Josh Fenton-Glynn

The Government communicates across a range of media channels in order to reach its target audience effectively. Channels are selected based on whether they will reach the intended audience on a specific issue to have the most impact.

Social media is an essential part of government communications and is used to inform the public directly about matters which may affect their lives or interests.

The Attorney General’s Office operates five social media accounts across X, LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram and Threads. It has not spent any money on social media subscriptions or advertisements in the last three years.

The Government recognises the impact that crimes of theft have on all our communities, whether rural or urban, and we are committed to tackling the problem.

There is no specific legal definition of agricultural crime and therefore data on it cannot be collated. However, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) holds data on the number of prosecutions where the principal offence category was theft and handling stolen goods.

It is important to note that CPS principal offence category data is only extracted from the Case Management Information System once the prosecution case has been finalised, this means that the following offence data only relates to completed prosecutions and not any ongoing prosecutions.

From 2010 to date, the CPS has prosecuted 57,641 cases with a theft and handling stolen goods principal offence category originating from the West Yorkshire police force area. Of these, 52,286 resulted in a conviction and only 5,355 resulted in an acquittal.

The Government communicates across a range of media channels in order to reach its target audience effectively. Channels are selected based on whether they will reach the intended audience on a specific issue to have the most impact.

The Prime Minister’s Office is a business unit of the Cabinet Office. The Prime Minister’s Office has not spent any money on social media subscriptions or advertising.

The Government communicates across a range of media channels in order to reach its target audience effectively. Channels are selected based on whether they will reach the intended audience on a specific issue to have the most impact.

Below is the Cabinet Office advertising spend through the GCS Framework. Subscriptions are delegated to team level and not centrally managed.

Departmental social media accounts and subscriptions are not centrally managed.

As with any media planning approach, channels are selected based on their ability to engage with relevant audiences in alignment with the government's strategic objectives.

The Cabinet Office is consistently tracking and reviewing spending on communications to ensure efficiency and that the appropriate strategy is implemented. We will not spend more than is needed to be effective and ensure best value for the taxpayer.

The Government communicates across a range of media channels in order to reach its target audience effectively. Channels are selected based on whether they will reach the intended audience on a specific issue to have the most impact. Social media is an essential part of government communications and is used to inform the public directly about matters which may affect their lives or interests.

DBT's spend for the last three calendar years on social media subscriptions was as follows (table):

DBT's spend for the last three calendar years on social media advertising by platform was as follows (table):

DESNZ operates seven social media accounts. Since the Department was established on 7th February 2023, we can only provide information for the past two years. The department spends £84 annually on subscriptions and allocated £366,928 in 2023 and £545,576 in 2024 for advertisements on social media platform.

The Department is responsible for operating a total of 18 social media accounts. This includes a number of accounts currently under review and operated by the Government Digital Service, which recently became a part of the department.

The Department has spent £201.60 on (a) subscriptions – two payments of £100.80 in 2023 and 2024.

To date, the Department has spent £450,901.04 on (b) social media advertisements.

The Department spent £386,615.04 on LinkedIn and £64,286.00 on META in the financial year 24/25.

In addition, the Department has a shared HR function with DESNZ which has a contractual arrangement with LinkedIn Hiring Solutions for the period June 2023 to June 2025, for the amount of £425,123.31.

The Department holds no data prior to the financial year 23/24 due to DSIT only being formed in February 2023.

The Government communicates across a range of media channels in order to reach its target audience effectively. Channels are selected based on whether they will reach the intended audience on a specific issue to have the most impact.

Social media is an essential part of government communications and is used to inform the public directly about matters which may affect their lives or interests. The Government remains committed to scrutiny, transparency and best value for taxpayer money.

The Government communicates across a range of media channels in order to reach its target audience effectively. Channels are selected based on whether they will reach the intended audience on a specific issue to have the most impact.

Social media is an essential part of government communications and is used to inform the public directly about matters which may affect their lives or interests.

(a) Subscriptions: DCMS has had a Premium Plus subscription with X (formerly known as Twitter) for two years which costs £168 per annum, and a Reddit subscription since March 2024 at £60 per annum. A breakdown per financial year is as follows:

• 2024/25 - £228 (X and Reddit).

