Corporate report

Annual report and accounts 2022-23: Accountability (HTML)

Updated 15 December 2023

This was published under the 2022 to 2024 Sunak Conservative government

Applies to England and Wales

Corporate Governance Report

The purpose of the Corporate Governance Report is to explain the composition and organisation of the department’s governance structures and how these arrangements have supported the achievement of its objectives during 2022-23.

Directors’ Report

The table below sets out names and titles of all ministers and members of the Departmental Board who have had responsibility for the department during 2022-23.

Departmental Board, Audit and Risk Assurance Committee and Nominations Committee member attendance 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023

Meetings attended per member of those eligible to attend

Members	Departmental Board	Audit and Risk Assurance Committee	Nominations Committee[footnote 1]
Ministers
The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP, Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 15 September 2021 to 5 September 2022, reappointed 25 October 2022)[footnote 2]	4 of 4	-	-
The Rt Hon Brandon Lewis MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 6 September to 24 October 2022)	0 of 0	-	-
Lord Christopher Bellamy KC, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 7 June 2022)	2 of 3	-	-
Mike Freer MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 20 September 2022)	2 of 2	-	-
Gareth Johnson MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 20 September to 26 October 2022)	0 of 0	-	-
Rob Butler MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 20 September to 26 October 2022)	0 of 0	-	-
Simon Baynes MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 8 July to 7 September 2022)	0 of 0	-	-
Sarah Dines MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 8 July to 19 September 2022)	0 of 0	-	-
Tom Pursglove MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (to 6 July 2022), Minister of State for Justice (from 7 July to 7 September 2022)	2 of 2	-	-
James Cartlidge MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (to 7 July 2022)	2 of 2	-	-
Lord David Wolfson of Tredegar KC, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (to 14 April 2022)	0 of 0	-	-
The Rt Hon Edward Argar MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 27 October 2022)	2 of 2	-	-
The Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 27 October 2022)	2 of 2	-	-
Rachel Maclean MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 7 September to 25 October 2022)	0 of 0	-	-
The Rt Hon Stuart Andrew MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 8 July to 19 September 2022)	0 of 0	-	-
The Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP, Minister of State for Justice (to 6 July 2022)	1 of 2	-	-
Victoria Atkins MP, Minister of State for Justice (to 6 July 2022)	2 of 2	-	-
Executive management
Antonia Romeo, Permanent Secretary	4 of 4	7 of 7	1 of 1
Jo Farrar, Second Permanent Secretary for Ministry of Justice and Chief Executive to HMPPS (to 1 September 2022), Second Permanent Secretary (from 1 September 2022)	4 of 4	4 of 7	-
Amy Rees, Director General, Chief Executive to HMPPS (from 1 September 2022)	2 of 2	-	-
Nick Goodwin, Chief Executive, HM Courts and Tribunals Service	3 of 4	-	-
James McEwen, Chief Operating Officer	4 of 4	7 of 7	-
Jerome Glass, Director General, Policy Group (to 28 November 2022), Director General, Policy Group - Courts and Access to Justice (from 28 November 2022)	4 of 4	-	-
Richard Price, Director General, Performance, Strategy and Analysis (from 9 May 2022)	2 of 3	-	-
Non‑executive or independent member
Mark Rawlinson, Lead Non-Executive Member	3 of 4	-	1 of 1
Paul Smith, Non-Executive Member and Chair of Audit and Risk Assurance Committee	4 of 4	7 of 7	-
Mark Beaton, Non-Executive Member (from 14 July 2022)	2 of 2	4 of 5	-
Shirley Cooper OBE, Non-Executive Member (to 3 August 2022)	2 of 2	2 of 2	-
Nick Campsie, Non-Executive Member (to 3 June 2022)	1 of 1	-	-
Heather Savory, Independent member of Audit and Risk Assurance Committee	-	5 of 5	-
Nicky Wilden, Independent member of Audit and Risk Assurance Committee		5 of 5
Alison Bexfield, Independent member of Audit and Risk Assurance Committee		7 of 7

Managing conflicts of interest

Members of the department’s governance forums are asked to declare any interest that could give rise to a conflict of interest. Declarations are documented alongside any agreed actions to manage the risk of conflicts of interest.

Any significant interest held by management, where there is a link with the department, is included in Note 27 on Related Party Transactions. The list of ministers’ interests can be found at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/list-of-ministers-interests 

Links to our executive and non-executive register of interest can be found at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/ministry-of-justice-register-of-board-members-interests/ministry-of-justice-register-of-board-members-interests

Personal data‑related incidents

The following provides a summary report of personal data-related incidents reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), in 2022‑23. MoJ handles millions of records containing personal data and takes all data incidents seriously.

All staff are required to undertake mandatory data protection training upon joining MoJ and yearly thereafter. Effective implementation of security measures is applied in line with the government’s security policy framework and the Government Functional Standard on Security. Adherence is monitored through a network of trained security and data protection practitioners.

Table 1 – Personal data incidents reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office

Date of incident	Nature of incident	Nature of data involved	Number of people potentially affected	Notification steps
7 June 2022	Disclosure of confidential address of an appellant to a respondent in a social security child maintenance appeal case.	Name and address	1	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (10 October 2022)
21 June 2022	A subject access request (SAR) response for an ex‑offender was sent to an incorrect address.	Confidential and criminal offence data of an offender	1	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (17 October 2022)
11 July 2022	Disclosure of a confidential address of a claimant to the defendant in an online money claim case.	Name and address	1	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (29 November 2022)
1 August 2022	Confidential information of an offender was inadvertently disclosed to another offender. This disclosure also included the victim and witness details for the case.	Confidential data of an offender, victim and witnesses	16	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (10 February 2023)
14 October 2022	Disclosure of a confidential address of adoptive parents to the birth mother in an adoption case.	Name and address	3	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (19 October 2022)
18 November 2022	Disclosure of a confidential address of a victim to a defendant in a restraining order case.	Name and address	1	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (1 December 2022)
22 November 2022	Disclosure of a confidential address of a respondent mother to applicant father in a child arrangements case.	Name and address	2	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (28 November 2022)
27 January 2023	Disclosure of a spreadsheet containing offender data, by email, in error.	Confidential data of offenders	15,000	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (14 February 2023)
7 February 2023	Publication of an internal copy of a court case hearing list, in error.	Name, address, date of birth and plea data	8,622	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (15 March 2023)

MoJ continues to monitor and assess its personal data risks to identify and address any weaknesses and ensure continuous improvements. For further information on information security, see pages 87 to 88.

The assessment of whether an incident meets the threshold for reporting to the ICO is carried out by the Data Protection Team. Incidents which are not reported to the ICO are recorded centrally as set out in the table below and are categorised according to Cabinet Office requirements.

Table 2 – Incidents which did not meet the threshold to report to the Information Commissioner’s Office for 2022-23

	2022-23	2021‑22
Category	Number of incidents	Number of incidents
Loss or theft of information assets from secured government premises	391	223
Loss or theft of information assets from outside secure premises	81	124
Insecure disposal of inadequately protected electronic equipment, devices or paper documents	180	16
Unauthorised disclosure (information disclosed in error)*	7,097	5,227
Other**	45	192
Totals	7,794	5,782

*Examples of ‘Unauthorised disclosure’ could include the release of personal data to the incorrect recipient, such as information being sent to the incorrect email or postal address, the sharing of data to incorrect recipients internally in MoJ and inappropriate access to electronic data.

**Examples of ‘Other’ incidents could include any cyber or related attacks on the personal data held by MoJ, technical security failings either with an application setup or a breach of a relevant policy.

Complaints to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) addresses complaints made by members of the public, brought to its attention by MPs, where there has been alleged maladministration by government departments and other bodies in their jurisdiction. MoJ’s performance for 2022-23 is shown below. PHSO’s annual analysis of the complaints it has received for each government department can be found at: www.ombudsman.org.uk

The completed PHSO investigations refer to complaints made in relation to Cafcass and HMCTS and further details can be found in those bodies’ annual report and accounts. Where complaints are upheld or partly upheld we review the case to ensure any learning is identified and improvements made.

Number of complaints accepted for investigation	Number of completed investigations*	Investigations upheld or partly upheld		Investigations not upheld		Investigations resolved without a finding or discontinued
		Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
8	6	2	25%	4	50%	-	0%
			Complied with		Not complied with		Total
The number of Ombudsman recommendations			2		-		2

*Includes enquiries about organisations that are accountable to the department

Statement of Accounting Officer’s responsibilities

Under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, HM Treasury has directed MoJ to prepare, for each financial year, consolidated resource accounts. These must set out the resources acquired, held or disposed of by the department during the year, and the uses to which those resources have been put. The scope of the accounts must cover the department, including its executive agencies, and those of its sponsored arm’s length public bodies that are designated by order made under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 by Statutory Instrument 2022 No. 247. These public bodies are together known as the ‘departmental group’, consisting of the department and sponsored bodies listed at Note 29 to the accounts. The accounts are prepared on an accruals basis and must give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the department and the departmental group and of the income and expenditure, statement of financial position and cash flows of the departmental group for the financial year.

In preparing the accounts, the Accounting Officer of the department is required to comply with the requirements of the Government Financial Reporting Manual and in particular to:

• observe the Accounts Direction issued by HM Treasury, including the relevant accounting and disclosure requirements, and apply suitable accounting policies on a consistent basis

• ensure the department has appropriate and reliable systems and procedures in place to carry out the consolidation process

• make judgements and estimates on a reasonable basis, including those judgements involved in consolidating the accounting information provided by non-departmental and other arm’s length public bodies

• state whether applicable accounting standards as set out in the Government Financial Reporting Manual have been followed, and disclose and explain any material departures in the accounts

• prepare the accounts on a going concern basis 

• confirm that the annual report and accounts as a whole is fair, balanced and understandable and take personal responsibility for the annual report and accounts and the judgements required for determining that it is fair, balanced and understandable

HM Treasury has appointed me as the Permanent Secretary and Principal Accounting Officer of the MoJ.

As the Principal Accounting Officer of the department, I have appointed the chief executives or equivalents of the department’s sponsored arm’s length public bodies as Accounting Officers of those bodies. I am responsible for ensuring that appropriate systems and controls are in place to ensure that any grants made by the department to its sponsored bodies are applied for the intended purposes, and that such expenditure and the other income and expenditure of the sponsored bodies are properly accounted for, for the purposes of consolidation within the resource accounts. Under their terms of appointment, the Accounting Officers of the sponsored bodies are accountable for the use, including the regularity and propriety, of the grants received and the other income and expenditure of the sponsored bodies.

My responsibilities as an Accounting Officer, including responsibility for the propriety and regularity of the public finances for which I am answerable, for keeping proper records and for safeguarding the assets  of the department or non‑departmental or other arm’s length public body for which I am also responsible, are set out in Managing Public Money published by HM Treasury.

As the Principal Accounting Officer, I have taken all the steps that I ought to have taken to make myself aware of any relevant audit information and to establish that MoJ’s auditors are aware of that information. So far as I am aware, there is no relevant audit information of which the auditors are unaware.

The annual report and accounts as a whole are fair, balanced and understandable and I take personal responsibility for the annual report and accounts and the judgments required for determining that they are fair, balanced and understandable.

Accounting Officer system statements

In 2016, the Public Accounts Committee recommended, as part of its wider work on accountability to Parliament for taxpayers’ money, that all departments should prepare accountability statements.

The Accounting Officer System Statement (AOSS) provides Parliament a single statement setting out all of the accountability relationships and processes within the department, making clear who is accountable for what, from the Principal Accounting Officer down. It ensures accountability for all of the public money and other public resources which fall within the accounting officer’s responsibilities.

The department’s AOSS is available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/ministry-of-justice-accounting-officer-system-statement

Governance statement

This governance statement sets out the main features of the governance, risk management and internal control frameworks operated in 2022‑23 and up to the date of approval of the annual report and accounts. 

It sets out my view of the most significant challenges across the department in operating an effective review of the system of risk management and internal control, and the collective steps teams are taking to continuously improve and strengthen these frameworks. The governance statement should be considered in conjunction with the Accounting Officer System Statement (which was updated and published this year). 

Governance

MoJ maintains governance arrangements to support delivery of departmental priorities and objectives. The governance framework: 

• provides leadership and direction, including a clear vision of what the department is trying to achieve 

• brings relevant capabilities, experience and insights to provide rigorous scrutiny of the efficiency and effectiveness of performance and value for money  

• promotes transparency and accountability that maintains the trust and confidence of stakeholders through clear, complete and accurate reporting on what is being achieved and to what standards 

• ensures compliance with HM Treasury’s code of good practice for corporate governance in central government departments

• supports our work to deliver change in line with the Declaration on Government Reform

• aligns with the new HM Treasury risk control framework, the “golden thread”

I have structured MoJ’s governance with the aim of ensuring we have complete, timely and insightful information flows to direct and manage the department’s delivery and use of resources.

Board and committee information

The board secretariat ensures the information provided to the Departmental Board and its committees is of a good quality, to enable informed decision-making, with risks and resource implications highlighted to ensure detailed engagement and challenge during discussions. 

Departmental Board

Chair: Secretary of State

Meetings in 2022-23: 4

Purpose: The Departmental Board forms the collective strategic and operational leadership of the department. Chaired by the Secretary of State for Justice, it brings together the ministerial and Civil Service leaders with senior non-executives from outside government. It is responsible for setting strategic direction, including reviewing delivery against the Outcome Delivery Plan.

