Ministry of Justice

The Ministry of Justice is a major government department, at the heart of the justice system. We work to protect and advance the principles of justice. Our vision is to deliver a world-class justice system that works for everyone in society.



Secretary of State

 Portrait

Robert Buckland
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice

Shadow Ministers / Spokeperson
Labour
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (LAB - Life peer)
Shadow Spokesperson (Justice)

Liberal Democrat
Wera Hobhouse (LDEM - Bath)
Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Justice)

Labour
David Lammy (LAB - Tottenham)
Shadow Lord Chancellor and Shadow Secretary of State for Justice
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (LAB - Life peer)
Shadow Spokesperson (Justice)

Scottish National Party
Anne McLaughlin (SNP - Glasgow North East)
Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Justice)

Liberal Democrat
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LDEM - Life peer)
Liberal Democrat Lords Spokesperson (Justice)

Plaid Cymru
Liz Saville Roberts (PC - Dwyfor Meirionnydd)
Shadow PC Spokesperson (Justice)
Junior Shadow Ministers / Deputy Spokesperson
Labour
Lyn Brown (LAB - West Ham)
Shadow Minister (Justice)
Alex Cunningham (LAB - Stockton North)
Shadow Minister (Justice)
Karl Turner (LAB - Kingston upon Hull East)
Shadow Minister (Justice)
Anna McMorrin (LAB - Cardiff North)
Shadow Minister (Justice)
Ministers of State
Lucy Frazer (CON - South East Cambridgeshire)
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State
Alex Chalk (CON - Cheltenham)
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (CON - Life peer)
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
There are no upcoming events identified
Debates
Thursday 16th September 2021
Select Committee Docs
Monday 18th October 2021
00:00
Call for Evidence
Call For Evidence
Select Committee Inquiry
Friday 17th September 2021
Open justice: court reporting in the digital age

This short inquiry seeks to understand how digital technology has affected the way that the media and the public access …

Written Answers
Friday 17th September 2021
Health and Social Care Act 2008
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average turnaround time has been for first tier tribunals in …
Secondary Legislation
Thursday 9th September 2021
Gender Recognition (Disclosure of Information) (England and Wales) Order 2021
Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the Act”) provides that it is an offence for a person who …
Bills
Wednesday 21st July 2021
Judicial Review and Courts Bill 2021-22
A Bill to Make provision about the provision that may be made by, and the effects of, quashing orders; to …
Dept. Publications
Thursday 16th September 2021
13:45

Ministry of Justice Commons Appearances

Oral Answers to Questions is a regularly scheduled appearance where the Secretary of State and junior minister will answer at the Dispatch Box questions from backbench MPs

Other Commons Chamber appearances can be:
  • Urgent Questions where the Speaker has selected a question to which a Minister must reply that day
  • Adjornment Debates a 30 minute debate attended by a Minister that concludes the day in Parliament.
  • Oral Statements informing the Commons of a significant development, where backbench MP's can then question the Minister making the statement.

Westminster Hall debates are performed in response to backbench MPs or e-petitions asking for a Minister to address a detailed issue

Written Statements are made when a current event is not sufficiently significant to require an Oral Statement, but the House is required to be informed.

Most Recent Commons Appearances by Category
Sep. 14
Oral Questions
Nov. 20
Topical Questions
Jun. 10
Urgent Questions
May. 25
Westminster Hall
View All Ministry of Justice Commons Contibutions

Bills currently before Parliament

Ministry of Justice does not have Bills currently before Parliament


Acts of Parliament created in the 2019 Parliament

Introduced: 20th May 2020

A Bill to make provision about the sentencing of offenders convicted of terrorism offences, of offences with a terrorist connection or of certain other offences; to make other provision in relation to terrorism; and for connected purposes.

This Bill received Royal Assent on Thursday 29th April 2021 and was enacted into law.

Introduced: 27th February 2020

A Bill to implement the Hague Conventions of 1996, 2005 and 2007 and to provide for the implementation of other international agreements on private international law.

This Bill received Royal Assent on Monday 14th December 2020 and was enacted into law.

Introduced: 8th January 2020

To require the Parole Board to take into account any failure by a prisoner serving a sentence for unlawful killing or for taking or making an indecent image of a child to disclose information about the victim.

This Bill received Royal Assent on Wednesday 4th November 2020 and was enacted into law.

Introduced: 5th March 2020

A Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to sentencing.

This Bill received Royal Assent on Thursday 22nd October 2020 and was enacted into law.

Introduced: 7th January 2020

A bill to make in relation to marriage and civil partnership in England and Wales provision about divorce, dissolution and separation; and for connected purposes

This Bill received Royal Assent on Thursday 25th June 2020 and was enacted into law.

Introduced: 21st January 2020

A bill to give effect to Law Commission recommendations relating to commencement of enactments relating to sentencing law and to make provision for pre-consolidation amendments of sentencing law

This Bill received Royal Assent on Monday 8th June 2020 and was enacted into law.

Introduced: 11th February 2020

A Bill to make provision about the release on licence of offenders convicted of terrorist offences or offences with a terrorist connection; and for connected purposes.

This Bill received Royal Assent on Wednesday 26th February 2020 and was enacted into law.

Ministry of Justice - Secondary Legislation

Section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the Act”) provides that it is an offence for a person who has acquired protected information in an official capacity to disclose the information to any other person. “Protected information” is defined in section 22(2) as information relating to a person who has applied for a gender recognition certificate under the Act, and which concerns that application (or a subsequent application by them), or their gender prior to being granted a full gender recognition certificate. Section 22(3) defines where a person acquires protected information in an official capacity.
This Order amends the Compulsory Electronic Monitoring Licence Condition Order 2021 (S.I. 2021/330) (“the Earlier Order”). The Earlier Order requires an electronic monitoring condition to be included in the licence of persons described in that Order pursuant to section 62A of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43). The criteria include where a person is serving multiple sentences, whether the sentence which otherwise meets the criteria specified in that Order is the longest term; and whether the person is required to reside on licence at an address within a specified area, limited to those police areas listed in Schedule 1 to the Earlier Order. A person who meets each of the criteria is considered a qualifying offender.
View All Ministry of Justice Secondary Legislation

Petitions

e-Petitions are administered by Parliament and allow members of the public to express support for a particular issue.

If an e-petition reaches 10,000 signatures the Government will issue a written response.

If an e-petition reaches 100,000 signatures the petition becomes eligible for a Parliamentary debate (usually Monday 4.30pm in Westminster Hall).

Trending Petitions
Petition Open
13,156 Signatures
(3,325 in the last 7 days)
Petition Open
3,616 Signatures
(338 in the last 7 days)
Petition Open
13,595 Signatures
(329 in the last 7 days)
Petition Open
435 Signatures
(232 in the last 7 days)
Petition Open
236 Signatures
(95 in the last 7 days)
Petitions with most signatures
Petition Debates Contributed
134,934
Petition Closed
5 Sep 2020
closed 1 year ago

The Government's manifesto stated “we will make intentional trespass a criminal offence”: an extreme, illiberal & unnecessary attack on ancient freedoms that would threaten walkers, campers, and the wider public. It would further tilt the law in favour of the landowning 1% who own half the country.

View All Ministry of Justice Petitions

Departmental Select Committee

Justice Committee

Commons Select Committees are a formally established cross-party group of backbench MPs tasked with holding a Government department to account.

At any time there will be number of ongoing investigations into the work of the Department, or issues which fall within the oversight of the Department. Witnesses can be summoned from within the Government and outside to assist in these inquiries.

Select Committee findings are reported to the Commons, printed, and published on the Parliament website. The government then usually has 60 days to reply to the committee's recommendations.


11 Members of the Justice Committee
Robert Neill Portrait
Robert Neill (Conservative - Bromley and Chislehurst)
Justice Committee Chair since 29th January 2020
Andy Slaughter Portrait
Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith)
Justice Committee Member since 2nd March 2020
Kieran Mullan Portrait
Kieran Mullan (Conservative - Crewe and Nantwich)
Justice Committee Member since 2nd March 2020
Maria Eagle Portrait
Maria Eagle (Labour - Garston and Halewood)
Justice Committee Member since 2nd March 2020
Sarah Dines Portrait
Sarah Dines (Conservative - Derbyshire Dales)
Justice Committee Member since 2nd March 2020
James Daly Portrait
James Daly (Conservative - Bury North)
Justice Committee Member since 2nd March 2020
Rob Butler Portrait
Rob Butler (Conservative - Aylesbury)
Justice Committee Member since 2nd March 2020
Janet Daby Portrait
Janet Daby (Labour - Lewisham East)
Justice Committee Member since 22nd February 2021
Angela Crawley Portrait
Angela Crawley (Scottish National Party - Lanark and Hamilton East)
Justice Committee Member since 25th May 2021
Laura Farris Portrait
Laura Farris (Conservative - Newbury)
Justice Committee Member since 8th June 2021
Kate Hollern Portrait
Kate Hollern (Labour - Blackburn)
Justice Committee Member since 13th July 2021
Justice Committee: Previous Inquiries

50 most recent Written Questions

(View all written questions)
Written Questions can be tabled by MPs and Lords to request specific information information on the work, policy and activities of a Government Department

9th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average turnaround time has been for first tier tribunals in relation to section 31 proceedings under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in the latest period for which those figures are available.

Information about the the First-tier Tribunal (Care Standards) is published at:

www.gov.uk/government/collections/tribunals-statistics

For the period April – June 2021, the latest period for which data are available, the average turnaround time1 for the Care Standards Tribunal in relation to section 31 proceedings under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 was 10 working days.

1 Average turnaround time is the average time from receipt to disposal.

Data are taken from a live management information system and can change over time. Data are management information and are not subject to the same level of checks as official statistics.

The data provided are the most recent available and for that reason might differ from any previously published information.

Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and are the best data available.

Kit Malthouse
Minister of State (Home Office)
13th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent steps his Department has taken to ensure legal defence practitioners are able to provide in-person attendance to all suspects in police custody.

In April 2020 the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), Crown Prosecution Service, The Law Society, Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association and London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association agreed a joint protocol to facilitate the provision of remote legal advice for suspects being interviewed under caution in police stations during the pandemic. As a contingency measure, the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) agreed temporarily to pay for remote police station work as if it were provided in person.

From 17 May 2021 children under 18 and vulnerable adults were removed from the scope of the protocol and receive in-person advice.