• 2023/24 - £178 (X and Reddit).

• 2022/23 - £0.

• 2021/22 - £0.

(b) Advertisements: On advertisements, we have calculated figures based on the three previous financial years, excluding 2024/25 given this year has not yet finished. These figures are total amounts spent on advertising and marketing in our campaigns that includes wider campaign costs such as creative development and production, research, evaluation and media channels not limited to social media. We do not have records that give a comprehensive breakdown of each social media platform earlier than FY2023/24 due to the way figures are recorded.

FY2023/24:

• In 2023/24, DCMS spent a total of £601,129.14 on advertising and marketing in our campaigns, of which £110,000 was spent on social media advertising. £35,000 was spent on YouTube and £75,000 on Meta and Snapchat.

• DCMS also spent an additional £600 boosting social media posts on DCMS owned channels.

FY2022/23:

• In 2022/23, DCMS spent a total of £587,958.60 on advertising and marketing in our campaigns, a small contribution of which going to social media advertising. This figure includes campaigns that would now be owned by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which were conducted when DCMS still held the Digital portfolio. Social media channels included: Google, Bing, Netmums, YouTube, Facebook, X/Twitter, Giphy, Acast, Spotify, Snapchat, Loop Me, Instagram, Venatus.

• DCMS also spent an additional £188.53 boosting social media posts on DCMS owned channels.

FY2021/22:

• In 2021/22, DCMS spent a total of £318,844.21 on advertising and marketing in our campaigns, a smaller contribution of which going to social media advertising. This figure includes campaigns that would now be owned by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, which were conducted when DCMS still held the Digital portfolio. Social media channels included: Spotify, Acast, Snapchat, Instagram, Facebook, Loop-Me, Venatus, Youtube, Google, LinkedIn.

• DCMS also spent an additional £639.93 boosting social media posts on DCMS owned channels.

The department uses social media to connect directly and speak with the public on the issues and areas of interest they care most deeply about.

It operates 25 live social media accounts incorporating campaigns and supporting agencies.

The department spends no money on social media platform subscriptions.

The department undertook communications activity across its remit in line with the government’s published communications plans for each year. All spend complies with Cabinet Office spending controls to ensure that, where taxpayer money is being spent on government communications, it is cost-effective, coordinated and reflects functional standards and professional best practices. Activity included delivering joined up, national campaigns to increase supply and demand for technical qualifications, including apprenticeships and T Levels, and skills offers; inspiring more people to teach in schools and colleges; encouraging take up of government-funded childcare; and inspiring more people to become childcare professionals. As part of these campaigns, the department spent the following on paid-for advertising on each social media platform in each complete financial year:

The department is not intending to launch a consultation on reducing the availability of assistive technology support packages and products provided through Disabled Students’ Allowance or the removal of the needs assessment element of applications.

The department has not announced any changes to these areas of the Disabled Students’ Allowance.

The average waiting time for a needs assessment from the date of application to the date of the assessment being carried out comprises the time taken by the Student Loans Company (SLC) to process an application and then the time taken by the contracted suppliers Capita and Study Tech to process the needs assessment.

The time taken by SLC to process an application is published online at GOV.UK here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sfe-current-application-timescales. The latest weekly update, for February, shows that the average time taken for SLC to process an application, shown under the heading “a DSA application”, is currently 7 working days. The average time taken for the contracted suppliers to offer and complete the needs assessment is currently 28 days. Each supplier has been set two individual KPIs to cover the offer and completion of the needs assessment. These are KPI 1, “Booking of a Needs Assessment Appointment (Minimum of 95% of offer of needs assessment appointment made within 2 working days of referral of customer by SLC)” and KPI 2, “Completion of a Needs Assessment (Minimum of 95% of needs assessment interviews should be offered and completed within 7 working days of successful contact (excluding those where the customer has requested an alternative date))”.

