Ministry of Justice

The Deputy Prime Minister has an office in Dover House. He is supported by an Office of Deputy Prime Minister which coordinates work across Departments and supports the delivery of the Deputy Prime Minister’s priorities.

Once a death has been reported to a coroner, the deceased person’s body remains in the legal control of the coroner until released for burial or cremation. During this time, decisions relating to the body, including on whether to order a post-mortem examination or permit a second post‑mortem examination, are a matter for the coroner as an independent judge.

The Chief Coroner has provided guidance for coroners which makes clear that, where a second post‑mortem examination is permitted, it should be carried out as quickly as possible following the first examination and, unless there are exceptional circumstances, within 28 days of the death being reported to the coroner. The coroner must inform the deceased person’s next of kin or personal representative if the body cannot be released for burial or cremation within this period.

Once a death has been reported to a coroner, the deceased person’s body remains in the legal control of the coroner until released for burial or cremation. During this time, decisions relating to the body, including on whether to order a post-mortem examination or permit a second post‑mortem examination, are a matter for the coroner as an independent judge.

The Chief Coroner has provided guidance for coroners which makes clear that, where a second post‑mortem examination is permitted, it should be carried out as quickly as possible following the first examination and, unless there are exceptional circumstances, within 28 days of the death being reported to the coroner. The coroner must inform the deceased person’s next of kin or personal representative if the body cannot be released for burial or cremation within this period.

Lord Farmer’s 2017 review highlighted the importance of family and supportive relationships in rehabilitation and reducing re-offending. Since then, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has taken extensive action to put those recommendations into practice, with the majority now completed. All prisons are required to publish local family and ‘significant other’ strategies, to seek and respond to the views of families in supporting people in custody, including in relation to release planning, and to identify and support prisoners without family or relationship contact. These principles are now embedded within HMPPS Family Services and continue to inform practice across the prison estate.

HMPPS has also implemented recommendations on the positive role of prisoner-to-prisoner relationships, strengthening peer support and mentoring through existing roles such as peer mentors, Listeners, wing representatives and learning tutors. Work is under way to develop a common set of standards for peer support and mentoring, using an evidence-led approach to testing, evaluation and potential future scaling up, to improve quality, consistency and safeguards.

The Ministry of Justice and HMPPS continue to work with Lord Farmer and delivery partners to monitor and strengthen delivery through inspection and performance frameworks. Further work is planned to build on this foundation, particularly to strengthen family engagement and pro-social peer relationships as part of a wider rehabilitative culture informed by desistance principles and psychologically informed practice.

We know that supporting and maintaining positive family relationships, where safe and appropriate, is an important factor in reducing reoffending and desistance from crime, with recently published research finding that prisoners who received visits were 3 percentage points less likely to reoffend within one year of release (25% vs 28%). Prisons will assess the need for individual, tailored family support on a case-by-case basis, noting that this is not always appropriate for all prisoners or their families.

Family support is a central component of a rehabilitative prison environment and is recognised as critical to the wellbeing of individuals in custody, regardless of their legal status. To support this, prisons across England and Wales offer a range of services to maintain family relationships including social visits, family days and the award-winning charity led initiative Storybook Mums and Dads, enabling parents in prison to record bedtime stories for their children. Both remand and convicted prisoners can access the full range of family support services, which includes access to family support workers, parenting support, and signposting to advice and external agencies.

Support for maintaining family contact is consistent across remand and convicted prisoners, who can contact their family through visits, telephone and video calls, and letters. Under Prison Rules, remand prisoners are entitled to a greater number of visits than convicted prisoners which reflects the legal distinction between those awaiting a trial or sentencing, and those who are convicted. Additionally, remand prisoners can spend more money on phone credit or postage stamps, should they wish to send additional mail. This is a result of statutory entitlements, and beyond these distinctions, there is no difference in the family support offer between remand and convicted prisoners.

Decisions on changes to prison key performance indicators, including whether to introduce new or more explicit measures focused on support for parents in prison, must balance the benefits of clearer accountability with the need to ensure performance frameworks remain proportionate, measurable and focused on outcomes.

Any proposed changes are considered alongside inspection evidence and operational priorities.

Families provision in prisons is currently monitored by the family ties performance measure. The Department will continue to consider how best to reflect the role of family and parental support in prison performance measures as we develop the prison performance framework.

