Written questions by O'Brien.

How many unique offenders were convicted for an indictable offence and did not receive immediate custody in 2024 with i) zero, ii) 1-2, iii) 3-6, iv) 7-10, v) 11-14, vi) 15-25, vii) 26-35, viii) 36-45, ix) 46 - 60, x) 61-75 and xi) 76 or more previous convictions.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. The table includes data covering 2024 on the number of offenders who received a conviction but not an immediate custodial sentence split by number of previous convictions. This data is not routinely published or held in an assessable format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

How many people were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had a) one, b) two, c) three, d) four and e) five or more prior convictions for burglary in each of the past 5 years.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, andThe number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

How many people who were (a) convicted and (b) cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had (i) one, (ii) two, (iii) three, (iv) four and (iv) five or more prior convictions for a violent offence in each of the last five years.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, andThe number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

How many people were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had a) one, b) two, c) three, d) four and e) five or more prior convictions for violence against the person in each of the past 5 years.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, andThe number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

How many people were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence did not receive an immediate custodial sentence and had a) one, b) two, c) three, d) four and e) five or more prior convictions for theft or robbery in each of the past 5 years.

The information requested is provided in the attached excel table. This table includes data covering the period 2020 – 2024 on:The number of offenders who were a) convicted and b) cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences, andThe number of offenders who were convicted or cautioned for an indictable offence who did not receive an immediate custodial sentence by number of previous indictable convictions for specified offences.This data is not regularly published or held in an easily accessible format. The information supplied has been sourced from a bespoke retrieval from the Police National Computer database.Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for the independent judiciary. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors, in line with any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the Sentencing Council for England and Wales.Previous convictions are already a statutory aggravating factor, with Sentencing Guidelines being clear that sentencers must consider the nature and relevance of previous convictions, and the time elapsed since the previous convictions.

What the total cost was of (a) settlement agreements and (b) special severance payments made to departing staff in his Department in the last year.

For the last financial year, the total cost to the Ministry of Justice of payments associated with settlement agreements is set out in Annual Report and Accounts. Where relevant, this includes special severance payments that have associated settlement agreements.

How many and what proportion of staff in each grade in his Department were rated in the top performance category in the last year.

The Ministry of Justice operates a continuous performance management approach based on a rolling cycle of regular performance conversations between line managers and staff members. As such, the Department does not hold the data requested.

How many and what proportion of staff in his Department were promoted (a) in-grade and (b) to a higher grade in the last year broken down by (i) performance marking in the previous year and (ii) grade.

Number and Rate of Promotions for Ministry of Justice (excluding HMPPS) employees by Grade between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025Previous Grade of EmployeeAverage Staff in PostNumber of PromotionsRate of Promotions per 100 StaffSenior Civil Servant26041.5G7/G63,483992.8HEO/SEO7,7505407EO4,5672786.1AA/AO11,3033793.4 Caveats1. Promotions relate to staff moving to a more senior grade through an internal process where the move is made on a permanent basis.2. Information on in-grade promotions and performance rankings is not available within the centrally held HR administrative system and so this information has not been provided.3. Promotions have been assigned to a grade based on the grade the individual was promoted from, rather than their new final grade. Where grades have been grouped together, the total represents all individuals from either grade who were promoted within the financial year. I.e. G7/G6 will represent all individuals who were promoted from a G7 grade and all individuals who were promoted from a G6 grade.4. Average Staff in Post is based on the total on-strength headcount of individuals at this grade at the end of each month in the 12-month period of interest5. Rate of promotions represents the total number of promotions that occurred in the year per 100 average staff in post Data on the number and proportion of promotions in HMPPS by grade for 24/25 can be found in the HM Prison & Probation Service Staff Equalities Report: 2024-2025 in Table 4b. HM Prison & Probation Service Staff Equalities Report: 2024-2025 - GOV.UK It is not possible to provide the requested data on ‘in-grade promotion’ as this definition does not exist within the Department. It is not possible to provide the data requested broken down by performance marking because the Ministry of Justice uses a rolling cycle of regular performance management conversations – there is no set reporting year or end of year markings. Since 2019, the flexible Performance Management Framework in the Civil Service has enabled Departments to adopt a Performance Management approach to best suit their organisational and cultural needs. There is no common performance rating across Government, and there is no common definition of ‘performance year’.Data on the number and proportion of promotions in HMPPS by grade for 24/25 can be found in the HM Prison & Probation Service Staff Equalities Report: 2024-2025 in Table 4b. HM Prison & Probation Service Staff Equalities Report: 2024-2025 - GOV.UK It is not possible to provide the requested data on ‘in-grade promotion’ as this definition does not exist within the Department. It is not possible to provide the data requested broken down by performance marking because the Ministry of Justice uses a rolling cycle of regular performance management conversations – there is no set reporting year or end of year markings. Since 2019, the flexible Performance Management Framework in the Civil Service has enabled Departments to adopt a Performance Management approach to best suit their organisational and cultural needs. There is no common performance rating across Government, and there is no common definition of ‘performance year’.

