Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prison guards were formally investigated for conveyance of (a) drugs, (b) weapons, (c) tobacco and (d) other illicit material in each year since 2015.

Answered by Edward Argar - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

It is not possible to break down the charge of trafficking into the specific categories of drugs, weapons, tobacco, or other illicit material in our departmental-wide data.

The vast majority of Prison Service staff are hardworking and honest. A minority of staff engage in corrupt activity which is often as a result of conditioning and manipulation by prisoners, and we are doing more than ever to catch the small number who break the rules. We drive a culture of the highest professional standards, and we are committed to addressing wrongdoing sensitively and fairly, preventing it escalating into corruption. Where corruption does take place, however, we provide a robust response.

This is on top of robust vetting procedures, including criminal record checks, while our £100 million Security Investment Programme aimed to improve security with a focus on technology, such as X-ray body scanners. This endeavours to improve our ability to detect and disrupt drugs from entering prisons, supported by enhancements to intelligence and counter corruption capabilities.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people breached tagging orders by curfew type in each year since 2018.

Answered by Gareth Bacon

Data showing the number of defendants and offenders given new electronically monitored orders by cohort and in total, since April 2017, is available in Table 1.2 of the Data Tables accompanying the most recent Electronic Monitoring Statistics Publication: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electronic-monitoring-statistics-publication-march-2024.

The department is currently unable to provide data on the number of individuals who have breached an order each year since 2018 due to non-compliance with an electronically monitored curfew because it is not held.

Courts will decide whether a defendant (for court bail) or, in some cases, an offender serving a community sentence (community order, suspended sentence order, youth rehabilitation order) are in breach of an order that includes electronically monitored compliance with a condition or requirement. In determining whether a breach or the order has occurred they may take into account a number of factors, not exclusively the electronically monitored requirement. Therefore, we are unable to reliably collect data identifying the reason for breach in some of these cases and whether this was exclusively as a result of non-compliance with a curfew requirement.

Similarly, for offenders on post-custody licence, where probation is alerted to a non-compliance with an electronically monitored condition of their licence, they may consider a number of factors, including a reasonable excuse, such as a hospital admission, and whether there is a risk to the public indicated by additional factors. Therefore, when a decision is made to recall an offender to custody for a breach of licence conditions, the electronically monitored condition may be just one factor.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people were given tagging orders in each year since 2018.

Answered by Gareth Bacon

Data showing the number of defendants and offenders given new electronically monitored orders by cohort and in total, since April 2017, is available in Table 1.2 of the Data Tables accompanying the most recent Electronic Monitoring Statistics Publication: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/electronic-monitoring-statistics-publication-march-2024.

The department is currently unable to provide data on the number of individuals who have breached an order each year since 2018 due to non-compliance with an electronically monitored curfew because it is not held.

Courts will decide whether a defendant (for court bail) or, in some cases, an offender serving a community sentence (community order, suspended sentence order, youth rehabilitation order) are in breach of an order that includes electronically monitored compliance with a condition or requirement. In determining whether a breach or the order has occurred they may take into account a number of factors, not exclusively the electronically monitored requirement. Therefore, we are unable to reliably collect data identifying the reason for breach in some of these cases and whether this was exclusively as a result of non-compliance with a curfew requirement.

Similarly, for offenders on post-custody licence, where probation is alerted to a non-compliance with an electronically monitored condition of their licence, they may consider a number of factors, including a reasonable excuse, such as a hospital admission, and whether there is a risk to the public indicated by additional factors. Therefore, when a decision is made to recall an offender to custody for a breach of licence conditions, the electronically monitored condition may be just one factor.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many multi-agency public protection arrangements referrals were made to probation services for category (a) one, (b) two and (c) three offenders in each year since 2015.

Answered by Edward Argar - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) are the set of arrangements through which the Police, Probation and Prison Services work together with other agencies to assess and manage the risks posed by violent, sexual and terrorism offenders in the community.

There are four categories of offender eligible for MAPPA management, in accordance with the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003:

• Category 1 are subject to sex offender notification requirements;
• Category 2 are mainly violent offenders with sentences of over 12 months custody or a hospital order;
• Category 3 are other offenders whose offending indicates they may present risk of serious harm; and
• Category 4 are terrorist or terrorism-risk offenders..

Most offenders managed under MAPPA qualify automatically for MAPPA management due to their offence and sentence. Therefore, referrals are necessary only where the offender needs to be managed via formal multi-agency meetings.