Meeting composition

15 members:

• 3 female

• 12 male

• 5 ministers

• 7 executive directors

• 3 non-executive directors

Activities in the year under review included:

• assessment of progress against the Outcome Delivery Plan, including performance and delivery critical milestones

• departmental priorities

• review of key performance indicators

• discussing recommendations and actions from Audit and Risk Assurance Committee

• courts reform including Common Platform and next steps

Audit and Risk Assurance Committee

Chair: Non-executive board member

Meetings in 2022-23: 7

Purpose: The Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC) supports the board and me in my role as the Principal Accounting Officer by reviewing the completeness and reliability of assurances over the design and operation of governance, risk management and internal control frameworks and the integrity of financial statements in the department. 

Meeting composition

5 members: 

• 3 female

• 2 male

• 4 non-executive directors

• 1 independent member

Activities in the year under review included: 

• considering the Government Internal Audit Agency findings 

• considering the work of external audit

• considering and challenging the department’s risk management framework and how this has been embedded in order to identify and manage commercial, climate change and sustainability, estates, cyber and information risk

• reviewing the Annual Report and Accounts and providing independent oversight and challenge on its content

• continuing oversight of arm’s length bodies and executive agencies through dedicated informal meetings with arm’s length body and executive agency ARAC Chairs to share information and ideas

• challenging the department’s approach and progress to mitigate against fraud, bribery and corruption and to test the whistleblowing process

Nominations Committee

Chair: Mark Rawlinson

Meetings in 2022-23: 2

Purpose: The Nominations Committee provides assurance on senior executive appointments within the department.

Meeting composition

3 members:

• 1 female

• 2 male

• 1 non-executive director

• 2 executive directors

The standing agenda in 2022-23 included discussing and advising on performance assessment and appraisal of Directors General with: 

• pay award recommendations 

• talent strategy 

• succession planning

Executive Committee

Chair: Permanent Secretary

Meetings in 2022-23: 44

Purpose: I chair the Executive Committee. It is the executive leadership team for the department and is comprised of senior officials. The committee ensures that the department is fully aligned with the strategic direction set by the Secretary of State, maintains and directs the capabilities to deliver, oversees the delivery of outcomes and prioritises and allocates financial and other resources.  

Meeting composition

12 members:

• 4 female

• 8 male

Activities in the year under review included:

• monitoring the department’s performance against its budget, objectives and managing the delivery of its outcomes

• examining specific risks or issues that could affect the delivery of the department’s objectives, including a quarterly risk review

• reviewing the approach to capital spend and fiscal planning, preparing for the Autumn Fiscal Event and planning for the HMT Efficiency and Savings Review and associated spending allocations

• reviewing the progress made against agreed diversity priorities in the department’s diversity and inclusion strategy 

• assessing and monitoring the position on prison capacity and plans to mitigate risks and address pressures

• reviewing the department’s performance and priorities, including long-term policy priorities

• reviewing progress made against delivery of executive agency and arm’s length body objectives

Delivery Board

Chair: Second Permanent Secretary and lead non-executive board member

Meetings in 2022-23: 6

Purpose: The Delivery Board provides assurance to me in my role as the Principal Accounting Officer and to the Departmental Board that the strategic outcomes and commitments defined in the Outcome Delivery Plan relating to the Government Major Projects Portfolio are on track to be delivered. It escalates matters for consideration to the Departmental Board via the Executive Committee. 

Meeting composition

9 members:

• 3 female

• 6 male

• 3 non-executive directors

• 4 executive directors

• 2 external officials

Activities in the year under review included:

• oversight and scrutiny of the department’s major projects and programmes, ensuring that plans are well evidenced and strategic benefits are on track to be delivered

• challenge and scrutiny of the robustness of the plans and processes for delivery and the adequacy of their management

Finance, Performance and Risk Committee

Chair:  Director General, Performance, Strategy and Analysis

Meetings in 2022-23: 12

Purpose: The Finance, Performance and Risk Committee oversees and scrutinises delivery against the Outcome Delivery Plan, informs management of the department’s principal and secondary risks, and monitors compliance with functional standards and other government, legal or professional requirements.

Meeting composition

10 members:

• 1 female

• 9 male

Activities in the year under review included: 

• examining the department, its executive agencies and other arm’s length bodies’ in-year finances

• reviewing the impact of inflation and other external factors on forecasting and budgets

• considering and advising on the departmental spending review settlement conditions

• assessing and challenging performance, delivery and risk against the Outcome Delivery Plan

People Business Committee 

Chair: Second Permanent Secretary and Chief People Officer

Meetings in 2022-23: 9

Purpose: Supports the Executive Committee in the development, delivery and evaluation of leadership and management of policies. 

Meeting composition

19 members:

• 11 female

• 8 male

Activities in the year under review included:

• reviewing the strategic landscape of diversity, inclusion and wellbeing, and performance against strategic outcomes of diversity, talent and culture 

• monitoring the progress of the 3rd Generation Shared Services Programme and the transformation readiness activities and engagement required to achieve strategic alignment

• considering the impact of the rising cost of living and reviewing the guidance to support staff

• oversight of strategic people risks and correct identification of appropriate mitigations

Investment Committee

Chair: Chief Operating Officer

Meetings in 2022-23: 26

Purpose: The Investment Committee has delegated powers to make investment decisions on the Executive Committee’s behalf, with oversight of the MoJ portfolio, including portfolio projects from inception through to implementation, ensuring they remain strategically aligned, affordable and deliverable.

Meeting composition

12 members:

• 2 female

• 10 male

Activities in the year under review included: 

• scrutiny and approval of expenditure of £30 million whole life cost and above

• agreeing and monitoring departmental change programmes’ funding

• setting permissible tolerances that include costs, benefits, schedule, quality, scope and performance 

• release of funds after reviewing progress of programmes and projects

Portfolio Committee

Chair: Second Permanent Secretary

Meetings in 2022-23: 11

Purpose: The Portfolio Committee provides oversight of progress across our major change portfolio, with a reporting line into both the Executive Committee and Delivery Board.  It ensures projects are set up for success, and resolves issues that may compromise delivery confidence, including advising on prioritisation decisions regarding the deployment of expert resources. The committee ensures that the portfolio is strategically aligned, affordable and deliverable and that project leaders comply with project delivery standards. 

Meeting composition

11 members:

• 3 female

• 8 male

Activities in the year under review included: 

• assuring that all portfolio programmes and projects comply with agreed delivery standards and best practice, including oversight of the tolerances for time, cost, scope and quality set by the Investment Committee

• oversight of delivery confidence of the portfolio and identification of projects and programmes that merit enhanced governance and/or scrutiny, including agreeing a recommended forward programme for Delivery Board scrutiny and challenge

• review and resolution of project or programme-level issues (for example, risks and benefit management) 

• undertaking deep dives on cross-cutting systemic issues, thematic risks and constraints using data to drive improvement actions

Further details and membership of these forums can be found at: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-justice/about/our-governance 

HM Treasury Corporate Governance Code 

As part of the preparation of this report, the department considers its compliance with the HM Treasury Corporate Governance Code for Central Government Departments. There were no departures from the HM Treasury Corporate Governance Code for Central Government Departments.

Departmental Board effectiveness review

In line with the HM Treasury Corporate Governance Code for Central Government Departments, the lead non-executive board member undertook the annual Board Effectiveness Evaluation for the year under review. Overall, the board was found to be functioning well but there were some areas for improvement. Taking account of the feedback, the planned addition of new non-executive members aims to address the areas where skills gaps were identified, and work will continue to provide greater oversight of our public bodies.

Identifying and managing conflicts of interests

Section 4.3 of the Civil Service Management Code sets out the standard of propriety for civil servants. It states that, “civil servants must not misuse their official position or information acquired in the course of their official duties to further their private interests or those of others”.

MoJ uses the Civil Service HR policy on Declaration and Management of Outside Interests and has introduced a toolkit to support the application of the policy within MoJ and which sets out the expectations and process for declaring an interest. It is the responsibility of the individual to declare all interests (actual, potential or perceived) that could be relevant to their role. Failure to do so could result in action being taken against the individual in line with the relevant conduct or discipline policy. 

The full process is detailed on the intranet which is accessible to all staff.

MoJ holds a register of declarations of interests for civil servants of Grade 6 or above, special advisers, advisers, contractors and civil servants in the contract and commercial management directorate. This includes details of any financial interests declared, secondary employment and appointments, personal interests and any other relevant interests. The senior civil servant (SCS) declaration of interest exercise takes place on a biannual basis. Declarations of interest for the delegated grades are recorded and managed locally.

In line with the Declaration and Management of Outside Interests policy, details of all SCS who have declared outside employment, work or appointment which is paid or otherwise remunerated can be found on Ministry of Justice Register of Senior Civil Servant secondary paid employment - GOV.UK

In line with the current declaration of interests policy for special advisers, all special advisers have declared any relevant interests or confirmed they do not consider they have any relevant interests. I have considered these returns and the following relevant interests are set out in public:

Full name	Details of any interest
Beatrice Timpson, special adviser to Dominic Raab, former Secretary of State for Justice (September 2021-September 2022)	Miss Timpson has a shareholding in Kier Group and Relx Plc. Miss Timpson has recused herself from any detailed discussions or decision-making related to these organisations.

Business appointment rules

All officials are subject to rules on accepting outside appointments after leaving the Civil Service. The purpose of the business appointment rules is to avoid:

• the risk that an employer might gain an improper advantage by appointing a former official who holds information about its competitors, or about impending government policy

• any suspicion that an appointment might be a reward for past favours

• the risk of a former official improperly exploiting privileged access to contacts in government

• unfair questioning or criticism of the integrity of former civil servants

Full details on the business appointment rules, when they apply, and the application process can be accessed by all staff via the MoJ intranet. To raise awareness of the business appointment rules in 2022-23 the intranet content was refreshed, communication was issued to senior leaders across the business, and the wording within exit management letters was updated.

MoJ has a clear procedure in place for considering applications under the business appointment rules for SCS2 and below. The process is managed by the transparency unit and includes input from the individual, their line manager, the Chief Commercial Officer and the Chief People Officer. In exceptional cases I am consulted on business appointment rule applications. The transparency unit liaises with the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACoBA) for applications from Directors General SCS3 and above.

During 2022-23:

• there were 24 exits from the Civil Service at SCS level

• there were 27 business appointment rules applications as follows:

  • 11 ministerial applications

  • 2 special adviser applications

  • 6 SCS3 applications

  • 3 SCS2 applications

  • 1 SCS1 applications

  • 1 Grade 6 applications

  • 2 Grade 7 applications

  • 1 Senior Executive Officer applications

  • No applications were found to be unsuitable for the applicant to take up. All applications below SCS2 were approved with conditions set. ACoBA determine the outcome and any conditions set for SCS3 and above 

• there were no breaches of the business appointment rules 

In compliance with business appointment rules, the department is transparent in the advice given to individual applications for senior staff, including special advisers. Advice on specific business appointments has been published on MoJ Business Appointment Rules - GOV.UK.

Risk management

The department’s risk management framework sets out the principles, concepts and accountabilities that underpin how we manage risk in alignment with the Orange Book: Management of risk - Principles and Concepts. Risk management is an essential part of our governance and leadership, and fundamental to the way that the organisation is directed, managed and controlled at all levels. Our risk management framework and capabilities enhance our strategic planning and prioritisation, assist in achieving the delivery of outcomes and objectives and strengthen the ability of the department to be agile to respond to the challenges faced.

As Principal Accounting Officer, supported by the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, I have established the organisation’s overall approach to risk management.  Responsibilities for the management of areas of risk are devolved through the organisational structure, defined roles and responsibilities, and delegated authorities. Responsibility for the operation of the risk framework is delegated to the Chief Operating Officer.

The Chief Operating Officer is supported by our Chief Risk Officer. The Chief Risk Officer is proactively involved with and influences governance and decision-making forums through, effective communication and engagement with the Principal Accounting Officer, senior management, and the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee. The Chief Risk Officer is also responsible for:

• setting the framework and guidance in accordance with the principles in the Orange Book

• assessing compliance with this to drive continuous improvement in risk maturity

• supporting MoJ’s Executive Committee, Audit and Risk Assurance Committee and Departmental Board in understanding the risk landscape and defining and assessing the department’s risk appetite to inform decision making

Our risk management framework has continued to improve throughout 2022-23:

• the department’s identification, analysis and assessment of its principal and emerging risks was refreshed in April 2022, as an integral part of our strategic planning and in accordance with allocative choices made following the Spending Review

• our principal risks, set out on pages 22 to 26, have been considered and discussed by the Finance, Risk and Performance Committee and Executive Committee quarterly, and reported to the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee

• deep dives have been conducted into several principal risk areas, notably property, sustainability, data protection and cyber risk

• risks are routinely assessed as a part of investment decisions and within the lifecycle of our projects, programmes and our commercial relationships. A risk improvement group has been established this year to enhance risk guidance and capability across the project delivery community

• the Departmental Operations Centre horizon scan the external environment routinely and principal risks are assessed against these findings

• short-term resilience risks are reported to the Executive Team and ministers in advance of significant recess periods

• there continue to be strong relationships between risk leads across all parts of the department, with a consolidating business partnering approach operated by our Risk Management Centre of Expertise

• risk training and awareness is provided to our risk community and leaders throughout the year, including a Risk Awareness Week in November 2022 where our revised risk framework document was launched

*  our strategy, strategic finance, planning, risk management and performance teams continue to work together closely to ensure that risks inform our Spending Review preparations

In 2022-23, our most significant risk was managing capacity within the adult male prison estate. This has been one of our principal risks since 2019 but has been exacerbated this year due to a number of factors, including disruptive action in courts, which has had knock-on impacts on court operations and increased pressure on the remand population. We set up temporary governance structures to provide departmental oversight of the management of this risk. A Custodial Options Taskforce co-ordinated information flows on capacity forecasts and supply and demand choices across the department to report to ExCo and ministers. The taskforce received updates from the Criminal Justice System Strategic Command, a multi-agency group which was stood up to manage the impact across the wider criminal justice system, ensuring cross-government collaboration and alignment. We also activated short-term contingency options where necessary, such as Operation Safeguard. For further information on prison capacity, see page 27. 