The protocol is expected to be modified further shortly, at which point legal advice will be provided in person at a police station and in interview other than in rare and extraordinary circumstances (as defined in a revised protocol).

Alex Chalk
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
13th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prosecutions have been made in (a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Thames Valley and (d) Oxford West and Abingdon constituency under the Vagrancy Act 1824 in each calendar year since 2015.

The Ministry of Justice has published information on prosecutions under the Vagrancy Act 1824, up to December 2020, in the ‘Principal offence proceedings and outcomes by Home Office offence code’ data tool, available here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987731/HO-code-tool-principal-offence-2020.xlsx

In the data tool linked above, you can use the ‘Offence code’ filter to select the offences of interest. The following is a list of offences that fall within the Vagrancy Act 1824:

  • 104/31 – Resisting or obstructing a constable in execution of duty - offences under the Vagrancy Act 1824
  • 182/00 – Wandering abroad or being in any street etc to beg or gather alms or causing or procuring any child so to do
  • 183/00 – Wandering abroad and lodging in any barn, outhouse, deserted or unoccupied building, etc. or in the open air, etc.
  • 185/01 – Being on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose
  • 188/01 – Any petty chapman or peddler trading without a licence
  • 188/05 – Collecting alms or endeavouring to procure charitable contributions by fraudulent pretence
  • 188/99 – Offences against Vagrancy Act 1824.

To isolate data for a specific region, use the ‘Police force area’ filter to do the following:

  1. For England, select all except those in Wales (North Wales, South Wales, Dyfed-Powys and Gwent)
  2. For Wales, select only those in Wales (as above)
  3. For Thames Valley, select only ‘Thames Valley’.

We are unable to isolate individuals prosecuted in the Oxford West and Abingdon constituency as the Courts Proceedings Database uses the location of the court at which a case was dealt as a proxy for location. The nearest court to this constituency is Oxfordshire Magistrates’ Court, which has a broad catchment area including other surrounding constituencies. We are therefore unable to disaggregate individuals from Oxford West and Abingdon constituency from those from other surrounding constituencies.

Chris Philp
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
13th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Annual Report of the Independent Monitoring Board at HMP/YOI Styal 2021, how many women and girls at HMP/YOI Styal are held in one of the 16 house blocks that have been classified as a red fire risk.

The house blocks are currently considered safe for occupation and there are approximately 300 prisoners held there. Survey work carried out in March, however, identified fire risk issues. As a result of this the national fire safety team produced an action plan which set out measures to be taken to mitigate these risks. Action has been taken to prevent the spread of fire such as fire stopping works. To mitigate the impact of any potential fires all fire doors are regularly tested, and smoke detectors have been installed. The effectiveness of escape routes has also been confirmed and staff and prisoners are aware of appropriate actions in the event of a fire.

In order to obtain a more thorough picture of the risks involved an invasive survey is due to be undertaken shortly to identify the composition of the walls. This will enable identification of what, if any, structural building work is required.

The Ministry of Justice is currently preparing a response to the Independent Monitoring Board’s Annual Report on HMP Styal and will reply in due course.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
13th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the Annual Report of the Independent Monitoring Board at HMP/YOI Styal 2021, published on 8 September 2021, what steps he is taking to protect prisoners and staff at HMP/YOI Styal from serious fire risks.

The house blocks are currently considered safe for occupation and there are approximately 300 prisoners held there. Survey work carried out in March, however, identified fire risk issues. As a result of this the national fire safety team produced an action plan which set out measures to be taken to mitigate these risks. Action has been taken to prevent the spread of fire such as fire stopping works. To mitigate the impact of any potential fires all fire doors are regularly tested, and smoke detectors have been installed. The effectiveness of escape routes has also been confirmed and staff and prisoners are aware of appropriate actions in the event of a fire.

In order to obtain a more thorough picture of the risks involved an invasive survey is due to be undertaken shortly to identify the composition of the walls. This will enable identification of what, if any, structural building work is required.

The Ministry of Justice is currently preparing a response to the Independent Monitoring Board’s Annual Report on HMP Styal and will reply in due course.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
13th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what research his Department has approved that analyses the efficacy of prison placement policy of transgender people from the perspective of the prison management systems of (a) male and female prison officers and (b) female offenders in prisons.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not commissioned any relevant research since the current version of the policy framework ‘The Care and Management of Individuals who are Transgender’ was published in 2019. However, this policy was formulated following consultation with a range of stakeholders including staff and external groups representing the interests of prisoners, and after consideration of the existing evidence on transgender people in prison, including internal data. Decisions regarding transgender prisoners continue to be made on a case-by-case basis, and all known risk factors (including any risk to the person, risk to others and risk of self-harm) are thoroughly assessed in each case.

The MoJ recognises the importance of good quality data and evidence and this will continue to be considered, as part of the ongoing implementation review, where evidence gaps are highlighted.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
13th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what research his Department has approved that analyses how risk assessment panels understand the (a) risks being assessed and (b) needs of the female prison population when making decisions on placement of transgender people.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not commissioned any relevant research since the current version of the policy framework ‘The Care and Management of Individuals who are Transgender’ was published in 2019. However, this policy was formulated following consultation with a range of stakeholders including staff and external groups representing the interests of prisoners, and after consideration of the existing evidence on transgender people in prison, including internal data. Decisions regarding transgender prisoners continue to be made on a case-by-case basis, and all known risk factors (including any risk to the person, risk to others and risk of self-harm) are thoroughly assessed in each case.

The MoJ recognises the importance of good quality data and evidence and this will continue to be considered, as part of the ongoing implementation review, where evidence gaps are highlighted.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
13th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 13 July 2021 to Question 29877, Downview Prison, and with reference to the evidence quoted in the judgment in R (FDJ) v the Secretary of State of 2 July 2021 that biologically female prisoners have been allocated to HMP Downview’s E Wing alongside biologically male transgender prisoners, what the circumstances are under which a biologically female prisoner may be considered for placement on E Wing.

HMP Downview’s E Wing currently provides separate accommodation in the women’s estate specifically for transgender women with Gender Recognition Certificates (GRC) who pose, or face, too high a risk to be located in the general women’s population. Decisions on allocation of this nature can only be made via a Complex Case Board, chaired by a senior prison manager, as detailed in ‘The Care and Management of Individuals who are Transgender’ policy framework


It is not Ministry of Justice and HM Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) policy to place women on E Wing who do not hold a GRC. In exceptional circumstances, such as those seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, it remains open to HMPPS to utilise accommodation differently where it is considered operationally necessary. However, any women placed on E Wing in such circumstances would always be held separately from others on the unit.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
10th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made for the implications of his policy of the independent review of the Dynamic Framework of the National Probation Service, published by Richard Oldfield on 23 August 2021; and if he will make a statement.

The government welcomes the findings in Richard Oldfield’s report, in which he recognises the progress made in establishing the Dynamic Framework to commission rehabilitative services as part of the new unified probation model. As outlined in the letter from the Director General of Probation and Wales to Clinks, the report’s primary conclusion that we can do more to encourage participation of small and medium-sized organisations, is accepted and we are taking forward work to implement most of the recommendations made.

The Framework will exist for at least 7 years, and the procurement of Day 1 contracts represents just a small part of the total volume of services that will be commissioned through it. It is therefore to be expected that only a relatively small proportion of the organisations that had qualified on to the Dynamic Framework then went on to bid in the call off competitions for Day 1 contracts. Active encouragement has been given to all organisations interested in delivering services in the new probation operating model to qualify for the Dynamic Framework, regardless of whether they had expressed an interest in directly bidding for Day 1 contracts.

It is not unusual in running a large number of concurrent competitions, some of which were run below probation region level at a more local PCC level, that there will be fewer organisations with the capacity and capability to bid in some areas than others. It is a significant achievement that all 110 contracts could be successfully awarded.

It is not possible to produce a meaningful estimate of the cost an organisation may incur in participating on the Framework, as that depends on a range of factors, including how many competitions an organisation chooses to bid in, what the organisation’s starting point is in terms of understanding of staff transfer and information security requirements, what their existing staffing and estates footprint looks like. A standard selection questionnaire is used as the method by which organisations seek to qualify for the Dynamic Framework, and efforts have been made to make the call off competition process proportionate to the value of the contracts being awarded, whilst ensuring all processes remain in line with procurement regulations and established good commercial practice in government.

Evaluating (or vetting) the Day 1 competitions formed just one part of the workstream of activity to establish the Dynamic Framework, qualify bidders, run competitions, oversee mobilisation of successful bidders (which over an average 3 month mobilisation window included assessing readiness of staff, systems and premises) and implement new contract management processes and structures. It is not possible to separate out the cost of evaluating; the monthly cost of the overall workstream was c. £220k in FY2020/21, this cost covered all of the above activity.

Looking ahead, consultation has begun with market participants on the changes that are being proposed to the various procurement and competition documents. As Richard Oldfield recognises in his report, it was always the intention to learn lessons from this first round of competitions, and that work began even before transition to the new operating model had been completed. All aspects of the documentation are being considered, from the selection questionnaire to call off competition documents and the Framework Agreement itself. Changes will be implemented over the coming weeks and months in a staged manner and consultation will continue as this progresses. We will continue that approach to reviewing and learning lessons throughout the life of the Dynamic Framework.

Work is underway to prepare guidance and criteria for when grants should be the presumptive first choice of funding mechanism. Richard Oldfield’s recommendation is that this should be for all awards under £1milion; arguably other factors, such as type of service, also need to be taken into consideration. Market participants will be consulted as this guidance and criteria is developed further. Whilst work on delivery has commenced, detailed timescales have yet to be determined. It is therefore too early to say what proportion of future awards may take the form of grants or contracts.

Finally, the monitoring of the proportion of contract values that are subcontracted to VCSEs and SMEs will be reviewed through contract management governance and the analysis of annual financial returns made by lead providers.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
10th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the independent review of the Dynamic Framework of the National Probation Service, published by Richard Oldfield on 23 August 2021, if he will make an assessment of the implications for his policies of the finding that 85 per cent of approved organisations did not bid for any Day 1 contracts.

The government welcomes the findings in Richard Oldfield’s report, in which he recognises the progress made in establishing the Dynamic Framework to commission rehabilitative services as part of the new unified probation model. As outlined in the letter from the Director General of Probation and Wales to Clinks, the report’s primary conclusion that we can do more to encourage participation of small and medium-sized organisations, is accepted and we are taking forward work to implement most of the recommendations made.