This Government inherited prisons days from collapse. We had no choice but to take decisive action to stop our prisons overflowing and keep the public safe.

Without the changes this Government made, courts would have had to halt trials and the police cancel arrests, undermining public safety and leading to a disastrous impact on public confidence in the criminal justice system.

We regularly publish data on release from prison, including on forms of early release – for example we publish SDS40 data alongside the quarterly Offender Management statistics: Standard Determinate Sentence (SDS40) release data - GOV.UK.

Whilst measures like the SDS40 change provided the intended medium-term relief to the system, this was only ever a temporary change as a bridge to a more sustainable solution. That is why the Sentencing Act has now been passed, to ensure we never run out of prison space again and to deliver a more sustainable solution to the prison capacity crisis.

Ministry of Justice Ministers have frequent discussions with prison staff on all aspects of the prison experience. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) encourages prisons to make the experience of those visiting prisoners the ‘best it can be’, and to seek feedback from visitors on how to improve services. Information on the quality of social visits, including feedback from stakeholders, is included in the HMPPS Families Performance Improvement Measure.

Supporting consistent contact between parents in prison and their children where it is safe and appropriate, helps to mitigate the harm arising from separation caused by imprisonment.

Making prison visits family‑friendly is an important element of maintaining family ties and supporting effective rehabilitation. Visiting a prison can be a daunting experience for anyone, particularly those already coping with the emotional impact of having a loved-one in custody. A welcoming visiting environment helps to reduce fear, anxiety and stigma, enabling families to feel safe and supported during what may be a stressful experience.

Family‑friendly visits allow relations to interact more naturally, supporting healthy attachment and emotional wellbeing. Simple measures such as clear information, trained staff, suitable facilities and access to play or activity areas can make a significant difference to the experience. These features help visits to feel more like a normal family interaction and allow parents in custody to maintain a meaningful role in their child’s life.

Prison video calling is already an established part of the prison communications offer. The provision of secure social video calls, as a supplement to letters, telephone calls and in‑person visits, supports the maintenance of family ties and reflects key recommendations made in Lord Farmer’s reviews, which highlighted the importance of strong family relationships in reducing the risk of re‑offending.

Ministry of Justice Ministers have frequent discussions with prison staff on all aspects of the prison experience. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) encourages prisons to make the experience of those visiting prisoners the ‘best it can be’, and to seek feedback from visitors on how to improve services. Information on the quality of social visits, including feedback from stakeholders, is included in the HMPPS Families Performance Improvement Measure.

Supporting consistent contact between parents in prison and their children where it is safe and appropriate, helps to mitigate the harm arising from separation caused by imprisonment.

Making prison visits family‑friendly is an important element of maintaining family ties and supporting effective rehabilitation. Visiting a prison can be a daunting experience for anyone, particularly those already coping with the emotional impact of having a loved-one in custody. A welcoming visiting environment helps to reduce fear, anxiety and stigma, enabling families to feel safe and supported during what may be a stressful experience.

Family‑friendly visits allow relations to interact more naturally, supporting healthy attachment and emotional wellbeing. Simple measures such as clear information, trained staff, suitable facilities and access to play or activity areas can make a significant difference to the experience. These features help visits to feel more like a normal family interaction and allow parents in custody to maintain a meaningful role in their child’s life.

Prison video calling is already an established part of the prison communications offer. The provision of secure social video calls, as a supplement to letters, telephone calls and in‑person visits, supports the maintenance of family ties and reflects key recommendations made in Lord Farmer’s reviews, which highlighted the importance of strong family relationships in reducing the risk of re‑offending.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

The Government is clear that when the courts are considering bail for children charged with violent offences, public protection should always be the foremost priority, alongside reducing the risk of offending. For children, there is the option of imposing Bail Intensive Support and Supervision which includes high levels of contact, monitoring, structured activity and in some cases electronic tags.

While evidence specifically on the effectiveness of different bail conditions on reducing offending or protection of the public is limited, there is evidence on the factors that reduce the chances of a child offending. The key principles of lowering the risk of offending include therapeutic rather than punitive responses, and family-based interventions that draw on community support and address wider needs, such as education and health. A strong and robust bail package is expected to address these key principles to ensure public safety.

The Ministry of Justice has awarded a contract to Safariland UK LTD for 6,250 sets of Body Armour for Prison Officers. The Ministry of Justice received two bids from suppliers and accepted one.