Business continuity 

The Departmental Operations Centre leads on business continuity, resilience, and incident response for MoJ, ensuring the department has met the major challenges of the past year, including those presented by widespread industrial action across the public sector, heatwaves during the summer, and delivery of Operation London Bridge following the death of HM The Queen.

During the year, we have:

• produced horizon scanning reports detailing systemic threats to the department, which includes assessing intelligence from the Cabinet Office’s COBRA Unit

• conducted departmental self-assessment processes against international standards – running exercises with parts of the department to test business continuity plans

• continued to roll out a cross departmental business continuity tool, which has improved the consistency of business continuity planning and reporting

A director-led departmental Business Continuity and Resilience Governance Board has been established, supported by a working-level Practitioners Forum. The board oversees business continuity and resilience work across MoJ and supports the development of the community of staff working in those areas.

In conjunction with wider government resilience programmes we plan for external risks; the major focus of the past 12 months being energy and power outage related. In 2023-24, we will work to meet the requirements of the UK Government Resilience Strategy, published in December 2022.

Fire, health and safety

The department is fully committed to protecting the health, safety and wellbeing of our employees, the judiciary, those in custody, contractors and all our visitors. This year we have published revised versions of the Corporate Health and Safety, and Corporate Fire Safety policies. These provide clear performance outcomes aligning our Health and Safety strategy to ISO45001, and Fire Safety strategy aligned to British Standard 9997. We continue to engage with stakeholders to standardise policy and practices across the department. The policies’ Statements of Intent are endorsed by the Chief Operating Officer, on my behalf.

Internal control framework

As the Principal Accounting Officer, I am responsible for ensuring that the department, its executive agencies and other arm’s length public bodies operate effectively through a balanced view of opportunity and risk. This includes the design and operation of internal controls to safeguard the use of resources and to gain the necessary assurances over value for money and the quality of delivery. This internal control is supported through a framework of delegated authorities and the standards, policies and practices set and monitored through our governance and risk management frameworks. 

MoJ’s Accounting Officer System Statement describes in more detail the component parts of our system of internal control, including delegated authorities. In this section of the Governance Statement, I have outlined the most significant changes to our control framework in 2022-23, as well as material issues where we have responded to limitations in our control framework.

Functional reform 

Corporate and professional functions play a vital role in MoJ and include: analytical services, commercial, communications, counter fraud, debt, digital, finance, grants, people, project delivery, property, and security. 

The maturity of functions is assessed through a quarterly ‘health check’, supported by annual or bi-annual self-assessments using Cabinet Office continuous improvement assessment frameworks, many of which were published for the first time this year. The maturity scale ranges from ‘good’, indicating compliance with the mandatory elements of the functional standard, to ‘better’, and ‘best’. 

Throughout 2022-23, the functions’ understanding of the requirements of their functional standards has matured and their understanding of the operation of control frameworks to achieve increased compliance is improving.

Finance

As the Principal Accounting Officer, I plan to use resources affordably and sustainably within agreed limits. I formally delegate authority to commit resources and incur expenditure ensuring compliance with the financial controls, including those mandated by HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office, as set out in our Spending Control Framework. These controls are designed and operated to ensure that the department, and the public bodies it sponsors, operate effectively and to the high standard of probity expected. Each budget holder is required to check expenditure to ensure that all transactions are legitimate and in line with anticipated spend, and to keep records of all approvals with supporting documents. Any anomalies are investigated, with action taken as appropriate, including, where necessary, disciplinary action. Non-compliance and remedial actions are reported to the Finance, Performance and Risk Committee. In 2022-23, we made no fiscal reserve claim and all Parliamentary control totals were met.

Commercial 

The Chief Commercial Officer holds the delegated commercial authority to sign, seal, vary or extend commercial agreements on behalf of the Secretary of State, entering the department into a commercial agreement with a third-party provider. The delegated commercial authority for property related transactions, such as property deeds, licences and leases, on behalf of the department is held by the Chief Property Officer. This delegation provides authority to manage and approve commitments and expenditure within allocated budgets. Both financial and commercial authorities are exercised in partnership to control these commercial arrangements and third‑party spend. 

Unless specific exemptions have been agreed, national contracts are used where they exist. To meet the challenge of potential supply chain disruptions, this year we have put in place improved supplier resilience monitoring and business continuity arrangements. 

Projects and programmes

The department’s projects and programmes are each led by a senior responsible owner (SRO) who is accountable for the delivery of each project and is responsible for ensuring that the project/programme delivers the business case benefits and outcomes. 

SROs are expected to manage projects and programmes in accordance with the Government Functional Standard for Project Delivery, other functional standards that might be applicable and the requirements of the Government Project Delivery Framework. This ensures that all project and programmes follow best project delivery practices and effective risk management processes.

All major projects require an individual project Integrated Assurance and Approvals Plan, quality assured by our Project Delivery Assurance Team and the Infrastructure and Major Project Authority and reported to our Portfolio Committee. Our projects are assured using the standard gateway assurance review process. Business cases above £10 million are also assured through our keyholder process, utilising a panel of functional experts to test against their relevant functional standards.

We have an established process for testing compliance with MoJ standards, via an annual assessment (undertaken in collaboration with SROs) of how effectively the standards are operating in all of our major projects. This exercise identifies any significant area of non‑compliance that can then be addressed at either a system or project level, and forms the basis for an improvement action plan for the following year. 

This year we have made changes to the implementation of the HMCTS Reform Programme, and have initiated an overarching evaluation of the programme. Further details can be found on pages 36 to 37. In 2023-24, we will focus on risk management and the development of benefits management and planning.

People

HMPPS’s risks around recruiting and retaining frontline staff continue to be areas of particular focus. Estate expansion will further increase the demand for trained prison and probation officers. 

HMPPS is utilising more analytical insights to understand why people leave, and in 2023-24 we will improve the process of senior civil servant exit interviews to better understand retention challenges. We will also continue to drive improvements in workforce planning, for which a new IT system is being tested.

The resourcing of specialist functional roles such as finance and commercial in the current employment market also remains challenging.

Shared Services Connected Limited (SSCL) provide back-office HR, finance and procurement services to MoJ and other departments. Independent audits carried out by PwC and the Government Internal Audit Agency in 2022-23 gave an overall rating of Limited. SSCL have accepted all the recommendations of the audits and are progressing actions to address these, including the development and implementation of a shared risk management framework between SSCL and departments. 

Property

The Property function is driving improvements in central recording of energy certificates, along with a renewed focus on fire, and health and safety risk reporting. We have also supported the ministerial commitment to increase the number of prison places with the delivery of the first rapid deployment cells at HMP Norwich and an additional 1,700 new places at HMP Fosse Way. Construction is underway on the UK’s first all-electric prison, HMP Millsike, at Full Sutton in East Yorkshire, which will open in 2025. 

Environmental sustainability

Governance and assurance of sustainability across MoJ is coordinated by the Climate Change and Sustainability Unit and performance is overseen by the Senior Sustainability Board. MoJ has a lead minister for climate change and sustainability matters, an Executive Committee champion and a Lead Non-Executive Director.

During 2022-23, we have:

• completed a deep dive review into our strategic climate change and sustainability risks 

• used our climate change risk assessment to inform the refresh of our Climate Adaptation Strategy and National Adaptation Pathway

• refreshed our agency and function sustainability action plans, creating better alignment to the Outcome Delivery Plan and Greening Government Commitments (GGC)

• developed trajectories for our delivery plans that take MoJ towards the 2025 GGC targets

• refreshed the terms of reference for our Senior Sustainability Board and appointed MoJ’s Chief Operating Officer as chair of the board 

Next year, we will:

• launch our Climate Change and Sustainability Strategy and technical Circular Economy, Water Efficiency, Net Zero Strategies 

• implement the new environmental principles statutory duty 

• develop a Climate Change Adaptation Plan

• develop an analytical framework for assessing programmes and major projects for climate and sustainability impacts 

• continue to work closely with our functions to deliver government’s environmental priorities

Information security

The Security and Information Group was established to provide assurance against government security standards and manage compliance against data and information legislative requirements, including the Data Protection Act 2018 and Public Records Act 1958 and 1967.

The department governs security, data protection and information matters through the Information and Security Risk Board which meets bi-monthly. The purpose of the board is to monitor the department’s cross-cutting security, information and personal data risks and govern mitigating action to reduce those risks, which are on the departmental strategic risk register.

The Information and Security Risk Board is supported by working groups covering physical, personnel, cyber and data and information security which manage the risks at working level. Senior Information Risk Owners (SIROs) are supported by Information Assurance (IA) Leads. All new SIROs and IA Leads receive training to ensure they are following best practice. IA Leads also have a corporate performance management objective. All senior civil servant pay band 1 staff are designated information asset owners and receive guidance and training to support them in their role. The MoJ Audit and Risk Assurance Committee and ExCo are regularly updated on security, data protection and information risks. 

Security: cyber, personnel and physical 

In 2022-23, we were a leading department in the cross-government pilot of the Cabinet Office’s ‘GovAssure’ programme, which is implementing the Cyber Assessment Framework across government. This is helping us to get a much more detailed picture of the security risks and issues in different areas and systems. We have also invested £1.5 million in reviewing and improving the security of our supply chain, through development of new processes and policies, and the review of existing contracts. However, legacy IT systems continue to hamper full compliance with cyber security and digital and technology standards.

On personnel security, we have reviewed MoJ Developed Vetting (DV) aftercare processes and are now conducting annual reviews for all DV holders. We are working with the Cabinet Office on implementing the new vetting levels as part of the Vetting Modernisation Programme.

We have continued MoJ physical security site assessments and now have a programme of reviews covering Judges Lodges, Justice Satellite Offices and Collaboration Centres and we are working with Property Group to manage risks and address the recommendations in those assessments. 

We have a strong focus on security culture to ensure staff take personal responsibility for embedding good security behaviour into everything they do. We have continued to develop the MoJ Security Champions programme and have further developed and rolled out training to staff, as well as reviewing our security policies.

Data protection

In 2022-23, we continued to carry out mitigating activity across the core themes of the data protection strategy: Save, Secure, Share, Standards and Support. The Data Protection Team, a team of certified data protection professionals, rolled out a comprehensive training and awareness programme across MoJ; reviewed and strengthened the preventative controls; and fostered greater collaboration across government.

Information services

Under our information wise strategy, we have focused on implementing information governance and controls on MoJ digital information and records. The Digital Records Roadmap project will implement digital information management governance within MoJ using functionality in MS Office 365 to support the improved retention of records and information security. We have also migrated MoJ’s digital repository, on to SharePoint Online, increasing our ability to manage digital records more effectively.

A backlog of subject access requests generated during the pandemic, was cleared in December 2022.

Data

We have an ambition to be a data-led and digital department that delivers for citizens. We will use data to support analysis, drive innovation, deliver improved productivity and enable better decision making. This year we have agreed our Data Strategy which sets out three ambitions:

• improve justice outcomes through data-driven insight and innovation

• ensure data meets user needs

• build a data culture to value data as a strategic asset 

Our data strategy goes hand-in-hand with our Justice Digital Strategy to ensure our digital services are fit for purpose now and in the future. We have allocated dedicated tech debt funding to support in addressing priority legacy technology.

Quality of information

Quality assurance of analysis is regularly reviewed, and the department has analytical quality assurance processes which include:  

• improving the quality of the analysis behind business cases

• advice on analytical quality with tools and processes in place to drive improvement

• annual review of the business critical models 

• rigorous approach and sign off procedures to the large number of FOIs/PQs received 

• evaluation of policy delivery to assess against expected outcomes and building the broader justice evidence base on what works

All analytical advice is underpinned by quality assurance to provide confidence to the Departmental Board. A powerful public example of transparent assured data is the creation of the crime and adult rape scorecards, which has increased assurance over how the whole criminal justice system is working in partnership and enhanced transparency to provide insights to the public and professionals alike. 

Counter fraud

The department’s policy on fraud, bribery and corruption is one of zero tolerance across the spectrum of its diverse activities and its engagement with official bodies and third parties.

The Chief Operating Officer has overall responsibility for counter fraud in the department, supported by a dedicated Head of Counter Fraud, who leads our Counter Fraud Centre of Expertise (CoE). The CoE provides a business partner capability to executive agencies and other ALBs to support understanding and management of their respective response to the threat from fraud, bribery and corruption, ensuring compliance with the Government Functional Standard on Counter Fraud. In 2022-23, the CoE has focused on improving fraud management information and use of data to better understand fraud risk. 