Following completion of the needs assessment, both suppliers are required to return the needs assessment report to SLC for review within 5 workings days, as stipulated by KPI 3, “Minimum of 95% of NARs made available to SLC within 5 working days of when needs assessments undertaken (excluding those where the customer has requested to review the needs assessment report)”. It is currently taking suppliers on average 14 days to return the needs assessment report to SLC. The needs assessment is then reviewed by SLC, following which confirmation of entitlement is communicated to the customer on the DSA2 letter. It is currently taking SLC 10 working days to complete this stage of the journey, as noted on the GOV.UK page under the heading “a Needs Assessment report”.

Information on the suppliers’ performance against their KPIs is published online on a quarterly basis here: https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/ds. The next update will be published at the end of February.

All students applying for Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA) are required to have a needs assessment. This means that assistive software for spelling and grammar support has only been awarded when recommended in a needs assessment and agreed by SLC.

Data on the number of students awarded specific assistive software for spelling and grammar support through DSA for the time periods specified in the question is not immediately available, but in the 2023 calendar year this was around 36,000.

A list of the assistive software products for spelling and grammar support that have previously been awarded through DSA is published online here: https://www.practitioners.slc.co.uk/exchange-blog/2017/april/dsa-product-review-process/. This list is for administrative purposes only. Products that are not on the list can also be funded through DSA if they are recommended by a needs assessor and agreed by SLC. Overall, agreed spend on spelling and grammar software through DSA is in the region of £4.5 million to £5 million annually. The total spend on each software product within that varies, as it depends on which products are recommended by needs assessors as being most suitable for students’ needs. As an illustration, in the 2023 calendar year, around 80% of total spend was on non-specialist grammar and spelling products, with Grammarly Premium making up 53% of total spend and Global Autocorrect 24% of total spend. Around 20% of total spend was on specialist grammar and spelling products for specific subject areas such as medicine and law, with Medincle products making up 16% of total spend.

The average waiting time for a needs assessment from the date of application to the date of the assessment being carried out comprises the time taken by the Student Loans Company (SLC) to process an application and then the time taken by the contracted suppliers Capita and Study Tech to process the needs assessment.

The time taken by SLC to process an application is published online at GOV.UK here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sfe-current-application-timescales. The latest weekly update, for February, shows that the average time taken for SLC to process an application, shown under the heading “a DSA application”, is currently 7 working days. The average time taken for the contracted suppliers to offer and complete the needs assessment is currently 28 days. Each supplier has been set two individual KPIs to cover the offer and completion of the needs assessment. These are KPI 1, “Booking of a Needs Assessment Appointment (Minimum of 95% of offer of needs assessment appointment made within 2 working days of referral of customer by SLC)” and KPI 2, “Completion of a Needs Assessment (Minimum of 95% of needs assessment interviews should be offered and completed within 7 working days of successful contact (excluding those where the customer has requested an alternative date))”.

Following completion of the needs assessment, both suppliers are required to return the needs assessment report to SLC for review within 5 workings days, as stipulated by KPI 3, “Minimum of 95% of NARs made available to SLC within 5 working days of when needs assessments undertaken (excluding those where the customer has requested to review the needs assessment report)”. It is currently taking suppliers on average 14 days to return the needs assessment report to SLC. The needs assessment is then reviewed by SLC, following which confirmation of entitlement is communicated to the customer on the DSA2 letter. It is currently taking SLC 10 working days to complete this stage of the journey, as noted on the GOV.UK page under the heading “a Needs Assessment report”.

Information on the suppliers’ performance against their KPIs is published online on a quarterly basis here: https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/ds. The next update will be published at the end of February.

All students applying for Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA) are required to have a needs assessment. This means that assistive software for spelling and grammar support has only been awarded when recommended in a needs assessment and agreed by SLC.

Data on the number of students awarded specific assistive software for spelling and grammar support through DSA for the time periods specified in the question is not immediately available, but in the 2023 calendar year this was around 36,000.