The Framework will exist for at least 7 years, and the procurement of Day 1 contracts represents just a small part of the total volume of services that will be commissioned through it. It is therefore to be expected that only a relatively small proportion of the organisations that had qualified on to the Dynamic Framework then went on to bid in the call off competitions for Day 1 contracts. Active encouragement has been given to all organisations interested in delivering services in the new probation operating model to qualify for the Dynamic Framework, regardless of whether they had expressed an interest in directly bidding for Day 1 contracts.

It is not unusual in running a large number of concurrent competitions, some of which were run below probation region level at a more local PCC level, that there will be fewer organisations with the capacity and capability to bid in some areas than others. It is a significant achievement that all 110 contracts could be successfully awarded.

It is not possible to produce a meaningful estimate of the cost an organisation may incur in participating on the Framework, as that depends on a range of factors, including how many competitions an organisation chooses to bid in, what the organisation’s starting point is in terms of understanding of staff transfer and information security requirements, what their existing staffing and estates footprint looks like. A standard selection questionnaire is used as the method by which organisations seek to qualify for the Dynamic Framework, and efforts have been made to make the call off competition process proportionate to the value of the contracts being awarded, whilst ensuring all processes remain in line with procurement regulations and established good commercial practice in government.

Evaluating (or vetting) the Day 1 competitions formed just one part of the workstream of activity to establish the Dynamic Framework, qualify bidders, run competitions, oversee mobilisation of successful bidders (which over an average 3 month mobilisation window included assessing readiness of staff, systems and premises) and implement new contract management processes and structures. It is not possible to separate out the cost of evaluating; the monthly cost of the overall workstream was c. £220k in FY2020/21, this cost covered all of the above activity.

Looking ahead, consultation has begun with market participants on the changes that are being proposed to the various procurement and competition documents. As Richard Oldfield recognises in his report, it was always the intention to learn lessons from this first round of competitions, and that work began even before transition to the new operating model had been completed. All aspects of the documentation are being considered, from the selection questionnaire to call off competition documents and the Framework Agreement itself. Changes will be implemented over the coming weeks and months in a staged manner and consultation will continue as this progresses. We will continue that approach to reviewing and learning lessons throughout the life of the Dynamic Framework.

Work is underway to prepare guidance and criteria for when grants should be the presumptive first choice of funding mechanism. Richard Oldfield’s recommendation is that this should be for all awards under £1milion; arguably other factors, such as type of service, also need to be taken into consideration. Market participants will be consulted as this guidance and criteria is developed further. Whilst work on delivery has commenced, detailed timescales have yet to be determined. It is therefore too early to say what proportion of future awards may take the form of grants or contracts.

Finally, the monitoring of the proportion of contract values that are subcontracted to VCSEs and SMEs will be reviewed through contract management governance and the analysis of annual financial returns made by lead providers.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
10th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the independent review of the Dynamic Framework of the National Probation Service, published by Richard Oldfield on 23 August 2021, what estimate he has made of the average cost to (a) an applicant organisation of making an application for Dynamic Framework approval and (b) his Department of vetting an application for Dynamic Framework approval; and what estimate he has made of the total cost to his Department of the Day 1 Dynamic Framework vetting process.

The government welcomes the findings in Richard Oldfield’s report, in which he recognises the progress made in establishing the Dynamic Framework to commission rehabilitative services as part of the new unified probation model. As outlined in the letter from the Director General of Probation and Wales to Clinks, the report’s primary conclusion that we can do more to encourage participation of small and medium-sized organisations, is accepted and we are taking forward work to implement most of the recommendations made.

The Framework will exist for at least 7 years, and the procurement of Day 1 contracts represents just a small part of the total volume of services that will be commissioned through it. It is therefore to be expected that only a relatively small proportion of the organisations that had qualified on to the Dynamic Framework then went on to bid in the call off competitions for Day 1 contracts. Active encouragement has been given to all organisations interested in delivering services in the new probation operating model to qualify for the Dynamic Framework, regardless of whether they had expressed an interest in directly bidding for Day 1 contracts.

It is not unusual in running a large number of concurrent competitions, some of which were run below probation region level at a more local PCC level, that there will be fewer organisations with the capacity and capability to bid in some areas than others. It is a significant achievement that all 110 contracts could be successfully awarded.

It is not possible to produce a meaningful estimate of the cost an organisation may incur in participating on the Framework, as that depends on a range of factors, including how many competitions an organisation chooses to bid in, what the organisation’s starting point is in terms of understanding of staff transfer and information security requirements, what their existing staffing and estates footprint looks like. A standard selection questionnaire is used as the method by which organisations seek to qualify for the Dynamic Framework, and efforts have been made to make the call off competition process proportionate to the value of the contracts being awarded, whilst ensuring all processes remain in line with procurement regulations and established good commercial practice in government.

Evaluating (or vetting) the Day 1 competitions formed just one part of the workstream of activity to establish the Dynamic Framework, qualify bidders, run competitions, oversee mobilisation of successful bidders (which over an average 3 month mobilisation window included assessing readiness of staff, systems and premises) and implement new contract management processes and structures. It is not possible to separate out the cost of evaluating; the monthly cost of the overall workstream was c. £220k in FY2020/21, this cost covered all of the above activity.

Looking ahead, consultation has begun with market participants on the changes that are being proposed to the various procurement and competition documents. As Richard Oldfield recognises in his report, it was always the intention to learn lessons from this first round of competitions, and that work began even before transition to the new operating model had been completed. All aspects of the documentation are being considered, from the selection questionnaire to call off competition documents and the Framework Agreement itself. Changes will be implemented over the coming weeks and months in a staged manner and consultation will continue as this progresses. We will continue that approach to reviewing and learning lessons throughout the life of the Dynamic Framework.

Work is underway to prepare guidance and criteria for when grants should be the presumptive first choice of funding mechanism. Richard Oldfield’s recommendation is that this should be for all awards under £1milion; arguably other factors, such as type of service, also need to be taken into consideration. Market participants will be consulted as this guidance and criteria is developed further. Whilst work on delivery has commenced, detailed timescales have yet to be determined. It is therefore too early to say what proportion of future awards may take the form of grants or contracts.

Finally, the monitoring of the proportion of contract values that are subcontracted to VCSEs and SMEs will be reviewed through contract management governance and the analysis of annual financial returns made by lead providers.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
10th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the independent review of the Dynamic Framework of the National Probation Service, published by Richard Oldfield on 23 August 2021, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the finding that in more than half of the competitions held there was initially either one or zero bidders.

The government welcomes the findings in Richard Oldfield’s report, in which he recognises the progress made in establishing the Dynamic Framework to commission rehabilitative services as part of the new unified probation model. As outlined in the letter from the Director General of Probation and Wales to Clinks, the report’s primary conclusion that we can do more to encourage participation of small and medium-sized organisations, is accepted and we are taking forward work to implement most of the recommendations made.

The Framework will exist for at least 7 years, and the procurement of Day 1 contracts represents just a small part of the total volume of services that will be commissioned through it. It is therefore to be expected that only a relatively small proportion of the organisations that had qualified on to the Dynamic Framework then went on to bid in the call off competitions for Day 1 contracts. Active encouragement has been given to all organisations interested in delivering services in the new probation operating model to qualify for the Dynamic Framework, regardless of whether they had expressed an interest in directly bidding for Day 1 contracts.

It is not unusual in running a large number of concurrent competitions, some of which were run below probation region level at a more local PCC level, that there will be fewer organisations with the capacity and capability to bid in some areas than others. It is a significant achievement that all 110 contracts could be successfully awarded.

It is not possible to produce a meaningful estimate of the cost an organisation may incur in participating on the Framework, as that depends on a range of factors, including how many competitions an organisation chooses to bid in, what the organisation’s starting point is in terms of understanding of staff transfer and information security requirements, what their existing staffing and estates footprint looks like. A standard selection questionnaire is used as the method by which organisations seek to qualify for the Dynamic Framework, and efforts have been made to make the call off competition process proportionate to the value of the contracts being awarded, whilst ensuring all processes remain in line with procurement regulations and established good commercial practice in government.

Evaluating (or vetting) the Day 1 competitions formed just one part of the workstream of activity to establish the Dynamic Framework, qualify bidders, run competitions, oversee mobilisation of successful bidders (which over an average 3 month mobilisation window included assessing readiness of staff, systems and premises) and implement new contract management processes and structures. It is not possible to separate out the cost of evaluating; the monthly cost of the overall workstream was c. £220k in FY2020/21, this cost covered all of the above activity.

Looking ahead, consultation has begun with market participants on the changes that are being proposed to the various procurement and competition documents. As Richard Oldfield recognises in his report, it was always the intention to learn lessons from this first round of competitions, and that work began even before transition to the new operating model had been completed. All aspects of the documentation are being considered, from the selection questionnaire to call off competition documents and the Framework Agreement itself. Changes will be implemented over the coming weeks and months in a staged manner and consultation will continue as this progresses. We will continue that approach to reviewing and learning lessons throughout the life of the Dynamic Framework.

Work is underway to prepare guidance and criteria for when grants should be the presumptive first choice of funding mechanism. Richard Oldfield’s recommendation is that this should be for all awards under £1milion; arguably other factors, such as type of service, also need to be taken into consideration. Market participants will be consulted as this guidance and criteria is developed further. Whilst work on delivery has commenced, detailed timescales have yet to be determined. It is therefore too early to say what proportion of future awards may take the form of grants or contracts.

Finally, the monitoring of the proportion of contract values that are subcontracted to VCSEs and SMEs will be reviewed through contract management governance and the analysis of annual financial returns made by lead providers.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
10th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the letter from the Director General of Probation and Wales, HMPPS, to Clinks, in response to the publication of the independent review of the Dynamic Framework of the National Probation Service, published by Clinks on 23 August 2021, what his timetable is for the (a) publication of and (b) consultation on the new set of competition documents.

The government welcomes the findings in Richard Oldfield’s report, in which he recognises the progress made in establishing the Dynamic Framework to commission rehabilitative services as part of the new unified probation model. As outlined in the letter from the Director General of Probation and Wales to Clinks, the report’s primary conclusion that we can do more to encourage participation of small and medium-sized organisations, is accepted and we are taking forward work to implement most of the recommendations made.

