 deaths of those serving IPP sentences in secure hospitals, up to 31 December 2022.

Please Note:

(1) Data is only available from 2009 onwards.

(2) Figures have been taken from a subset of published data in the Restricted Patients Statistical Bulletin, which has been published up to 31 December 2022.

(3) The data relates to all deaths, including natural causes and self-inflicted.

(4) Some cases may have ongoing investigations to determine the cause of death.

HMPPS publishes quarterly Safety in Custody statistics which cover deaths, self-harm and assaults in prison custody, in England and Wales. These published statistics do not include the death of those in secure mental health facilities.

On 16 October 2023, the Lord Chancellor announced he would be looking at options to curtail the licence period to restore greater proportionality to IPP sentences in line with recommendation 8 of the report by the Justice Select Committee (JSC), published on 28 September 2022.

These changes are being taken forward in the Victims and Prisoners Bill. The measure will make it quicker and easier to terminate the IPP licence (and therefore the IPP sentence as a whole) whilst balancing public protection considerations.

The new measure will:

1. Reduce the qualifying period which triggers the duty of the Secretary of State to refer an IPP licence to the Parole Board for termination from ten years to three years;
2. Include a clear statutory presumption that the IPP licence will be terminated by the Parole Board at the end of the three-year qualifying period;
3. Introduce a provision that will automatically terminate the IPP licence two years after the three-year qualifying period, in cases where the Parole Board has not terminated the licence; and
4. Introduce a power to amend the qualifying period by Statutory Instrument.

The Lord Chancellor was persuaded by the Committee’s recommendation to reduce the qualifying licence period from 10 years to 5 years and is going further: reducing the period to 3 years. These amendments will restore greater proportionality to IPP sentences and provide a clear pathway to a definitive end to the licence and, therefore, the sentence, while balancing public protection considerations.

There were 18 deaths of those serving IPP sentences in secure hospitals, up to 31 December 2022.

Please Note:

(1) Data is only available from 2009 onwards.

(2) Figures have been taken from a subset of published data in the Restricted Patients Statistical Bulletin, which has been published up to 31 December 2022.

(3) The data relates to all deaths, including natural causes and self-inflicted.

(4) Some cases may have ongoing investigations to determine the cause of death.

HMPPS publishes quarterly Safety in Custody statistics which cover deaths, self-harm and assaults in prison custody, in England and Wales. These published statistics do not include the death of those in secure mental health facilities.

Collating the information that is held would require a search of individual records. This could not be done without incurring disproportionate cost.

Most often, a deputy is a close relative or friend of the person or a local authority which is working with them rather than a private sector deputy. Additionally, in cases where the assets are low, the Court of Protection may decide that a full deputyship is not even required and may grant a one-off order.

Professional private sector deputies are of course aware when they take up the role that costs are payable out of an estate and will be proportionate to the value of the assets to be managed. The role of a panel deputy is to take on cases where no other person is willing or able to act, including cases with low assets.

The Department is not aware of any impact on access to justice for vulnerable people who lack capacity due to the inability of the court to appoint a family member, friend, professional private sector deputy or panel deputy to manage their affairs. Consequently, no specific assessment has been made.

Legal aid is available for advice and assistance under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 subject to the applicant passing the legal aid means and merits tests. Legal Aid is not available for the ongoing costs of a professional private sector deputy.

Most often, a deputy is a close relative or friend of the person or a local authority which is working with them rather than a private sector deputy. Additionally, in cases where the assets are low, the Court of Protection may decide that a full deputyship is not even required and may grant a one-off order.

Professional private sector deputies are of course aware when they take up the role that costs are payable out of an estate and will be proportionate to the value of the assets to be managed. The role of a panel deputy is to take on cases where no other person is willing or able to act, including cases with low assets.

The Department is not aware of any impact on access to justice for vulnerable people who lack capacity due to the inability of the court to appoint a family member, friend, professional private sector deputy or panel deputy to manage their affairs. Consequently, no specific assessment has been made.

Legal aid is available for advice and assistance under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 subject to the applicant passing the legal aid means and merits tests. Legal Aid is not available for the ongoing costs of a professional private sector deputy.

Most often, a deputy is a close relative or friend of the person or a local authority which is working with them rather than a private sector deputy. Additionally, in cases where the assets are low, the Court of Protection may decide that a full deputyship is not even required and may grant a one-off order.