A list of the assistive software products for spelling and grammar support that have previously been awarded through DSA is published online here: https://www.practitioners.slc.co.uk/exchange-blog/2017/april/dsa-product-review-process/. This list is for administrative purposes only. Products that are not on the list can also be funded through DSA if they are recommended by a needs assessor and agreed by SLC. Overall, agreed spend on spelling and grammar software through DSA is in the region of £4.5 million to £5 million annually. The total spend on each software product within that varies, as it depends on which products are recommended by needs assessors as being most suitable for students’ needs. As an illustration, in the 2023 calendar year, around 80% of total spend was on non-specialist grammar and spelling products, with Grammarly Premium making up 53% of total spend and Global Autocorrect 24% of total spend. Around 20% of total spend was on specialist grammar and spelling products for specific subject areas such as medicine and law, with Medincle products making up 16% of total spend.

The average waiting time for a needs assessment from the date of application to the date of the assessment being carried out comprises the time taken by the Student Loans Company (SLC) to process an application and then the time taken by the contracted suppliers Capita and Study Tech to process the needs assessment.

The time taken by SLC to process an application is published online at GOV.UK here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sfe-current-application-timescales. The latest weekly update, for February, shows that the average time taken for SLC to process an application, shown under the heading “a DSA application”, is currently 7 working days. The average time taken for the contracted suppliers to offer and complete the needs assessment is currently 28 days. Each supplier has been set two individual KPIs to cover the offer and completion of the needs assessment. These are KPI 1, “Booking of a Needs Assessment Appointment (Minimum of 95% of offer of needs assessment appointment made within 2 working days of referral of customer by SLC)” and KPI 2, “Completion of a Needs Assessment (Minimum of 95% of needs assessment interviews should be offered and completed within 7 working days of successful contact (excluding those where the customer has requested an alternative date))”.

Following completion of the needs assessment, both suppliers are required to return the needs assessment report to SLC for review within 5 workings days, as stipulated by KPI 3, “Minimum of 95% of NARs made available to SLC within 5 working days of when needs assessments undertaken (excluding those where the customer has requested to review the needs assessment report)”. It is currently taking suppliers on average 14 days to return the needs assessment report to SLC. The needs assessment is then reviewed by SLC, following which confirmation of entitlement is communicated to the customer on the DSA2 letter. It is currently taking SLC 10 working days to complete this stage of the journey, as noted on the GOV.UK page under the heading “a Needs Assessment report”.

Information on the suppliers’ performance against their KPIs is published online on a quarterly basis here: https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/ds. The next update will be published at the end of February.

All students applying for Disabled Students’ Allowance (DSA) are required to have a needs assessment. This means that assistive software for spelling and grammar support has only been awarded when recommended in a needs assessment and agreed by SLC.

Data on the number of students awarded specific assistive software for spelling and grammar support through DSA for the time periods specified in the question is not immediately available, but in the 2023 calendar year this was around 36,000.

A list of the assistive software products for spelling and grammar support that have previously been awarded through DSA is published online here: https://www.practitioners.slc.co.uk/exchange-blog/2017/april/dsa-product-review-process/. This list is for administrative purposes only. Products that are not on the list can also be funded through DSA if they are recommended by a needs assessor and agreed by SLC. Overall, agreed spend on spelling and grammar software through DSA is in the region of £4.5 million to £5 million annually. The total spend on each software product within that varies, as it depends on which products are recommended by needs assessors as being most suitable for students’ needs. As an illustration, in the 2023 calendar year, around 80% of total spend was on non-specialist grammar and spelling products, with Grammarly Premium making up 53% of total spend and Global Autocorrect 24% of total spend. Around 20% of total spend was on specialist grammar and spelling products for specific subject areas such as medicine and law, with Medincle products making up 16% of total spend.

The Government communicates across a range of media channels in order to reach its target audience effectively. Channels are selected based on whether they will reach the intended audience on a specific issue to have the most impact. Social media is an essential part of government communications and is used to inform the public directly about matters which may affect their lives or interests. Defra currently operates 18 accounts across its policy areas and functions. To our knowledge, Defra does not have regular social media subscriptions. Departmental marketing spend for the last 3 years on social advertisements is detailed below:

The Government communicates across a range of media channels in order to reach its target audience effectively. Channels are selected based on whether they will reach the intended audience on a specific issue to have the most impact.

Social media is an essential part of government communications and is used to inform the public directly about matters which may affect their lives or interests.