The Framework will exist for at least 7 years, and the procurement of Day 1 contracts represents just a small part of the total volume of services that will be commissioned through it. It is therefore to be expected that only a relatively small proportion of the organisations that had qualified on to the Dynamic Framework then went on to bid in the call off competitions for Day 1 contracts. Active encouragement has been given to all organisations interested in delivering services in the new probation operating model to qualify for the Dynamic Framework, regardless of whether they had expressed an interest in directly bidding for Day 1 contracts.

It is not unusual in running a large number of concurrent competitions, some of which were run below probation region level at a more local PCC level, that there will be fewer organisations with the capacity and capability to bid in some areas than others. It is a significant achievement that all 110 contracts could be successfully awarded.

It is not possible to produce a meaningful estimate of the cost an organisation may incur in participating on the Framework, as that depends on a range of factors, including how many competitions an organisation chooses to bid in, what the organisation’s starting point is in terms of understanding of staff transfer and information security requirements, what their existing staffing and estates footprint looks like. A standard selection questionnaire is used as the method by which organisations seek to qualify for the Dynamic Framework, and efforts have been made to make the call off competition process proportionate to the value of the contracts being awarded, whilst ensuring all processes remain in line with procurement regulations and established good commercial practice in government.

Evaluating (or vetting) the Day 1 competitions formed just one part of the workstream of activity to establish the Dynamic Framework, qualify bidders, run competitions, oversee mobilisation of successful bidders (which over an average 3 month mobilisation window included assessing readiness of staff, systems and premises) and implement new contract management processes and structures. It is not possible to separate out the cost of evaluating; the monthly cost of the overall workstream was c. £220k in FY2020/21, this cost covered all of the above activity.

Looking ahead, consultation has begun with market participants on the changes that are being proposed to the various procurement and competition documents. As Richard Oldfield recognises in his report, it was always the intention to learn lessons from this first round of competitions, and that work began even before transition to the new operating model had been completed. All aspects of the documentation are being considered, from the selection questionnaire to call off competition documents and the Framework Agreement itself. Changes will be implemented over the coming weeks and months in a staged manner and consultation will continue as this progresses. We will continue that approach to reviewing and learning lessons throughout the life of the Dynamic Framework.

Work is underway to prepare guidance and criteria for when grants should be the presumptive first choice of funding mechanism. Richard Oldfield’s recommendation is that this should be for all awards under £1milion; arguably other factors, such as type of service, also need to be taken into consideration. Market participants will be consulted as this guidance and criteria is developed further. Whilst work on delivery has commenced, detailed timescales have yet to be determined. It is therefore too early to say what proportion of future awards may take the form of grants or contracts.

Finally, the monitoring of the proportion of contract values that are subcontracted to VCSEs and SMEs will be reviewed through contract management governance and the analysis of annual financial returns made by lead providers.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
10th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the letter from the Director General of Probation and Wales, HMPPS, to Clinks, in response to the publication of the independent review of the Dynamic Framework of the National Probation Service, published by Clinks on 23 August 2021, what his timeframe is for the comprehensive lessons learned exercise to aid future commissioning and procurement.

The government welcomes the findings in Richard Oldfield’s report, in which he recognises the progress made in establishing the Dynamic Framework to commission rehabilitative services as part of the new unified probation model. As outlined in the letter from the Director General of Probation and Wales to Clinks, the report’s primary conclusion that we can do more to encourage participation of small and medium-sized organisations, is accepted and we are taking forward work to implement most of the recommendations made.

The Framework will exist for at least 7 years, and the procurement of Day 1 contracts represents just a small part of the total volume of services that will be commissioned through it. It is therefore to be expected that only a relatively small proportion of the organisations that had qualified on to the Dynamic Framework then went on to bid in the call off competitions for Day 1 contracts. Active encouragement has been given to all organisations interested in delivering services in the new probation operating model to qualify for the Dynamic Framework, regardless of whether they had expressed an interest in directly bidding for Day 1 contracts.

It is not unusual in running a large number of concurrent competitions, some of which were run below probation region level at a more local PCC level, that there will be fewer organisations with the capacity and capability to bid in some areas than others. It is a significant achievement that all 110 contracts could be successfully awarded.

It is not possible to produce a meaningful estimate of the cost an organisation may incur in participating on the Framework, as that depends on a range of factors, including how many competitions an organisation chooses to bid in, what the organisation’s starting point is in terms of understanding of staff transfer and information security requirements, what their existing staffing and estates footprint looks like. A standard selection questionnaire is used as the method by which organisations seek to qualify for the Dynamic Framework, and efforts have been made to make the call off competition process proportionate to the value of the contracts being awarded, whilst ensuring all processes remain in line with procurement regulations and established good commercial practice in government.

Evaluating (or vetting) the Day 1 competitions formed just one part of the workstream of activity to establish the Dynamic Framework, qualify bidders, run competitions, oversee mobilisation of successful bidders (which over an average 3 month mobilisation window included assessing readiness of staff, systems and premises) and implement new contract management processes and structures. It is not possible to separate out the cost of evaluating; the monthly cost of the overall workstream was c. £220k in FY2020/21, this cost covered all of the above activity.

Looking ahead, consultation has begun with market participants on the changes that are being proposed to the various procurement and competition documents. As Richard Oldfield recognises in his report, it was always the intention to learn lessons from this first round of competitions, and that work began even before transition to the new operating model had been completed. All aspects of the documentation are being considered, from the selection questionnaire to call off competition documents and the Framework Agreement itself. Changes will be implemented over the coming weeks and months in a staged manner and consultation will continue as this progresses. We will continue that approach to reviewing and learning lessons throughout the life of the Dynamic Framework.

Work is underway to prepare guidance and criteria for when grants should be the presumptive first choice of funding mechanism. Richard Oldfield’s recommendation is that this should be for all awards under £1milion; arguably other factors, such as type of service, also need to be taken into consideration. Market participants will be consulted as this guidance and criteria is developed further. Whilst work on delivery has commenced, detailed timescales have yet to be determined. It is therefore too early to say what proportion of future awards may take the form of grants or contracts.

Finally, the monitoring of the proportion of contract values that are subcontracted to VCSEs and SMEs will be reviewed through contract management governance and the analysis of annual financial returns made by lead providers.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
10th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the letter from the Director General of Probation and Wales, HMPPS, to Clinks, in response to the publication of the independent review of the Dynamic Framework of the National Probation Service, published by Clinks on 23 August 2021, what his timetable is for publication of the new criteria for the presumptive use of grants rather than contracts for awards less than £1 million in value.

The government welcomes the findings in Richard Oldfield’s report, in which he recognises the progress made in establishing the Dynamic Framework to commission rehabilitative services as part of the new unified probation model. As outlined in the letter from the Director General of Probation and Wales to Clinks, the report’s primary conclusion that we can do more to encourage participation of small and medium-sized organisations, is accepted and we are taking forward work to implement most of the recommendations made.

The Framework will exist for at least 7 years, and the procurement of Day 1 contracts represents just a small part of the total volume of services that will be commissioned through it. It is therefore to be expected that only a relatively small proportion of the organisations that had qualified on to the Dynamic Framework then went on to bid in the call off competitions for Day 1 contracts. Active encouragement has been given to all organisations interested in delivering services in the new probation operating model to qualify for the Dynamic Framework, regardless of whether they had expressed an interest in directly bidding for Day 1 contracts.

It is not unusual in running a large number of concurrent competitions, some of which were run below probation region level at a more local PCC level, that there will be fewer organisations with the capacity and capability to bid in some areas than others. It is a significant achievement that all 110 contracts could be successfully awarded.

It is not possible to produce a meaningful estimate of the cost an organisation may incur in participating on the Framework, as that depends on a range of factors, including how many competitions an organisation chooses to bid in, what the organisation’s starting point is in terms of understanding of staff transfer and information security requirements, what their existing staffing and estates footprint looks like. A standard selection questionnaire is used as the method by which organisations seek to qualify for the Dynamic Framework, and efforts have been made to make the call off competition process proportionate to the value of the contracts being awarded, whilst ensuring all processes remain in line with procurement regulations and established good commercial practice in government.

Evaluating (or vetting) the Day 1 competitions formed just one part of the workstream of activity to establish the Dynamic Framework, qualify bidders, run competitions, oversee mobilisation of successful bidders (which over an average 3 month mobilisation window included assessing readiness of staff, systems and premises) and implement new contract management processes and structures. It is not possible to separate out the cost of evaluating; the monthly cost of the overall workstream was c. £220k in FY2020/21, this cost covered all of the above activity.

Looking ahead, consultation has begun with market participants on the changes that are being proposed to the various procurement and competition documents. As Richard Oldfield recognises in his report, it was always the intention to learn lessons from this first round of competitions, and that work began even before transition to the new operating model had been completed. All aspects of the documentation are being considered, from the selection questionnaire to call off competition documents and the Framework Agreement itself. Changes will be implemented over the coming weeks and months in a staged manner and consultation will continue as this progresses. We will continue that approach to reviewing and learning lessons throughout the life of the Dynamic Framework.

Work is underway to prepare guidance and criteria for when grants should be the presumptive first choice of funding mechanism. Richard Oldfield’s recommendation is that this should be for all awards under £1milion; arguably other factors, such as type of service, also need to be taken into consideration. Market participants will be consulted as this guidance and criteria is developed further. Whilst work on delivery has commenced, detailed timescales have yet to be determined. It is therefore too early to say what proportion of future awards may take the form of grants or contracts.

Finally, the monitoring of the proportion of contract values that are subcontracted to VCSEs and SMEs will be reviewed through contract management governance and the analysis of annual financial returns made by lead providers.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
10th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the letter from the Director General of Probation and Wales, HMPPS, to Clinks, in response to the publication of the independent review of the Dynamic Framework of the National Probation Service, published by Clinks on 23 August 2021, how the Government plans to monitor the proportion of Dynamic Framework contract values that are subcontracted to (a) voluntary community and social enterprises and (b) small and medium-sized enterprises.

The government welcomes the findings in Richard Oldfield’s report, in which he recognises the progress made in establishing the Dynamic Framework to commission rehabilitative services as part of the new unified probation model. As outlined in the letter from the Director General of Probation and Wales to Clinks, the report’s primary conclusion that we can do more to encourage participation of small and medium-sized organisations, is accepted and we are taking forward work to implement most of the recommendations made.