The CoE works with key stakeholders across the department to embed Fraud Risk Assessments (FRA) and where appropriate, Initial Fraud Impact Assessments (IFIA), in accordance with our Counter Fraud strategy and the mandate from the Public Sector Fraud Authority (PSFA).  

MoJ is committed to meeting the requirements of the counter fraud functional standard and the PSFA Mandate. A current initiative with Government Internal Audit Agency involves a review of high level FRA’s and the production of a global FRA for the department. This will assist in the further identification of risks, the effectiveness of existing control measures and the limitations that will identify residual risk. Any fraud or error detections, losses, preventions or recoveries are reported quarterly to the PSFA. 

Whistleblowing

Our ‘Raising a concern (including whistleblowing)’ policy and guidance provide advice on the process for raising concerns (including public interest disclosures) and advise on the protection afforded to whistleblowers who raise concerns. The policy is accessible to all staff across all the department’s intranet platforms and provides reassurance that concerns will be investigated promptly and professionally. 

We engaged with and promoted the cross‑government campaigns, including the “Speak Up” campaign which aims to support individuals coming forward with concerns, promote the credibility of internal reporting routes, and underline the department’s inclusive leadership culture. 

Work is currently underway to:

• improve the training package offered to nominated officers

• update internal documentation to provide better clarity of the scope of the policy

• engage with stakeholders to improve record keeping processes

This will strengthen the ways that staff disclosures are managed and provide greater assurance that concerns raised within the department are dealt with efficiently.

Grants

The department’s grants are each overseen by a senior officer responsible (SOR) who is accountable for the grant and delivery of its expected outcomes. SORs are expected to manage grants in accordance with the Government Functional Standards for Grants, Managing Public Money and other centrally issued guidance. They are supported by a Grants Centre of Expertise which provides a holistic view of MoJ’s grant giving in order to improve the effectiveness of grant spend, and to strengthen governance and assurance. 

Further governance and assurance is provided through a grants challenge panel which has oversight of all grants and ensures a strong focus on value for money by:

• scrutinising and assessing all proposed and existing grants annually and as required for new grants

• providing constructive challenge and advice to grant sponsors

• ensuring consistency across MoJ with regard in particular to grant necessity/ appropriateness, benefits, risk and award level 

• ensuring grants and grant proposals comply with the Government Functional Standard on Grants

Senior sponsorship of public bodies

As Principal Accounting Officer, where I don’t fulfil the role personally, I have appointed senior sponsors for our public bodies. I have set out these arrangements in my Accounting Officer System Statement.

Assurance over the organisational management and performance of our non-departmental public bodies, other statutory office holders and associated offices and compliance with their respective framework documents is provided primarily by our Public Bodies Centre of Expertise. 

The programme of work to update all framework documents to meet revised HM Treasury requirements is expected to complete in 2023-24. This year we have also committed to reviewing a number of public bodies within the Cabinet Office‑led Public Bodies Review Programme. The first public bodies to be reviewed were the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and HM Prisons and Probation. 

The arrangements for providing proportionate oversight and engagement with public bodies include:

• an annual assessment of the optimum risk-based partnership arrangement between the department and each body

• quarterly or six-monthly holding-to-account meetings between the CoE’s assurance partners, finance business partners, policy partners and public bodies, with relevant risks escalated as appropriate to the business group risk register or the departmental risk register

• quarterly updates to senior officials about the oversight of public bodies

• regular attendance by the Head of the Public Bodies CoE at the departmental ARAC, to provide assurance in respect of public bodies’ performance, finance and management of risk

The Public Bodies Centre of Expertise is also responsible for ensuring that diverse and high-quality public appointments are made to ALBs. The relationship between the department and ALBs is informed by the Cabinet Office guidance - ‘Partnerships with arm’s length bodies: Code of good practice’.

Review of effectiveness

As Principal Accounting Officer, I am required to conduct an annual review of the effectiveness of the department’s governance structures, risk management and internal control framework. This review is informed by:

• feedback from senior management with delegated responsibility within the department about the use of resources, responses to risks, compliance with standards and the extent to which in-year budgets and other targets have been met  

• information from the department’s public bodies on their performance of their organisations and their relevant boards

• insight into the department’s performance from internal audit, including an audit opinion on the overall adequacy and effectiveness of the organisation’s framework of governance, risk and control

• the work of the National Audit Office through their financial audit of the accounts of the department and its public bodies and their value for money reports assessing the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which public money has been deployed 

• the views of the ARAC on the design and operation of the department’s governance, risk management and internal control frameworks

• the oversight and assurance provided by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority of the department’s change projects that are included in the Government’s Major Projects Portfolio

As the Principal Accounting Officer, I am responsible for ensuring there is an effective process in place for monitoring and reporting governance issues during the year. In doing so, I rely on assurance from the agency CEOs and directors general who have delegated authority appropriate to their responsibilities. In addition to the through-year assurances provided through the assurance framework, as described in the Accounting Officer System Statement, I prepare the department’s governance statement with sight of the following annual assurance process.

This includes:

• completion of annual director assurance statements across MoJ HQ (which have been reviewed and countersigned by the relevant director general) to provide an assessment of the level of compliance against departmental policies and guidance

• information on levels of compliance with relevant Government Functional Standards from function leads, complemented by assurance statements from function leads on their assessment of compliance within the department

• an overview of material issues from executive agencies and other ALBs, assessed for materiality at MoJ level, providing an overview of compliance for their organisation

Internal audit 

One of the main sources of independent assurance within the department comes from the activities of the internal audit function, which provides me and the ARAC with a clear view on issues emerging from internal audit work.

The internal audit programme is closely linked to the principal risks of the department, its executive agencies and other ALBs. Arrangements are in place to ensure that I am routinely made aware of any significant issues that indicate that risks are not being effectively managed. I am assured that the internal audit service complies with the public sector internal audit standards.

The MoJ Group Chief Internal Auditor has provided a ‘moderate’ annual opinion on the department’s framework of governance, risk management and control, defined as ‘some improvements are required to enhance the adequacy and effectiveness of the framework of governance, risk management and control’. 

The overall opinion is also informed by the annual opinions provided across the department’s executive agencies and other ALBs, which have each have been given a ‘moderate’ opinion.

Their operational work, principally within HMPPS and HMCTS, has focused on the retention of staff and managing demand pressures. They have reflected on continuing steps being taken to manage prison capacity and court backlogs. Their work has highlighted there is more to do to embed change well and ensure that processes and controls operate as intended to reduce reliance on “workarounds”. Although they have identified areas where improvement is required, the department’s work continues to improve the delivery of safety in prisons and after release.

Internal audit reported that oversight and board-level governance arrangements are operating in line with the Cabinet Office Code, with continuing work to make further enhancements and improvements, including work progressing in-year to review structures and continue to make improvements. 

Work has also been progressing during the year to continue to increase maturity in relation to risk management, with improvements being particularly evident in relation to security and data protection. However, they have highlighted that more work is needed to improve understanding of control and assurance frameworks within wider functions and across programme and project delivery. They have concluded that there are well-embedded processes to self-assess compliance with functional standards coupled with a focus on continuous improvement, but a need to further mature plans to achieve improvement ambitions and go beyond the “shall” elements of the standards. 

Internal audit have also reported that since the COVID-19 emergency period, work to establish and embed the new and comprehensive business continuity arrangements across the department continues and that currently should another incident occur, the department would be adequately prepared to react.

Independent oversight of assurance arrangements

The department is subject to independent oversight in a number of areas and implements many of the recommendations made. This oversight includes: 

• National Audit Office reports (including value for money) and the audit report for the annual report and accounts 

• Infrastructure Projects Authority reviews 

• feedback from the Major Projects Review Group 

• Cabinet Office and HM Treasury representation on programme boards 

• HM Chief Inspector of Prisons publications and annual report 

• HM Chief Inspector of Probation publications and annual report 

• regular Independent Monitoring Board reports 

• OFSTED reports

• Public Accounts Committee

External audit

The notional cost of the statutory audit for the core department was £716,000 (2021‑22: £625,500) which also includes the statutory external audit of the consolidated accounts, Office of the Accountant General and the Judicial Pension Scheme.^{[footnote 3]} The total cost of statutory external audits across the departmental group was £2,492,900 of which £520,400 was cash and £1,972,500 notional cost (2021‑22: £2,187,500 comprising £480,500 cash and £1,707,000 notional cost). The notional external audit cost includes the cost of the HM Courts and Tribunals Service Trust Statement which is not consolidated as part of these accounts.

Overall conclusions

I am satisfied that I have effective governance and risk management frameworks and the necessary policies and procedures in place to provide a sound system of internal control to support MoJ in delivering its statutory duties and to meet the aims and objectives set by ministers while safeguarding the public funds and assets for which I am responsible, in accordance with the responsibilities assigned to me in my letter of delegation and in Managing Public Money.

Antonia Romeo

Principal Accounting Officer

24 November 2023

Remuneration and staff report

The remuneration and staff report summarises the department’s policy on remuneration of ministers, executive board members, non-executive board members and staff. It also provides details of actual costs and contractual arrangements.

The remuneration and staff report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Financial Reporting Manual as issued by HM Treasury.

Remuneration policy

The remuneration of senior civil servants (SCS) is set by the Prime Minister following independent advice from the Review Body on Senior Salaries. The Review Body on Senior Salaries also advises the Prime Minister from time to time on:

• the pay and pensions of MPs and their allowances

• peers’ allowances

• the pay, pensions and allowances of ministers and others whose pay is determined by the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 (as amended)

In reaching its recommendations, the Review Body on Senior Salaries has regard to the following considerations:

• the need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people to exercise their different responsibilities

• regional and local variations in labour markets and their effects on the recruitment and retention of staff

• government policies for improving the public services, including the requirement on departments to meet the output targets for the delivery of departmental services

• the funds available to departments as set out in the government’s departmental expenditure limits

• the government’s inflation target

The Review Body on Senior Salaries takes account of the evidence it receives about wider economic considerations and the affordability of its recommendations. Further information about the work of the Review Body on Senior Salaries can be found at: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/review- body-on-senior-salaries

Board members and senior civil servants remuneration

The salaries of MoJ Departmental Board members (excluding the ministerial and non-executive members) are determined in line with the Cabinet Office SCS reward policy. Non-consolidated performance-related payments for senior civil servants are determined by the Executive Committee (SCS Pay Band 1 and 2) and the Nominations Committee (SCS Pay Band 3).

Service contracts

The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 requires Civil Service appointments to be made on merit on the basis of fair and open competition. The Recruitment Principles published by the Civil Service Commission specify the circumstances when appointments may be made otherwise.

Unless otherwise stated below, the officials covered by this report hold appointments which are open-ended and to which a notice period of three months would usually apply. Early termination, other than for misconduct, would result in the individual receiving compensation as set out in the Civil Service Compensation Scheme. Further information about the work of the Civil Service Commission can be found at: www.civilservicecommission.org.uk

Remuneration and pension entitlements

The following sections provide details of the remuneration and pension interests of the ministers and senior management of the department.

Remuneration (salary and payments in kind) (audited)

Remuneration					2022-23					2021-22
	Total amount of salary and fees	All taxable benefits (nearest £100)	Pension related benefits (nearest £1,000)1	Severance payments	Total (nearest £1,000)	Total amount of salary and fees	All taxable benefits (nearest £100)	Pension related benefits (nearest £1,000)	Severance payments	Total (nearest £1,000)
Ministers	£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP, Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 15 September 2021 to 5 September 2022, reappointed 25 October 2022)2	58,462 (FYE 67,505)	-	-	9,043	68,000	33,753 (FYE 67,505)	-	-	-	34,000
The Rt Hon Brandon Lewis MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 6 September to 24 October 2022)	14,668 (FYE 67,505)	-	3,000	16,876	35,000	-	-	-	-	-
The Rt Hon Robert Buckland KC MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (to 14 September 2021)	-	-	-	-	-	30,752 (FYE 67,505)	-	7,000	16,876	54,000
Lord Christopher Bellamy KC, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 7 June 2022)3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Mike Freer MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 20 September 2022)	11,871 (FYE 22,375)	-	3,000	-	15,000	-	-	-	-	-
Gareth Johnson MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 20 September to 27 October 2022)	2,308 (FYE 22,375)	-	05	5,593	8,000	-	-	-	-	-
Rob Butler MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 20 September to 26 October 2022)	2,248 (FYE 22,375)	-	05	5,593	8,000	-	-	-	-	-
Simon Baynes MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 8 July to 7 September 2022)3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Sarah Dines MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 8 July to 19 September 2022)2	3,595 (FYE 17,917)	-	-	-	4,000	-	-	-	-	-
Tom Pursglove MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (to 6 July 2022), Minister of State for Justice (from 7 July to 7 September 2022)3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
James Cartlidge MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (to 7 July 2022)3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Lord David Wolfson of Tredegar KC, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (to 14 April 2022)3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Christopher Philp MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (to 15 September 2021)	-	-	-	-	-	11,187 (FYE 22,375)	-	3,000	-	14,000
The Rt Hon Edward Argar MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 27 October 2022)	13,626 (FYE 31,680)	-	3,000	-	17,000	-	-	-	-	-
The Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 27 October 2022)	13,626 (FYE 31,680)	-	6,000	-	20,000	-	-	-	-	-
Rachel Maclean MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 7 September to 25 October 2022)	4,241 (FYE 31,680)	-	1,000	0 5	5,000	-	-	-	-	-
The Rt Hon Stuart Andrew MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 8 July to 19 September 2022)	4,312 (FYE 31,680)	-	3,000	-	7,000	-	-	-	-	-
The Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP, Minister of State for Justice (to 6 July 2022)3	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Victoria Atkins MP, Minister of State for Justice (to 6 July 2022)	8,431 (FYE 31,680)	-	2,000	7,920	18,000	16,228 (FYE 31,680)	-	4,000	-	20,000

Notes to the table:

1. The value of pension benefits accrued during the year is calculated as the (real increase in pension multiplied by 20) plus (the real increase in the lump sum), less (the contributions made by the individual). The real increases exclude increases due to inflation or any increase or decrease due to a transfer of pension rights.

