David Lammy

The Government remains resolutely committed to the principle of family reunion.

When the UK leaves the EU, we will cease to participate in EU instruments at the end of the transition period, including the Dublin Regulation. This means that the ability of unaccompanied children under Dublin to reunite with family will end, unless a replacement agreement is negotiated. The Government has been clear that it is committed to seeking such an agreement with the EU, thereby ensuring these children can continue to reunite with family once we are out of Dublin. The Home Secretary wrote to the European Commission on 22 October to begin negotiations.

The UK will continue to be bound by the Dublin Regulation provisions during the transition period, allowing us to continue to transfer family reunion cases to the UK throughout 2020, and we will continue to process all family reunion requests that have been submitted but not completed under Dublin before the end of the transition period.

The total spending of the Ministry of Justice on services provided under contracts with CGI IT UK Limited in each of the last five years is as follows:

The total spending of the Ministry of Justice on services provided under contracts with CGI IT UK Limited in each of the last ten years is as follows:

MOJ does not hold information regarding what proportion of the data held by MOJ is on databases provided or managed by CGI IT UK Limited.

With reference to the Application Maintenance and Support Contract with CGI IT UK Limited awarded by the Ministry of Justice in November 2020, the expected timetable is for retiring or replacing the 54 applications in scope of the contract at award is as follows:

• 5 applications have been retired or replaced since award; and
• 43 further applications will be retired or replaced as follows
• 7 by the end of financial year 2021/22
• 16 by the end of financial year 2024/25
• 20 following the 2021 spend review period.
• It is expected that the remaining 6 applications will be retained for longer term use

With reference to the Application Maintenance and Support Contract with CGI IT UK Limited awarded by the Ministry of Justice in November 2020, the Ministry of Justice does not intend to publish details of the 54 applications in scope of the contract and their length of use on security advice.

The total spending of the Ministry of Justice on services provided under contracts with CGI IT UK Limited in each of the last five years is as follows:

The total spending of the Ministry of Justice on services provided under contracts with CGI IT UK Limited in each of the last ten years is as follows:

MOJ does not hold information regarding what proportion of the data held by MOJ is on databases provided or managed by CGI IT UK Limited.

With reference to the Application Maintenance and Support Contract with CGI IT UK Limited awarded by the Ministry of Justice in November 2020, the expected timetable is for retiring or replacing the 54 applications in scope of the contract at award is as follows:

• 5 applications have been retired or replaced since award; and
• 43 further applications will be retired or replaced as follows
• 7 by the end of financial year 2021/22
• 16 by the end of financial year 2024/25
• 20 following the 2021 spend review period.
• It is expected that the remaining 6 applications will be retained for longer term use

With reference to the Application Maintenance and Support Contract with CGI IT UK Limited awarded by the Ministry of Justice in November 2020, the Ministry of Justice does not intend to publish details of the 54 applications in scope of the contract and their length of use on security advice.

The total spending of the Ministry of Justice on services provided under contracts with CGI IT UK Limited in each of the last five years is as follows:

The total spending of the Ministry of Justice on services provided under contracts with CGI IT UK Limited in each of the last ten years is as follows:

MOJ does not hold information regarding what proportion of the data held by MOJ is on databases provided or managed by CGI IT UK Limited.

With reference to the Application Maintenance and Support Contract with CGI IT UK Limited awarded by the Ministry of Justice in November 2020, the expected timetable is for retiring or replacing the 54 applications in scope of the contract at award is as follows:

• 5 applications have been retired or replaced since award; and
• 43 further applications will be retired or replaced as follows
• 7 by the end of financial year 2021/22
• 16 by the end of financial year 2024/25
• 20 following the 2021 spend review period.
• It is expected that the remaining 6 applications will be retained for longer term use

With reference to the Application Maintenance and Support Contract with CGI IT UK Limited awarded by the Ministry of Justice in November 2020, the Ministry of Justice does not intend to publish details of the 54 applications in scope of the contract and their length of use on security advice.

The total spending of the Ministry of Justice on services provided under contracts with CGI IT UK Limited in each of the last five years is as follows:

The total spending of the Ministry of Justice on services provided under contracts with CGI IT UK Limited in each of the last ten years is as follows:

MOJ does not hold information regarding what proportion of the data held by MOJ is on databases provided or managed by CGI IT UK Limited.

With reference to the Application Maintenance and Support Contract with CGI IT UK Limited awarded by the Ministry of Justice in November 2020, the expected timetable is for retiring or replacing the 54 applications in scope of the contract at award is as follows:

• 5 applications have been retired or replaced since award; and
• 43 further applications will be retired or replaced as follows
• 7 by the end of financial year 2021/22
• 16 by the end of financial year 2024/25
• 20 following the 2021 spend review period.
• It is expected that the remaining 6 applications will be retained for longer term use

With reference to the Application Maintenance and Support Contract with CGI IT UK Limited awarded by the Ministry of Justice in November 2020, the Ministry of Justice does not intend to publish details of the 54 applications in scope of the contract and their length of use on security advice.

The total spending of the Ministry of Justice on services provided under contracts with CGI IT UK Limited in each of the last five years is as follows:

The total spending of the Ministry of Justice on services provided under contracts with CGI IT UK Limited in each of the last ten years is as follows:

MOJ does not hold information regarding what proportion of the data held by MOJ is on databases provided or managed by CGI IT UK Limited.

With reference to the Application Maintenance and Support Contract with CGI IT UK Limited awarded by the Ministry of Justice in November 2020, the expected timetable is for retiring or replacing the 54 applications in scope of the contract at award is as follows:

• 5 applications have been retired or replaced since award; and
• 43 further applications will be retired or replaced as follows
• 7 by the end of financial year 2021/22
• 16 by the end of financial year 2024/25
• 20 following the 2021 spend review period.
• It is expected that the remaining 6 applications will be retained for longer term use

With reference to the Application Maintenance and Support Contract with CGI IT UK Limited awarded by the Ministry of Justice in November 2020, the Ministry of Justice does not intend to publish details of the 54 applications in scope of the contract and their length of use on security advice.

The publication of the Female Offender Strategy in June 2018 was the start of a new and significant programme of work to deliver better outcomes for female offenders. There was no deadline attached to delivering the Strategy when it was published and we have always been clear that it will take several years to deliver its objectives, including reducing the women’s prison population.

In June 2018, the female prison population was 3,803. This had reduced by 16% to 3,196 by June 2021, although it is likely that the impact of the pandemic will be responsible for some of this reduction. As of October 2021, there were 3,227 women in prison.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) publishes monthly individual prison population and capacity information through the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/prison-population-statistics.

As part of our commitment to coordinate and signpost people to the right legal support, we have made improvements to telephone signposting from MoJ telephone support lines, for individuals who do not fall within the scope of legal aid. In collaboration with DLHUC, we have also developed an online (guided pathway) signposting pilot to help individuals resolve housing disrepair issues in private rented accommodation. The online pilot launched on GOV.UK in April and offers tailored guidance and information about an individual’s rights and responsibilities, with the aim that individuals will be able to resolve their issues independently before they escalate.

The Government has also committed to piloting early legal advice in social welfare law and this pilot will start in early 2022.

The Bail Act 1976 and the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 provides the framework for courts to remand children to custody.

Court outcomes broken down by type of remand and ethnicity are available from 2011 in the Crown Court and 2013 for the Magistrates’ Court and can be found at the following links under remand:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-december-2020

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-december-2016

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterly-december-2015

Information on ethnicity for the Magistrates’ Courts for 2011 and 2012, however, could only be obtained at disproportionate costs.