This contract was tendered via a Bluelight Commercial Framework. This initial opportunity for this Framework was published by BlueLight Commercial on 8 July 2022 [Provision of General Patrol and Firearms Body Armour - Find a Tender] and then awarded on 16 March 2023 [Provision of General Patrol and Firearms Body Armour - Find a Tender]. The Ministry of Justice, following Cabinet Office guidelines to utilise frameworks where appropriate, conducted a further competition via this framework and subsequently published the award on 22 January 2026 [Supply of Protective Body Armour - Find a Tender].

The Bluelight Framework at the initial opportunity was available for all the market to bid for, so therefore open. The Ministry of Justice has followed all the guidelines and published notices in accordance with the regulations. The process was effective as Frameworks offer the shortest route to contract award and in line with Cabinet Office policy.

The requirements of the body armour for prison officers are ballistic, knife and spike and the product sourced meets the Home Office Standard [Body armour standard 2017: [CAST Publication number: 012/17 Body armour standard 2017 - GOV.UK]. The Home Office standard is frequently used by other Government agencies, so in that respect the Police will have similar body armour. For example, Safariland UK Ltd has supplied various Police forces and the Ministry of Defence Police with body armour that meets the Home Office Standard.

The Ministry of Justice has awarded a contract to Safariland UK LTD for 6,250 sets of Body Armour for Prison Officers. The Ministry of Justice received two bids from suppliers and accepted one.

This contract was tendered via a Bluelight Commercial Framework. This initial opportunity for this Framework was published by BlueLight Commercial on 8 July 2022 [Provision of General Patrol and Firearms Body Armour - Find a Tender] and then awarded on 16 March 2023 [Provision of General Patrol and Firearms Body Armour - Find a Tender]. The Ministry of Justice, following Cabinet Office guidelines to utilise frameworks where appropriate, conducted a further competition via this framework and subsequently published the award on 22 January 2026 [Supply of Protective Body Armour - Find a Tender].

The Bluelight Framework at the initial opportunity was available for all the market to bid for, so therefore open. The Ministry of Justice has followed all the guidelines and published notices in accordance with the regulations. The process was effective as Frameworks offer the shortest route to contract award and in line with Cabinet Office policy.

The requirements of the body armour for prison officers are ballistic, knife and spike and the product sourced meets the Home Office Standard [Body armour standard 2017: [CAST Publication number: 012/17 Body armour standard 2017 - GOV.UK]. The Home Office standard is frequently used by other Government agencies, so in that respect the Police will have similar body armour. For example, Safariland UK Ltd has supplied various Police forces and the Ministry of Defence Police with body armour that meets the Home Office Standard.

The Ministry of Justice has awarded a contract to Safariland UK LTD for 6,250 sets of Body Armour for Prison Officers. The Ministry of Justice received two bids from suppliers and accepted one.

This contract was tendered via a Bluelight Commercial Framework. This initial opportunity for this Framework was published by BlueLight Commercial on 8 July 2022 [Provision of General Patrol and Firearms Body Armour - Find a Tender] and then awarded on 16 March 2023 [Provision of General Patrol and Firearms Body Armour - Find a Tender]. The Ministry of Justice, following Cabinet Office guidelines to utilise frameworks where appropriate, conducted a further competition via this framework and subsequently published the award on 22 January 2026 [Supply of Protective Body Armour - Find a Tender].

The Bluelight Framework at the initial opportunity was available for all the market to bid for, so therefore open. The Ministry of Justice has followed all the guidelines and published notices in accordance with the regulations. The process was effective as Frameworks offer the shortest route to contract award and in line with Cabinet Office policy.

The requirements of the body armour for prison officers are ballistic, knife and spike and the product sourced meets the Home Office Standard [Body armour standard 2017: [CAST Publication number: 012/17 Body armour standard 2017 - GOV.UK]. The Home Office standard is frequently used by other Government agencies, so in that respect the Police will have similar body armour. For example, Safariland UK Ltd has supplied various Police forces and the Ministry of Defence Police with body armour that meets the Home Office Standard.

His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) is committed to equipping up to 10,000 staff with protective body armour by March 2027. Work is continuing to support delivery against this commitment, ensuring it is implemented in a controlled and proportionate manner, with appropriate governance and oversight in place.