2. Dominic Raab MP and Sarah Dines MP opted out of the pension scheme.

3. Simon Baynes MP, Kit Malthouse MP and Tom Pursglove MP are paid by Home Office. Lord David Wolfson, James Cartlidge MP, and Lord Christopher Bellamy KC are unpaid Parliamentary Under Secretaries of State. 

4. Information disclosed above relates to the period in which the individuals were in post as ministers.

5. A zero value is shown where a figure has been rounded down to zero. A nil value is represented by a dash.

Remuneration (salary and payments in kind) (audited)

Remuneration	2022-23					2021-22
	Total amount of salary and fees	All taxable benefits (nearest £100)	Bonuses paid2	Pension related benefits (nearest £1,000)1	Total (nearest £1,000)	Total amount of salary and fees	All taxable benefits (nearest £100)	Bonuses paid	Pension related benefits (nearest £1,000)	Total (nearest £1,000)
Senior managers	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Antonia Romeo, Permanent Secretary	185-190	-	-	50	235-240	185-190	-	15-20	60	260-265
Jo Farrar, Second Permanent Secretary for Ministry of Justice and Chief Executive to HMPPS (to 1 September 2022), Second Permanent Secretary (from 1 September 2022)3,4,5	165-170	-	-	26	190-195	160-165	-	-	25	185-190
Amy Rees, Director General, Chief Executive to HMPPS (from 1 September 2022)4,5	90-95 (150-155 FYE)	13.1	15-20	22	140-145	-	-	-	-	-
Nick Goodwin, Chief Executive, HM Courts and Tribunals Service3,5 (from 14 March 2022)	130 -135	-	-	109	240-245	5-10 (120-125 FYE)	-	-	6 6	10-15
Kevin Sadler, Interim Chief Executive Officer, HM Courts and Tribunals Service (to 25 March 2022)3,5	-	-	-	-	-	120-125	-	5-10	35 7	160-165
James McEwen, Chief Operating Officer	140-145	-	0-5	97	240-245	125-130	-	-	36	160-165
Jerome Glass, Director General, Policy Group (to 28 November 2022), Director General, Policy Group - Courts and Access to Justice (from 29 November 2022)	130-135	-	5-10	44	180-185	120-125	-	0-5	69	190-195
Richard Price, Director General, Performance, Strategy and Analysis (from 9 May 2022)	115-120 (130-135 FYE)	-	-	55	170-175	-	-	-	-	-

Notes to the table:

1. The value of pension benefits accrued during the year is calculated as (the real increase in pension multiplied by 20) plus (the real increase in any lump sum) less (the contributions made by the individual). The real increases exclude increases due to inflation or any increase or decreases due to a transfer of pension rights.

2. Bonus figures include 2021-22 performance related pay which was paid out in 2022-23.

3. Dr Jo Farrar was remunerated by HMPPS until 31 August 22, Nick Goodwin and Kevin Sadler are remunerated by HMCTS.

4. Dr Jo Farrar is a member of the partnership pension scheme and as such did not accrue PCSPS pension benefits in 2022-23 and 2021-22. The employer contributions to her partnership pension account are included in the ‘Pension related benefits’ column of this table and CETV table below. Amy Rees joined the partnership pension scheme in year.

5. Nick Goodwin’s remuneration is also published in the 2022-23 HMCTS annual report and accounts; Amy Rees and Dr Jo Farrar’s remuneration is also published in the 2022-23 HMPPS annual report and accounts.

6. Nick Goodwin’s pension related benefits and total remuneration for 2021-22 were recalculated by the Civil Service Pension Scheme.

7. Kevin Sadler’s pension related benefits and total remuneration for 2021-22 were recalculated by the Civil Service Pension Scheme.

Remuneration (salary and payments in kind) (audited)

Remuneration			2022-23			2021-22
	Fees (excluding performance related remuneration)	All taxable benefits (nearest £100)	Bonuses paid	Fees (excluding performance related remuneration)	All taxable benefits (nearest £100)	Bonuses paid
Non‑executive board members	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Mark Rawlinson, Lead Non-Executive Member	20-25	-	-	20-25	-	-
Paul Smith, Non-Executive Member and Chair of Audit and Risk Assurance Committee	20-25	-	-	20-25	-	-
Mark Beaton, Non-Executive Member (from 14 July 2022)	10-15	-	-	-	-	-
Shirley Cooper OBE, Non-Executive Member (to 3 August 2022)	5-10	-	-	10-15	-	-
Nick Campsie, Non-Executive Member (to 3 June 2022)	0-5	-	-	10-15	-	-

Information disclosed above relates to the period in which the individuals were in post as senior managers or non-executive board members. None of the non-executive board members have pension entitlements with the department.

When a minister moves from one department to another, the exporting department pays their salary at the current rate of pay until the end of the month of departure, and the importing department pays in the following month at the appropriate salary plus any arrears.

Salary

‘Salary’ includes:

• gross salary

• overtime

• reserved rights to London weighting or London allowances

• recruitment and retention allowances

• private office allowances

• any other allowance to the extent that it is subject to UK taxation

This report is based on accrued payments made by the department and thus recorded in these accounts. In respect of ministers in the House of Commons, departments bear only the cost of the additional ministerial remuneration; the salary for their services as an MP: £84,144 (from 1 April 2022), and various allowances to which they are entitled are borne centrally. Ministers in the House of Lords do not receive a salary but rather an additional remuneration, which cannot be quantified separately from their ministerial salaries. This total remuneration, as well as the allowances to which they are entitled, is paid by the department and is therefore shown in full in the figures above.

All taxable benefits

Taxable benefits include all benefits in kind and taxable cash benefits. The monetary value of benefits in kind covers any benefits provided by the department and treated by HM Revenue and Customs as a taxable emolument. Benefits recognised relate to travel and subsistence.

Benefits in kind are an estimate, as the final value is to be agreed between the Secretary of State for Justice and HM Revenue and Customs.

Bonuses

Bonuses are based on performance levels attained and are made as part of the appraisal process. Bonuses relate to the performance in the year in which they become payable to the individual. Permanent Secretary bonuses are determined by the Permanent Secretary Remuneration Committee within Cabinet Office.

Bonuses for SCS Pay Band 3 are determined by the Permanent Secretary, as advised by the Nominations Committee which includes the lead non-exec board member and the Chief People Officer. Bonuses are subject to in-year performance, following Cabinet Office guidance. The policy for non-consolidated performance related pay remains that such payments should be restricted to the top 25% of performers.

The bonuses reported in 2022-23 relate to performance in 2021-22 and the comparative bonuses reported for 2021-22 relate to performance in 2020-21.

Pension entitlements: Ministerial pensions (audited)

Pension benefits

	Accrued pension at age 65 as at 31 March 2023	Real increase in pension at age 65	CETV at 31 March 2023	CETV at 31 March 2022	Real increase/ (decrease) in CETV
Ministers	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP, Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 15 September 2021 to 5 September 2022, reappointed 25 October 2022)3	-	-	-	-	-
The Rt Hon Brandon Lewis MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 6 September to 24 October 2022)	5-10	0-2.5	105	101	2
The Rt Hon Robert Buckland KC MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (to 14 September 2021)	-	-	-	119	-
Lord Christopher Bellamy KC, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 7 June)1	-	-	-	-	-
Mike Freer MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 20 September 2022)	0-5	0-2.5	38	33	2
Gareth Johnson MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 20 September to 27 October 2022)	0-5	0-2.5	5	5	02
Rob Butler MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 20 September to 26 October 2022)	0-5	0-2.5	02	-	02
Simon Baynes MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 8 July to 7 September 2022)1	-	-	-	-	-
Sarah Dines MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 8 July to 19 September 2022)3	-	-	-	-	-
Tom Pursglove MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (to 6 July 2022), Minister of State for Justice (from 7 July to 7 September 2022)1	-	-	-	-	-
James Cartlidge MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (to 7 July 2022)1	-	-	-	-	-
Lord David Wolfson of Tredegar KC, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (to 14 April 2022)1	-	-	-	-	-
Christopher Philp MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (to 15 September 2021)	-	-	-	10	-
The Rt Hon Edward Argar MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 27 October 2022)	0-5	0-2.5	24	20	1
The Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 27 October 2022)	5-10	0-2.5	72	62	4
Rachel Maclean MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 7 September to 25 October 2022)	0-5	0-2.5	17	15	1
The Rt Hon Stuart Andrew MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 8 July to 20 September 2022)	0-5	0-2.5	30	28	1
The Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP, Minister of State for Justice (to 6 July 2022)1	-	-	-	-	-
Victoria Atkins MP, Minister of State for Justice (to 6 July 2022)	0-5	0-2.5	25	23	1

Notes to the table:

1. These ministers were not paid by MoJ during the reporting year. Lord David Wolfson, James Cartlidge, and Lord Christopher Bellamy KC served as unpaid ministers therefore no pension benefits were received by them from MoJ. Tom Pursglove, Kit Malthouse, and Simon Baynes were paid by another government department. Information disclosed above relates to the full year, whereas dates included above relate to the period in which the individuals were in post as ministers.

2. A zero value is shown where a figure has been rounded down to zero. A nil value is represented by a dash.

3. Dominic Raab MP and Sarah Dines MP opted out of the pension scheme. 

Ministerial pension benefits

Pension benefits for ministers are provided by the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (PCPF). The scheme is made under statute and the rules are set out in the Ministers’ Etc. Pension Scheme 2015, available at: http://qna.files.parliament.uk/ws-attachments/170890/original/PCPF MINISTERIAL SCHEME FINAL RULES.doc

Those ministers who are MPs may also accrue an MPs’ pension under the PCPF (details of which are not included in this report). A new MPs’ pension scheme was introduced from May 2015, although members who were MPs and aged 55 or older on 1 April 2013 have transitional protection to remain in the previous MPs’ final salary pension scheme.

Benefits for ministers are payable from state pension age under the 2015 scheme. Pensions are revalued annually in line with pensions increase legislation both before and after retirement. The contribution rate from May 2015 is 11.1% and the accrual rate is 1.775% of pensionable earnings.

The figure shown for pension value includes the total pension payable to the member under both the pre- and post-2015 ministerial pension schemes.

Cash equivalent transfer value

This is the actuarially assessed capitalised value of the pension scheme benefits accrued by a member at a particular point in time. The benefits valued are the member’s accrued benefits and any contingent spouse’s pension payable from the scheme. A cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) is a payment made by a pension scheme or arrangement to secure pension benefits in another pension scheme or arrangement when the member leaves a scheme and chooses to transfer the pension benefits they have accrued in their former scheme. The pension figures shown relate to the benefits that the individual has accrued as a consequence of their total ministerial service, not just their current appointment as a minister. CETVs are calculated in accordance with the Occupational Pension Schemes (Transfer Values) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 and do not take account of any actual or potential reduction to benefits resulting from Lifetime Allowance Tax which may be due when pension benefits are taken.

CETV figures are calculated using the guidance on discount rates for calculating unfunded public service pension contribution rates that was extant at 31 March 2023. HM Treasury published updated guidance on 27 April 2023; this guidance will be used in the calculation of 2023-24 CETV figures.

Real increase in value of the cash equivalent transfer value

This reflects the increase in CETV that is funded by the employer.  It does not include the increase in accrued pension due to inflation, contributions paid by the employee (including the value of any benefits transferred from another pension scheme or arrangement) and uses common market valuation factors for the start and end of the period.

Civil Service pensions (audited)

	Accrued pension and related lump sum at pension age as at 31 March 2023	Real increase in pension and related lump sum at pension age	CETV at 31 March 2023	CETV at 31 March 2022	Real increase/ (decrease) in CETV	Employer partnership  pension account at 31 March 2023
Senior Managers	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	Nearest £100
Antonia Romeo, Permanent Secretary	60 - 65 plus a lump sum of 85 - 90	2.5 - 5 plus a lump sum of 0	930	817	17	-
Jo Farrar, Second Permanent Secretary for Ministry of Justice and Chief Executive to HMPPS (to 1 September 2022), Second Permanent Secretary (from 1 September 2022)1,3	-	-	-	-	-	25,600
Amy Rees, Director General, Chief Executive to HMPPS (from 1 September 2022)3,4	55 - 60 plus a lump sum of 5 - 10	0 - 2.5 plus a lump sum of 0	734	664	(1)	3,300
Nick Goodwin, Chief Executive, HM Courts and Tribunals Service2,3	40 - 45 plus a lump sum of 70 - 75	5 - 7.5 plus a lump sum of 7.5 - 10	646	515	71	-
Kevin Sadler, Interim Chief Executive Officer, HM Courts and Tribunals Service (to 25 March 2022)	-	-	-	1,398	-	-
James McEwen, Chief Operating Officer	50 -55	5 - 7.5	618	507	50	-
Jerome Glass, Director General, Policy Group (to 28 November 2022), Director General, Policy Group - Courts and Access to Justice (from 29 November 2022)	40 - 45	2.5 - 5	486	422	14	-
Richard Price, Director General, Performance, Strategy and Analysis (from 9 May 2022)	20 - 25	2.5 - 5	316	263	34	-

Notes to the table:

1. Dr Jo Farrar is a member of the partnership pension scheme. No PCSPS pension benefits were accrued in 2022-23 (2021-22: £0). There were no employer contributions to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS).