Professional private sector deputies are of course aware when they take up the role that costs are payable out of an estate and will be proportionate to the value of the assets to be managed. The role of a panel deputy is to take on cases where no other person is willing or able to act, including cases with low assets.

The Department is not aware of any impact on access to justice for vulnerable people who lack capacity due to the inability of the court to appoint a family member, friend, professional private sector deputy or panel deputy to manage their affairs. Consequently, no specific assessment has been made.

Legal aid is available for advice and assistance under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 subject to the applicant passing the legal aid means and merits tests. Legal Aid is not available for the ongoing costs of a professional private sector deputy.

In the period between November 2021 and October 2023, the total monthly expenditure for Probation Service staffing has increased from £60.3m to £72.4m. The increase in expenditure reflects the continued investment in staffing during the past 24 months and impact of the multiyear pay deal. In July 2023, expenditure exceeded budget due to the cost-of-living payment.

The table below sets out the financial variances for staff related costs in the Probation Service between November 2021 and October 2023.

The Probation Service currently uses the Workload Measurement Tool (WMT) as an indicator and as one of several sources of information to support management of workloads. There are, however, significant limitations with using the WMT to monitor workload due to its daily fluctuation, capacity for human error and the challenges in accounting for periods of leave and case support. The WMT is therefore only one element of probation capacity and should be considered alongside the situational context and other reporting routes.

This table shows by region the proportion of POs who are over 100% (as of the 22 November 2023) on the WMT. To note, the WMT is not considered a reliable estimate of total staff.

Recruitment and retention remain a priority across the Probation Service and we have injected extra funding of more than £155 million a year to deliver more robust supervision, recruit thousands more staff and reduce caseloads to keep the public safer. The Probation Service is in its second year of a multi-year pay deal for its staff. Salary values of all pay bands will increase each year, targeted at key operational grades to improve a challenging recruitment and retention position. Positively, the Probation Service leaving rate was 9.9% in the 12 months to 30 September 2023, a decrease from the previous 12 months.

The Probation Service saw an increase of 2,170 FTE or 11.8% (Probation Service grades) since September 2022. There has been an increase across all Probation Service grades such Senior Probation Officer (13.0%), Probation Officers (6.9%), Other Band 4-6 (16.0%) and in particular Other Bands 1 to 3 staff saw an increase of 1,260 FTE staff (26.4%), following centrally run recruitment for key grades supporting frontline staff. We have accelerated recruitment of trainee Probation Officers (PQiPs) to increase staffing levels, particularly in Probation Delivery Units (PDUs) with the most significant staffing challenges.There were 2,185 staff, equivalent to 2,164 FTE, as at 30 September 2023 undertaking the PQiP training, which we anticipate will start to directly impact on the reduction of caseloads as they qualify.

The leaving rates of staff who declared their ethnicity and who work in prisons currently part of the Youth Custody Service are given in the table below.

In late 2021, HM Prison Service launched a retention tool kit to help Governors to tackle the main drivers of attrition in their prisons. We are using the data from this and enhanced exit interviews to better understand why employees are leaving.

HM Prison Service made a significant investment in pay for prison staff through the 2023/24 pay awards. This delivered an increase in base pay of at least 4% for all staff between bands 2 to 11, alongside further targeted pay rises for our lowest paid staff of up to £2,500 which we hope will help in reducing leaving rates.

Since April 2022, HM Prison Service have invested in several new initiatives to improve the experience of our new joiners and increase retention of our employees. These include a new peer-to-peer learning scheme, the introduction of mentors for new staff, a supervision pilot in two prisons, and new leadership training in prisons facing retention challenges.

Table 1: Underlying leaving rate of permanent staff in Youth Custody Estate, by declared ethnicity, for 12 months to 31 March each year since 2010, and latest position as at 30 September 2023

Notes

1. Leaving rates is calculated as number of leavers by ethnicity as a proportion of an average of all staff of that ethnicity, not all staff.
2. Ethnicity is a self-declared field and is optional to complete.
3. The leavers figures do not include voluntary early departure or redundancy.
4. Permanent staff are those with a permanent contract of employment with HMPPS.
5. The Youth Custody Service (YCS), created in April 2017 to oversee day-to-day management of young people up to 18 years of age in the young people’s estate. Youth Custody Estate includes the following prisons: Cookham Wood, Feltham, Werrington, Wetherby and Medway Secure Training Centre (which closed in March 2020).
6. Internal transfers within HMPPS are not included.

(p) Figures relating to current financial year are provisional and may be subject to change in future.