Both the Prison Officers Association and the Prison Governors Association were consulted in the initial stages about all aspects of the protective body armour project, including in relation to the product selection. Monthly engagement takes place with both unions to enable ongoing consultation.

HMPPS engages in quarterly discussions with recognised trade unions. These meetings form part of HMPPS’s formal engagement and allow unions to raise concerns on safety matters.

The Department is working to start an academic Peer Review of the Ipsos Mori Retribution survey ahead of publication to ensure it is analytically robust and the results are interpreted correctly. The process will begin in Summer this year.

The Ministry of Justice publishes regular data on parental orders in our quarterly Family Court statistics bulletin: Family Court Statistics Quarterly - GOV.UK.

The Ministry of Justice does not collect or publish data on delays to awards, whether or not awards have been paid, or data on the outcomes of Employment Tribunal enforcement actions. The Department of Business and Trade will collect additional updated data on payment outcomes through the Survey of Employment Tribunal Applications later this year.

Workers should receive the payments they are entitled to in a timely manner. As part of the Government’s Plan for Change, we will look at ways of strengthening enforcement options and will work closely across Government to do this as effectively as possible, including through the newly established Fair Work Agency (FWA). The FWA will work closely with HMRC, the Insolvency Service and other relevant enforcement bodies to strengthen enforcement options. The proposed powers of the FWA are set out in the Employment Rights Act, and we are committed to ensuring that it has the appropriate resources to discharge its responsibilities.

Following consultation with the Justice Select Committee (JSC) about campaign plans to recruit to this position, we plan to advertise the role shortly. We will update the JSC on the timetable in due course.

The field and monitoring service contract, with the provider Serco, has clear contractual requirements governing the delivery of the Electronic Monitoring service, including the fitting of electronic monitoring tags. The latest performance data from Serco evidenced continued improved performance with all contractual KPIs met.

The relevant contract can be found on contract finder via the following links, and have also been attached for ease: Electronic Monitoring Field and Monitoring Service (FMS) - Contracts Finder and Electronic Monitoring - MDSS contract - Contracts Finder.

Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the statutory presumption of parental involvement from section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The aim of repealing this measure is to better to protect children from harm, including from harm which might be caused by contact with abusive parents

The Government has thoroughly assessed the impact of repealing the statutory presumption of parental involvement. The impact assessment for Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill does not look at prisoners as a distinct group.

The impact assessment for this measure can be found here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0389/Non-IRCC_impact_assessment.pdf

The equalities statement for this measure can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/699dfa26db2401de164d6c90/courts-tribunals-bill-equalities-statement.pdf

Both documents have also been attached for ease.

Repealing the statutory presumption does not diminish the importance of parental involvement and contact where it is safe and beneficial. Rather, it ensures that the child’s welfare continues to be placed first in every decision.

Repealing the presumption means that courts will adopt an openminded inquiry enquiry into what is in a child’s best interests, rather than starting from an assumption about parental involvement. Courts will continue to use the provisions set out in the Children Act 1989 when making decisions, guided by the welfare checklist, in order to ensure a thorough assessment of each child's circumstances.

Courts will continue to make orders for a parent (including a parent who is a prisoner) to be involved in a child's life where that is safe and in the child’s best interests. HMPPS will continue to provide a range of services to maintain family contact and are updating the Strengthening Family Ties Policy Framework to reaffirm this, setting out clear expectations for how prisons should support people in custody to develop and sustain positive family relationships.

Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill will repeal the statutory presumption of parental involvement from section 1 of the Children Act 1989. The aim of repealing this measure is better to protect children from harm, including harm which might result from contact with abusive parents or resulting from decisions made by abusive parents.

The Government has thoroughly assessed the impact of repealing the statutory presumption of parental involvement. The impact assessment for Clause 17 of the Courts and Tribunals Bill does not look at fathers who are prisoners as a distinct group.

The impact assessment for this measure can be found here: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0389/Non-IRCC_impact_assessment.pdf

The equalities statement for this measure can be found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/699dfa26db2401de164d6c90/courts-tribunals-bill-equalities-statement.pdf

Both documents have also been attached for ease.

Repealing the statutory presumption does not diminish the importance of a parent being involved in their child’s life – through contact or through holding or exercising parental responsibility - where it is safe and beneficial. Rather, it ensures that the child’s welfare continues to be placed first in every decision.