2. Nick Goodwin’s CETV at 31 March 22 is updated from the figure disclosed in the Annual Report and Accounts 2021-22 due to a recalculation by the PCSPS administrator.

3. Nick Goodwin’s remuneration is also published in the 2022-23 HMCTS annual report and accounts. Amy Rees and Jo Farrar’s remuneration are also published in the 2022-23 HMPPS annual report and accounts.

4. Amy Rees transferred to the partnership pension scheme in February 2023. Benefits from both the PCSPS and partnership scheme have been disclosed in the table above. Taking account of inflation, the CETV funded by the employer has decreased in real terms.

Civil Service pension benefits

Pension benefits are provided through the Civil Service pension arrangements. From 1 April 2015 a new pension scheme for civil servants was introduced – the Civil Servants and Others Pension Scheme, or alpha, which provides benefits on a career average basis with a normal pension age equal to the member’s state pension age (or 65 if higher).

From that date all newly appointed civil servants and the majority of those already in service joined alpha. Prior to that date, civil servants participated in the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). The PCSPS has four sections: three providing benefits on a final salary basis (classic, premium or classic plus) with a normal pension age of 60; and one providing benefits on a whole career basis (nuvos) with a normal pension age of 65.

These statutory arrangements are unfunded with the cost of benefits met by monies voted by Parliament each year. Pensions payable under classic, premium, classic plus, nuvos and alpha are increased annually in line with Pensions Increase legislation.

Existing members of the PCSPS who were within 10 years of their normal pension age on 1 April 2012 remained in the PCSPS after 1 April 2015. Those who were between 10 years and 13 years and 5 months from their normal pension age on 1 April 2012 switched into alpha at some time between 1 June 2015 and 1 February 2022.

Because the government plans to remove discrimination identified by the courts in the way that the 2015 pension reforms were introduced for some members, eligible members with relevant service between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022 may be entitled to different pension benefits in relation to that period (and this may affect the Cash Equivalent Transfer Values shown in this report – see below).

All members who switch to alpha have their PCSPS benefits ‘banked’, with those with earlier benefits in one of the final salary sections of the PCSPS having those benefits based on their final salary when they leave alpha. (The pension figures quoted for officials show pension earned in PCSPS or alpha – as appropriate. Where the official has benefits in both the PCSPS and alpha the figure quoted is the combined value of their benefits in the two schemes.) Members joining from October 2002 may opt for either the appropriate defined benefit arrangement or a defined contribution (money purchase) pension with an employer contribution (partnership pension account).

Contribution rates

Employee contributions are salary-related and range between 4.6% and 8.05% for members of classic, premium, classic plus, nuvos and alpha.

Benefits in classic accrue at the rate of 1/80th of final pensionable earnings for each year of service. In addition, a lump sum equivalent to three years’ initial pension is payable on retirement. For premium, benefits accrue at the rate of 1/60th of final pensionable earnings for each year of service. Unlike classic, there is no automatic lump sum. Classic plus is essentially a hybrid with benefits for service before 1 October 2002 calculated broadly as per classic and benefits for service from October 2002 worked out as in premium. In nuvos a member builds up a pension based on their pensionable earnings during their period of scheme membership.

At the end of the scheme year (31 March) the member’s earned pension account is credited with 2.3% of their pensionable earnings in that scheme year and the accrued pension is uprated in line with Pensions Increase legislation. Benefits in alpha build up in a similar way to nuvos, except that the accrual rate is 2.32%. In all cases members may opt to give up (commute) their pension for a lump sum up to the limits set by the Finance Act 2004.

The partnership pension account is an occupational defined contribution pension arrangement which is part of the Legal & General Mastertrust. The employer makes a basic contribution of between 8% and 14.75% (depending on the age of the member). The employee does not have to contribute, but where they do make contributions, the employer will match these up to a limit of 3% of pensionable salary (in addition to the employer’s basic contribution). Employers also contribute a further 0.5% of pensionable salary to cover the cost of centrally-provided risk benefit cover (death in service and ill health retirement).

The accrued pension quoted is the pension the member is entitled to receive when they reach pension age, or immediately on ceasing to be an active member of the scheme if they are already at or over pension age. Pension age is 60 for members of classic, premium and classic plus, 65 for members of nuvos, and the higher of 65 or state pension age for members of alpha. 

(The pension figures quoted for officials show pension earned in PCSPS or alpha – as appropriate. Where the official has benefits in both the PCSPS and alpha the figure quoted is the combined value of their benefits in the two schemes, but note that part of that pension may be payable from different ages.)

Further details about the Civil Service pension arrangements can be found at: www.civilservicepensionscheme.org.uk

Fair pay disclosure

This section has been subject to audit.

Reporting bodies are required to disclose the relationship between the remuneration of the highest-paid director in their organisation and the lower quartile, median and upper quartile remuneration of the organisation’s workforce.

The banded remuneration of the highest‑paid director in the financial year 2022‑23 was £185,000-£190,000 (2021‑22: £200,000-£205,000).

This was 6.0 times (2021-22: 7.4) the median remuneration of the workforce, which was £31,265 (2021-22: £27,381).

In 2022-23, 10 (2021-22: 8) employees received remuneration in excess of the highest-paid director. Remuneration ranged from £15,000‑£20,000 to £415,000‑£420,000 (2021‑22: £15,000-£20,000 to £365,000‑£370,000). These were agency staff who worked for a part of the reporting year. In line with fair pay disclosure guidance, remuneration for agency workers has been annualised to arrive at the figures disclosed and does not reflect actual remuneration payments made to agency staff in 2022-23. No permanent staff received remuneration in excess of the highest paid director.

Total remuneration includes salary, non‑consolidated performance-related pay and benefits-in-kind. It does not include severance payments, employer pension contributions and the cash equivalent transfer value of pensions.

Table 1 ‑ Annual percentage change in remuneration of highest paid director and staff

		2022-23		2021-22
	Salary	Bonus payments	Salary	Bonus payments
Staff average	3%	-17%	4%	-86%
Highest paid director*	0%	-100%	0%	-

• The highest paid director in 2022-23 did not receive a bonus payment.

Table 2 ‑ Ratio between the highest paid director’s total remuneration and the pay and benefits of employees in the lower quartile, median and upper quartile

	Lower quartile	Median	Upper quartile
2022-23	7.4:1	6.0:1	4.9:1
2021-22	8.8:1	7.4:1	5.9:1

Table 3 ‑ Lower quartile, median and upper quartile remuneration for staff

	Lower quartile		Median		Upper quartile
	2022-23	2021‑22	2022-23	2021‑22	2022-23	2021‑22
Salary	25,342	20,975	31,250	24,689	38,289	31,649
Total remuneration	25,342	23,144	31,265	27,381	38,530	34,143

In 2020-21, following approval from Cabinet Office and HM Treasury, a three-year pay deal was implemented for MoJ employees. The three-year pay deal runs from 1 August 2020 until 31 July 2023.

The implementation of the pay award in 2022-23 increased average staff remuneration.

The banded remuneration of our highest paid director decreased due to the payment of a bonus in 2021-22. No bonus was paid in 2022-23.

Compensation for loss of office

This section has been subject to audit.

The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP was entitled to compensation of £16,876 within the period but voluntarily returned £7,833 to the department, receiving a net amount of £9,043.

The Rt Hon Brandon Lewis MP received compensation of £16,876.

Gareth Johnson MP received compensation of £5,593.

Rob Butler MP received compensation of £5,593.

Victoria Atkins MP received compensation of £7,920.

Rachel Maclean MP was entitled to compensation of £7,920 but voluntarily returned £7,920 to the department, receiving a net amount of £0.

No senior managers received compensatory payments in 2022-23 and in 2021-22.

Staff numbers and composition

This section has been subject to audit.

Staff costs

Departmental group

				2022-23	2021-22
	Permanently employed staff*	Other	Ministers**	Total	Total
	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Wages and salaries	3,072,023	242,199	394	3,314,616	3,008,041
Social security costs***	339,814	1,619	45	341,478	286,789
Other pension costs	888,580	31	-	888,611	840,616
Sub total	4,300,417	243,849	439	4,544,705	4,135,446
Early departure costs	25,268	-	-	25,268	15,159
Early departure provisions	-	-	-	-	-
Add inward secondments	15,746	(1,786)	-	13,960	30,741
Less recoveries in respect of outward secondments	(20,750)	-	-	(20,750)	(32,769)
Total net costs	4,320,681	242,063	439	4,563,183	4,148,577
Of which:
Core department and agencies	4,086,296	216,714	439	4,303,449	3,895,744
Non‑departmental public bodies	234,385	25,349	-	259,734	252,833
	4,320,681	242,063	439	4,563,183	4,148,577

*Includes staff on permanent and fixed term contracts.

**Ministers’ costs include costs of Scotland Offices ministers and staff which are recovered as secondment income.

***The apprenticeship levy, implemented across England on 6 April 2017, is an employment tax of 0.5% of the annual pay bill and these costs are included within social security costs. Further details of the apprenticeship levy can be found on GOV.UK

During the period ended 31 March 2023, £22.6 million of staff costs (2021-22: £13.1 million) have been capitalised.

The department has disclosed information on the number of hours and associated cost to the department of employees who were relevant union officials during 2022-23 in Annex F.

Under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975, the salary and social security costs of the Lord Chancellor, included under ‘Ministers’ above, are paid from the consolidated fund. In 2022‑23, the Lord Chancellor’s full year equivalent salary was £67,505 (2021-22: £67,505) and the associated combined social security costs were £14,123 (2021‑22: £13,000). Five severance payments totalling £45,470 were made to ministers in 2022‑23 (2021-22: one payment of £16,876).

Special advisers are temporary civil servants. In order to improve efficiency, the administration of staff costs for all special advisers across government was moved to the Cabinet Office in July 2019, with corresponding budget cover transfers. Therefore, special adviser costs are now reported in the Cabinet Office annual report and accounts. Special advisers remain employed by the respective departments of their appointing minister.

In line with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 and the ‘Model contract for special advisers’, a special adviser’s appointment automatically ends when their appointing minister leaves office. Special advisers are not entitled to a notice period but receive contractual termination benefits to compensate for this. Termination benefits are based on length of service and capped at six months’ salary. If a special adviser returns to work for the government following the receipt of a severance payment, the payment is required to be repaid, less a deduction in lieu of wages for the period until their return. Termination costs for special advisers are reported in the Cabinet Office annual report and accounts.

The PCSPS and the Civil Servants and Other Pension Scheme (known as alpha) are unfunded multi-employer defined benefit schemes where the department is unable to identify its share of the underlying assets and liabilities. The scheme actuary valued the scheme as at 31 March 2016. Details can be found in the accounts of the Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation on GOV.UK

For 2022-23, employers’ contributions of £585.5 million were payable to the PCSPS (2021‑22: £531.5 million) at one of four rates which ranged from 26.6% to 30.3% (2021-22: 26.6% to 30.3%) of pensionable pay, based on salary bands (34.1% for prison officer grades with reserved rights). The scheme actuary reviews employer contributions approximately every four years following a full scheme valuation. The contribution rates are set to meet the cost of the benefits accruing during 2022-23 to be paid when the member retires and not the benefits paid during this period to existing pensioners.

Employer pension contributions equivalent to 0.5% (2021-22: 0.5%) of pensionable pay were payable to the PCSPS to cover the cost of the future provision of lump sum benefits on death in service and ill health retirement of employees in the PCSPS.

Past employees of the probation trusts, and Local Government Pension Scheme probation staff who transferred to community rehabilitation companies and HMPPS National Probation Service (NPS) are covered by the provisions of the Local Government Pension Scheme via one pension fund, Greater Manchester Pension Fund (GMPF), administered by Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council. For the year to 31 March 2023, HMPPS paid employers’ contributions of £174.7 million to GMPF, relating to current probation staff, at 29.6% (2021‑22: £145.6 million at 29.6%).

Past employees of the Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs) are also member of the Local Government Pension Scheme via GMPF. In 2022-23, MoJ paid employers’ contributions of £0.7 million in respect of these staff (2021‑22: £0.4 million).

Employees of Cafcass are members of the Local Government Pension Scheme through the West Yorkshire Pension Fund (WYPF). For 2022-23 employer contributions of £16.8 million were payable at a rate of 19.4% (2021-22: £16.2 million at a rate of 19.4%).

Employees can opt to open a partnership pension account, a stakeholder pension with an employer contribution. Employers’ contributions to partnership pension accounts were £1.9 million (2021-22: £1.7 million) and were paid to one or more of the three appointed stakeholder pension providers. Employer contributions, which are age-related, ranged from 8% to 14.75% (2021‑22: 8% to 14.75%) of pensionable pay. Employers also match employee contributions up to 3% of pensionable pay.

The NEST Defined Contribution Scheme is offered to individuals working in HMPPS who are not civil servants and therefore not eligible to join the Civil Service Pension Scheme or the Local Government Pension Scheme. For the year to 31 March 2023, employer contributions of £0.03 million were paid (2021-22: £0.04 million).