The Legal Aid Agency publishes volumes of applications and grants for civil representation in the inquest and employment law categories at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/legal-aid-statistics. The published figures (in that link) cover from the 2013/14 and 2006/07 financial years respectively.

Historic volumes are shown below. Please note that the earliest data available in the inquest category dates from the 2002/03 financial year. Data prior to the 2013/14 financial year for this category is sourced from raw data from a legacy operational database which, like any operational database, may contain errors. The figures have not been subject to validation or quality assured to the standard of Official Statistics, and should therefore not be interpreted as such.

The Legal Aid Agency publishes volumes of applications and grants for civil representation in the inquest and employment law categories at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/legal-aid-statistics. The published figures (in that link) cover from the 2013/14 and 2006/07 financial years respectively.

Historic volumes are shown below. Please note that the earliest data available in the inquest category dates from the 2002/03 financial year. Data prior to the 2013/14 financial year for this category is sourced from raw data from a legacy operational database which, like any operational database, may contain errors. The figures have not been subject to validation or quality assured to the standard of Official Statistics, and should therefore not be interpreted as such.

A review of Single Justice Procedure (SJP) cases dealt with between 1st September and 30th October 2020 showed that legal advisers and justices identified errors in 10% of cases. The errors are not caused by the type of proceedings; work done over the summer of 2020 suggested that the primary cause was the volume of regulations and the constant amendments, combined with the speed of introduction and the conditions in which officers issuing fixed penalty notices had to work. In the autumn of 2020, work was done with police forces and justices’ legal advisers to reduce the errors. Anecdotally, and from limited data, the error rate with the new round of SJP proceedings appears to be lower than last year. As the regulations ceased in the summer, the numbers of Covid SJP cases are set to decline.

It is for judges to decide whether it is in the interest of justice to enable a live link to be used having considered representations from parties in the case. We will continue to conduct research and testing to ensure that the current technology is reliable, user-friendly and accessible and meets the requirements of justice.

The MoJ is conducting an evaluation of the HMCTS reform programme to ensure that the effects of reform can be identified and assessed. This evaluation will help identify if the reform programme has met its aims and what effects it had, for whom and why, including the impacts on vulnerable users. Our evaluation framework for HMCTS Reform was published in May 2021. An interim evaluation report is planned for publication in 2022, and a final evaluation report will be published following the end of the reform programme.

We are keen to evaluate impacts as part of any future research however plans for this are still to be confirmed.

Ministry of Justice (MOJ) does not routinely hold data on barristers’ specialisms. However as part of the Criminal Legal Aid Review, MOJ worked with the Bar Council and other stakeholders to combine key datasets which were summarised in a published Data compendium. This shows that the number of barristers in England and Wales who reported themselves as specialising in crime, and who carried out some publicly-funded criminal work, was 2,780 in 2018-19 and 2,690 in 2019-20 (Table 5.3). Comparable data is not available prior to 2018-19.

Table 5.13 shows that, in 2019-20, 87% of this group were junior barristers and 13% were QCs.

In the ten months September 2020 to June 2021 (in line with published statistics) one court recorded an average utilisation rate of below 50%, recording 48%, and no courts were below 25%. This court is the Central Criminal Court and utilisation was affected by a number of factors including maintenance works in two courtrooms and the reconfiguration of eight smaller courtrooms into jury deliberation rooms in support of social distancing. Only court sittings are recorded in utilisation calculations. This is management information and reflects the data held at the date of extraction, which is subject to change.

£6m has been spent on the installation of 74 x-ray body scanners. This sum is comprised of hardware, installation and commissioning costs combined with construction works required in prisons to accommodate the hardware. Some additional associated spend linked to MOJ project and programme resourcing has been incurred but has not been included as is not directly attributed to specific projects.

The remaining investment is for the implementation of measures across a number of priority sites to operate ‘airport style’ gate security, drugs trace detection, mobile phone blocking, an expanded counter corruption investigation team and a new ‘corruption prevention’ function and multi-agency investigations into high harm Serious and Organised Criminals.

The most recent data indicates that 36% of the female prison population are held for offences of violence against the person. However, of the remaining 64%, there may be other offenders held for offences where violence has occurred but because there is no set guidance on which other types of offences should be classed as ‘violent’/’non-violent’, it is difficult to provide an exact total proportion.

Offender management statistics quarterly: January to March 2021 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

To help stem attrition in Operational Band 2-5’s grades Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service has created a retention strategy which is linked to wider activities around employee experience, employee lifecycle and staff engagement at work. As part of this strategy, we are looking at leaver trend data, undertaking in-depth exit interviews and using this feedback to establish the drivers of attrition in Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. Local, Regional or National Interventions are then agreed to ensure that we are embedding retention plans in establishments. This work consists of reviewing existing data, policy, process and benefit arrangements for staff and establishing how best to optimise them in order to retain employees and stabilise the workforce.

There is no centrally held data on the number of children remanded for their own protection and the requested information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

As prison capacity expands, total staffing requirements are increasing. The department carefully monitors resourcing levels to ensure that we can manage current staffing levels and make accurate predictions around future needs. Work is ongoing to define the workforce need in association with the new prisons and expansion projects.

In-cell technology is available in three prisons and one young offender institution. We are currently deploying in-cell technology into a further 11 prisons – including the remaining three young offender institutions.

The technology provides access to digital services and includes educational, mental health content and more.

We plan to make the education providers ‘virtual campus’ system available on the in-cell equipment in due course.

Access to digital education continues to be available to prisoners in other areas of the prison.

The Urgent Notification (UN) process was launched in 2017. Since then, the UN was invoked seven times across Her Majesty’s Prisons and Young Offenders’ Institution:

2018

- HMP Nottingham – invoked on 17 January.

- HMP Exeter – invoked on 30 May.

- HMP Birmingham – invoked on 20 August.

- HMP Bedford – invoked on 13 September.

2019

- HMP Bristol – invoked on 13 June.

- HMP/YOI Feltham A – invoked on 24 July.

2021

- HMP/YOI Chelmsford – invoked on 27 August.

The vast majority of the establishments have made crucial improvements in the areas of concerns highlighted by the Inspectorates. Some of this is noted by the Inspectorates in their follow up visits at the establishments.

The safety and wellbeing of all children and prisoners under our care is paramount so they can turn their lives around. Any concerns raised by the Inspectorates during their visits are taken seriously.

More information on the establishments that were issued with an Urgent Notification can be found on the gov.uk website here.

As of 30 June 2021, 6 women were held in prisons in England and Wales for non-payment of fines.

The death of ‘Baby A’ was a tragedy and we have taken a range of actions to prevent this from happening again in partnership with Health.

On 20 September the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) published a new policy on pregnancy, Mother and Baby Units and maternal separation from children up to the age of two in women’s prisons, which contains a range of reforms for improving the care of pregnant women, including reforms that address the learning from Baby A.

As part of our reforms, we have increased central data collection on self-declared pregnancies in women’s prisons. We will be publishing annual snapshots in the HMPPS Annual Digest. The first publication on 29 July, which covers the period July 2020 - April 2021, showed that on average there were 26 women in prison self-declared as pregnant each week. At present, there is no central collection that breaks this data down into those sentenced and those held on remand, however this is collected locally by individual prisons to ensure care is appropriate.

Women in prison should have access to the same range and quality of healthcare services compared to that which they would find in the community, including midwifery, obstetric and health visiting services. For information on the commissioning of clinical services for pregnant women in prison please refer to NHS England and NHS Improvement, the responsible authority.

The death of ‘Baby A’ was a tragedy and we have taken a range of actions to prevent this from happening again in partnership with Health.