The Framework will exist for at least 7 years, and the procurement of Day 1 contracts represents just a small part of the total volume of services that will be commissioned through it. It is therefore to be expected that only a relatively small proportion of the organisations that had qualified on to the Dynamic Framework then went on to bid in the call off competitions for Day 1 contracts. Active encouragement has been given to all organisations interested in delivering services in the new probation operating model to qualify for the Dynamic Framework, regardless of whether they had expressed an interest in directly bidding for Day 1 contracts.

It is not unusual in running a large number of concurrent competitions, some of which were run below probation region level at a more local PCC level, that there will be fewer organisations with the capacity and capability to bid in some areas than others. It is a significant achievement that all 110 contracts could be successfully awarded.

It is not possible to produce a meaningful estimate of the cost an organisation may incur in participating on the Framework, as that depends on a range of factors, including how many competitions an organisation chooses to bid in, what the organisation’s starting point is in terms of understanding of staff transfer and information security requirements, what their existing staffing and estates footprint looks like. A standard selection questionnaire is used as the method by which organisations seek to qualify for the Dynamic Framework, and efforts have been made to make the call off competition process proportionate to the value of the contracts being awarded, whilst ensuring all processes remain in line with procurement regulations and established good commercial practice in government.

Evaluating (or vetting) the Day 1 competitions formed just one part of the workstream of activity to establish the Dynamic Framework, qualify bidders, run competitions, oversee mobilisation of successful bidders (which over an average 3 month mobilisation window included assessing readiness of staff, systems and premises) and implement new contract management processes and structures. It is not possible to separate out the cost of evaluating; the monthly cost of the overall workstream was c. £220k in FY2020/21, this cost covered all of the above activity.

Looking ahead, consultation has begun with market participants on the changes that are being proposed to the various procurement and competition documents. As Richard Oldfield recognises in his report, it was always the intention to learn lessons from this first round of competitions, and that work began even before transition to the new operating model had been completed. All aspects of the documentation are being considered, from the selection questionnaire to call off competition documents and the Framework Agreement itself. Changes will be implemented over the coming weeks and months in a staged manner and consultation will continue as this progresses. We will continue that approach to reviewing and learning lessons throughout the life of the Dynamic Framework.

Work is underway to prepare guidance and criteria for when grants should be the presumptive first choice of funding mechanism. Richard Oldfield’s recommendation is that this should be for all awards under £1milion; arguably other factors, such as type of service, also need to be taken into consideration. Market participants will be consulted as this guidance and criteria is developed further. Whilst work on delivery has commenced, detailed timescales have yet to be determined. It is therefore too early to say what proportion of future awards may take the form of grants or contracts.

Finally, the monitoring of the proportion of contract values that are subcontracted to VCSEs and SMEs will be reviewed through contract management governance and the analysis of annual financial returns made by lead providers.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
10th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the letter from the Director General of Probation and Wales, HMPPS, to Clinks, in response to the publication of the independent review of the Dynamic Framework of the National Probation Service, published by Clinks on 23 August 2021, what proportion of the Dynamic Framework awards in future years he plans to take the form of (a) grants and (b) contracts.

The government welcomes the findings in Richard Oldfield’s report, in which he recognises the progress made in establishing the Dynamic Framework to commission rehabilitative services as part of the new unified probation model. As outlined in the letter from the Director General of Probation and Wales to Clinks, the report’s primary conclusion that we can do more to encourage participation of small and medium-sized organisations, is accepted and we are taking forward work to implement most of the recommendations made.

The Framework will exist for at least 7 years, and the procurement of Day 1 contracts represents just a small part of the total volume of services that will be commissioned through it. It is therefore to be expected that only a relatively small proportion of the organisations that had qualified on to the Dynamic Framework then went on to bid in the call off competitions for Day 1 contracts. Active encouragement has been given to all organisations interested in delivering services in the new probation operating model to qualify for the Dynamic Framework, regardless of whether they had expressed an interest in directly bidding for Day 1 contracts.

It is not unusual in running a large number of concurrent competitions, some of which were run below probation region level at a more local PCC level, that there will be fewer organisations with the capacity and capability to bid in some areas than others. It is a significant achievement that all 110 contracts could be successfully awarded.

It is not possible to produce a meaningful estimate of the cost an organisation may incur in participating on the Framework, as that depends on a range of factors, including how many competitions an organisation chooses to bid in, what the organisation’s starting point is in terms of understanding of staff transfer and information security requirements, what their existing staffing and estates footprint looks like. A standard selection questionnaire is used as the method by which organisations seek to qualify for the Dynamic Framework, and efforts have been made to make the call off competition process proportionate to the value of the contracts being awarded, whilst ensuring all processes remain in line with procurement regulations and established good commercial practice in government.

Evaluating (or vetting) the Day 1 competitions formed just one part of the workstream of activity to establish the Dynamic Framework, qualify bidders, run competitions, oversee mobilisation of successful bidders (which over an average 3 month mobilisation window included assessing readiness of staff, systems and premises) and implement new contract management processes and structures. It is not possible to separate out the cost of evaluating; the monthly cost of the overall workstream was c. £220k in FY2020/21, this cost covered all of the above activity.

Looking ahead, consultation has begun with market participants on the changes that are being proposed to the various procurement and competition documents. As Richard Oldfield recognises in his report, it was always the intention to learn lessons from this first round of competitions, and that work began even before transition to the new operating model had been completed. All aspects of the documentation are being considered, from the selection questionnaire to call off competition documents and the Framework Agreement itself. Changes will be implemented over the coming weeks and months in a staged manner and consultation will continue as this progresses. We will continue that approach to reviewing and learning lessons throughout the life of the Dynamic Framework.

Work is underway to prepare guidance and criteria for when grants should be the presumptive first choice of funding mechanism. Richard Oldfield’s recommendation is that this should be for all awards under £1milion; arguably other factors, such as type of service, also need to be taken into consideration. Market participants will be consulted as this guidance and criteria is developed further. Whilst work on delivery has commenced, detailed timescales have yet to be determined. It is therefore too early to say what proportion of future awards may take the form of grants or contracts.

Finally, the monitoring of the proportion of contract values that are subcontracted to VCSEs and SMEs will be reviewed through contract management governance and the analysis of annual financial returns made by lead providers.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
9th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many bullying-related complaints have been reported by staff at HMP Berwyn each year since 2017.

The number of complaints from staff related to bullying at HMP Berwyn in each year since 2018 is provided below. We do not hold data for 2017. When submitting a grievance, staff are able to select multiply reasons. The data below includes where bullying has been chosen as a reason for the grievance alongside other reasons. There has been a move to staff selecting multiple reasons for grievance in 2021. All grievance cases are fully investigated and acted upon as appropriate.

Year

Number of bullying-related grievances from staff

2018

*

2019

*

2020

*

2021

11

If a request is made for information and the total figure amounts to five people or fewer, the MoJ must consider whether this could lead to the identification of individuals and whether disclosure of this information would be in breach of our statutory obligations under the General Data Protection Regulation and/or the Data Protection Act 2018. We believe that the release of some of this information would risk identification of the individuals concerned. For this reason, MoJ has chosen not to provide an exact figure where the true number falls between one and five. However, it should not be assumed that the actual figure represented falls at any particular point within this scale; 'five or fewer' is used as a replacement value from which it would be difficult to isolate or extract any individual data.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
6th Sep 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to review the cases of people with Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences with a view to recommending early release wherever possible.

The Government keeps the operation of sentences of Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) under constant review. This includes continuing to ensure that IPP prisoners, who have completed their minimum term of imprisonment, have every opportunity to progress towards safe release. By law, they are entitled to a review of their detention by the Parole Board at least once every two years. At the conclusion of any parole review which has not resulted in a release direction, an indicative date will be set for the prisoner’s next review, taking account of advice from the Parole Board as to the risk reduction work which a prisoner needs to complete in the intervening period. A planned review may be brought forward where the prisoner has made exceptional progress.

HM Prison and Probation Service are focused on reducing the risk and thereby the successful rehabilitation of IPP prisoners via an action plan which is being taken forward jointly with the Parole Board. This approach is working, with published statistics confirming the high numbers of IPP prisoners achieving a release decision each year.

Our primary responsibility is to protect the public; however, HMPPS remains committed to safely reducing the number of prisoners serving IPP sentences in custody.

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
6th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the potential effect of new police vetting requirements for probation staff on (a) socioeconomic background diversity, (b) inclusion of domestic and financial abuse victims and (c) inclusion of people with lived experience of the criminal justice system within the Unified Probation Service workforce.

The Ministry of Justice will continue to work with the Police and all parties represented on the Disproportionality in Vetting Working Group. This group is currently benchmarking protected characteristics in order to accurately measure those groups which may have disproportionate negative outcomes with Non-Police Personnel Vetting.

Vetting Personnel consider individual circumstance, if disclosed, when considering an applicant’s financial status and history, and are aware to the reasons an applicant may find themselves in financial difficulty through no fault of their own. The MoJ and HM Prison and Probation Service already have staff with lived experience, many of whom have previously generated a “hit” on vetting systems and subsequently attained a positive vetting outcome.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
6th Sep 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many (1) women, and (2) trans men, were known to be pregnant in New Hall Prison for the first two quarters of 2020.

We do not hold this pregnancy data for the requested time period or format. This data would need to be collected by individual prisons at a disproportionate cost.

As part of our fundamental review of policy relating to pregnancy, Mother and Baby Units and maternal separation from children up to two in prison, we committed to providing national pregnancy data in the future. The ‘HMPPS Annual Digest, April 2020 to March 2021’ was published on 29 July 2021 and this contains the latest published figures relating to pregnant prisoners. This data is, however, provided as a national snapshot. This can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hmpps-annual-digest-april-2020-to-march-2021

Further information on the review, including our findings and resulting reforms regarding data collection, can be found in our summary report published in July 2020:

Review of operational policy on pregnancy, Mother and Baby Units and maternal separation (publishing.service.gov.uk)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
6th Sep 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many (1) women, and (2) trans men, were known to be pregnant in Drake Hall Prison for the first two quarters of 2020.

We do not hold this pregnancy data for the requested time period or format. This data would need to be collected by individual prisons at a disproportionate cost.