In addition, other pension costs include GMPF pension costs of £87.6 million (2021‑22: £122.1 million, WYPF pension costs of £18.9 million (2021-22: £21.1 million) and other pension scheme costs of £2.5 million (2021‑22: £2.3 million) for some of the department’s ALBs. For further details on employers’ pension contributions and contribution rates for the LSC, Cafcass and Probation pension schemes, refer to Note 25.

41 persons (2021-22: 35 persons) retired early on ill health grounds; the total additional accrued pension liabilities in the year were £184,000 (2021-22: £160,000).

Judicial costs

Departmental group

				2022-23	2021‑22
	Senior judicial salaries	Other judicial salaries	Fee‑paid judiciary	Total	Total
	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Wages and salaries	145,757	111,460	146,183	403,400	391,769
Social security costs	20,546	15,571	15,788	51,905	47,972
Other pension costs	74,202	57,298	55,419	186,919	173,765
Total net costs	240,505	184,329	217,390	642,224	613,506

The Judicial Pension Scheme is an unfunded multi-employer defined benefit scheme which prepares its own accounts, but for which the department (through HM Courts and Tribunals Service) is unable to identify its share of the liabilities. Details of the most recent completed valuation (as at March 2020) are available at: Judicial Pensions Scheme Annual Report and Accounts 2022 to 2023

Judicial pensions are paid out of the consolidated fund where the judicial office holder’s salary was paid from that fund, or the Judicial Pension Scheme where the salary has been paid from the department’s supply estimate. Contributions to the Judicial Pension Scheme have been made at a rate of 51.35%.

The benefits payable are governed by the provisions of either: the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2022 (for all judicial office holders appointed from 1 April 2022), the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015 (for judicial office holders appointed between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022 and existing judicial office holders who are not in scope of the McCloud remedy); the Judicial Pensions Act 1981 or the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (for those remaining in these schemes due to transitional protection); or the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2017 (for eligible fee-paid judges with reckonable service from 7 April 2000 up to 31 March 2015).

The Judicial Pensions Regulations 2022 replaced the legacy schemes for judicial office holders appointed from 1 April 2022 and department makes employer contributions to the Judicial Pension Scheme in respect of  this scheme as service is incurred.

Average number of full-time equivalent staff employed in the year

• Ministry of Justice HQ: 7093 (8%), includes staff engaged in capital projects (MoJ HQ 271.4 staff)

• HM Courts and Tribunals Service: 16767 (18%)

• HM Prison and Probation Service: 60873 (66%), Includes staff engaged in capital projects (HMPPS 199 staff)

• Legal Aid Agency: 1093 (1%) 

• Other departmental agencies: 1922 (2%)

• Non-departmental public bodies: 4955 (5%)

Departmental group

					2022-23	2021-22**
	Permanently employed staff*	Other	Ministers	Special advisers	Total	Total
Ministry of Justice HQ and associated offices
Chief Operating Officer group	2,761.6	67.0	0.2	0.1	2,828.9	2,369.6
Performance, strategy and analysis group	877.6	10.7	-	-	888.3	725.2
Policy group	1,510.4	4.1	2.5	2.1	1,519.1	1,397.5
Service delivery transformation group	1,326.6	254.5	-	-	1,581.1	1,402.0
Agencies
HM Courts and Tribunals Service	14,544.0	2,223.0	0.6	0.5	16,768.1	17,317.6
Office of the Public Guardian	1,421.5	204.0	0.1	0.1	1,625.7	1,523.6
HM Prison and Probation Service	59,635.0	1,039.0	1.4	1.1	60,676.5	57,879.8
Legal Aid Agency	1,090.0	3.0	0.1	0.1	1,093.2	1,116.5
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority	296.0	-	0.1	0.1	296.2	295.2
Non‑departmental public bodies
Non-departmental public bodies	4,392.7	562.0	-	-	4,954.7	4,548.9
Capital projects
Staff engaged on capital projects	177.5	292.9	-	-	470.4	219.3
Total	88,032.9	4,660.2	5.0	4.1	92,702.2	88,795.2
Of which:
Core department and agencies	83,640.2	4,098.2	5.0	4.1	87,747.5	84,246.3
Non‑departmental public bodies	4,392.7	562.0	-	-	4,954.7	4,548.9
	88,032.9	4,660.2	5.0	4.1	92,702.2	88,795.2

*Includes staff on permanent and fixed term contracts. Data for agencies is taken from agency published accounts.

**FTEs for 2021-22 have been reclassified to reflect a restructure in HQ and associated offices during 2022-23.

The full-time equivalent analysis for ministers and special advisers reflects the proportion of time spent across the different functions within the departmental group.

Average number of full-time equivalent judiciary in post in the year

Departmental group

				2022-23	2021‑22
	Senior judicial salaried	Other judicial salaried	Fee‑paid judiciary	Total	Total
Core department and agencies	942.0	915.0	1,128.0	2,985.0	2,959.0
#Total	942.0	915.0	1,128.0	2,985.0	2,959.0

The judiciary is independent. Their payroll costs disclosed within HM Courts and Tribunals Service are met either directly from the consolidated fund, in the case of senior judiciary, or by the department for other judiciary. All costs are included within these accounts to ensure that the full cost is disclosed.

Civil Service and other compensation schemes – exit packages 

This section has been subject to audit.

Departmental group

			2022-23			2021-22
	Compulsory redundancies	Other compensated departures	Total exit packages	Compulsory redundancies	Other compensated departures	Total exit packages
Exit package cost band	Number	Number	Total number	Number	Number	Total number
< £10,000	-	166	166	-	107	107
£10,000 - £25,000	1	74	75	-	74	74
£25,001 - £50,000	-	171	171	1	89	90
£50,001 - £100,000	-	229	229	-	108	108
£100,001 - £150,000	-	18	18	-	23	23
£150,001 - £200,000	-	7	7	-	8	8
£200,001 - £250,000	-	2	2	-	2	2
£250,001 - £300,000	-	-	-	-	1	1
Total number of exit packages by type	1	667	668	1	412	413
Of which:
Core department and agencies	1	667	668	1	412	413
Non‑departmental public bodies	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total cost of exit packages by type (£000)	12	27,785	27,797	54	17,208	17,262
Of which:
Core department and agencies	12	27,785	27,797	35	17,208	17,243
Non‑departmental public bodies	-	-	-	19	-	19

Redundancy and other departure costs have been paid in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, a statutory scheme made under the Superannuation Act 1972. Exit costs are accounted for in accordance with IAS19 Employee Benefits within the financial statements. The table above discloses exit packages in the year the exit package is confirmed. Where the department has agreed early retirements, the additional costs are met by the department and not by the PCSPS. Ill health retirement costs are met by the pension scheme and are not included in the table above.

Other departure exit costs include 614 efficiency departure exit packages at a value of £24 million (2021-22: 332 at a value of £10.9 million) within payment bands not exceeding £250,000 (2021‑22: £150,000). Efficiency departures are authorised in the interests of the continued efficiency of the service and the wellbeing of the individual, under section 6.3 of the Civil Service Management Code.

Spend on consultancy and temporary staff

			2022-23			2021-22
	Core and agencies	NDPBs	Total	Core and agencies	NDPBs	Total
	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Consultancy	7,292	225	7,517	10,231	168	10,399
Temporary staff	217,244	6,368	223,612	185,186	10,790	195,976
Total	224,536	6,593	231,129	195,417	10,958	206,375

There were reductions in spend on consultancy due to a reduced need for IT specialists on various projects that moved from the development phase to go‑live.

Overall, the number of agency staff increased. This is primarily due to increased activity of digital projects.

No staff were redeployed into or out of the department for the purpose of EU Exit or COVID-19 work.

Our staff

Recruitment 

Our recruitment is managed in accordance with the Civil Service Recruitment Principles which require appointments to be made on merit and on the basis of fair and open competition: https://civilservicecommission.independent.gov.uk/civil-service-recruitment 

Inclusion is at the heart of our recruitment practice and is embedded in the methods we use to attract, assess, select and retain diverse talent with the right skills, capabilities and motivation at all levels of the organisation so we can reflect the communities we serve. 

Recognised as highly commended in the Civil Service Commission’s inaugural Mark of Excellence Awards, MoJ has taken innovative measures to encourage greater candidate diversity in terms of background, experience and location, and particularly for those candidates whose life chances may present a barrier to employment, such as prison leavers and armed forces veterans.

Business areas are provided with the requisite training and advice to support them in their local recruitment activity and to manage recruitment in line with the Recruitment Principles and without bias. This includes the provision of dedicated inclusive recruitment and diverse interview panels guidance; learning sessions on the lawful use of positive action measures in the Equality Act 2010 to help people overcome potential barriers and improve representation in our workforce; and training for vacancy managers on fair and effective decision-making in recruitment campaign delivery. 

We use the Civil Service success profiles framework in our assessment and anonymised applications up to the point of an interview or online assessment for all grades below SCS2.

We are committed to delivering our business by creating modern and inclusive workplaces that enable smart, flexible and hybrid working to attract and retain diverse staff with different backgrounds.

Our recruitment approach is continuously reviewed for improvements and opportunities for innovation. This spans all aspects of the recruitment journey, including the introduction of leading technology and creative and impactful communications to attract candidates, improve their experience and keep them engaged; and the evaluation and reconsideration of individual stages in the process to reduce time to hire.

Employment of people with disabilities 

As a Disability Confident Leader, MoJ is committed to attracting, recruiting and retaining people with disabilities. Under the leadership of a senior disability champion, the department is working to ensure that processes, policies and organisational culture promote disability inclusion. 

During 2022-23 the department supported staff transferring from DWP’s Access to Work to MoJ’s Workplace Adjustment Service. Individual support is manged by an in-house team providing advice and guidance to staff and managers across the department including executive agencies. In addition, a MoJ Assistive Technology Team provide advice, access to equipment, installation and training to staff in MoJ and executive agencies. 

Disabled staff continue to have access to targeted career development through the Civil Service ‘Future Leaders Scheme’ Disability Empowers Leadership Talent (DELTA) mentorship. 

MoJ has established a disability action group, chaired by the Executive Committee disability champion, to bring together stakeholders from across the organisation to address thematically remaining disparities identified by both the disability confident work and people survey and other survey data on lived experience. MoJ supports disability and other staff networks and a cohort of senior disability champions who role model, raise awareness and lead task and finish work. There is also a network of mental health allies who are trained to provide advice and guidance to those experiencing mental health, signposting specialist support. All staff have access to resources and events to raise awareness about disability inclusion.

Diversity, inclusion and wellbeing 

MoJ is committed to delivering the government’s strategy for diversity and inclusion as set out in the Civil Service Diversity and Inclusion Strategy. By embedding diversity and inclusion into our work systems, we are delivering our Public Sector Equality Duties and demonstrating the MoJ values of purpose, humanity, openness and togetherness. 

MoJ is also delivering cross-government social mobility initiatives including the Catapult mentoring and sponsorship scheme (~10,000 participants) and the Schools Programme (243 events delivered in 2022-23).

We monitor the impact of our employee policies and procedures via the effective use of equalities data. Staff diversity information is published in the Departmental Core Diversity Statistics section of this report, and MoJ staff diversity data can be found in the Civil Service statistics data tables, at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/civil-service-statistics.  

We publish gender pay gap information annually, including our action plan to close the gap. We also publish our equalities objectives as part of our Outcome Delivery Plan. Both can be found on GOV.UK

We continue to make progress against our diversity targets. At the end of March 2023, women make up 52% of the department’s SCS, and female representation across all grades is 58%. Recording rates (declarations) have risen in the department overall over the last year. Between March 2022 and March 2023, declaration rates have risen for ethnicity (from 83% to 84%), disability (from 78% to 79%), religion (from 74% to 75%) and sexual orientation (from 75% to 76%). At the end of March 2023, of those staff who have declared their ethnicity, 16% of staff are from ethnic minorities (15% at March 2022) and 10% of SCS. Of those staff who have declared their disability status, 17% of staff are disabled (15% at March 2022), and 12% of SCS are disabled.

Headline departmental People Survey scores (which includes some questions on wellbeing) can be found at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/civil-service-people-surveys

Modern slavery 

MoJ contributed to the 2021-22 cross-government Modern Slavery Statement. This sets out the department’s work to guard against modern slavery in supply chains and with regard to service users and staff. The statement refers to ongoing training and awareness, and highlights the continuous improvement activities undertaken across MoJ to manage the risks and impacts of modern slavery. 

MoJ’s contribution to this statement includes its agencies and our ALBs to whom we provide core services, including legal, commercial, and human resources. 

Sickness absence data 

Across the department (including its executive agencies), the number of average working days lost (AWDL) in the last 12 months was 11.2 at the end of March 2023, compared to 12.2 at the end of March 2022 and reflects the range of operational and non-operational functions across the organisation. Mental health and behavioural disorders, COVID-19 and muscular-skeletal issues remain the main absence drivers.

After a peak in July 2022 of AWDL in HMPPS that was largely driven by the COVID-19 pandemic, we have since seen a continuous decrease; ending the 2022/23 financial year in March with a rate of 12.6 AWDL.

Business areas actively monitor this data with HR business partner support. The attendance management policy is based on the cross-government Civil Service HR policy and is periodically refreshed. Our proactive approach to wellbeing provides a range of support for staff, as well as encouraging a preventative culture to reduce sickness absence in line with the approach across the Civil Service. Managers can access specialist casework support in managing sickness absence cases and a variety of support is available to staff through occupational health and the employee assistance programme.