Repealing the presumption means that courts, when making decisions, including applications related to parental responsibility, will adopt an openminded enquiry as to what is in a child’s best interests rather than starting from an assumption about parental involvement. Courts will continue to use the provisions set out in the Children Act 1989. In making decisions about the exercise of parental responsibility, the court will continue to be guided by the welfare checklist in order to ensure a thorough assessment of each child's circumstances.

Courts will continue to make orders for a parent (including a parent who is a prisoner) to be involved in a child's life, where that is safe and in the child’s best interests. HMPPS will continue to provide a range of services to maintain family contact and are updating the Strengthening Family Ties Policy Framework to reaffirm this, setting out clear expectations for how prisons should support people in custody to develop and sustain positive family relationships.

The Written Answers on 26 March (HL15521) and 12 March (HL14912) were based on the professional knowledge and experience of the Planning Liaison Judge, rather than statistical data, drawing on his role managing claims in the Planning Court. The Planning Court Users Group provides a mechanism for users to raise any specific concerns regarding the timely progress of cases. The Court has confirmed that there is no backlog of cases in the Planning Court relating to challenges to planning permissions granted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Significant Planning Court claims are managed in line with the targets set out in the relevant Practice Direction, while other cases follow the arrangements applicable to the Administrative Court. Overall oversight by the Planning Liaison Judge ensures that claims are progressed efficiently.

HMCTS is committed to improving efficiency, responsiveness and overall quality of service provided. Through collaborative working with the well-established Planning Court Users Group, HMCTS will discuss and consider any further administrative improvements.

Table 1 - Crown Court open cases in West Midlands by court (December 2025)

Table 2 - Magistrates’ courts open cases in West Midlands by court (December 2025)

notes

1) Open cases are those without a final result record. At the Crown Court this excludes cases where one or more defendants is absent and have a live bench warrant.
2) Court location relates to where a case was first received.

3) * signifies magistrates’ courts which have permanently closed. Open cases for these courts will have been transferred to other courts but workload will continue to be reported under the initial location.

The Crown Court backlog currently stands at over 80,000 cases and, without decisive action, would rise to 100,000 by 2028. Behind each of those cases is someone awaiting justice – defendants seeking to clear their name and victims putting their lives on hold. The record and rising Crown Court caseload means that thousands of victims and witnesses are waiting years for their day in court. Justice delayed is justice denied and the status quo is unacceptable.

That is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, to conduct an independent review of the criminal justice system and make recommendations for the modernisation of the system and ways to tackle the backlog. His expert panel gathered evidence over many months. They concluded that reform is essential alongside additional investment in sitting days and the workforce, and a programme of efficiencies. Part 1 of the Review set out a blueprint for pragmatic structural reform in our criminal courts and made clear that action across all aspects of the criminal justice process is needed. Reform, investment and modernisation are all necessary to ensure that our courts deliver justice effectively and efficiently.

The Government has already invested significantly in the system – in record sitting days (increasing judicial capacity), court buildings and technology, and in legal professionals with significant investment in legal aid. However, these investments in growing the workforce, whilst vital, will take years to take effect.

The Government is committed to doing whatever is necessary to deliver swifter justice for victims. Only by pulling every lever we have – investment, efficiency and reform – can we turn the tide on the backlog and begin to deliver faster and fairer justice.

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) holds required staffing levels which are subject to regular amendment and managed at a local and regional level. As a result of this discretion, HMPPS does not present vacancy data due to variability in required staffing levels.

We do, however, publish indicative vacancies in the HMPPS Workforce and the most recently published figures can be found via the following link: HM Prison & Probation Service workforce quarterly: December 2025 - GOV.UK.

His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) currently deploys 492 licensed search dogs across prisons in England and Wales. These dogs form a key part of the Department’s approach to tackling the supply of illicit items, including drugs, mobile telephones and other contraband, and are used proactively across the estate.

Decisions on deployment, and any increase in search dog capacity, are made at local and regional level, enabling prisons to respond flexibly to their specific security risks and operational challenges. This includes the ability to scale up provision where intelligence or demand indicates a need.

HMPPS keeps this capability under regular review as part of its wider security strategy and will continue to assess whether additional resources are required to meet any emerging threats.

This capability is being implemented on a phased basis, reflecting the complexity of introducing Conducted Energy Devices (generally known as TASERs) safely into the prison environment. Initial enabling activity is under way, including development of policy and operating procedures, assurance processes, training design, and engagement with key stakeholders.