On 20 September the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) published a new policy on pregnancy, Mother and Baby Units and maternal separation from children up to the age of two in women’s prisons, which contains a range of reforms for improving the care of pregnant women, including reforms that address the learning from Baby A.

As part of our reforms, we have increased central data collection on self-declared pregnancies in women’s prisons. We will be publishing annual snapshots in the HMPPS Annual Digest. The first publication on 29 July, which covers the period July 2020 - April 2021, showed that on average there were 26 women in prison self-declared as pregnant each week. At present, there is no central collection that breaks this data down into those sentenced and those held on remand, however this is collected locally by individual prisons to ensure care is appropriate.

Women in prison should have access to the same range and quality of healthcare services compared to that which they would find in the community, including midwifery, obstetric and health visiting services. For information on the commissioning of clinical services for pregnant women in prison please refer to NHS England and NHS Improvement, the responsible authority.

The information requested, from 1st June 2014, can be found at: Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service workforce statistics - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

‘Transforming rehabilitation: a strategy for reform’ was published on 9th May 2013. The National Probation Service (NPS) came into existence on 1st June 2014. The Ministry of Justice do not hold Probation Officer or Probation Service Officers leavers data from the previous Probation Trusts’ for the period between the announcement on 9th May 2013 to the point the NPS was formed on 1st June 2014 or for Community Rehabilitation Companies from the 1st of June 2014 until the services unified in June 2021.

No mother has been denied a place on a Mother and Baby Unit (MBU) in the Women’s Custodial Estate due to lack of capacity since 2017, when current data collection commenced.

As of 17 September 2021, a woman in prison was on average 46 miles from their origin address.

There are complex and wide-ranging issues involved in transferring and locating prisoners, and allocation decisions must reflect both the specific needs and circumstances of the prisoner, including their security assessment, as well as the operating environment and range of services at the receiving prison.

HMPPS is committed to ensuring, where practicable, that prisoners are accommodated as close as possible to their resettlement communities and families. Whilst this is a priority, it is not always possible due to a variety of factors including wider population pressures, or where women have specific sentence planning needs which can only be met at certain establishments.

Around 97% of prisoners have an origin location; i.e. addresses that are recorded in our central IT system. If no address is given, an offender’s committal court address is used as a proxy for the area in which they are resident. This information is included in the data provided above. Those with no recorded origin are typically foreign nationals or those recently received into custody.

The numerical information provided has been drawn from administrative IT systems, which as with any large scale recording system are subject to possible error with data entry and processing.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

Save for the above, whether someone is a survivor of domestic violence is not recorded for types of legal aid for other categories of law, eligibility for which would be subject to the applicable means and merits tests.

The HMPPS Annual Digest for the relevant years, where available, contains information in relation to the number of drug finds on the prison estate. The digest contains all available data on drug type and class.

The Government takes seriously the conveyance of drugs into prisons, including psychoactive substances. In April 2021 we published a National Prisons Drugs Strategy to reduce drug misuse in our prisons, in order to increase safety for both staff and prisoners, and contribute towards ensuring that prisons are places of opportunity and change for prisoners.

In September 2016, HMPPS became the first prison service in the world to introduce innovative mandatory drug tests for psychoactive substances. We have made it a criminal offence to possess psychoactive substances in prison and trained more than 300 sniffer dogs specifically to detect these drugs.

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 the quantity of drugs 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 being prevented from entering prisons.

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 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 table below provides a list of former court buildings which are closed and unsold. Three of these buildings are currently being used as Nightingale courts as a temporary measure as we recover from the impacts of COVID-19.

Holding costs include utilities, rates, maintenance and security, and with the exception of the Nightingale courts, are from the closure of the court until 31^st August 2021. For the Nightingale courts, holding costs are calculated until their date of temporary reopening.

We assessed all unsold former court buildings as potential Nightingale courts, but due to condition issues and operational limitations, only the three buildings noted were suitable.

The decision to close any court is not taken lightly. It only happens following full public consultation and only when effective access to justice can be maintained. Courts that have closed were either underused, dilapidated or too close to another court.

The information that would allow this question to be answered accurately is not held centrally. HMCTS is working to clear the outstanding caseload caused by the pandemic and will ensure that there is capacity to manage any additional appeals that may flow from the state of affairs in Afghanistan.

The information requested for is provided in the attached Tables.

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:

The Ministry of Justice has published information on prosecutions under the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 in England and Wales, up to December 2020, available in the ‘Principal offence proceedings and outcomes by Home Office offence code’ data tool, which can be found here:

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

Data showing the number of defendants prosecuted under section 5 of this Act, in England and Wales from 2010 to 2020 (latest available) can be found in the attached table.

The data supplied is a subset of published information from the Courts Proceedings database.

Following the invoking of the Urgent Notification protocol at Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre (STC) last December, Ministers called an urgent meeting with senior representatives from the provider MTC. HMPPS officials were then instructed to deploy to Rainsbrook to scrutinise actions taken by MTC in response to the Urgent Notification. Subsequent meetings were conducted between officials, with regard to monitoring the Urgent Notification action plan. As this is a contracted service the YCS/HMPPS contract management and commercial teams have met internally and with MTC on a regular basis.

We ordered the provider to take the immediate action necessary to address the unacceptable failings at Rainsbrook, including a focus on ensuring all children in the Reverse Cohorting Unit had a suitable amount of time out of their room. Whilst inspectors acknowledged that this issue had been addressed, and that the Youth Custody Service had strengthened its oversight of the STC, a second Urgent Notification was invoked on 18 June following a full inspection of the centre with reference to separate serious concerns.

We have now transferred all children from Rainsbrook to alternative appropriate accommodation. Separately, we are also considering the future of the centre, with a further announcement to be made on this position in due course following conclusion of the current commercial matters.

The information requested is not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. To answer this accurately each individual personnel file held on each prison officer in post over the last 10 years would need to be examined. Most older personnel files are still held in hard copy format and would need to be brought back from storage.

Due to a lack of data collected on victim characteristics, we do not have any rape or sexual assault statistics available on prosecutions or convictions by victim ethnicity.

However, I am able to provide data on the estimated prevalence rates of rape and sexual assault by victim ethnicity. This can be found at Sexual offences prevalence and victim characteristics, England and Wales - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk).

Information on the ethnicity of the alleged victim or victims of rape and sexual assault offences is not centrally held within the court proceedings database. Overall information on prosecutions and convictions for rape and sexual assault offences in England and Wales, up to December 2020, is available in the ‘Principal offence proceedings and outcomes by Home Office offence code’ data tool, which can be found here:

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

The number of outstanding cases by Crown Court for each year since 2014 is currently published as part of the National Statistics publication ‘Criminal Court Statistics Quarterly’ in the ‘Crown Court cases received, disposed, outstanding tool’. The published data for the second quarters of these years reflects the outstanding caseload in Crown Courts at the end of June of those respective years. The most recent data can be found in Criminal Statistics Quartely January to March 2021 linked below:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-court-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2021

and the received, disposed and outstanding tool can be accessed here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/996073/cc_rdos_tool.xlsx

This data is only available split by individual Crown Court back to 2014.

The Ministry of Justice has published information on prosecutions and convictions for rape and offences 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

In order to isolate rape offences, type ‘rape’ into the ‘Offence’ filter and select all results that appear (19C-19H). Rows 55 to 77 will display a range of values based on sentence lengths.

Rape and sexual violence are devastating crimes that have a long-lasting impact on victims. Provisions in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, currently before Parliament, will ensure that all serious sexual offenders, including those convicted of rape, will be required to serve two-thirds of their sentence in prison if given a standard determinate sentence of more than 4 years.