What the average number of working days lost to sickness absence per full-time equivalent member of staff was in (a) his Department and (b) its executive agencies in the last year; and how many formal performance warnings were issued to staff whose absence exceeded departmental triggers.

The Ministry of Justice annual report and accounts include information on the average number of working lost across the Department including its executive agencies. The report is available here with the relevant information on page 141 - Ministry of Justice annual report and accounts: 2024 to 2025 - GOV.UK. The Ministry of Justice does not issue performance warnings to employees whose sickness absence exceeds departmental trigger points. Under the supporting attendance policy, sickness absence is managed through a separate attendance management process.

In the past twelve months, how many disciplinary cases were concluded against civil servants in (a) his Department and (b) its agencies broken down by (i) outcome and (ii) whether the primary allegation related to (A) performance and (B) conduct.

The Ministry of Justice holds all staff to high standards of professional conduct. Where behaviour falls short of those standards, appropriate action is taken in line with established policies and procedures.Number of Conduct and Discipline cases in the Ministry of Justice broken down by agency and outcome (1st April 2024 to 31st March 2025) Not a penaltyAny other penaltyDismissalMOJ HQ010~HMPPS250939405HMCTS~5529Office of the Public Guardian~10~Legal Aid Agency0~0CICA0~0MoJ Overall2661017442 The central ePM case management system cannot identify the main allegation in a case or distinguish whether each allegation concerns performance or conduct. Its categorisation structure does not allow disciplinary data to be separated into conduct versus performance cases. Additionally, poor performance issues are handled through a separate policy and system, which is not included in the disciplinary case data. Caveats1. The above table is created from Conduct and Discipline records held in the ePM case management system. This only includes formal disciplinary actions and will exclude any local disciplinary actions taken.2. Due to differences in the data matching processes, very slightly different methodologies have been used to calculate the figures for HMPPS compared to the non-HMPPS agencies.3. This information only includes cases that concluded between 1st April 2024 and 31st March 2025 where the case had a known and recorded outcome and where the agency of the individual could be determined.4. Cases can have multiple outcomes, and therefore the highest level penalty has been used to determine the outcome in the table. If the outcome was appealed, the outcome of the appeal has been taken as the final outcome of the case. The 'Dismissal' category includes summary dismissals and 'Any other penalty' includes both disciplinary action and financial penalties.5. Within the centrally held ePM case management system, it is not possible to determine the primary allegation made against the individual or whether each allegation is specifically related to performance or conduct.6. This data is based on the latest information available as at the end of June 2025. Further data regarding the 2024 - 2025 financial year may be received in future data provisions and therefore these figures may be subject to change.7. For some cases, information is incomplete and we have conducted data cleaning to improve data quality where possible. We are in the process of improving the ePM data pipeline. Figures may change slightly in the future as data quality improves.~ denotes values of 2 or fewer, suppressed for reasons of data protection, or values suppressed for reasons of secondary suppression to prevent disclosure in cases where totals would reveal suppressed values8. The case categorisations on the system does not allow the breakdown of figures into conduct and performance groups. There is a separate poor performance policy and case management system which is separate to the disciplinary cases presented in the table

How many (a) Equality Impact Assessments and (b) equality screenings have been produced by his Department in the last three months.

Under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), all public authorities, including Government departments, are required by law to have due regard to certain equality considerations when carrying out their functions. While equality impact assessments and equality screenings may be produced, there is no legal requirement for these assessments to be compiled in a specific format or published. In accordance with section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, the Ministry of Justice ensures that assessment of the equality considerations of its policy proposals is integrated into the development, implementation, and review of its policies. We do not keep a central record of all equality impact assessments or screenings undertaken in recent months. However, and where relevant, the equality assessments undertaken are often published alongside policy consultations on the Ministry of Justice consultation hub, which is publicly available on GOV.UK: Ministry of Justice - Citizen Space.

Pursuant to the Answer of 29 April 2025 to Question 45822 on Ministry of Justice: Equality, for what reason his Department no longer collects that information centrally.

The Ministry of Justice does not routinely collate information on specific words in job titles as there is no business or legal requirement to do so. Further information on staffing can be found in the Department's annual report and accounts.

How many staff left his Department in each of the last 5 years, broken down by grade.

Information on the number of civil servants leaving each government Department and organisation by responsibility level for the years 2021 to 2025 is published annually through the ‘Civil Service data browser’ as part of Civil Service Statistics 2025, an accredited official statistics publication. Information can be accessed through the Civil Service data browser for 2021 through 2025 at the following web address: Civil Service Statistics data browser.

How many staff in his Department are recorded as having a (a) mental health condition and (b) physical disability, broken down by grade.