We do not hold data on the number of referrals made each year. Specific data on the number of individuals managed under MAPPA in each category on 31 March each year since 2006-7 is published in Table 2(a) at MAPPA_Annual_Report_2022-23.xlsx (live.com). Data on the number of individuals managed at each Level on 31 March each year since 2013-14 are published in Table 2(b) at MAPPA_Annual_Report_2022-23.xlsx (live.com).

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many times force been used on (a) adult women and (b) female youth prisoners in each year since 2010.

Answered by Edward Argar - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

The information requested is not held centrally for adult women. The Ministry of Justice does not hold use of force data that covers the whole time period requested for adult women.

Data for girls, children and young people can be found within the Safety in the Childrens and Young Persons Secure Estate publication (2022/23 only) Use of force data is published annually with 2023/24 published in July 2024. For years prior to this, there is information on use of force (Restrictive Physical Intervention only) held in the Youth Justice Annual Statistics.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/youth-justice-statistics

The use of force is only to be used when other methods not involving force have been tried and failed or are unlikely to succeed. Officers must then complete a report, outlining why the use of force was necessary, reasonable and proportionate. Prisons and Youth Custody establishments monitor the use of force and take action where there is inappropriate use or poor practice.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many allegations of misconduct were received by the Tackling Unacceptable Behaviours Unit by allegation type in each year since 2015.

Answered by Edward Argar - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

There is no place in His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) for any form of unacceptable behaviour. Any allegation of unacceptable behaviour is taken seriously and investigated. Where appropriate, disciplinary action is taken.

The Tackling Unacceptable Behaviours Unit (TUBU) was established in August 2020. Its aim is to help improve the working environment by providing support, insight and expertise to staff who raise concerns. The services TUBU provides include a confidential helpline to support staff who are experiencing any form of unacceptable behaviour (bullying, harassment, discrimination or victimisation); a mediation service to resolve workplace conflict; and an investigation service.

The investigation service enables managers to obtain advice and signposting, and gives access to qualified investigators, where there is an allegation of bullying, harassment, discrimination or victimisation. It was launched across HMPPS in December 2023. It is therefore too early to provide annual figures for the numbers of allegation of misconduct it has received.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of random mandatory drug tests gave a positive result in each (a) prison and (b) young offender institution in the last 12 months.

Answered by Edward Argar - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

Figures for random Mandatory Drug Testing (rMDT) for 2023/24 cannot be released at this time, as rMDT data for April 2023 - March 2024 is subject to future publication in the 2023-24 HMPPS Annual Digest, to be published in July 2024.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many offenders were marked with a (a) corrupter alert and (b) potential corrupter alert on 1 May in each year since 2015.

Answered by Edward Argar - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

The vast majority of prison staff are hardworking and dedicated. A minority of staff engage in corrupt activity which is often as a result of conditioning and manipulation by prisoners.

HMPPS defines a known corruptor as an individual (usually a prisoner or supervised individual) who has received an adjudication or criminal justice outcome related to corrupting staff members.

HMPPS defines a potential corruptor as an individual (usually a prisoner or supervised individual) who has not received an adjudication or criminal justice outcome related to corrupting staff, however there is indication, intelligence or otherwise, that they have attempted to corrupt staff. The individual will usually also have identified risk factors that increases their likelihood and capability of attempting to corrupt our staff.

The HMPPS system which holds alerts does not have a report built in that would allow us to establish the exact number of prisoners with alerts for a specific time frame or date, and it is not information that the Counter Corruption Unit (CCU) has tracked in the time period given. It is therefore not possible to provide details outside of the current data, nor a yearly breakdown.

To provide the requested data, it would be a disproportionate cost to check individual records to provide an answer to this question.

The overwhelming majority of our prison staff are hardworking and honest but thanks to our action – including bolstering our CCU – we are rooting out more of the small minority who are not.

This is on top of robust vetting procedures including criminal record checks, while our £100 million investment into tough security measures such as X ray body scanners is helping cut the supply of drugs entering jails.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many vacancies were there in the high security estate on 1 May in each year since 2010; and what the vacancy rate was on each date.