It is regrettable that you voted against this.

The government recognises the deep distress which the theft of a much-loved pet can cause. All reported crimes should be investigated and, where appropriate, taken through the courts and met with tough sentences. Theft is a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968 and the maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment. The sentencing guidelines for theft, acknowledge that theft which causes emotional distress, or where the items stolen were of substantial value to the loser, regardless of monetary worth, will indicate a higher level of seriousness and the offender should be sentenced accordingly.

There are a range of offences under the Theft Act 1968 which could relate to the theft of a pet depending on the individual circumstances of the case. Centrally held information on theft offences does not identify if a pet specifically was stolen. The information may be held on court record but to be able to identify cases in which pets were stolen would require access to individual court records which would be of disproportionate cost.

The government recognises the deep distress which the theft of a much-loved pet can cause. All reported crimes should be investigated and, where appropriate, taken through the courts and met with tough sentences. Theft is a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968 and the maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment. The sentencing guidelines for theft, acknowledge that theft which causes emotional distress, or where the items stolen were of substantial value to the loser, regardless of monetary worth, will indicate a higher level of seriousness and the offender should be sentenced accordingly.

There are a range of offences under the Theft Act 1968 which could relate to the theft of a pet depending on the individual circumstances of the case. Centrally held information on theft offences does not identify if a pet specifically was stolen. The information may be held on court record but to be able to identify cases in which pets were stolen would require access to individual court records which would be of disproportionate cost.

The government recognises the deep distress which the theft of a much-loved pet can cause. All reported crimes should be investigated and, where appropriate, taken through the courts and met with tough sentences. Theft is a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968 and the maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment. The sentencing guidelines for theft, acknowledge that theft which causes emotional distress, or where the items stolen were of substantial value to the loser, regardless of monetary worth, will indicate a higher level of seriousness and the offender should be sentenced accordingly.

There are a range of offences under the Theft Act 1968 which could relate to the theft of a pet depending on the individual circumstances of the case. Centrally held information on theft offences does not identify if a pet specifically was stolen. The information may be held on court record but to be able to identify cases in which pets were stolen would require access to individual court records which would be of disproportionate cost.

The government recognises the deep distress which the theft of a much-loved pet can cause. All reported crimes should be investigated and, where appropriate, taken through the courts and met with tough sentences. Theft is a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968 and the maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment. The sentencing guidelines for theft, acknowledge that theft which causes emotional distress, or where the items stolen were of substantial value to the loser, regardless of monetary worth, will indicate a higher level of seriousness and the offender should be sentenced accordingly.

There are a range of offences under the Theft Act 1968 which could relate to the theft of a pet depending on the individual circumstances of the case. Centrally held information on theft offences does not identify if a pet specifically was stolen. The information may be held on court record but to be able to identify cases in which pets were stolen would require access to individual court records which would be of disproportionate cost.

The government recognises the deep distress which the theft of a much-loved pet can cause. All reported crimes should be investigated and, where appropriate, taken through the courts and met with tough sentences. Theft is a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968 and the maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment. The sentencing guidelines for theft, acknowledge that theft which causes emotional distress, or where the items stolen were of substantial value to the loser, regardless of monetary worth, will indicate a higher level of seriousness and the offender should be sentenced accordingly.

There are a range of offences under the Theft Act 1968 which could relate to the theft of a pet depending on the individual circumstances of the case. Centrally held information on theft offences does not identify if a pet specifically was stolen. The information may be held on court record but to be able to identify cases in which pets were stolen would require access to individual court records which would be of disproportionate cost.

As has been the practice of successive Administrations, it is not government policy to comment on security procedures in government buildings.

I refer the Rt. Hon. Member to the Cabinet Office guidance to departments on use of private emails.

It is government policy not to comment on specific technical security controls; however, the incidental personal use of private email accounts from departmental systems is subject to our IT Acceptable Use Policy, in spare time.

I refer the Rt. Hon. Member to the Cabinet Office guidance to departments on use of private emails.

It is government policy not to comment on specific technical security controls; however, the incidental personal use of private email accounts from departmental systems is subject to our IT Acceptable Use Policy, in spare time.

We do not currently publish pregnancy data routinely.

As part of our fundamental review of policy relating to mothers and expectant mothers in prison, we have committed to providing national pregnancy data in future.

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:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/905559/summary-report-of-review-of-policy-on-mbu.pdf.

The tragic death of a baby at Bronzefield in September 2019 is subject to a number of ongoing investigations, including by the Prison and Probation Ombudsman. We will reflect any learning from the investigations in our new policy, which will be published shortly.

I can confirm that the Ministry of Justice has referred a number of Freedom of Information requests to the Clearing House during the last two years.

Any FOI requests which are referred to the Clearing House are done so in line with the published criteria available on gov.uk. The Clearing House, which has been in existence since 2004, provides advice to ensure a consistent approach across government to requests for information.

The Ministry of Justice consistently receives some of the highest volumes of Freedom of Information requests compared to other Government Departments and has sustained performance above the Information Commissioner’s timeliness target of 90% for 43 consecutive months.

The Lord Chancellor has a duty to ensure that legal aid is made available in accordance with the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (2012), for cases where the relevant criteria, such as the financial eligibility of the applicant and/or the degree of legal merit in their case, is met, where applicable.

The Ministry of Justice works within HM Treasury allocations as shown in the Main and Supplementary Estimates (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hmt-main-estimates) each year. However, the nature of Legal Aid funding means that it is demand led, and as such the MoJ ensures sufficient allocation is made to cover the incurred costs.

Spend on legal aid since 2010 can be viewed at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/legal-aid-statistics, which currently shows expenditure up to and including December 2020.

The information requested can be found in the tables below.

The first table represents the number of outstanding cases for Teesside Crown Court cases.

The second table represents the number of outstanding cases at Teesside, Peterlee and Hartlepool Magistrates Courts.

Teesside Crown Court cases are reported separately to Teesside Magistrates Court cases as they are different courts.

HMCTS refer to all cases as outstanding rather than a backlog. Strictly speaking, the data below provided below is thus based on outstanding cases and not backlog of cases. There will always be a ‘stock’ of outstanding cases based on the size of each site and mix of cases.

On 23 April, the Cabinet Secretary wrote to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on the management of outside interests in the Civil Service.

The Committee published this letter on 26 April. It can be found here: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/5623/documents/55584/default/

The Cabinet Secretary’s letter sets out a series of steps to improve processes. This programme of work will also take account of any recommendations that emerge from Nigel Boardman’s review.

The Civil Service Management Code sets out, at paragraph 4.3.4, the requirement that civil servants must seek permission before accepting any outside employment which might affect their work either directly or indirectly. The applicable principles are those set out in the Business Appointment Rules. The Civil Service Management Code is published here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-servants-terms-and-conditions.

Where the civil servant is a member of the departmental board any outside employment, as well as other relevant interests will be published as part of the Annual Report and Accounts or other transparency publication.

The Ministry of Justice has published information on the number of defendants sent to Crown Court for trial and sentencing in England and Wales up to December 2019, available in the ‘Magistrates’ Court’ data tool, which can be found here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/888347/magistrates-court-tool-2019.xlsx

The pivot sheet shows the number of defendants sent for trial (row 27) and committed for sentencing (row 29) from the Magistrates’ Court to the Crown Court in each of the last 10 years.