In the Ministry of Justice (including its executive agencies: HMCTS, CICA, LAA, OPG, and HMPPS), along with the wider Civil Service, information about a disability or long-term condition, including mental health conditions, is completed by staff on a voluntary basis, on HR systems. Data on mental health conditions is only available as a subset of those who have voluntarily indicated they considered themselves to have disability or long-term condition. As there is no single category for physical disability, we have provided data on all those who have indicated a disability or long-term condition.The data provided covers the Ministry of Justice, including its executive agencies: MoJ HQ, HMCTS, CICA, LAA, OPG, and HMPPS.The table below shows data for the number of staff in post in the department who have self-reported a disability or long-term condition, broken down by grade, as of 31 March 2025.Grade Number of self-reported disabled staff SCS39G6132G7389SEO1,023HEO1,231EO1,626AO3,798AA1,088Unknown4,780Total14,106The total will not exactly match that used in Civil Service Statistics as we have used a different methodology applicable to internal data in order to answer this question.The table below shows data for the number of staff in post in the department who have self-reported the HR data management systems category mental health conditions, broken down by grade, as of 31 March 2025.Grade Number of self-reported disabled staff with mental health conditions SCSLess than 10G612G739SEO111HEO151EO171AO427AA118Unknown658Total1,691*Data includes those who have selected a single category mental health conditions. We do not capture those who may have multiple conditions or include information provided as free text.

How many staff (a) did not retain employment in the Department following completion of their probationary period and (b) had their probationary period extended in each of the last 5 years.

The Ministry of Justice’s probation policy and guidance advises managers on the steps to take to assess a new employee’s suitability for the post and to provide support to enable them to succeed. It also advises on the steps to take where performance, attendance or conduct are not satisfactory. This can include exiting the employee or extending their probation to provide further evidence for a final decision on their suitability.The table below shows data for the number of staff who left the Department for the leaving reason "Discharged Probation", in the 12 months to 31 March 2021 - 31 March 2025.12 months to… Number of leavers 31st March 20257231st March 20249731st March 20233231st March 20223631st March 202116Notes to table 1:Information on the number of staff who have left the department is published in the Civil Service Statistics but not broken down by the leaving reason "Discharged Probation". Therefore, we have used leavers data from the MOJ’s central HR system, SOP, to answer this PQ.Data for MoJ staff (excluding HMPPS) includes only on-strength payroll leavers, whereas data for HMPPS includes all leavers. Information for the second part of this question, relating to the number of staff that had their probationary period extended in each of the last 5 years, is not published and is not held in the central HR system. Therefore, this information cannot be provided.

How many employment tribunal claims have been lodged against his Department in each of the last five years by (a) unfair dismissal and (b) claims under the Equality Act 2010.

The proportion of Employment Tribunals claims which include Unfair Dismissal as a reason for the claim is 25.1%, and 62.5% of Employment Tribunals lodged against the Department are brought under the Equality Act 2010. 3.9% of cases lodged against the Department cite both Unfair Dismissal and claims under the Equality Act 2010.Employment Tribunals lodged against the Department for Unfair Dismissal 01 Oct – 31 Dec 2020202120222023202402 Jan – 28 Oct 2025Total01744665661244 Employment Tribunals lodged against the Department under the Equality Act 2010 *A breakdown of protected characteristics where Employment Tribunals have been brought has been included. Please note, Employment Tribunal claims often include multiple reasons when lodging a claim e.g. race discrimination and disability discrimination etc. This means that, total Employment Tribunals lodged against the department under the Equality Act 2010 will not reflect the total claims under the different protected characteristics. 01 Oct – 31 Dec 2020202120222023202401 Jan – 28 Oct 2025TotalAge3131026172089Disability47885110104103484Gender Reassignment0001012Marriage & Civil Partnership0000123Pregnancy & Maternity01424819Sex1102018132385Sexual Orientation146421027Total Employment Tribunals Brought Under the Equality Act 2010918127145153155607 Employment Tribunals lodged under both Unfair Dismissal and a claim under the Equality Act 2010 against the Department*Figures below are included in the previous tables.01 Oct – 31 Dec 2020202120222023202401 Jan – 28 Oct 20250725453338The Ministry of Justice headcount is circa 82,000 in total.

How many performance reviews were undertaken for staff in (a) his Department and (b) its agencies in each of the last five years; in how many cases performance was rated as unsatisfactory or below; how many staff left as a result of such a rating; and what proportion of full-time equivalent staff this represented.

The Ministry of Justice operates a continuous performance management approach based on a rolling cycle of regular performance conversations between line managers and staff members. The Department does not operate a set reporting year for performance reviews and does not use performance ratings or box markings. As such, the Ministry of Justice does not hold the data requested.

What estimate she has made of the cost of the new prison at Gartree in Leicestershire.

The value of the main works for the new prison next to HMP Gartree is planned to be published later this year.

How many people in prison for offences of (a) violence against the person, (b) sexual offences, (c) robbery, (d) theft offences, (e) criminal damage and arson, (f) drug offences, (g) possession of weapons, (h) public order offences, (i) miscellaneous crimes against society, (j) fraud offences, (k) summary non-motoring, (l) summary motoring and (m) offence not recorded are of (i) Asian or Asian British, (ii) Black or Black British, (iii) Mixed, (iv) White, (v) Chinese or other, (vi) not stated and (vii) unrecorded ethnicity.

The requested information is shown in the attached table.

Pursuant to the Answer of 7 March 2024 to Question 17002, how many staff in her Department, excluding its public bodies, have job titles that include the words (a) equality, (b) diversity, (c) inclusion, (d) gender, (e) LGBT and (f) race.

This information is not held centrally.