As part of our fundamental review of policy relating to pregnancy, Mother and Baby Units and maternal separation from children up to two in prison, we committed to providing national pregnancy data in the future. The ‘HMPPS Annual Digest, April 2020 to March 2021’ was published on 29 July 2021 and this contains the latest published figures relating to pregnant prisoners. This data is, however, provided as a national snapshot. This can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hmpps-annual-digest-april-2020-to-march-2021

Further information on the review, including our findings and resulting reforms regarding data collection, can be found in our summary report published in July 2020:

Review of operational policy on pregnancy, Mother and Baby Units and maternal separation (publishing.service.gov.uk)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
6th Sep 2021
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many (1) women, and (2) trans men, were known to be pregnant in East Sutton Park Prison for the first two quarters of 2020.

We do not hold this pregnancy data for the requested time period or format. This data would need to be collected by individual prisons at a disproportionate cost.

As part of our fundamental review of policy relating to pregnancy, Mother and Baby Units and maternal separation from children up to two in prison, we committed to providing national pregnancy data in the future. The ‘HMPPS Annual Digest, April 2020 to March 2021’ was published on 29 July 2021 and this contains the latest published figures relating to pregnant prisoners. This data is, however, provided as a national snapshot. This can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hmpps-annual-digest-april-2020-to-march-2021

Further information on the review, including our findings and resulting reforms regarding data collection, can be found in our summary report published in July 2020:

Review of operational policy on pregnancy, Mother and Baby Units and maternal separation (publishing.service.gov.uk)

Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
9th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to Chapter 9 Table 2.2 of the HMPPS Annual Digest, April 2020 to March 2021, published on 29 July 2021, what assessment he has made of the reasons for the higher crowding rate in contracted out prisons than in public prisons.

The 2020/21 HMPPS Annual Digest shows that, compared to 2019/20, levels of crowding decreased across the prison estate, within each category of prison, and in both the public sector prison (PSP) and privately managed prison (PMP) estate. It is not unusual for the PMP estate to have higher levels of crowding than the PSP estate and it has done so since 1999. The main reason for this is that the PMP estate contains a higher proportion of Reception prisons than the PSP estate. The HMPPS 2020/21 Annual Digest shows that these prisons, regardless of their operator, are the most likely to be crowded, and they are therefore over-represented in the smaller sample of PMPs.

We are investing more than £4 billion to make significant progress in delivering 18,000 additional prison places across England and Wales by the mid-2020s.This includes creating four new prisons over the next six years whilst also expanding a number of other prisons over the next three years. Additionally, construction is well underway on HMP Five Wells, the new prison in Wellingborough in Northamptonshire, and Glen Parva in Leicestershire, creating more than 3,300 places.

This additional capacity will have a positive impact on lowering the proportion of crowding within the prison estate. However, the extent to which the proportion of prisoners held in crowded accommodation will reduce will always be dependent on levels of demand in the system.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
9th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to Chapter 9 Table 2.2 of the HMPPS Annual Digest, April 2020 to March 2021, published on 29 July 2021, what steps he is taking to reduce crowding over the next two years.

The 2020/21 HMPPS Annual Digest shows that, compared to 2019/20, levels of crowding decreased across the prison estate, within each category of prison, and in both the public sector prison (PSP) and privately managed prison (PMP) estate. It is not unusual for the PMP estate to have higher levels of crowding than the PSP estate and it has done so since 1999. The main reason for this is that the PMP estate contains a higher proportion of Reception prisons than the PSP estate. The HMPPS 2020/21 Annual Digest shows that these prisons, regardless of their operator, are the most likely to be crowded, and they are therefore over-represented in the smaller sample of PMPs.

We are investing more than £4 billion to make significant progress in delivering 18,000 additional prison places across England and Wales by the mid-2020s.This includes creating four new prisons over the next six years whilst also expanding a number of other prisons over the next three years. Additionally, construction is well underway on HMP Five Wells, the new prison in Wellingborough in Northamptonshire, and Glen Parva in Leicestershire, creating more than 3,300 places.

This additional capacity will have a positive impact on lowering the proportion of crowding within the prison estate. However, the extent to which the proportion of prisoners held in crowded accommodation will reduce will always be dependent on levels of demand in the system.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
7th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the longest waiting time was between (a) an application for an employment tribunal and (b) the date of the first hearing in each of the last 10 years.

Period

The maximum time (weeks) from receipt to first hearing

Single Claims 1

Multiple Claims 2

1st April 2020 - 31st March 2021

685

743

1st April 2019 - 31st March 2020

528

629

1st April 2018 - 31st March 2019

560

407

1st April 2017 - 31st March 2018

406

682

1st April 2016 - 31st March 2017

330

704

1st April 2015 - 31st March 2016

1063

530

1st April 2014- 31st March 2015

374

426

1st April 2013 - 31st March 2014

953

390

1st April 2012 - 31st March 2013

281

573

1st April 2011 - 31st March 2012

869

865

The figures in the table are high but could be attributed to a handful of cases which have been incorrectly recorded. We are unable to do a manual check as files are only retained for twelve months.

NOTES relating to the above data.

1 Single claims are made by a sole employee/worker, relating to alleged breaches of employment rights.

2 Multiple claims are where two or more people bring proceedings arising out of the same facts, usually against a common employer. In this instance the lead multiple claim would be listed for hearing. This table provides the maximum listing time for both single and lead multiple claim cases.

Data is taken from a live management information system and can change over time. Data provided is management information and therefore not subject to the same level of checks as official statistics.

The data provided is the most recent available and for that reason might differ from any previously published information.

Data has not been cross referenced with case files.

Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available.

Chris Philp
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
7th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of people prosecuted for TV licence evasion in each year since 2015 were women.

The Ministry of Justice has published information on prosecutions for TV licence evasion in England and Wales, up to December 2020, available in the ‘Outcomes by Offence’ data tool, which can be found here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987715/outcomes-by-offence-2020.xlsx

For prosecutions of women for this offence, follow the steps below.

  • Select ‘191A Television licence evasion’ in the Offence filter
  • To view male and female prosecutions, click anywhere in the table to bring up the pivot table field list and drag ‘sex’ into the rows field.
  • The number of males prosecuted will be found on Row 24 and the number of females prosecuted will be found on Row 25.
Chris Philp
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
10th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to tackle the backlog of cases in the family courts.

The protection of children, particularly those who are most vulnerable, is a priority for this government and this has never been more important than during this period. The family courts were quick to respond to the pandemic and I am extremely grateful for the dedication of family justice professionals at this unprecedented time.

In March, we launched the £1 million Family Mediation Voucher Scheme, to encourage and support separating parents to explore mediation before coming to court. We want to ensure that every parent coming to court is able to resolve their case in the most effective way, including through mediation where safe and appropriate. Last month, we invested a further £800,000 into the scheme, which is expected to help around 2000 more families.

We continue to focus on bringing down the outstanding caseload by investing in more judicial sitting days and increasing the overall level of disposals. Cases with the most significant safeguarding issues remain our priority, and where suitable, cases are being heard remotely to continue maximising our use of our estate.

Chris Philp
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
10th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to help ensure that accurate information is provided to the family courts by the criminal courts when allegations of abuse or criminal convictions are made in family court proceedings.

The ‘2013 Protocol and Good Practice Model’ for disclosure of information in cases of alleged child abuse provides for the local authority to notify the police on issue of family court proceedings, if not before. This notification serves as a request for disclosure to the police.

In April 2021, amendments were made to rules 3.3 and 3.5 of the Criminal Procedure Rules. These changes imposed a duty on parties to criminal proceedings to alert the criminal court to any related family proceedings and encourage the exchange of relevant information with a court dealing with those proceedings. Information about criminal proceedings may be obtained from criminal courts under Part 5 of the Criminal Procedure Rules by those who are parties to the criminal proceedings and by members of the public generally.

The Government regularly considers how the join up between the criminal and family jurisdictions can be improved. In 2022, we aim to pilot a new “one family, one judge” approach to hearing cases where the same judge will hear the criminal and family court proceedings.

Chris Philp
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
10th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps he is taking to help ensure the prompt rectification of errors that are identified in reports submitted in family court proceedings.

The manner in which errors or alleged errors contained within a report submitted in family court proceedings are rectified is a matter for the court to decide, however in all cases the court will seek for such errors to be dealt with promptly and without undue delay.

Under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR) Part 1 “the overriding objective” requires the court to deal with cases expeditiously and fairly and for the parties to assist the court in this objective. This general obligation could require the court, or the parties, to act to ensure any issues with a report are rectified.

Depending on the nature of the error contained within a report, if the court considers that the error needs to be rectified in the written report, the court could use its general case management powers (FPR rule 4.1) to direct that an amended or addendum report be submitted to the court.

Where it is alleged by one or more of the parties that a report contains errors, the accuracy and veracity of the information included within the report can be tested during the court hearing, in order for the court to make a determination on this issue.

Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. (FPR, rule 17.6)

Chris Philp
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office)
9th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, pursuant to the Answer of 8 September 2021 to Question 38219, which nine sites have been selected to develop approaches to improve their offer for young adults; and what progress has been made on the identification of such approaches for each site.

I can confirm that nine sites have been selected, six of which the National Young Adults Project Team are currently developing, and three that the HM Prison and Probation Service, Long Term High Security Estate (LTHSE) Young Adults project are developing.

The six adult estate sites are HMP Berwyn, HMP Hull, HMP Nottingham, HMP Portland, HMP Isis, and HMP Wandsworth and visits to these six sites have taken place in July 2021. Two of these sites have definitive plans for the projects they will be working on to better support young adults, and project plans are currently being developed. The remaining four sites are considering their options in order to develop a more bespoke approach to working with young adults and follow up meetings are taking place to developing project plans throughout September and October.

The three LTHSE sites are HMP Manchester, HMP Woodhill and HMP Swaleside and each of these establishments have either had site visits or online discussions. Detailed work plans for these sites will be completed by the end of October. The young adult work is also represented in the regime recovery work and Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) keyworker work, both of which support the needs of young adults in LTHSE sites at this time. All sites have been invited to attend a series of mini-seminars that commenced in July 2021 to discuss a range of themes that are relevant to working with young adults.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
10th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the finding of the Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP & YOI Low Newton by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, published on 7 September 2021, that the prison was not the appropriate place for six acutely mentally unwell women as it was not properly resourced to manage their risks and needs, if he will make an assessment of the reasons for those woman to be sent to that prison as a place of safety during the two months preceding the inspection.

The Government takes the mental health of people within the criminal justice system very seriously, including those who have been remanded to prison from court under the Mental Health Act, or under the ‘own protection’ clause of the Bail Act.