DfT operates 23 separate social media accounts, and in the last three years it has spent £201.60 on social media subscriptions.

The table below shows how much DfT have spent advertising on social media platforms for each of the last 3 calendar years for public behaviour change campaigns predominantly on road safety and accessibility.

The information requested is provided in the excel workbook attached. A content of the tables provided in the attached workbook is below:

The number of PIP claimants awarded Enhanced Daily Living who scored fewer than 4 point in all Daily Living activities and scored at least 2 points in six, seven, eight, nine or ten Daily Living activities in 2024 by primary medical condition:

1. Respiratory diseases
2. Musculoskeletal diseases (general)
3. Musculoskeletal diseases (regional)
4. Cardiovascular diseases
5. Malignant diseases
6. Neurological diseases

The number of people currently on PIP who did not score 4 points in one category in their last assessment should not be equated with the number who are likely to not to be awarded the daily living component of PIP in future. Our intention is that changes will start to come into effect from November 2026, subject to parliamentary approval. After that date, people already in receipt of PIP will continue to be treated under the current rules, with only new claimants having the new criterion applied. As a result of behavioural responses to the change, we expect that a higher proportion of new claimants will score 4 points against at least one activity than happens currently.

We are consulting on how best to support those who are affected by the new eligibility changes, including ensuring health and care needs are met. We have also announced a wider review of the PIP assessment to make it fair and fit for purpose, which I am leading. We are bringing together a range of experts, stakeholders and people with lived experience to consider how best to do this. We will provide further details as plans progress.

Source: DWP Administrative Data

Notes:

• Data only includes claimants living in regions under DWP policy ownership (England, Wales and Abroad).
• Figures are for assessments from both initial decisions and award reviews, with the date of assessment decision and clearance in 2024.
• Data includes normal rules claimants only, and excludes special rules for end of life (SREL) claimants as they typically receive maximum or very high scores.
• Data only includes working age claimants.
• Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10. Values greater than 0 but below 5 have been replaced with a dash.
• Totals may not sum due to rounding.

The information requested is provided in the excel workbook attached. A content of the tables provided in the attached workbook is below:

The number of PIP claimants awarded Enhanced Daily Living who scored fewer than 4 point in all Daily Living activities and scored at least 2 points in six, seven, eight, nine or ten Daily Living activities in 2024 by primary medical condition:

1. Respiratory diseases
2. Musculoskeletal diseases (general)
3. Musculoskeletal diseases (regional)
4. Cardiovascular diseases
5. Malignant diseases
6. Neurological diseases

The number of people currently on PIP who did not score 4 points in one category in their last assessment should not be equated with the number who are likely to not to be awarded the daily living component of PIP in future. Our intention is that changes will start to come into effect from November 2026, subject to parliamentary approval. After that date, people already in receipt of PIP will continue to be treated under the current rules, with only new claimants having the new criterion applied. As a result of behavioural responses to the change, we expect that a higher proportion of new claimants will score 4 points against at least one activity than happens currently.

We are consulting on how best to support those who are affected by the new eligibility changes, including ensuring health and care needs are met. We have also announced a wider review of the PIP assessment to make it fair and fit for purpose, which I am leading. We are bringing together a range of experts, stakeholders and people with lived experience to consider how best to do this. We will provide further details as plans progress.

Source: DWP Administrative Data

Notes:

• Data only includes claimants living in regions under DWP policy ownership (England, Wales and Abroad).
• Figures are for assessments from both initial decisions and award reviews, with the date of assessment decision and clearance in 2024.
• Data includes normal rules claimants only, and excludes special rules for end of life (SREL) claimants as they typically receive maximum or very high scores.
• Data only includes working age claimants.
• Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10. Values greater than 0 but below 5 have been replaced with a dash.
• Totals may not sum due to rounding.