The information requested is provided in the table below for hearings in the Crown Court and the magistrates’ courts:

In the civil courts, we regularly publish data on hearings adjourned due to Covid-19 at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/hmcts-weekly-management-information-during-coronavirus-march-2020-to-february-2021. We have extracted the last three months of data in the table below. Data on hearings adjourned overall in the civil courts is not held centrally, and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

We do not hold data centrally on hearings adjourned in the family courts. Our case management system does record where a hearing has been vacated, but we do not hold information on whether this is because the hearing was adjourned, the case was concluded, or the hearing was not required.

Nightingale courts have provided a much-needed boost to the crown-court system, providing more capacity at a time of social distancing. As at 31 March we have 30 Nightingale courts open, providing a total of 60 courtrooms.

There are 19 Nightingale venues where hire agreements are currently due to expire at the end of June. We are exploring options to extend the leases in order to maximise the use of the court estate. We will continue to consider where Nightingale courts are needed for local operational reasons and we remain in close contact with the landlords of all existing venues.

We have well-developed policies and procedures in place to manage outbreaks and infectious diseases. This means prisons and probation services are well prepared to take immediate action whenever cases or suspected cases are identified. Our measures so far have included restricting regimes, minimising inter-prison transfers and compartmentalising our prisons into different units to isolate the sick, shield the vulnerable and quarantine new arrivals.

Recognising the unique environment in prisons, we routinely test staff and offenders to bolster our defences against the virus, and conduct mass testing in outbreak sites – meaning we can identify more cases, isolate them earlier and move quickly to contain outbreaks and protect the NHS.

The below table shows the establishments which had more than 10 and 50 open positive cases as of 15 February 2021. Open positive cases are individuals who have tested positive and are either still in their isolation period or are still showing symptoms. Establishments that had more than 50 cases are not listed in the more than ten group, and no prisons or YOIs have more than 100 such cases.

It should be noted that although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale recording system. Much of the data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic has been done at pace, with recording practices evolving as we understand more about the requirements and conditions we are facing. In order to present the timeliest information, the data presented in this table have not been subjected to the usual standard of quality assurance associated with official statistics.

We have well-developed policies and procedures in place to manage outbreaks and infectious diseases. This means prisons and probation services are well prepared to take immediate action whenever cases or suspected cases are identified. Our measures so far have included restricting regimes, minimising inter-prison transfers and compartmentalising our prisons into different units to isolate the sick, shield the vulnerable and quarantine new arrivals.

Recognising the unique environment in prisons, we routinely test staff and offenders to bolster our defences against the virus, and conduct mass testing in outbreak sites – meaning we can identify more cases, isolate them earlier and move quickly to contain outbreaks and protect the NHS.

The below table shows the establishments which had more than 10 and 50 open positive cases as of 15 February 2021. Open positive cases are individuals who have tested positive and are either still in their isolation period or are still showing symptoms. Establishments that had more than 50 cases are not listed in the more than ten group, and no prisons or YOIs have more than 100 such cases.

It should be noted that although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale recording system. Much of the data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic has been done at pace, with recording practices evolving as we understand more about the requirements and conditions we are facing. In order to present the timeliest information, the data presented in this table have not been subjected to the usual standard of quality assurance associated with official statistics.

We have well-developed policies and procedures in place to manage outbreaks and infectious diseases. This means prisons and probation services are well prepared to take immediate action whenever cases or suspected cases are identified. Our measures so far have included restricting regimes, minimising inter-prison transfers and compartmentalising our prisons into different units to isolate the sick, shield the vulnerable and quarantine new arrivals.

Recognising the unique environment in prisons, we routinely test staff and offenders to bolster our defences against the virus, and conduct mass testing in outbreak sites – meaning we can identify more cases, isolate them earlier and move quickly to contain outbreaks and protect the NHS.

The below table shows the establishments which had more than 10 and 50 open positive cases as of 15 February 2021. Open positive cases are individuals who have tested positive and are either still in their isolation period or are still showing symptoms. Establishments that had more than 50 cases are not listed in the more than ten group, and no prisons or YOIs have more than 100 such cases.

It should be noted that although care is taken when processing and analysing the returns, the detail collected is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale recording system. Much of the data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic has been done at pace, with recording practices evolving as we understand more about the requirements and conditions we are facing. In order to present the timeliest information, the data presented in this table have not been subjected to the usual standard of quality assurance associated with official statistics.

Escapes from prisons and young offender institutions (YOI) are rare. On the rare occasions that they do occur, the prisoner, once returned to custody, is held in tougher conditions and faces further punishment.

Please see data below for the number of prisoner escapes in England and Wales in 2020 and the prison or institution from which the escape took place.

The data recorded is from April 2019 – March 2020.

Escapes 2019-2020:

From establishments – 1

From HMPPS Escorts – 1

In 2019, there was one escape from a prison establishment in the adult male estate HMP Channings Wood, a male Category C. The prisoner was later caught, returned to custody and received an additional sentence for absconding lawful custody. There were no escapes from YOIs in 2020.

Escapes from prison are rare. Each and every escape is fully investigated and as part of this, any learning from the incident is analysed centrally to offer support to establishments. To ensure public protection prisoners who escape are held in stricter conditions when they are returned to custody. Please see data below for the number of prisoner escapes in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years. The data is recorded every year from April – March, for example, April 2019 – March 2020.

The safety and security of court and tribunal users is paramount. HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has embedded a series of measures designed to keep its buildings, and the people within them (including staff, judiciary, contractors, jurors, and users) safe and secure. Among other things, security search on entry procedures are in place to ensure risks to personal safety are minimised. Details of the policy, including information on items not allowed into court and tribunal buildings are available online.

All illegal drugs discovered on court or tribunal users are confiscated and reported to the police. The data below includes that provided by HMCTS previous security contractors G4S and Mitie. G4S began recording numbers of drug confiscations in April 2017. Mitie began recording this in November 2018. Since April 2020 OCS has been HMCTS’ security provider. The numbers shown below relate specifically to the confiscation of drugs from persons on entry to court or tribunal buildings during ordinary security search procedures. Increased search procedures can take place when defendants enter into custody areas based on risk assessment and these can include a body search.

The information requested is provided in the attached annex

The information provided is for the five largest contracts by total value over the lifetime of the contract.

There are currently no plans to close any courts or tribunals beyond those already announced.

Recovering from the impacts of Covid-19 and keeping our courts and tribunals safe and open is our priority. Measures have been put in place so that court and tribunal rooms are Covid secure and cases have moved to virtual hearings where possible. We have opened Nightingale Courts providing more than 40 additional courtrooms and we are on track to provide a total of 60 courtrooms across the estate by the end of March.

This Government is acutely aware of the risk of victims withdrawing their support from prosecutions because of delays in the Crown Court. It is not possible to provide an estimate of the number of cases where victims have dropped out due to delays caused by the case backlog. However, the Ministry of Justice can provide some data on the number of prosecutions which ended because of the withdrawal of the support of a victim or witness. This can include victims and witnesses dropping out for a variety of reasons, including the impact of delays.

Between January to September 2020, 124 Crown Court case were ended by the prosecution because a witness was absent or withdrew from a trial. This represented 6% of all cracked trials in that 9-month period. By comparison, in 2019 456 Crown Court cases ended due to witness absence or withdrawal – 5.5% of all cracked trials in that year. In 2010, 943 Crown Court cases ended to witness absence or withdrawal – 5.1% of all cracked trials in that year.

Victims deserve to have their cases investigated seriously and pursued rigorously through the courts and we are investing millions to deliver swifter justice and support victims. In 2021-22, we will provide just under £140m for victim and witness support services. Criminal courts continue to recover from the pandemic – magistrates’ backlogs have fallen by 50,000 since last summer, cases dealt with in crown courts reached pre-Covid levels in December, and more rooms are now open for jury trials than before the pandemic.