Answered by Edward Argar - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

Following a period of staffing challenges after the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen a substantial improvement in the national staffing picture within prisons. The number of Band 3-5 Prison Officers increased by 1,396 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) between 31 March 2023 and 31 March 2024, and resignation rates have fallen over the same period. This is the result of significant efforts across the agency, including substantial increases in pay for staff and launching our first-ever nationwide advertising campaign.

However, challenges remain in some sites and where we see persistent staffing challenges, we take a targeted approach, supporting prisons with tailored recruitment and marketing support. Where establishments experience temporary staffing shortfalls, they can seek support through processes managed nationally at an Agency level via the Strategic Enhanced Resourcing Support (SERS) panel. All applications to the SERS panel are considered thoroughly and support available includes overtime payments and detached duty staff from other establishments.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) only holds indicative vacancy data for prisons going back to 2017. As a result, we have presented the average number of indicative vacancies for the month of May for each year from 2017 to 2023. The Staff in Post dataset we use for comparison with Target Staffing presents a month average position (rather than looking at staffing on a particular date), adjusted for joiners and leavers in month. Indicative vacancy data for May 2024 is not currently available, but we have provided the Staff in Post increase from Table 15 of the published statistics for the Long Term & High Security Estate from 30 June 2023 to 31 March 2024 for context (HM Prison and Probation Service workforce statistics - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)). Target Staffing levels cannot be used to directly calculate vacancies due to the discretion governors have to change establishment level staffing requirements through Governors' freedoms. As a result, the MoJ does not regularly present vacancy data (hence use of the term indicative vacancies) and the data presented should be treated with caution.

An indicative vacancy (FTE) has been calculated as the difference between Target Staffing (FTE) and Staff in Post (FTE). In Table One we have netted off surpluses and deficits between grades and establishments to give an overall net number of indicative vacancies. This means that deficits for some grades and establishments will have been offset by surpluses at other grades and establishments. The indicative vacancy rate has been calculated as the number of indicative vacancies (FTE) divided by overall Target Staffing (FTE) across the Long Term & High Security Estate. The data included covers both operational and non-operational roles.

Where prisons are not at their Target Staffing level, these are routinely supplemented (e.g., by using Payment Plus, a form of overtime) which is not accounted for in the indicative vacancy data provided. Use of detached duty, a long-standing mechanism to deploy staff from one prison or region to support another, is also not reflected in the data.

Table One: Total Indicative Vacancies across Long Term & High Security Estate, May 2017 to May 2023

*Due to a re-role of prisons, HMP Aylesbury has been excluded from the Long Term & High Security Estate for 2017 and 2023.

Looking at all staff grades for the Long Term & High Security Estate between 30 June 2023 and 31 March 2024, there was an increase of 376 FTE.

Notes

1. We do not hold readily accessible and consistent data prior to March 2017. May 2024 data is not yet available (and will not be available until the HMPPS Workforce Statistics publication on 15 August), but we have provided the Staff in Post increase from Table 15 of the published statistics for the Long Term & High Security Estate from 30 June 2023 to 31 March 2024 for context.
2. Data have been taken from Workforce Planning Tool returns and show the average position across May for each year, adjusted for joiners and leavers in the month.
3. Workforce Planning Tools are manually completed by Prisons each month and, as with any manual returns, are subject to human error.
4. The Long Term & High Security Estate includes: Belmarsh, Frankland, Full Sutton, Garth, Gartree, Isle of Wight, Long Lartin, Manchester, Swaleside, Wakefield, Whitemoor and Woodhill. Aylesbury is also included between 2018 and 2022.
5. Indicative vacancies are the difference between Target Staffing and Staff in Post at the overall LTHSE level.
6. Target Staffing (FTE) is the number of staff required to run an optimal regime in each prison. This level is greater than the minimum number of staff required for a prison to operate safely, and includes allowances for staff taking leave, being off sick or being on training.
7. The Target Staffing figures are set on a site-specific basis and vary in size. Target Staffing figures have been set based on a 39-hour contract or 37-hour contract depending on the job in question.
8. All staffing grades (both operational and non-operational) have been included in this analysis. For some operational grades where Target Staffing levels have been established based on a 39-hour working week, Staff in Post (FTE) is set at 1.0 FTE for those on a 39-hour contract / 1.05 FTE for those on a 41-hour contract and 0.95 FTE for those on a 37-hour contract.
9. Target Staffing levels cannot be used to directly calculate vacancies due to the discretion governors have to change establishment level staffing requirements through Governors' freedoms. As a result, the MoJ does not regularly present vacancy data and the data presented should be treated with caution.
10. Staff in Post data used to calculate an indicative number of vacancies does not take into account those on long-term absences (e.g. career breaks / loans / secondments / agency staff or other forms of overtime).
11. The above totals are a combination of indicative vacancies at prisons with Staff in Post below their Target Staffing Figure and indicative surplus staff at other prisons where Staff in Post is above their Target Staffing Figure (both following netting off of surpluses and deficits between grades within an establishment). Some prisons with surplus staff are sending proportions of those staff to work on Detached Duty at prisons with vacancies, and therefore netting some of these indicative vacancies against surpluses provides a more reasonable reflection of the overall national or regional position.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prison guards were working in high security prisons by grade on 1 May in each year since 2010.