The information requested is provided in the excel workbook attached. A content of the tables provided in the attached workbook is below:

The number of PIP claimants awarded Enhanced Daily Living who scored fewer than 4 point in all Daily Living activities and scored at least 2 points in six, seven, eight, nine or ten Daily Living activities in 2024 by primary medical condition:

1. Respiratory diseases
2. Musculoskeletal diseases (general)
3. Musculoskeletal diseases (regional)
4. Cardiovascular diseases
5. Malignant diseases
6. Neurological diseases

The number of people currently on PIP who did not score 4 points in one category in their last assessment should not be equated with the number who are likely to not to be awarded the daily living component of PIP in future. Our intention is that changes will start to come into effect from November 2026, subject to parliamentary approval. After that date, people already in receipt of PIP will continue to be treated under the current rules, with only new claimants having the new criterion applied. As a result of behavioural responses to the change, we expect that a higher proportion of new claimants will score 4 points against at least one activity than happens currently.

We are consulting on how best to support those who are affected by the new eligibility changes, including ensuring health and care needs are met. We have also announced a wider review of the PIP assessment to make it fair and fit for purpose, which I am leading. We are bringing together a range of experts, stakeholders and people with lived experience to consider how best to do this. We will provide further details as plans progress.

Source: DWP Administrative Data

Notes:

• Data only includes claimants living in regions under DWP policy ownership (England, Wales and Abroad).
• Figures are for assessments from both initial decisions and award reviews, with the date of assessment decision and clearance in 2024.
• Data includes normal rules claimants only, and excludes special rules for end of life (SREL) claimants as they typically receive maximum or very high scores.
• Data only includes working age claimants.
• Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10. Values greater than 0 but below 5 have been replaced with a dash.
• Totals may not sum due to rounding.

The information requested is provided in the excel workbook attached. A content of the tables provided in the attached workbook is below:

The number of PIP claimants awarded Enhanced Daily Living who scored fewer than 4 point in all Daily Living activities and scored at least 2 points in six, seven, eight, nine or ten Daily Living activities in 2024 by primary medical condition:

1. Respiratory diseases
2. Musculoskeletal diseases (general)
3. Musculoskeletal diseases (regional)
4. Cardiovascular diseases
5. Malignant diseases
6. Neurological diseases

The number of people currently on PIP who did not score 4 points in one category in their last assessment should not be equated with the number who are likely to not to be awarded the daily living component of PIP in future. Our intention is that changes will start to come into effect from November 2026, subject to parliamentary approval. After that date, people already in receipt of PIP will continue to be treated under the current rules, with only new claimants having the new criterion applied. As a result of behavioural responses to the change, we expect that a higher proportion of new claimants will score 4 points against at least one activity than happens currently.

We are consulting on how best to support those who are affected by the new eligibility changes, including ensuring health and care needs are met. We have also announced a wider review of the PIP assessment to make it fair and fit for purpose, which I am leading. We are bringing together a range of experts, stakeholders and people with lived experience to consider how best to do this. We will provide further details as plans progress.

Source: DWP Administrative Data

Notes:

• Data only includes claimants living in regions under DWP policy ownership (England, Wales and Abroad).
• Figures are for assessments from both initial decisions and award reviews, with the date of assessment decision and clearance in 2024.
• Data includes normal rules claimants only, and excludes special rules for end of life (SREL) claimants as they typically receive maximum or very high scores.
• Data only includes working age claimants.
• Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10. Values greater than 0 but below 5 have been replaced with a dash.
• Totals may not sum due to rounding.

The information requested is provided in the excel workbook attached. A content of the tables provided in the attached workbook is below:

The number of PIP claimants awarded Enhanced Daily Living who scored fewer than 4 point in all Daily Living activities and scored at least 2 points in six, seven, eight, nine or ten Daily Living activities in 2024 by primary medical condition:

1. Respiratory diseases
2. Musculoskeletal diseases (general)
3. Musculoskeletal diseases (regional)
4. Cardiovascular diseases
5. Malignant diseases
6. Neurological diseases

The number of people currently on PIP who did not score 4 points in one category in their last assessment should not be equated with the number who are likely to not to be awarded the daily living component of PIP in future. Our intention is that changes will start to come into effect from November 2026, subject to parliamentary approval. After that date, people already in receipt of PIP will continue to be treated under the current rules, with only new claimants having the new criterion applied. As a result of behavioural responses to the change, we expect that a higher proportion of new claimants will score 4 points against at least one activity than happens currently.