In January, together with the Department for Health and Social Care, we published a White Paper setting out proposals for landmark reform of the Mental Health Act and responding to the findings of the Wessely Review.   Among other reforms, this includes commitments to support offenders with serious mental health needs to access the care they need as quickly and early as possible. We are accepting, and intend to take forward, the vast majority of the Review’s recommendations, including a commitment to end the use of prison as a place of safety under the Mental Health Act. Work is underway between the MoJ and DHSC to introduce a Mental Health Act Bill.

The Bail Act also contains provision which enables the courts to remand an individual into custody for their own protection. We are currently internally reviewing this issue.

Regarding the particular findings of the chief inspector’s recent report at HMP Low Newton, I take the findings seriously. As well as the important work referenced, an action plan is being prepared to address the recommendations made in this report and will be published by October.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
10th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Wormwood Scrubs by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, published on 9 September 2021, for what reason approval to convert cells designed for one into single accommodation has not been granted by HMPPS.

Despite a fall in the national prison population of around 5,000 since March 2020, and fewer prisoners sharing cells as a result, prisoners at HMP Wormwood Scrubs will continue to share cells where necessary, as the latest population projections indicate demand will return to pre-Covid-19 levels.

We are investing more than £4 billion, and making significant progress, in delivering 18,000 additional prison places across England and Wales by the mid-2020s.This includes creating four new prisons over the next six years while expanding several other prisons over the next three years. Additionally, construction is well underway on HMP Five Wells, the new prison in Wellingborough in Northamptonshire, and Glen Parva in Leicestershire, creating more than 3,300 places.

We expect this additional capacity to lower the proportion of crowding within the prison estate, however, decisions to convert cells to single accommodation are dependent on demand within the region.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
10th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to sections six and seven of Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Wormwood Scrubs by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, published on 9 September 2021, what steps he is taking to help ensure that progress is made against the recommendations made in that report.

The Governor of HMP Wormwood Scrubs and Prison Group Director for London Prisons have received and reviewed the report from the HMIP inspection from 7 to 17 June 2021.

There were 42 recommendations made on this inspection and this included 4 repeat recommendations from the last inspection in 2019. The Governor and his team have carried out a detailed review of the recommendations and are preparing their draft action plan to submit to the Prison Group Director for sign off this week. The action plan will provide responses to each recommendation and will identify the work that will be taken to address them.

It should be noted that some of the recommendations relate to COVID measures that have been implemented in prisons during the pandemic and we will naturally expect to see progress against these as regimes are opened up again in line with our recovery planning. For example, this will apply to recommendations regarding time out of cell, library attendance, staff contact with prisoners and the education provision.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
7th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners have (a) escaped from prison vans and (b) remain on the run set out by offences convicted and length of custodial sentence in each year since 2010.

A prisoner escapes when they are able to pass beyond the perimeter of a secure prison or the control of HMPPS escorting staff.

These offences are monitored closely to identify any trends and each incident is fully investigated to prevent future incidents and keep the public safe. Prisoners who escape or abscond can face extra time in prison.

Please see data below for (a) the number of prisoners who escaped from prison vans/vehicles and (b) remain on the run set out by offences convicted and length of custodial sentence in England and Wales from the 12 months ending 2011 to the 12 months ending March 2021. To note ‘vehicles’ includes all vehicles that an escape occurs from, not just prison escort vans.

Number of Escapes1 from Vehicles2, by main offence type at the time of escape, in England and Wales, 12 months ending March 2011 to 12 months ending March 2021

12 Months to March

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Total

Offence Type

Violence against the person

2

1

1

1

5

Robbery

1

1

1

1

1

5

Theft offences

1

1

1

3

Miscellaneous crimes against society

1

1

Summary non-motoring

1

1

Offence not recorded3

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

11

Total

0

6

2

5

4

0

2

3

3

0

1

26

Note:

1 There were 26 escapes from vehicles between April 2010 and March 2021. None of the escapees currently remain at large as a result of these incidents.

2 "Vehicles" includes all vehicles that an escape occurred from, not just prison escort vans.

3 Escapees who were untried at the time of the escape have there offence not recorded as they were not convicted at the time of the incident.

Data Sources and Quality:

These figures have been drawn from the prison-NOMIS and HMPPS Incident Reporting System. Care is taken when processing and analysing returns but the detail is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system. Although shown to the last case, the figures may not be accurate to that level.

Number of Escapes1 from Vehicles2 by custody type3,4,5 in England and Wales, 12 months ending March 2011 to 12 months ending March 2021

12 months to March

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Total

Total

6

2

5

4

2

3

3

1

26

Remand

1

2

3

3

1

1

1

1

13

Untried

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

10

Convicted unsentenced

1

1

1

3

Sentenced

4

2

1

1

2

1

11

Determinate sentence

2

1

1

4

Less than 6 months

1

1

6 months

1

1

Greater than 6 months to less than 12 months

0

12 months to less than 4 years

1

1

4 years or more

1

1

Indeterminate Sentences

2

1

3

IPP

2

2

Life

1

1

Recalls

2

1

1

4

Not recorded/unknown

1

1

2

Notes

1 There were 26 escapes from vehicles between April 2010 and March 2021. None of the escapees currently remain at large as a result of these incidents.

2 Vehicles includes all vehicles that an escape occurred from, not just prison escort vans.

3 This table shows the custody type and judicially impose sentence length for the prisoner at the time of the incident.

4 As administrative data is used to extract this informaiton, it is not possible to calculate the amount of time the prisoner has or will serve in custody. Where an individual has been sentenced, the judiciall imposed sentence length covers the full sentence length (in days) given to the prisoner, including any time spent on probation after the custodial part of the sentence has been served.

5 Data pre-2015 was taken from a different data source, and as such is not directly comparable with data for 2015 onwards.

Data Sources and Quality:

These figures have been drawn from the prison-NOMIS and HMPPS Incident Reporting System. Care is taken when processing and analysing returns but the detail is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system. Although shown to the last case, the figures may not be accurate to that level.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
7th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) charges, (b) prosecutions and (c) convictions there have been for the offence of prison mutiny in each year since 2010.

The offence of prison mutiny, contrary section 1 Prison Security Act 1992 is committed when two or more prisoners, on the premises of any prison, engage in conduct which is intended to further a common purpose of overthrowing lawful authority in that prison. The offence is aimed at behaviour intended to make a prison, or part of prison, ungovernable.

The Crime in Prison referral Agreement was published in May 2019 and includes riots, serious disorder, including prison mutiny as offences that mandate a referral to the police.

Please see below for the information on (b) prosecutions and (c) convictions for the offence of prison mutiny in England and Wales in each year from December 2013 to December 2020. Data from 2010 – 2013 is not readily available and would require additional work outside of the timeframe for a response.

Values

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Prosecuted

0

14

0

21

38

21

3

9

Convicted

3

11

1

1

5

8

16

13

Sentenced

3

11

1

1

5

8

16

13

The Ministry of Justice is not able to provide data on (a) charges for the offence of prison mutiny; this information is not held centrally on the court proceedings database.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
7th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) knives, (b) guns, (c) other weapons and (d) illicit substances were seized from people visiting prisoners in (i) total and (ii) each prison in each year since 2010.

The HMPPS Annual Digest for the relevant years, where available, contains information in relation to weapons and illicit substances found within the estate. It does not contain data broken down into different classes of weapon. There is no available data in relation to the proportion of finds attributable to individuals visiting the prison estate.

The Government takes seriously the conveyance of weapons and other illicit items and substances into prisons.

In August 2019, the Government committed to invest £100 million in prison security in an ambitious new Security Investment Programme. One of the aims of the Programme was to reduce illicit items entering the prison estate.

Since then, we have installed 73 X-ray body scanners across the prison estate and to date have had over 9000 positive indications. The roll out of Enhanced Gate Security (EGS), replicating the tough measures used in airport screening, has resulted in hundreds of illicit items prevented from entering prisons.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
7th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prison staff were dismissed for conducting inappropriate relationships with prisoners in each year since 2010.

HM Prison and Probation Service has conduct and discipline policies in place which set out the minimum standards of conduct expected of all civil servants. Staff must exercise particular care to ensure that their dealings with prisoners, former prisoners and their friends and relations are not open to abuse, misrepresentation or exploitation. Staff relationships with prisoners must be professional at all times, and the HMPPS Counter Corruption Unit proactively follows up on intelligence to detect and investigate potentially inappropriate relationships.

The table below shows the number of prison staff dismissed after conduct and discipline action due to inappropriate relationships with a prisoner/ex-prisoner from the years 2009/10 to 2019/20. The figure for 2020/21 will be available in November following publication of the 2020/21 HMPPS Staff Equalities Report.

Table 1: Prison staff1 dismissed2 after conduct and discipline3 action for inappropriate relationship with a prisoner / ex-prisoner 44, for years 2009/10 to 2019/20

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

2015/16

2016/17

2017/18

2018/19

2019/20

Prison staff dismissed due to inappropriate relationship with a prisoner / ex-prisoner

13

15

6

8

11

9

9

3

7

13

8

Notes to tables:

1. Prison Staff relates to anyone working in HM Prison Service or the Youth Custody Service (YCS). Therefore it excludes anyone working in HQ or National Probation Service.

2. Information on the outcomes of any appeal is not included.

3. Conduct and discipline cases are defined as where a penalty has been imposed on a member of HMPPS staff for a reason of conduct

4. Staff subject to at least one conduct and discipline that was concluded during the year. If an individual had multiple charges then they will be counted only once.

5. Figures for 2020/21 will be published on 25 November 2021 in Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) Annual Staff Equalities Report.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
7th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the ethnic breakdown is of people held on remand in each year since 2010.

The decision to remand an individual in custody or to grant bail is solely a matter for the courts acting in accordance with the Bail Act 1976 and the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012, which provides a framework of remand in custody and creates a presumption in favour of bail for all defendants involved in criminal proceedings.

The Ministry of Justice holds information for remand outcomes broken down by ethnicity in the Magistrates’ and Crown Court at the following links:

Remand Population and Total Population by Ethnicity in England and Wales 2015-2020

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1006270/Population_30June2021_Annual.ods

Remand Population by Magistrates Court

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987718/remands-magistrates-court-tool-2020.xlsx

Remand Population by Crown Court

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/987720/remands-crown-court-tool-2020.xlsx

Research by the Youth Justice Board on Ethnic disproportionality in remand and sentencing in the youth justice system was published on 21 January 2021 and can be accessed via the following link:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/952483/Ethnic_disproportionality_in_remand_and_sentencing_in_the_youth_justice_system.pdf

Routine Youth Justice Statistics 2019/2020 released on 28th January show remand broken down by ethnicity: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/youth-justice-statistics-2019-to-2020

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
7th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average time spent on remand was in each year since 2010.