Answered by Edward Argar - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

The quarterly HMPPS workforce statistics publication covers staffing information and the latest publication covers data up to 31 March 2024.

HM Prison and Probation Service workforce statistics - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Ensuring we attract people with the right skills and retain them so they can progress their career in HMPPS is a key priority, we are working hard to retain and develop clear career paths for our operational staff.

We have invested in several new initiatives to improve the experience of our new joiners and increase retention of our employees.

These include:

• a new peer-to-peer learning scheme
• the introduction of New Colleague Mentors for all staff
• the Career Pathways Framework

To help stem attrition we have implemented a Retention Strategy which is linked to wider activities to improve employee experience, employee lifecycle and staff engagement at work.

Nationally, we have seen a substantial improvement in the national staffing picture within prisons over the past year. The number of Band 3-5 prison officers increased by 1,396 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) between March 2023 and March 2024. This is the result of significant efforts across the agency, including substantial increases in pay for staff, our first-ever nationwide advertising campaign, recruitment schemes where we incentivised applicants to relocate to ‘harder-to-staff’ sites, and the Prison Officer Alumni Network, where we have fast-tracked former staff back into the service

.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many times have prison staff been subject to disciplinary action by reason for that action in each year since 2015.

Answered by Edward Argar - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

Information on the number of public sector prison staff who were subject to conduct & disciplinary action since 2014/15 is given in table 1 in the attached spreadsheet. Figures are presented by financial year up to 2022-23.

While the vast majority of Prison Service staff are hardworking and honest, we take all and any allegations extremely seriously and is investigated and where appropriate, disciplinary action is taken. There is no place in His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) for any form of unacceptable behaviour.

The Tackling Unacceptable Behaviours Unit (TUBU) was established in August 2020 and this has been followed by an increase in reported cases. Its aim is to help improve the working environment by providing support, insight and expertise to staff who raise concerns. The services TUBU provides include a confidential helpline to support staff who are experiencing any form of unacceptable behaviour; a mediation service to resolve workplace conflict; and an investigation service.

The investigation service enables managers to obtain advice and signposting, and gives access to qualified investigators where there is an allegation of bullying, harassment, discrimination or victimisation.

These measures now mean staff are reporting unacceptable behaviour more often.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) starts and (b) completions there have been for the (i) offender behaviour, (ii) sex offender, (iii) substance misuse, (iv) domestic violence and (v) extremism programmes in each year since 2010.

Answered by Edward Argar - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

The starts and completions for accredited programmes delivered in custody between March 2010 and March 2023 for (i) offender behaviour, (ii) sex offender, (iii) substance misuse, (iv) domestic violence and (v) extremism programmes are provided in figures 3.1 and 3.2 in Prison Education and Accredited Programme Statistics 2022 to 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). Data for 2023-2024 will be published in the Prison Education and Accredited Programmes Statistics report on 26 September 2024.

In custody, the longer-term decrease in Accredited Programme starts and completions has been primarily driven by the change of programme ownership – and responsibility for running substance misuse accredited programmes - from HMPPS to NHS. As of 1 April 2011, local NHS partnerships assumed these responsibilities. The large decreases seen reflect the fact that more offenders are completing programmes run by the NHS, rather than HMPPS. There has also been a reinvestment from shorter, moderate intensity programmes in favour of longer, higher intensity programmes along with the introduction of some 1:1 programmes. This better reflects the identified demand across HMPPS prisons. The number of commissioned completions has therefore decreased although overall maintaining investment.

