Ministry of Justice

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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)

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 type^3,4,5 in England and Wales, 12 months ending March 2011 to 12 months ending March 2021

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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:

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.

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.

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

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

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