Training and equipping of staff will be delivered incrementally, with cohorts authorised to access the equipment in stages, once the necessary governance, infrastructure and safeguards are in place.

In view of the need to prioritise safety, operational readiness and learning from early phases of implementation, it would not be appropriate at this stage to set a deadline for completion. Progress will continue to be monitored closely to ensure progress is maintained.

Coroners are independent judges, but operational responsibility for coroner services lies with the lead local authorities which fund and administer of each of the 74 coroner areas in England and Wales. Whist the framework of accountability in the coronial jurisdiction is therefore complex, it is nevertheless robust and transparent.

Complaints about the standard of service provided in the context of a coroner’s investigation should be raised in the first instance with the coroner’s office and/or with the funding local authority. If the complainant remains dissatisfied, the matter can be reported to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (https://www.lgo.org.uk/make-a-complaint), which aims to provide a remedy to complaints through impartial and fair investigation.

The Ombudsman cannot investigate a coroner’s decisions as an independent judge. However, these can be challenged through the judicial review process or, in some circumstances, by applying to the Attorney General for leave to apply to the High Court for a fresh inquest.

Complaints about the personal conduct of coroners should be made to the independent Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/).

The proven reoffending rate for adult offenders with an index offence of shoplifting between 2019/20 and 2023/24 are provided in the attached Excel spreadsheet. This includes the overall adult cohort, as well as breakdowns for adults released from custody, and adults given non-custodial sentences or cautions between 2019/20 and 2023/24.

The proven reoffending rate is calculated using a 12-month follow-up period, allowing an additional 6 months for offences to be proven in court.

The proven reoffending rate for adult offenders with an index offence of shoplifting between 2019/20 and 2023/24 are provided in the attached Excel spreadsheet. This includes the overall adult cohort, as well as breakdowns for adults released from custody, and adults given non-custodial sentences or cautions between 2019/20 and 2023/24.

The proven reoffending rate is calculated using a 12-month follow-up period, allowing an additional 6 months for offences to be proven in court.

The proven reoffending rate for adult offenders with an index offence of shoplifting between 2019/20 and 2023/24 are provided in the attached Excel spreadsheet. This includes the overall adult cohort, as well as breakdowns for adults released from custody, and adults given non-custodial sentences or cautions between 2019/20 and 2023/24.

The proven reoffending rate is calculated using a 12-month follow-up period, allowing an additional 6 months for offences to be proven in court.

Under this Government the Ministry of Justice has not provided funding, paid consultancy fees, or entered into formal engagement contracts with external organisations in developing revised domestic abuse guidance or safeguarding processes in private law children cases.

The Department does not hold information on the cost of specific food items, including meat, or on expenditure associated with multi -choice or pre-selected menus. Prison expenditure on food is recorded at an aggregate level in management accounts as total prisoner food costs: it is not broken down by individual prisons, food types, menu options or dietary components. Food budgets are managed locally by Governors in the public estate, or Directors in privately managed prisons, who have flexibility within their overall allocations to meet the needs of their prison population, including religious, cultural and medical dietary requirements.

All prisons across England and Wales provide prisoners with a choice of at least five meal options at both lunch and for the evening meal. As a minimum, these options include one meat dish, one vegan dish, one vegetarian dish, one Halal dish, and one additional alternative option. This requirement was established under PSO 5000 (Prison Catering Services), and was subsequently re-affirmed in its successor policy, PSI 44/2010 Catering: Meals for Prisoners, which came into effect in October 2010.

The Department does not hold information on the cost of specific food items, including meat, or on expenditure associated with multi -choice or pre-selected menus. Prison expenditure on food is recorded at an aggregate level in management accounts as total prisoner food costs: it is not broken down by individual prisons, food types, menu options or dietary components. Food budgets are managed locally by Governors in the public estate, or Directors in privately managed prisons, who have flexibility within their overall allocations to meet the needs of their prison population, including religious, cultural and medical dietary requirements.

All prisons across England and Wales provide prisoners with a choice of at least five meal options at both lunch and for the evening meal. As a minimum, these options include one meat dish, one vegan dish, one vegetarian dish, one Halal dish, and one additional alternative option. This requirement was established under PSO 5000 (Prison Catering Services), and was subsequently re-affirmed in its successor policy, PSI 44/2010 Catering: Meals for Prisoners, which came into effect in October 2010.