The starts and completions for accredited programmes delivered in the community from 2009-10 to 2014-15 for (i) offender behaviour, (ii) sex offender, (iii) substance misuse, (iv) domestic violence and (v) extremism programmes are published in the Accredited Programmes Bulletin at Tables 1.3 and 1.4 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/accredited-programmes-bulletin-2014-to-2015.

The information for April 2015-March 2023 is contained in the attached table. The information for starts can be found in table 1 and for completions in table 2.

We keep offending behaviour programmes under continual review, to ensure that they are effective in reducing reoffending and protecting the public.

We have also introduced a range of programmes designed specifically to address Sexual Offending, including one specifically tailored to non-contact internet offending.

Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many investigations were undertaken by the National Crime Agency anti-corruption unit in each year since 2015 by reason for investigation.

Answered by Tom Tugendhat - Shadow Minister (Home Office) (Security)

The National Crime Agency is unable to disclose details of investigations by the Anti-Corruption Unit, as this information is operationally sensitive.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prison guards left service in the high security estate in each year since 2010.

Answered by Edward Argar - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

The quarterly HMPPS workforce statistics publication covers staffing information, including leavers, and the latest publication covers data up to 31 March 2024.

Data relating to the number of prison officers who left service in the high security estate, broken down by calendar year, since 2010, has been provided in table 1 below.

In 2021 a new standardised exit interview process was introduced across HMPPS (both prisons and probation) to allow staff the opportunity to convey their reasons for leaving. This, coupled with dedicated retention research has enabled leaver trend data to be analysed. Feedback from the exit interviews helps to shape and determine interventions to better understand and respond to staff attrition. Since April 2022, we have invested in several new initiatives to improve the experience of our new joiners and increase retention of our employees.

These include:

• a new peer-to-peer learning scheme
• the introduction of New Colleague Mentors for all staff
• the Career Pathways Framework

Retention is improving across HMPPS, with prison officer resignation rate dropping to 8.4% as of March 2024, an improvement of 1.4 percentage points on the previous year.

Table 1: Number of prison officers¹ across public sector prisons² who left HMPPS³ from the high security estate⁴, broken down by calendar year, from 01 January 2010 - 31 December 2023^(p)

(headcount)

Notes to table 1:

1. "Prison officers" refers to staff in the following grades: Band 3-4 / Prison Officer (incl specialists), Band 4 / Supervising Officer and Band 5 / Custodial Managers working in HM Prison Service or the Youth Custody Service (YCS), in England and Wales. Therefore, it excludes staff working in HQ or the Probation Service

2. Only information for public sector prisons in England and Wales. Information for private prisons is not included in this table

3. As with all HR databases, extracts are taken at a fixed point in time, to ensure consistency of reporting. However, the database itself is dynamic and where updates to the database are made late, subsequent to the taking of the extract, these updates will not be reflected in figures produced by the extract. For this reason, HR data are unlikely to be precisely accurate

4. The "high security estate" refers to the 'Long term & High Security' group in public sector prisons in England and Wales. The "high security estate" categorisation is reflective as at 31 March 2024.

(p) Provisional data. There may be minor changes to figures in future due to additional data being recorded on the reporting system.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners were transferred from Category A prisons in each year since 2015, by the category of their destination prisons.

Answered by Edward Argar - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

The number of prisoners transferred each year is published in table 3_A_28 available at Offender management statistics quarterly: October to December 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

The data for which Category prisons that prisoners have been transferred to can be found in the attached table. Prisoners cannot be transferred into a prison with a lower security category than their individual classification. Moves from higher to lower security classification prisons relate to prisoners who are progressing through the prison system as their assessed risk decreases.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners were transferred to Category C prisons in each year since 2015, by the category of the original prison.

Answered by Edward Argar - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

The number of prisoners transferred each year is published in table 3_A_28 available at Offender management statistics quarterly: October to December 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

The data for which Category prisons that prisoners have been transferred to can be found in the attached table. Prisoners cannot be transferred into a prison with a lower security category than their individual classification. Moves from higher to lower security classification prisons relate to prisoners who are progressing through the prison system as their assessed risk decreases.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners were transferred to Category D prisons in each year since 2015, by category of the original prison.

Answered by Edward Argar - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

The number of prisoners transferred each year is published in table 3_A_28 available at Offender management statistics quarterly: October to December 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

The data for which Category prisons that prisoners have been transferred to can be found in the attached table. Prisoners cannot be transferred into a prison with a lower security category than their individual classification. Moves from higher to lower security classification prisons relate to prisoners who are progressing through the prison system as their assessed risk decreases.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many prisoners were transferred in each year since 2015.