Numbers of complaints received in relation to the management of private cemeteries are not collated but the department may receive communications from time to time. While private burial grounds are not covered by the same regulations and guidance that govern local authority burial grounds, MoJ anticipates that private cemeteries will adhere to those standards.

The data covering 12 February 2021 has not yet been published and will be included as part of the workforce statistics up to 31 March 2021; which is due to be published in the HMPPS Quarterly Workforce Statistics Bulletin on 20 May 2021.

The latest published data has been used to answer these questions and covers the period to 31 December 2020.

For staff who had reported sick on 31 December 2020, the following prisons showed sickness absence of over 10% of all staff: HMP Norwich, HMP Dartmoor, HMP Elmley, HMP Pentonville, HMP Holme House, and HMP Cookham Wood. They are all adult prisons apart from Cookham Wood which is a Young Offenders Institution (YOI).

There were no prisons or YOIs which had a sickness absence of over 20% on 31 December 2020.

The data covering 12 February 2021 has not yet been published and will be included as part of the workforce statistics up to 31 March 2021; which is due to be published in the HMPPS Quarterly Workforce Statistics Bulletin on 20 May 2021.

The latest published data has been used to answer these questions and covers the period to 31 December 2020.

For staff who had reported sick on 31 December 2020, the following prisons showed sickness absence of over 10% of all staff: HMP Norwich, HMP Dartmoor, HMP Elmley, HMP Pentonville, HMP Holme House, and HMP Cookham Wood. They are all adult prisons apart from Cookham Wood which is a Young Offenders Institution (YOI).

There were no prisons or YOIs which had a sickness absence of over 20% on 31 December 2020.

The HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) approach to risk assessment is set out in our Organisational Risk Assessment (available on gov.uk), and is implemented on the ground by site-specific assessments carried out and kept under regular and frequent review. We work closely with Public Health officials to ensure our approach is entirely in line with prevailing standards and best practice.

Public Health experts have confirmed to HMCTS that our arrangements are strong enough to deal with the challenges provided by the new variants of the virus. In the first week of January we sought and received confirmation from Public Health experts that the policies we have in place to mitigate against the risks of transmission continue to be satisfactory. Public Health experts have confirmed that they are.

Public Health bodies consider scientific advice (including that on the new variant) when making their recommendations on Covid-secure arrangements for all workplaces. HMCTS and PHE officials work alongside one another to produce the documentation already published.

HMCTS’s guidance is published on Gov.uk and can found by using the web address below.

www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-courts-and-tribunals-planning-and-preparation

PHE agreed statement on the matter is published at the link below:

www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-courts-and-tribunals-planning-and-preparation#public-health-experts-confirm-court-and-tribunal-covid-secure-arrangements-appropriate

The HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) approach to risk assessment is set out in our Organisational Risk Assessment (available on gov.uk), and is implemented on the ground by site-specific assessments carried out and kept under regular and frequent review. We work closely with Public Health officials to ensure our approach is entirely in line with prevailing standards and best practice.

Public Health experts have confirmed to HMCTS that our arrangements are strong enough to deal with the challenges provided by the new variants of the virus. In the first week of January we sought and received confirmation from Public Health experts that the policies we have in place to mitigate against the risks of transmission continue to be satisfactory. Public Health experts have confirmed that they are.

Public Health bodies consider scientific advice (including that on the new variant) when making their recommendations on Covid-secure arrangements for all workplaces. HMCTS and PHE officials work alongside one another to produce the documentation already published.

HMCTS’s guidance is published on Gov.uk and can found by using the web address below.

www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-courts-and-tribunals-planning-and-preparation

PHE agreed statement on the matter is published at the link below:

www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-courts-and-tribunals-planning-and-preparation#public-health-experts-confirm-court-and-tribunal-covid-secure-arrangements-appropriate

Total number of HMCTS staff who work in operational roles in Courts and Tribunal locations using Court and Tribunal jurisdictions.

This excludes staff who are based in Courts and Tribunals who do not work directly in a Court and Tribunal such as some HR colleagues that work out of a Court location but are not working in a Court.

We have also excluded staff who would not be covered by selecting the jurisdictional split such as Enforcement, Frontline Support, HQ, Multi jurisdiction, Probate staff and NBC staff. This does not include contractor details because we do not hold this data in our HR data.

Recruitment of judges in England and Wales is undertaken by the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC). The JAC completed 35 recruitment exercises and made 979 recommendations in 2019/20, including 47 district judges, 151 deputy district judges and 17 district judges (magistrates’ court). The costs allocated to each exercise were £44,000 for district judges, £454,000 for deputy district judges and £60,000 for district judges (magistrates’ courts). Due to the different costs incurred for different exercises, judge level recruitment costs are not reported.

The Lord Chief Justice is responsible for judicial training, exercised through the Judicial College. As district judges are required to have previous judicial experience, induction training is tailored to meet the specific needs of each judge based on their previous sitting experience. Of the appointments made in 2019/20, three district judges were required to attend training at a total cost of £10,000. The cost of induction training for deputy district judges was £1.2m plus £873,000 in sitting in days. These are observation days at a hearing before and after training that must be completed by fee paid judges before presiding over a hearing. Induction training was also provided to 30 newly appointed deputy district judges (magistrates’ courts) at a total cost of £81,000. The Judicial College does not calculate the cost per judge of induction training.

In 2019-2020 1,033 magistrates were appointed. HMCTS are responsible for the recruitment and the delivery of training to magistrates and do not collate the costs of magistrate recruitment or training.

Members of the Recruitment and Attraction Steering Group (who are involved in the working groups) are magistrates and lay members of Advisory Committees in each region who were appointed following an Expression of Interest exercise. Diversity data for the Steering Group Members is not separately collated. Other working group members are comprised of officials from MoJ, HMCTS and Judicial Office and we do not separately collate their diversity data for this specific role.

The Judicial Office collate the diversity data of magistrates. Currently, diversity data of applicants to the magistracy is not collated as it is not mandatory for prospective applicants to provide this information. The Magistrates Recruitment and Attraction programme is developing a new recruitment system that will capture diversity data of applicants throughout the application process. The diversity data of appointed magistrates are published in the Judicial Diversity Statistics.

Leadership roles within the magistracy, including those within the Magistrates’ Leadership Executive, are undertaken by appointed magistrates. Leadership roles are openly advertised to all magistrates and filled through either an Expression of Interest exercise or following local selection processes. Diversity data of those who hold leadership roles is not separately collated.

The Judicial Office does not collate socio-economic data of new magistrates. The Judicial Diversity Statistics sets out data on magistrates’ ethnicity, age and gender. By March 2021, the aim is for all Judicial office holders to be encouraged to self-classify against a wider range of diversity characteristics including a means of defining a socio-economic background.

The Judicial Diversity Statistics are published annually and are available through this link: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2020-statistics

Members of the Recruitment and Attraction Steering Group (who are involved in the working groups) are magistrates and lay members of Advisory Committees in each region who were appointed following an Expression of Interest exercise. Diversity data for the Steering Group Members is not separately collated. Other working group members are comprised of officials from MoJ, HMCTS and Judicial Office and we do not separately collate their diversity data for this specific role.

The Judicial Office collate the diversity data of magistrates. Currently, diversity data of applicants to the magistracy is not collated as it is not mandatory for prospective applicants to provide this information. The Magistrates Recruitment and Attraction programme is developing a new recruitment system that will capture diversity data of applicants throughout the application process. The diversity data of appointed magistrates are published in the Judicial Diversity Statistics.