The Department does not hold information on the cost of specific food items, including meat, or on expenditure associated with multi -choice or pre-selected menus. Prison expenditure on food is recorded at an aggregate level in management accounts as total prisoner food costs: it is not broken down by individual prisons, food types, menu options or dietary components. Food budgets are managed locally by Governors in the public estate, or Directors in privately managed prisons, who have flexibility within their overall allocations to meet the needs of their prison population, including religious, cultural and medical dietary requirements.

All prisons across England and Wales provide prisoners with a choice of at least five meal options at both lunch and for the evening meal. As a minimum, these options include one meat dish, one vegan dish, one vegetarian dish, one Halal dish, and one additional alternative option. This requirement was established under PSO 5000 (Prison Catering Services), and was subsequently re-affirmed in its successor policy, PSI 44/2010 Catering: Meals for Prisoners, which came into effect in October 2010.

To answer the question would incur disproportionate cost as it would require a search of individual prisoner records. Centrally-collated data on prisoner transfers cover transfers between a predominant function closed prison and a predominant function open prison but does not distinguish instances of prisoner movements between a ‘closed’ wing and an ‘open’ wing where a prison has both types of function. Therefore, this would require a search of individual prisoner records.

Public protection remains the priority and prisoners will only be transferred to open conditions if it is assessed that it is safe to do so.

The number of officers trained in Operation Tornado control and restraint procedures, as of 31 March 2026, and the percentage of operational staff that these staff represent, are set out in the attached table.

Cafcass provides learning for all colleagues on recognising and reflecting on bias as part of its wider approach to equality, diversity and inclusion. All colleagues are required to complete mandatory Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) e‑learning, alongside training entitled Exploring the Impact of Bias, which supports reflection on how personal assumptions and bias can affect professional judgement in work with children and families.

As with all considerations within the Family Court, Cafcass’s primary focus is the best interests and welfare of the child, rather than the interests or viewpoints of parents. Cafcass guidance and practice therefore focuses on assessing what is safe and promotes a child’s welfare, rather than balancing parental rights or perspectives or seeking neutrality between parents.

Cafcass works through a relationship‑based practice framework, Together with Children and Families, which prioritises and values the development of trusting relationships to enable sensitive and complex work with children and families. The framework encourages listening, understanding, clear reasoning, respect and integrity.

In all advice to the Family Court, Family Court Advisers are required to observe Cafcass’s statutory responsibility to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in family proceedings. This includes assessing children’s safety, understanding the harm they have experienced and the risk of further harm in existing and future contact arrangements. The advice provided to the court and the report that is filed are based on this assessment and what is safe and in the best interests of the child.

Cafcass provides learning for all colleagues on recognising and reflecting on bias as part of its wider approach to equality, diversity and inclusion. All colleagues are required to complete mandatory Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) e‑learning, alongside training entitled Exploring the Impact of Bias, which supports reflection on how personal assumptions and bias can affect professional judgement in work with children and families.

As with all considerations within the Family Court, Cafcass’s primary focus is the best interests and welfare of the child, rather than the interests or viewpoints of parents. Cafcass guidance and practice therefore focuses on assessing what is safe and promotes a child’s welfare, rather than balancing parental rights or perspectives or seeking neutrality between parents.

Cafcass works through a relationship‑based practice framework, Together with Children and Families, which prioritises and values the development of trusting relationships to enable sensitive and complex work with children and families. The framework encourages listening, understanding, clear reasoning, respect and integrity.

In all advice to the Family Court, Family Court Advisers are required to observe Cafcass’s statutory responsibility to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in family proceedings. This includes assessing children’s safety, understanding the harm they have experienced and the risk of further harm in existing and future contact arrangements. The advice provided to the court and the report that is filed are based on this assessment and what is safe and in the best interests of the child.

Cafcass provides learning for all colleagues on recognising and reflecting on bias as part of its wider approach to equality, diversity and inclusion. All colleagues are required to complete mandatory Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) e‑learning, alongside training entitled Exploring the Impact of Bias, which supports reflection on how personal assumptions and bias can affect professional judgement in work with children and families.