Answered by Edward Argar - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

The number of prisoners transferred each year is published in table 3_A_28 available at Offender management statistics quarterly: October to December 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

The data for which Category prisons that prisoners have been transferred to can be found in the attached table. Prisoners cannot be transferred into a prison with a lower security category than their individual classification. Moves from higher to lower security classification prisons relate to prisoners who are progressing through the prison system as their assessed risk decreases.

Question to the Ministry of Defence:

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many armed forces personnel are classified as (a) wounded, (b) injured and (c) sick by (i) reason and (ii) service branch.

Answered by Andrew Murrison

The numbers of Personnel on Recovery Duty (PRD) by principal cause of medical downgrading and service as at 1 April 2024 is presented in the table below:

Sources: Wounded, Injured and Sick Management Information System (WISMIS), Joint Personnel Administration (JPA) and Defence Medical Information Capability Programme (DMICP).

1 Royal Navy includes the services Royal Navy and Royal Marines

2 Injured includes Injury, poisoning and certain other consequences of external causes (S00–T98)

3. Other includes all other ICD-10 cause code categories

4. Some personnel have no cause information recorded at the point of entering recovery

The UK armed forces are not currently deployed on any combat operations therefore all injuries are non-battle injuries.

The principal cause of downgrading as recorded on an individual’s medical record may not be the reason for entering recovery as an individual can have more than one cause associated with their downgrading.

For some personnel no cause of downgrading information was held at the point they entered recovery. They may have had no cause information recorded, their medical board may have occurred after they entered recovery, or they may still be awaiting a medical board. The cause information is taken from their downgrading and not GP recorded information due to GPs generally recording signs and symptoms. The three single Services differ in their criteria for who receives support from recovery. Due to the differences between the three Services, comparisons between them are not valid and as such the three services have been presented separately.

Question to the Ministry of Defence:

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 13 May 2024 to Question 24361 on Armed Forces: Motor Vehicles, how many callouts the National Roadside Repair and Recovery service received by (a) call-out location and (b) vehicle type in the 2023-24 financial year.

Answered by James Cartlidge - Shadow Secretary of State for Defence

Information on the number of callouts by vehicle type is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

The number of National Roadside Repair and Recovery service callouts by location for the financial year 2023-2024 is located below.

Question to the Ministry of Defence:

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many and what proportion of soldiers that took the Role Fitness Test (a) passed, (b) failed and (c) had another outcome in each year since that test was introduced; and of those, how many and what proportion were (i) ground close combat troops and (ii) non-ground close combat troops.

Answered by Andrew Murrison

The below table shows the number of Regular and Reserve soldiers who took the Role Fitness test who passed and failed in each year since the test was introduced, broken down by ground close combat troops (GCC) and non-ground close combat troops (NON-GCC) and proportion rate of pass / fails.

Notes/Caveats:

1. This data was sourced by the Army’s Personnel Policy Directorate as at 17 May 2024. The data has been taken from a live system and therefore could be subject to change.

2. The figures are single Service estimates based on management information which is not gathered for statistical purposes or subject to the same level of scrutiny as official statistics produced by Defence Statistics. The figures provided may therefore be subject to data quality issues affecting their accuracy.

3. Regular Non-Ground Closed Combat (GCC) figures for 2021 – Role Fitness testing (RFT(S)) did not start until Sep 2021 and therefore fewer Regular Army personnel will have been tested.

4. Reserve Non-GCC for 2021 – RFT(S) testing did not start until Apr 2022 and therefore Non-GCC figures should not contain results for the Army Reserve.

5. Figures represent Regular and Reserve Army personnel.

6. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

7. All Army personnel are included irrespective of the Top Level Budget (TLB) that they are part of, for example, Army personnel serving within the Royal Navy command.

8. Ground Close Combat includes the Royal Armoured Corps (RAC) and the Infantry.

9. Year is based on calendar year.

1. The Role Fitness Test can only be broken down by ‘Pass’ or ‘Fail’. The system includes categories of ‘N/A’ and ‘Exempt’ in the ‘Passed’ Figure. This cannot be broken down further without incurring disproportionate cost.

1. An individual will be exempt if they meet the exemption policy for RFT(S), which is that they have a medical condition precluding them from attempting the test.

