Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, 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.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
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.
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, 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.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
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 penalty | Any other penalty | Dismissal |
MOJ HQ | 0 | 10 | ~ |
HMPPS | 250 | 939 | 405 |
HMCTS | ~ | 55 | 29 |
Office of the Public Guardian | ~ | 10 | ~ |
Legal Aid Agency | 0 | ~ | 0 |
CICA | 0 | ~ | 0 |
MoJ Overall | 266 | 1017 | 442 |
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.
Caveats
1. 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 values
8. 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
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, 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.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
Number and Rate of Promotions for Ministry of Justice (excluding HMPPS) employees by Grade between 1 April 2024 and 31 March 2025
Previous Grade of Employee | Average Staff in Post | Number of Promotions | Rate of Promotions per 100 Staff |
Senior Civil Servant | 260 | 4 | 1.5 |
G7/G6 | 3,483 | 99 | 2.8 |
HEO/SEO | 7,750 | 540 | 7 |
EO | 4,567 | 278 | 6.1 |
AA/AO | 11,303 | 379 | 3.4 |
Caveats
1. 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 interest |
5. 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’.
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many and what proportion of staff in each grade in his Department were rated in the top performance category in the last year.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
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.
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, 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.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
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.
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many (a) Equality Impact Assessments and (b) equality screenings have been produced by his Department in the last three months.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
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.
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, 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.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
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.
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, 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.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
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 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 02 Jan – 28 Oct 2025 | Total |
0 | 17 | 44 | 66 | 56 | 61 | 244 |
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 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 01 Jan – 28 Oct 2025 | Total |
Age | 3 | 13 | 10 | 26 | 17 | 20 | 89 |
Disability | 4 | 78 | 85 | 110 | 104 | 103 | 484 |
Gender Reassignment | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Marriage & Civil Partnership | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
Pregnancy & Maternity | 0 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 19 |
Sex | 1 | 10 | 20 | 18 | 13 | 23 | 85 |
Sexual Orientation | 1 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 10 | 27 |
Total Employment Tribunals Brought Under the Equality Act 2010 | 9 | 18 | 127 | 145 | 153 | 155 | 607 |
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 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 01 Jan – 28 Oct 2025 |
0 | 7 | 25 | 45 | 33 | 38 |
The Ministry of Justice headcount is circa 82,000 in total.
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many staff in his Department are recorded as having a (a) mental health condition and (b) physical disability, broken down by grade.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
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 |
SCS | 39 |
G6 | 132 |
G7 | 389 |
SEO | 1,023 |
HEO | 1,231 |
EO | 1,626 |
AO | 3,798 |
AA | 1,088 |
Unknown | 4,780 |
Total | 14,106 |
The 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 |
SCS | Less than 10 |
G6 | 12 |
G7 | 39 |
SEO | 111 |
HEO | 151 |
EO | 171 |
AO | 427 |
AA | 118 |
Unknown | 658 |
Total | 1,691 |
*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.
Asked by: Neil O'Brien (Conservative - Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, 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.
Answered by Jake Richards - Assistant Whip
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.