We are consulting on how best to support those who are affected by the new eligibility changes, including ensuring health and care needs are met. We have also announced a wider review of the PIP assessment to make it fair and fit for purpose, which I am leading. We are bringing together a range of experts, stakeholders and people with lived experience to consider how best to do this. We will provide further details as plans progress.

Source: DWP Administrative Data

Notes:

• Data only includes claimants living in regions under DWP policy ownership (England, Wales and Abroad).
• Figures are for assessments from both initial decisions and award reviews, with the date of assessment decision and clearance in 2024.
• Data includes normal rules claimants only, and excludes special rules for end of life (SREL) claimants as they typically receive maximum or very high scores.
• Data only includes working age claimants.
• Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10. Values greater than 0 but below 5 have been replaced with a dash.
• Totals may not sum due to rounding.

The tables attached show, respectively, the number of referrals received for mental health services, excluding NHS Talking Therapies, by NHS England region, primary reason for referral, and waiting time for entering treatment, and the number of referrals received for NHS Talking Therapies services, by NHS England region and presenting complaint, for the financial years 2021/22 to 2023/24. For the first table, data for completed treatment cannot be provided as there is no definition for completed treatment.

During April 2025, 98.5% of referrals to NHS Talking Therapy services which completed treatment had entered treatment within 18 weeks of the referral starting. As a result, the numbers of individual referrals broken down by for the waiting times requested, presenting condition, and NHS England region, would largely be suppressed and there may also be data errors which can incorrectly show extremely long waits. Therefore, these data have not been provided as they do not provide insight to the question and may potentially be misleading. Waiting times data for each region can be found in the NHS monthly Talking Therapies statistics publication, at the following link:

https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs-talking-therapies-monthly-statistics-including-employment-advisors

Caution should be used when interpreting this data. Comparisons at low levels and between providers may not be reflective of the performance of the provider due to high levels of suppressed values due to small numbers. Primary reason for referral is not a mandatory field and completeness levels can be relatively low and vary between providers. Furthermore, if a provider has a small number of people in a specific category, a seemingly large difference between two providers might not be statistically significant and could be due to random chance. Comparisons over time should also be interpreted with caution, as completeness in the dataset has improved over time, with the numbers of providers increasing year on year, which will impact comparisons.

A document containing two tables showing the number of referrals received for mental health services, excluding NHS Talking Therapies, by primary reason for referral, and the number of referrals received for NHS Talking Therapies services by presenting complaint, sorted by provider, integrated care board (ICB), and NHS England region, from 2021/22 to 2023/24, is attached.

We do not hold information on presenting conditions for people referred to NHS Talking Therapies who are waiting for a first contact. This is because the first contact will involve an initial assessment which includes, amongst other activity: discussing the patient’s view of the current main problem(s) and the impact on their life; exploring the patient's history of mental health problems; an exploration of any psychological processes that are likely to maintain the patient’s presenting problems; an exploration of any adverse circumstances that maintain a patient’s presenting symptoms; identification of the appropriate problem descriptor(s); and the completion of the NHS Talking Therapies Data Set. Until this initial assessment contact has taken place, any presenting conditions are not recorded. Unlike the Mental Health Services Data Set, within NHS Talking Therapies a 'reason for referral' accompanying the initial referral to the service is not separately recorded.

Caution should be used when interpreting this data. Comparisons at low levels and between providers may not be reflective of the performance of the provider due to high levels of suppressed values due to small numbers. Primary reason for referral is not a mandatory field and completeness levels can be relatively low and vary between providers. Furthermore, if a provider has a small number of people in a specific category, a seemingly large difference between two providers might not be statistically significant and could be due to random chance. Comparisons over time should also be interpreted with caution, as completeness in the dataset has improved over time, with the numbers of providers increasing year on year, which will impact comparisons.

A document containing two tables showing the number of referrals received for mental health services, excluding NHS Talking Therapies, by primary reason for referral, and the number of referrals received for NHS Talking Therapies services by presenting complaint, sorted by provider, integrated care board (ICB), and NHS England region, from 2021/22 to 2023/24, is attached.