2. A ‘N/A’ marker for individuals is applied when they are out of scope for RFT(S) testing. This will include those in a non-deployable HQ role, Military Provost Guard Service (MPGS), staff at a University Officer Training Corps (UOTC), Elite and Professional Athletes, and Reservists on specific contracts that do not require completion of the Individual Training Requirement.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the number of rape trials in England and Wales that have been postponed in each year since 2010.

Answered by Laura Farris

It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what the average time was for rape cases to be completed in court in each year since 2010.

Answered by Laura Farris

It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of rape trials were postponed (a) once, (b) twice and (c) three times in each year since 2010.

Answered by Laura Farris

It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.

Question to the Ministry of Defence:

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 13 May 2024 to Question 21508 on Armed Forces: Health, for what reasons members of the (a) Royal Navy, (b) Army and (c) Royal Air Force were deemed medically non-deployable on 1 April (a) 2023, (b) 2016 and (c) 2010.

Answered by Andrew Murrison

It has not proved possible to respond to the right hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of prison officers at bands three to five had (a) less than one, (b) less than three and (c) three or more years’ experience at each high-security institution on 1 May (i) 2010, (ii) 2015 and (iii) 2024.

Answered by Edward Argar - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.

Question to the Ministry of Defence:

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many and what proportion of soldiers that took the Soldier Conditioning Review were graded (a) condition, (b) unconditioned and (c) other in each year since that review was introduced.

Answered by Andrew Murrison

In relation to the Soldier Conditioning Review, personnel are marked on the system as ‘red’ when they have areas of physical fitness they need to improve. If they are marked as ‘green’ it means they do not have any specific areas of physical fitness development / improvement and are at an adequate baseline. Personnel are marked as ‘Amber’ on the system if the individual needs to take another assessment in the next two months.

The table below shows the number and proportion of Regular and Reserve soldiers that took the Soldier Conditioning Review who were graded as ‘Green’ or ‘Amber’ and ‘All other grades’.

Notes/Caveats:

1. This data was sourced by the Army’s Personnel Policy Directorate as at 17 May 2024. The data has been taken from a live system and therefore could be subject to change.

2. The figures are single Service estimates based on management information which is not gathered for statistical purposes or subject to the same level of scrutiny as official statistics produced by Defence Statistics. The figures provided may therefore be subject to data quality issues affecting their accuracy.

3. The Soldier Conditioning Review was implemented in 2019. Prior to April 2022 the data was recorded in a different manner due to a change in how the tests were recorded and captured on the system, therefore this information is not available in the format requested.

Question to the Ministry of Justice:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many hours of community service ordered to be carried out were not carried out in each (a) local justice area and (b) region in (i) England and (ii) Wales in each year since 2010.

Answered by Edward Argar - Shadow Secretary of State for Justice

It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.

Found: Andrea Leadsom (Conservative, South Northamptonshire) (added 21 Nov 2022) 10 of 14 (71.4%) Siobhain

Found: Andrea Leadsom (Conservative, South Northampton shire) (added 21 Nov 2022) 43 of 51 (84.3%) Siobhain

Found: 4 (25.0%) Keir Mather (Labour, Selby and Ainsty) (added 20 Nov 2023) 3 of 4 (75.0%) Dame Siobhain

Found: (57.5%) Keir Mather (Labour, Selby and Ainsty) (added 20 Nov 2023) 25 of 37 (67.6%) Dame Siobhain

Found: Baldwin (Chair); Mr John Baron; Samantha Dixon; Dame Angela Eagle; Stephen Hammond; Danny Kruger; Dame Siobhain

Found: Strathspey ) Danny Kruger MP (Conservative, Devizes ) Keir Mather MP (Labour, Selby and Ainsty ) Dame Siobhain

Found: McDonagh Wendy Chamberlain Debbie Abrahams Ian Mearns Mr Jonathan Djanogly Mohammad Yasin

Found: McDonagh Wendy Chamberlain Debbie Abrahams Ian Mearns Mr Jonathan Djanogly Mohammad Yasin

Found: McDonagh Wendy Chamberlain Debbie Abrahams Ian Mearns Mr Jonathan Djanogly Mohammad Yasin

Found: McDonagh Wendy Chamberlain Debbie Abrahams Ian Mearns Mr Jonathan Djanogly Mohammad Yasin