Centrally held court data does not include the amount of time spent remanded in custody, and therefore obtaining this information would result in a disproportionate cost to the department.

Prison receptions data has enabled an approximation of the data that has been requested. The attached table provides information on the average time spent on remand by all prisoners entering custody after sentencing between January 2010 and March 2021.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
7th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the (a) number and (b) proportion of prison cells out of commission as a result of poor maintenance in each of the last 10 years.

Over the past decade, prison capacity has been taken out of use both temporarily and on a longer-term basis for a number of reasons, including deterioration in the standard and condition of the accommodation. Accommodation is also taken out of use for essential maintenance and refurbishment. It is not possible, however, to provide a reasonable estimate as to which of these decisions was a result of ‘poor maintenance’.

We are investing £315m in capital funding over the next year to improve the condition of the existing estate. Some 1,900 places are currently out of use to enable this work along with more minor repairs. This will be supported by 1,000 temporary cells which can accommodate prisoners during maintenance and refurbishment work.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
7th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) functional and (b) imitation firearms have been discovered (i) during entry security procedures and (ii) within a prison unconnected to entry security procedures, in each of the last five years.

The table below provides details of firearms incidents, broken down by year from March 2016 to present and the number attributable to point of entry and in prison discoveries. It is important to note that during the period we only discovered one ballistic weapon in 2020, with the remainder of incidents relating to the discovery of air guns, Taser and CS spray. The vast majority of in prison discoveries where made during routine searches of prisoner accommodation or through acting on intelligence processed through our systems.

Firearms Incidents

Year

Imitation

Real

At point of entry

Within prison

2016

0

1

1

0

2017

2

1

2

1

2018

4

2

1

5

2019

3

3

3

3

2020

1

2

0

3

2021

1

1

1

1

Totals

11

10

8

13

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
7th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoner-on-staff hostage incidents there have been in each year since 2010.

Hostage incidents within prisons are rare occurrences and HMPPS has comprehensive contingencies in place to resolve them as safely as possible. We have trained negotiators and intervention staff who provide a range of tactical interventions to establishments experiencing incidents of this nature. If an immediate threat to life is identified HMPPS has an agreed protocol with the Armed Policing Portfolio to hand over control of the incident, however we have not needed to call on the protocol since 1989.

The table below provides details of hostage incidents, broken down by victim type each year from March 2010 to March 2021. We publish hostage data in the HMPPS annual digest, therefore we are unable to release data for the period from March 2021 to March 22 until the data is released in July 2022.

Prisoner on Staff Hostage incidents

Year

Number

2010

0

2011

0

2012

2

2013

1

2014

3

2015

2

2016

3

2017

1

2018

9

2019

3

2020

0

2021

0

Grand Total

24

Note: These figures have been drawn from the HMPPS Incident Reporting System. Care is taken when processing and analysing the returns but the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system. Although the figures are shown to the last case the figures may not be accurate to that level.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
8th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, with reference to the HMICFRS report, Neurodiversity in the Criminal Justice System report, published on 15 July 2021, what steps his Department is taking to develop a strategy for neurodiversity in the criminal justice system.

We welcomed the Evidence Review Report on Neurodiversity in the Criminal Justice System, which has highlighted the importance of gaining a better understanding of the needs of people with neurodivergent conditions across the criminal justice system.

The report suggests that potentially half of the adult prison population has some form of neurodivergence. The report identifies current gaps in provision and areas of good practice, and it provides six recommendations as to how current provision might be improved.

The first recommendation is to develop a cross government overarching neurodiversity strategy across the criminal justice system. An action plan in response to the report is due to be published in October 2021 and my department is currently engaging in discussions with all of the relevant departments to identify appropriate steps to work towards this key recommendation.

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
7th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many victims of domestic violence have had an application for legal aid denied in relation to an application for an occupation order in each year since 2010.

Legal aid is available to obtain an injunction to protect survivors of domestic violence. This is not subject to any upper means limit; applicants cannot be found financially ineligible for this form of support. Applications are subject to a merits test to assess their suitability for legal aid funding. Please note that volumes relate to applications for legal aid and not individual applicants; an individual may submit more than one application for public funding. Less than 1.4% of applications for legal aid for a non-molestation order were refused since 2010. Less than 7% of applications for an occupation order were refused since 2010.

Applications for legal aid for occupation orders and non-molestation orders:

OCCUPATION ORDERS

YEAR

APPLICATIONS

REFUSALS

2010-2011

715

27

2011-2012

524

21

2012-2013

600

35

2013-2014

208

15

2014-2015

215

8

2015-2016

243

13

2016-2017

354

27

2017-2018

301

25

2018-2019

373

44

2019-2020

332

42

2020-2021

321

32

NON-MOLESTATION ORDERS

YEAR

APPLICATIONS

REFUSALS

2010-2011

11,649

35

2011-2012

10,520

14

2012-2013

11,495

25

2013-2014

15,261

68

2014-2015

14,121

131

2015-2016

13,461

132

2016-2017

13,251

235

2017-2018

13,399

307

2018-2019

13,189

406

2019-2020

16,148

391

2020-2021

21,790

403

Alex Chalk
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
7th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many victims of domestic violence have had an application for legal aid denied when applying for a non-molestation order in each year since 2010.

Legal aid is available to obtain an injunction to protect survivors of domestic violence. This is not subject to any upper means limit; applicants cannot be found financially ineligible for this form of support. Applications are subject to a merits test to assess their suitability for legal aid funding. Please note that volumes relate to applications for legal aid and not individual applicants; an individual may submit more than one application for public funding. Less than 1.4% of applications for legal aid for a non-molestation order were refused since 2010. Less than 7% of applications for an occupation order were refused since 2010.

Applications for legal aid for occupation orders and non-molestation orders:

OCCUPATION ORDERS

YEAR

APPLICATIONS

REFUSALS

2010-2011

715

27

2011-2012

524

21

2012-2013

600

35

2013-2014

208

15

2014-2015

215

8

2015-2016

243

13

2016-2017

354

27

2017-2018

301

25

2018-2019

373

44

2019-2020

332

42

2020-2021

321

32

NON-MOLESTATION ORDERS

YEAR

APPLICATIONS

REFUSALS

2010-2011

11,649

35

2011-2012

10,520

14

2012-2013

11,495

25

2013-2014

15,261

68

2014-2015

14,121

131

2015-2016

13,461

132

2016-2017

13,251

235

2017-2018

13,399

307

2018-2019

13,189

406

2019-2020

16,148

391

2020-2021

21,790

403

Alex Chalk
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
7th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent steps he has taken to tackle the increase in the number of cases being withdrawn as a result of court delays and case backlogs.

Recovering the courts from the impact of Covid is a key priority for this Government. We allocated over a quarter of a billion pounds on recovery last financial year, making court buildings safe, rolling out new technology for remote hearings, recruiting additional staff and opening Nightingale courtrooms. We are encouraged by the level of cases now flowing through the courts, with our most recently published data showing reductions in the Crown Court’s outstanding caseload.

We are now focused both on increasing capacity and maximising use of that which we already have. There is no limit on the number of days Crown Courts can sit this financial year and we are supporting temporary changes to court operating hours, where the local judge wants to use this, to hear more cases. The relaxing of social distancing means around 60 existing courtrooms in the Crown Court estate have been reopened, and we are extending our 32 Crown Nightingale courtrooms until April 2022.

In further attempts to prevent cases from being withdrawn, we have increased funding for victim support services, with £151 million this year, including £27 million to increase the number of independent advisors for sexual violence and domestic abuse victims by over 40 per cent. Beyond significant increases in funding to victims’ services, the Government has taken a range of actions to ensure that victims and witnesses receive the support they need.

Alex Chalk
Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice)
7th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what recent steps he has taken to improve support in the justice system for the victims of violence against women and girls in (a) Newport West constituency, (b) Wales and (c) the UK.

The new Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy will help ensure that women and girls are safe everywhere - at home, online and on the streets. The commitments in the strategy include the introduction of a new full-time National Policing Lead for Violence Against Women and Girls. In addition, Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 has been rolled out to Crown Courts to enable pre-recorded cross-examination and re-examination for vulnerable witnesses

Also, for 2021-22, the Ministry of Justice will provide just under £151m for victim and witness support services. This funding includes:
• £1m for rape support centres across Wales;
• Over £6.6m for the four Police and Crime Commissioners in Wales - including Gwent, which covers Newport West; and
• Investment in 36 new Independent Domestic Violence Advisors and Independent Sexual Violence Advisers posts across Wales

All of these services will help victims feel informed and supported at every stage of their recovery journey, including their interaction with the justice system.

Kit Malthouse
Minister of State (Home Office)
7th Sep 2021
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) men and (b) women were recalled to prison for 14 days or less in (i) 2019, (ii) 2020 and (iii) 2021 to date.

The figures requested are set out below. These figures refer to the number of individuals recalled, so the figures may differ from published recall numbers which refer to instances of recall.

It should be noted that the figures for 2021 reflect the published statistics and refer only to the first quarter of the year and cannot therefore be compared to those provided for 2019 and 2020.

Total number of offenders recalled to prison for 14 days or less

Year

Female

Male

2019

655

3,515

2020

407

2,709

2021 (Qtr1)

87

583

Total number of offenders recalled to prison for 14 days or less more than once

Year

Female

Male

2019

183

821

2020

95

596

2021 (Qtr1)

10

71

Public protection is our priority. Offenders on licence are subject to strict licence conditions and supervision.

Where offenders are eligible for a fixed-term recall, they may be recalled to prison on a fixed-term basis, where that is a necessary and proportionate response to a breach of licence conditions. If not, they will receive a standard recall, which is the only type of recall available for those offenders ineligible for a fixed-term recall (such as those on a life licence). Where they receive a standard recall, they are liable to serve the rest of their sentence in prison, unless the Parole Board, or the Secretary of State using executive powers, decide to re-releases them.

Recall information is published at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/offender-management-statistics-quarterly

Lucy Frazer
Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)