We do not hold information on presenting conditions for people referred to NHS Talking Therapies who are waiting for a first contact. This is because the first contact will involve an initial assessment which includes, amongst other activity: discussing the patient’s view of the current main problem(s) and the impact on their life; exploring the patient's history of mental health problems; an exploration of any psychological processes that are likely to maintain the patient’s presenting problems; an exploration of any adverse circumstances that maintain a patient’s presenting symptoms; identification of the appropriate problem descriptor(s); and the completion of the NHS Talking Therapies Data Set. Until this initial assessment contact has taken place, any presenting conditions are not recorded. Unlike the Mental Health Services Data Set, within NHS Talking Therapies a 'reason for referral' accompanying the initial referral to the service is not separately recorded.

Caution should be used when interpreting this data. Comparisons at low levels and between providers may not be reflective of the performance of the provider due to high levels of suppressed values due to small numbers. Primary reason for referral is not a mandatory field and completeness levels can be relatively low and vary between providers. Furthermore, if a provider has a small number of people in a specific category, a seemingly large difference between two providers might not be statistically significant and could be due to random chance. Comparisons over time should also be interpreted with caution, as completeness in the dataset has improved over time, with the numbers of providers increasing year on year, which will impact comparisons.

The tables attached show, respectively, the number of referrals received by providers for mental health services, excluding NHS Talking Therapies, sorted by primary reason for referral and waiting time for entering treatment, and the number of referrals received by providers for NHS Talking Therapies services by presenting complaint, for financial years 2021/22 to 2023/24. For the first table, data for completed treatment cannot be provided as there is no definition for completed treatment.

During April 2025, 98.5% of referrals to NHS Talking Therapy services which completed treatment had entered treatment within 18 weeks of the referral starting. As a result, the numbers of individual referrals broken down by for the waiting times requested, presenting condition and provider would largely be suppressed and there may also be data errors which can incorrectly show extremely long waits. Therefore, these data have not been provided as they do not provide insight to the question and may potentially be misleading. Waiting times data for each provider can be found in the NHS monthly Talking Therapies statistics publication, which is available at the following link:

https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs-talking-therapies-monthly-statistics-including-employment-advisors

Caution should be used when interpreting this data. Comparisons at low levels and between providers may not be reflective of the performance of the provider due to high levels of suppressed values due to small numbers. Primary reason for referral is not a mandatory field and completeness levels can be relatively low and vary between providers. Furthermore, if a provider has a small number of people in a specific category, a seemingly large difference between two providers might not be statistically significant and could be due to random chance. Comparisons over time should also be interpreted with caution, as completeness in the dataset has improved over time, with the numbers of providers increasing year on year, which will impact comparisons.

The tables attached show, respectively, the number of referrals received for mental health services, excluding NHS Talking Therapies, sorted by integrated care board (ICB), primary reason for referral, and the waiting time for entering treatment, and the number of referrals received for NHS Talking Therapies services, sorted by ICB and by presenting complaint, for the financial years 2021/22 to 2023/24.

During April 2025, 98.5% of referrals to NHS Talking Therapy services which completed treatment had entered treatment within 18 weeks of the referral starting. As a result, the numbers of individual referrals broken down by for the waiting times requested, presenting condition, and integrated care board, would largely be suppressed and there may also be data errors which can incorrectly show extremely long waits. Therefore, these data have not been provided as they do not provide insight to the question and may potentially be misleading. Waiting times data for each ICB can be found in the NHS monthly Talking Therapies statistics publication, at the following link:

https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs-talking-therapies-monthly-statistics-including-employment-advisors

Caution should be used when interpreting this data. Comparisons at low levels and between providers may not be reflective of the performance of the provider due to high levels of suppressed values due to small numbers. Primary reason for referral is not a mandatory field and completeness levels can be relatively low and vary between providers. Furthermore, if a provider has a small number of people in a specific category, a seemingly large difference between two providers might not be statistically significant and could be due to random chance. Comparisons over time should also be interpreted with caution, as completeness in the dataset has improved over time, with the numbers of providers increasing year on year, which will impact comparisons.