As with all considerations within the Family Court, Cafcass’s primary focus is the best interests and welfare of the child, rather than the interests or viewpoints of parents. Cafcass guidance and practice therefore focuses on assessing what is safe and promotes a child’s welfare, rather than balancing parental rights or perspectives or seeking neutrality between parents.

Cafcass works through a relationship‑based practice framework, Together with Children and Families, which prioritises and values the development of trusting relationships to enable sensitive and complex work with children and families. The framework encourages listening, understanding, clear reasoning, respect and integrity.

In all advice to the Family Court, Family Court Advisers are required to observe Cafcass’s statutory responsibility to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in family proceedings. This includes assessing children’s safety, understanding the harm they have experienced and the risk of further harm in existing and future contact arrangements. The advice provided to the court and the report that is filed are based on this assessment and what is safe and in the best interests of the child.

Cafcass does not record structured data in its complaints case management system to enable reporting on how many complaints have been made against Cafcass in each of the last five years alleging (a) discrimination and (b) bias against fathers; and how many such complaints were upheld.

This information is not recorded centrally, and the data would only be available from individual case file review at a disproportionate cost.

The Government recognises the importance of reducing offending, including violent reoffending, among children who are on bail through close supervision and high levels of support by skilled staff. We are investing £5 million over the next three years in strengthening the bail packages available for children, so that courts have access to more robust community-based options that both support children to make positive changes and help manage the risk of offending. We are also reforming the annual youth remand funding arrangements to further support greater local authority investment in high-quality community alternatives to custodial remand, including suitable community placements (specialist fostering and accommodation), family support and enhanced Bail Intensive Supervision and Support services. This builds on the Greater Manchester Youth Remand Funding pilot, which has demonstrated promising early findings in improving their bail and community remand offer regionally, to keep children and communities safe. We are now offering multi-year funding to local authorities to scale up this regional model, encouraging areas to collaborate in developing a broader range of bail support options to meet the needs of children and protect the public.

Over the last two years as Cafcass has been developing its domestic abuse policy and updating its guidance, it has worked with key partners, including fathers’ groups.

In addition to this, Cafcass works with external organisations to support the development of its domestic abuse policy and the child impact and assessment framework. This includes engagement through the Domestic Abuse Practice Reference Group. This group, established in November 2023, includes specialist domestic abuse expertise and individuals with lived experience. The group is co‑chaired by the Family Justice Young People’s Board and the domestic abuse charity SafeLives. SafeLives is a charity focused on survivors of domestic abuse regardless of the gender of either the victim or the perpetrator.

Cafcass works in partnership with SafeLives, including through seconded specialist advisers, to inform ongoing practice improvement. The Government has not undertaken an assessment of the adequacy of the balance of Cafcass’ stakeholder representation.

Senior leaders engage regularly with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and her team.  As part of its commitment to learning from practice, Cafcass managers and leaders will meet with adults and children in proceedings if it is considered appropriate. This could include as part of complaints resolution, audit feedback and/or in response to an incident where the quality of practice is considered to have been less than good.

Neither Cafcass nor the Ministry of Justice has entered into any contracts, awarded grants, or commissioned research projects in connection with the revision of domestic abuse practice frameworks since 2016.

Over the last two years as Cafcass has been developing its domestic abuse policy and updating its guidance, it has worked with key partners, including fathers’ groups.

In addition to this, Cafcass works with external organisations to support the development of its domestic abuse policy and the child impact and assessment framework. This includes engagement through the Domestic Abuse Practice Reference Group. This group, established in November 2023, includes specialist domestic abuse expertise and individuals with lived experience. The group is co‑chaired by the Family Justice Young People’s Board and the domestic abuse charity SafeLives. SafeLives is a charity focused on survivors of domestic abuse regardless of the gender of either the victim or the perpetrator.

Cafcass works in partnership with SafeLives, including through seconded specialist advisers, to inform ongoing practice improvement. The Government has not undertaken an assessment of the adequacy of the balance of Cafcass’ stakeholder representation.

Senior leaders engage regularly with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and her team.  As part of its commitment to learning from practice, Cafcass managers and leaders will meet with adults and children in proceedings if it is considered appropriate. This could include as part of complaints resolution, audit feedback and/or in response to an incident where the quality of practice is considered to have been less than good.

Neither Cafcass nor the Ministry of Justice has entered into any contracts, awarded grants, or commissioned research projects in connection with the revision of domestic abuse practice frameworks since 2016.