Leadership roles within the magistracy, including those within the Magistrates’ Leadership Executive, are undertaken by appointed magistrates. Leadership roles are openly advertised to all magistrates and filled through either an Expression of Interest exercise or following local selection processes. Diversity data of those who hold leadership roles is not separately collated.

The Judicial Office does not collate socio-economic data of new magistrates. The Judicial Diversity Statistics sets out data on magistrates’ ethnicity, age and gender. By March 2021, the aim is for all Judicial office holders to be encouraged to self-classify against a wider range of diversity characteristics including a means of defining a socio-economic background.

The Judicial Diversity Statistics are published annually and are available through this link: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2020-statistics

Members of the Recruitment and Attraction Steering Group (who are involved in the working groups) are magistrates and lay members of Advisory Committees in each region who were appointed following an Expression of Interest exercise. Diversity data for the Steering Group Members is not separately collated. Other working group members are comprised of officials from MoJ, HMCTS and Judicial Office and we do not separately collate their diversity data for this specific role.

The Judicial Office collate the diversity data of magistrates. Currently, diversity data of applicants to the magistracy is not collated as it is not mandatory for prospective applicants to provide this information. The Magistrates Recruitment and Attraction programme is developing a new recruitment system that will capture diversity data of applicants throughout the application process. The diversity data of appointed magistrates are published in the Judicial Diversity Statistics.

Leadership roles within the magistracy, including those within the Magistrates’ Leadership Executive, are undertaken by appointed magistrates. Leadership roles are openly advertised to all magistrates and filled through either an Expression of Interest exercise or following local selection processes. Diversity data of those who hold leadership roles is not separately collated.

The Judicial Office does not collate socio-economic data of new magistrates. The Judicial Diversity Statistics sets out data on magistrates’ ethnicity, age and gender. By March 2021, the aim is for all Judicial office holders to be encouraged to self-classify against a wider range of diversity characteristics including a means of defining a socio-economic background.

The Judicial Diversity Statistics are published annually and are available through this link: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2020-statistics

Members of the Recruitment and Attraction Steering Group (who are involved in the working groups) are magistrates and lay members of Advisory Committees in each region who were appointed following an Expression of Interest exercise. Diversity data for the Steering Group Members is not separately collated. Other working group members are comprised of officials from MoJ, HMCTS and Judicial Office and we do not separately collate their diversity data for this specific role.

The Judicial Office collate the diversity data of magistrates. Currently, diversity data of applicants to the magistracy is not collated as it is not mandatory for prospective applicants to provide this information. The Magistrates Recruitment and Attraction programme is developing a new recruitment system that will capture diversity data of applicants throughout the application process. The diversity data of appointed magistrates are published in the Judicial Diversity Statistics.

Leadership roles within the magistracy, including those within the Magistrates’ Leadership Executive, are undertaken by appointed magistrates. Leadership roles are openly advertised to all magistrates and filled through either an Expression of Interest exercise or following local selection processes. Diversity data of those who hold leadership roles is not separately collated.

The Judicial Office does not collate socio-economic data of new magistrates. The Judicial Diversity Statistics sets out data on magistrates’ ethnicity, age and gender. By March 2021, the aim is for all Judicial office holders to be encouraged to self-classify against a wider range of diversity characteristics including a means of defining a socio-economic background.

The Judicial Diversity Statistics are published annually and are available through this link: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/diversity-of-the-judiciary-2020-statistics

The Impact Assessment and Equality Statement, published as part of our Judicial Mandatory Retirement Age consultation, outlined our assessment of the potential effects of our proposals to raise the mandatory retirement age for judicial office holders, including magistrates. Our analysis suggests that raising the mandatory retirement age could help to retain valuable judicial resource and expertise but that there could be a small impact on the diversity growth of the magistracy. We anticipate that any adverse impact will be offset by our ongoing work to recruit more diverse magistrates.

The methodology used to calculate the attrition rate is:

(Total annual leavers [12 months]/Average annual headcount [12 months])*100

The % are calculated using permanent and FTC staff headcount figures for on strength staff only.

As at 31 October 2020, the proportion of HMCTS staff, whose full-time equivalent salary is presently below £24,000, is 71.2% equating to 11,542 people.

The information requested is not readily available and to provide it would incur disproportionate cost.

Security is paramount within prisons and it is important that the risk of any potential key compromise is addressed as quickly as possible in order to protect the public. When a key/lock incident is reported an immediate investigation is undertaken to assess the risk and unless it is clear that security has not been compromised, locking mechanisms and keys will be replaced and/or other necessary remedial action will be taken.

The cost of a relock will depend upon the size of the prison establishment and on which keys have been lost or compromised. If a complete set of keys are lost, a full relock of the prison will be undertaken, whereas if a single key is lost only a partial relock will be needed, incurring a lower cost.

We hold contingency funding for key/lock incidents and the cost is met from individual Prison Group directorate budgets. The costs of relocks within private sector prisons are met in full by the private contractors at nil cost to the public purse.

The table below reflects the cost of full and partial relocks to the public purse each year since 2010.

Notes

1. Figures include re-locks arising from loss of keys and where keys have been forcibly taken from staff.

2. The figures quoted have been drawn from live administrative databases and may subsequently be amended. Due care is taken during processing and analysis, but the detail is subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale recording system.

Security is paramount within prisons and it is important that the risk of any potential key compromise is addressed as quickly as possible in order to protect the public. When a key/lock incident is reported an immediate investigation is undertaken to assess the risk and unless it is clear that security has not been compromised, locking mechanisms and keys will be replaced and/or other necessary remedial action will be taken.

The cost of a relock will depend upon the size of the prison establishment and on which keys have been lost or compromised. If a complete set of keys are lost, a full relock of the prison will be undertaken, whereas if a single key is lost only a partial relock will be needed, incurring a lower cost.

We hold contingency funding for key/lock incidents and the cost is met from individual Prison Group directorate budgets. The costs of relocks within private sector prisons are met in full by the private contractors at nil cost to the public purse.

The table below reflects the cost of full and partial relocks to the public purse each year since 2010.

Notes

1. Figures include re-locks arising from loss of keys and where keys have been forcibly taken from staff.

2. The figures quoted have been drawn from live administrative databases and may subsequently be amended. Due care is taken during processing and analysis, but the detail is subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale recording system.

Coroners have a duty under regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013 to send the Chief Coroner their Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) reports and the responses to them. These are uploaded to the Chief Coroner’s website under a number of categories. 1,447 PFD reports have been posted under the category of “Hospital Death (Clinical Procedures and medical management) related deaths”, since 2013. These however include PFD reports that were issued to private hospitals and will not include any reports issued to NHS Trusts for deaths in the community. Determining how many of the PFD reports were to NHS trusts alone could only be done at disproportionate cost.

The full list of PFD reports since 2013 can be accessed online at: https://www.judiciary.uk/subject/prevention-of-future-deaths/

Representation to obtain a protective injunction, or in family law matters where there is a history of violence, is available within the existing scope of the legal aid scheme, subject to eligibility criteria.

Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) exists to provide for cases which would not ordinarily be covered by the legal aid scheme. To qualify for ECF, applicants must meet the ECF criteria as set out in LASPO and described in the Lord Chancellor’s funding guidance. They must also be financially eligible for legal aid and their case must meet the merits criteria to qualify.

Any data on applications for ECF in cases of this type could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) does not hold data on how many Specialist Domestic Violence Courts (SDVC) have been in operation in each one of the last 10 years.

Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), does not hold information on the annual cost of running Specialist Domestic Violence Courts (SDVCs) as the cost is shared across Criminal Justice Agencies and other stakeholders.

Data on the number of referrals made by local authorities to the family courts is not held.

Information relating to the number of children involved in applications made under Parts IV and V of the Children Act 1989 to the family courts is published by the Ministry of Justice on a quarterly basis. Such applications would routinely be made by a local authority, but the Act provides that applications may also be made by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, or another person authorised by order of the Secretary of State to make an application.

The table below details the latest published statistics on the number of children involved in such applications.

Local authorities may also apply to the family courts for forced marriage protection orders (under the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007) and for female genital mutilation protection orders (under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003). Details of the number of such local authority applications made in the 12 months from July 2019 to June 2020 are included in the table below.

The latest Family Courts Statistics Quarterly publication can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-court-statistics-quarterly-april-to-june-2020

No external consultants have been employed and no contracts have been awarded for the specific purpose of implementing temporary Nightingale courts.

The project to implement temporary Nightingale courts has been administered by an in-house team of HMCTS project and programme staff. While the project is in-house, HMCTS has engaged the services of Cushman and Wakefield - Commercial Real Estate Services to a value of approximately £43k to provide specialist support in negotiating licences for hire venues.

These additional hearing venues are being rapidly set up by HMCTS to alleviate the pressure on courts and tribunals resulting from the pandemic

HMCTS has published an update on their response to covid-19 in the criminal courts in England and Wales (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/court-and-tribunal-recovery-update-in-response-to-coronavirus). This provides a comprehensive update on our recovery plans and includes details about Nightingale courts.

No external consultants have been employed and no contracts have been awarded for the specific purpose of implementing temporary Nightingale courts.

The project to implement temporary Nightingale courts has been administered by an in-house team of HMCTS project and programme staff. While the project is in-house, HMCTS has engaged the services of Cushman and Wakefield - Commercial Real Estate Services to a value of approximately £43k to provide specialist support in negotiating licences for hire venues.

These additional hearing venues are being rapidly set up by HMCTS to alleviate the pressure on courts and tribunals resulting from the pandemic

HMCTS has published an update on their response to covid-19 in the criminal courts in England and Wales (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/court-and-tribunal-recovery-update-in-response-to-coronavirus). This provides a comprehensive update on our recovery plans and includes details about Nightingale courts.

No external consultants have been employed and no contracts have been awarded for the specific purpose of implementing temporary Nightingale courts.

The project to implement temporary Nightingale courts has been administered by an in-house team of HMCTS project and programme staff. While the project is in-house, HMCTS has engaged the services of Cushman and Wakefield - Commercial Real Estate Services to a value of approximately £43k to provide specialist support in negotiating licences for hire venues.

These additional hearing venues are being rapidly set up by HMCTS to alleviate the pressure on courts and tribunals resulting from the pandemic

HMCTS has published an update on their response to covid-19 in the criminal courts in England and Wales (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/court-and-tribunal-recovery-update-in-response-to-coronavirus). This provides a comprehensive update on our recovery plans and includes details about Nightingale courts.

The PPO’s final investigation reports into deaths are only published after an inquest has taken place. Reports are not published in advance of the inquest to avoid any possibility of influencing the verdict.

The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) has advised me that she has concluded the independent investigation into the death of a baby at HMP Bronzefield and will shortly issue a draft report to the mother, the prison and the healthcare providers for fact checking, as well as to the coroner for information. A final report will then be produced and sent to the same stakeholders.

She has also advised that the independent investigation into the death of a baby at HMP Styal is ongoing, and that a timescale for publication of the report will not be available until its conclusion.

The Equalities Impact Statement is publicly available on gov.UK: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/953/pdfs/uksipes_20200953_en.pdf

The Race and Ethnicity Board, chaired by Ministry of Justice, oversees all work on reducing race and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system for both children and adults. This board is designed to hold to account policy makers and agencies responsible for tackling disproportionality.

A range of other groups exist at local and national level to provide scrutiny and oversight of racial disparity in the youth justice system, sometimes as part of a broader focus on a particular area of practice or broader focus on equalities across the system.

In response to recommendation 28 of the Lammy Review 2017, HMPPS committed to a target of 14% of all staff recruited being from a Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) background by December 2020.

The latest published workforce statistics evidences information on recruitment diversity statistics. The following outcomes have been identified:

• All Prison Officer Entry Levels: BAME candidates made up 18.2% of applicants and 11.0% of formal offers accepted between July 2018 and June 2020. These proportions varied over the quarters ranging from 14.5% to 29.9% for applicants, and 7.1% to 17.6% for offers formally accepted.

­- Public Sector Prison Officers: BAME candidates made up 17.4% of applicants and 10.7% of formal offers accepted between July 2018 and June 2020. These proportions varied over the quarters ranging from 12.0% to 25.2% for applicants and 7.1% to 17.2% for offers accepted.

­- Youth Custody Services Prison Officers: BAME candidates made up 31.9% of applicants and 22.7% of formal offers accepted over the whole period.

• Officer Support Grades: BAME candidates made up 18.8% of applicants and 12.6% of formal offers accepted, with large variations between the quarters.

While the proportion of prison staff from diverse backgrounds is gradually rising, we recognise we must continue to do more. We continue to work hard to increase diversity in our prison workforce by ensuring we are listening and acting on the views of staff, making adjustments to selection processes to address any areas of disparity and targeting our efforts on areas which may not have a representative workforce.

We continue to keep the provisions of the legislation under review. The Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) was announced on 31^st July; the independent Panel of experts is examining whether there is a need to reform judicial review.

On the 13^th May 2020 PQ42887 provided details of the new contracts that had been signed to deliver additional electronic tagging capacity for the End of Custody Temporary Release scheme in place during the Covid-19 outbreak.

On the 18th May 2020, the Ministry of Justice agreed a contract with Alcohol Monitoring Services Ltd for the provision of monitoring hardware and data analysis services. The contract was let in support of new legislation which came into force on the 19th May 2020 to allow for the roll out of the Alcohol Abstinence Monitoring Requirement across England and Wales which will begin shortly.

The contract was awarded through an appropriate existing public framework

As of 31 August 2020, 68 prison staff had either been taken to hospital following a reported diagnosis of Covid-19 or had subsequently tested positive for COVID-19 in hospital.

This number includes staff not directly employed by HMPPS but who work within the prison such as healthcare and maintenance staff and includes staff in privately manged prisons. The number also includes some staff who were taken to hospital for non-COVID reasons and then subsequently tested positive in hospital.

The origins of the virus will often come from prison officers returning to the community, and we work hard to minimise the import of it into the prison estate.

We do not hold the figures on the number of the staff who required ventilation.

These figures have been drawn from the HMPPS COVID-19 data collection. Care is taken when processing and analysing returns, but the detail is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale recording system particularly where data is self-reported.

The information requested is not held centrally.

The information requested is not held centrally.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

I note the Hon. Member’s interest and indeed that of other Members in this matter, and would seek to provide assurances that discussions are taking place on establishing the statutory review, which will be brought forward as soon as possible.

I note the Hon. Member’s interest and indeed that of other Members in this matter, and would seek to provide assurances that discussions are taking place on establishing the statutory review, which will be brought forward as soon as possible.

I note the Hon. Member’s interest and indeed that of other Members in this matter, and would seek to provide assurances that discussions are taking place on establishing the statutory review, which will be brought forward as soon as possible.

I note the Hon. Member’s interest and indeed that of other Members in this matter, and would seek to provide assurances that discussions are taking place on establishing the statutory review, which will be brought forward as soon as possible.