Employment and occupation trade union relationships 

MoJ (excluding HMPPS) recognises four trade unions – PCS (Public and Commercial Services Union), FDA (formerly the First Division Association), Prospect and GMB (formerly the General, Municipal and Boilermakers’ Union). GMB is recognised for the Legal Aid Agency only.

This year we have continued to engage on reforming pay strategy, organisational change and supporting our people in emerging from the pandemic.

HMPPS recognises ten trade unions across a complex operational environment. In respect of the prison service, youth custody service and HQ, this includes the Prison Officers Association (the POA), the Prison Governors Association (PGA) and NTUS (an amalgamation of five trade unions representing non-operational staff – the PCS, GMB, UNITE, FDA and PROSPECT). In respect of the probation service, this comprises the National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO), UNISON and GMB SCOOP (for senior probation grades).

Health and safety at work 

All MoJ employees are subject to the protection set within the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. All work processes are subject to the required risk assessment process.

To strengthen the protection of MoJ employees, the MoJ Corporate Fire, Health and Safety Team’s role is to be revitalised and all governance and assurance routes will be revisited, reviewed and renewed as required.

A greater focus on mental health wellbeing will drive future initiatives, networking and policy to create a safer working environment, in the post pandemic period.

Staff engagement 

The 2022 Civil Service People Survey was completed by 45,203 (49%) employees. The response rate for the Prison and Youth Custody Service is low due to technical barriers, resourcing pressures, and negative sentiment from recognised trade unions. However, the response rate continues to increase with 10,683 (28%) employees completing the survey this year, but results may still not be representative of the overall population. Work continues to improve access to and perception of the survey across the organisation to drive response rates further to help provide more meaningful insight. 

Survey questions relating to Leadership and Managing Change, My Work, and Learning and Development are most significant in contributing to the employee engagement score across every business group. How the organisation manages and communicates change and involves the employee voice in decision making are drivers of employee engagement at MoJ, but satisfaction rates in these areas have declined. To address this, work is underway to demonstrate how action is being taken on survey results this year with the publication of local action plans and progress being monitored on a quarterly basis by the MoJ’s People Business Committee, the ExCo delegated committee on people matters.

MoJ maintained or increased its scores in all themes of the People Survey except for Pay and Benefits, which saw a major decrease across all departments. Most business groups saw a decrease in the percentage of respondents experiencing discrimination. Overall, the percentage of respondents reporting discrimination increased on 2021. For bullying and harassment levels, scores decreased by 1pp compared to 2021. Employee engagement index remained at 60%. 

Staff turnover 

The department has put in place a number of responses to address staff turnover:

• The Retention Oversight Board (ROB) was established in April 2022 to provide a pan-MoJ approach to addressing attrition issues. 

• A Retention Oversight Process (ROP) has been implemented for HMPPS to monitor sites with high levels of controllable attrition (resignations). This process initially focussed on the top eight prisons with the highest band 3-5 attrition rates. This process includes an initial data audit focused on the drivers of attrition and an occupational psychology deep dive process to determine local issues and work closely with senior leadership to address these. Six out of these eight sites have seen improvement in retention rates and we have continued to see a decrease in resignation rates since the peak in July 2022.

• A review of specialist pay has been completed and implemented across the department. This further ensures that we pay staff in our professions in a competitive and transparent way and helps us attract and retain people with professional skills.

• Justice Digital have adopted the Digital, Data and Technology Profession (DDaT) Pay Framework and have been able to award £22 million in additional allowances.

• OPG have offered alternative shift patterns, including twilight shifts to attract and retain a wider workforce; putting a strong focus on wellbeing and development with a People Promise, Wellbeing Hub and Learning and Development.

• The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority have focused on the whole employee package including wider employee benefits and nurturing in-house talent with learning pathways and development opportunities portal.

		2022-23		2021‑22
	Turnover	Departmental turnover	Turnover	Departmental turnover
MoJ HQ	8.3%	15.4%	7.2%	14.9%
HMPPS	11.5%	12.7%	11.9%	12.8%
HMCTS	12.7%	15.9%	12.7%	15.9%
OPG	6.4%	9.8%	4.7%	14.6%
LAA	6.3%	8.3%	4.7%	8.8%
CICA	3.1%	8.8%	2.9%	9.6%

Note: Transfers of staff within the Civil Service are included in ‘Departmental turnover’ and excluded from ‘Turnover’.

Workforce composition^{[footnote 4]}

The number of staff split between male and female as at 31 March 2023

		2022-23		2021-22
	Male	Female	Male	Female
Board members	28	30	34	31
Senior Civil Service (SCS) equivalent[footnote 5]	164	179	165	168
Departmental employees (excluding SCS equivalent)	38,679	53,239	37,315	49,776

Departmental core diversity statistics ‑ payroll staff in post on 31 March 2023

Gender

Female	Male
58%	42%

Full / part time

Full time	Part time
83%	17%

Ethnicity

White	Ethnic minority
84%	16%

Disability

Non-disabled	Disabled
83%	17%

These statistics provide a snapshot of the department’s workforce. Further detail on MoJ workforce diversity can be found within the Civil Service Statistics 2023 publication.

This is available at: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/civil-service-statistics-2023.

Senior Civil Service equivalent staff by band

		SCS or equivalent within band as at 31 March 2023		SCS or equivalent within band as at 31 March 2022
Salary band	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
£60,000-£69,999	0	0%	0	0%
£70,000-£79,999	114	33%	131	39%
£80,000-£89,999	74	22%	61	18%
£90,000-£99,999	59	17%	66	20%
£100,000-£109,999	59	17%	47	14%
£110,000-£119,999	17	5%	14	4%
£120,000-£129,999	7	2%	7	2%
£130,000-£139,999	6	2%	1	0%
£140,000-£149,999	3	1%	3	1%
£150,000-£159,999	2	1%	1	0%
£160,000-£169,999	1	0%	1	0%
£170,000-£179,999	0	0%	0	0%
£180,000-£189,999	1	0%	1	0%
£190,000-£199,999	0	0%	0	0%
£200,000-£209,999	0	0%	0	0%
Total	343	100%	333	100%

Off‑payroll engagements 

During the financial year 2022-23, MoJ has reviewed off-payroll engagements where we are required to consider intermediaries (IR35) legislation using HMRC’s guidance and online status indicator. We have advised our contracting body of the outcome of the status determinations so that, where appropriate, tax deductions are made at source from payments made in respect of the engagement with MoJ. 

Further details of off‑payroll engagements are shown in the off-payroll tables in Annex D. Further details of off-payroll engagements for the core department, executive agencies and arm’s length bodies are shown in the off-payroll tables in Annex D and form part of the accountability reports.

Parliamentary accountability

This section has been subject to audit.

Statement of Outturn against Parliamentary Supply

In addition to the primary statements prepared under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), the financial reporting manual requires the department to prepare a Statement of Outturn against Parliamentary Supply (SOPS) and supporting notes.

The SOPS and related notes are subject to audit, as detailed in the Certificate of the Comptroller and Auditor General to the House of Commons.

The SOPS shows an entity’s spend against its supply estimate. Supply is the monetary provision (for resource and capital purposes) and cash (drawn primarily from the Consolidated Fund), that Parliament gives statutory authority for entities to utilise. The Estimate details supply and is voted on by Parliament at the start of the financial year.

Should an entity exceed the limits set by its Supply Estimate, called control limits, their accounts will receive a qualified opinion.

The format of the SOPS mirrors the Supply Estimates, published on GOV.UK, to enable comparability between what Parliament approves and the final outturn.

The SOPS contain a summary table, detailing performance against the control limits that Parliament have voted on, cash spent (budgets are compiled on an accruals basis and so outturn will not match exactly to cash spent) and administration.

The supporting notes detail the following: outturn by estimate line, providing a more detailed breakdown (Note 1); a reconciliation of outturn to net operating expenditure in the SOCNE, to tie the SOPS to the financial statements (Note 2); a reconciliation of outturn to net cash requirement (Note 3); and an analysis of income payable to the Consolidated Fund (Note 4).

Summary of resource and capital outturn 2022-23

									2022-23	2021-22
				Outturn			Estimate		Outturn vs Estimate, saving/(excess)	Outturn
		Voted	Non-voted	Total	Voted	Non-voted	Total	Voted	Total	Total
	Note	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Departmental Expenditure Limit
Resource	SOPS 1.1	9,947,989	152,211	10,100,200	10,101,953	144,527	10,246,480	153,964	146,280	9,376,472
Capital	SOPS 1.2	1,359,837	-	1,359,837	1,457,565	-	1,457,565	97,728	97,728	1,420,858
Annually Managed Expenditure
Resource	SOPS 1.1	101,910	-	101,910	633,431	-	633,431	531,521	531,521	349,941
Capital	SOPS 1.2	5,608	-	5,608	23,304	-	23,304	17,696	17,696	10,546
Total Budget		11,415,344	152,211	11,567,555	12,216,253	144,527	12,360,780	800,909	793,225	11,157,817
Non-Budget
Resource	SOPS 1.1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total		11,415,344	152,211	11,567,555	12,216,253	144,527	12,360,780	800,909	793,225	11,157,817
Total Resource		10,049,899	152,211	10,202,110	10,735,384	144,527	10,879,911	685,485	677,801	9,726,413
Total Capital		1,365,445	-	1,365,445	1,480,869	-	1,480,869	115,424	115,424	1,431,404
Total		11,415,344	152,211	11,567,555	12,216,253	144,527	12,360,780	800,909	793,225	11,157,817

Net Cash Requirement 2022‑23

				2022-23	2021-22
		Outturn	Estimate	Outturn vs Estimate, saving/(excess)	Prior Year Outturn Total
Item	Note	£000	£000	£000	£000
Net cash requirement	Annex A, SOPS 3	10,616,135	11,010,574	394,439	10,124,758

Administration Costs 2022‑23

				2022-23	2021-22
		Outturn	Estimate	Outturn vs Estimate, saving/(excess)	Prior Year Outturn Total
Type of spend	SOPS Note	£000	£000	£000	£000
Administration costs	1.1	481,220	548,149	66,929	444,379

Figures in the areas outlined in bold are voted totals subject to Parliamentary control. In addition, although not a separate voted limit, any breach of the administration budget will result in an excess vote. Due to their size, the variances in estimate to outturn of resource departmental expenditure limit (RDEL) and annually managed expenditure (AME) have been explained below.

In 2022-23, the RDEL budget for day‑to‑day spending was £10,246 million (2021‑22: £9,410 million) and the final outturn was £10,100 million (2021-22: £9,376 million). 

AME spend is by its nature inherently volatile. The department has a relatively small AME budget and therefore large variances are not unusual. In 2022-23, the department budgeted for £657 million (2021-22: £702 million) of AME and the final outturn was £108 million (2021‑22: £360 million). The main reason for this underspend was that the budgeted figure included prudent assumptions about the value of year-end pension liabilities and the utilisation of provisions, including those for legal aid costs. These areas are always highly uncertain and the actual requirement was significantly lower.

SOPS Note 3 and 4 in Annex A form part of the Statement of Outturn against Parliamentary Supply. These notes are subject to audit.

Notes to the Statement of Outturn against Parliamentary Supply 2022‑23

SOPS 1. Outturn detail, by estimate line

SOPS 1.1 Analysis of resource outturn by estimate line

			Administration			Programme
	Gross	Income	Net	Gross	Income	Net	Total	Total	Virements	Total including virements	Outturn vs Estimate saving/(excess)	2021-22 Total
	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Spending in Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) Voted expenditure
A Policy, Corporate Services and associated offices	449,811	(45,422)	404,389	1,596,432	(1,190,794)	405,638	810,027	810,114	59,178	869,292	59,265	704,139
B HM Prison and Probation Service	25,012	(13)	24,999	4,868,818	(251,554)	4,617,264	4,642,263	4,722,160	-	4,722,160	79,897	4,241,015
C HM Courts and Tribunals Service	21,912	-	21,912	2,153,917	(58,638)	2,095,279	2,117,191	2,111,708	5,483	2,117,191	-	2,039,906
D Legal Aid Agency	13,894	-	13,894	1,934,485	(36,130)	1,898,355	1,912,249	2,002,495	(81,583)	1,920,912	8,663	1,787,143
E Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority	1,167	(1,852)	(685)	187,529	(19,453)	168,076	167,391	155,785	11,751	167,536	145	170,237
F Office of the Public Guardian	74	-	74	76,833	(85,245)	(8,412)	(8,338)	(12,900)	4,562	(8,338)	-	(2,552)
G Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (net)	5,412	-	5,412	137,658	-	137,658	143,070	144,898	-	144,898	1,828	139,784
H Criminal Cases Review Commission (net)	778	-	778	6,583	-	6,583	7,361	7,348	109	7,457	96	6,972
I Judicial Appointments Commission (net)	717	-	717	8,060	-	8,060	8,777	9,073	-	9,073	296	7,730
J Legal Services Board (net)	-	-	-	4,255	-	4,255	4,255	4,287	-	4,287	32	4,099
K Office for Legal Complaints (net)	-	-	-	15,056	-	15,056	15,056	15,317	-	15,317	261	13,757
L Parole Board (net)	3,157	-	3,157	19,982	-	19,982	23,139	24,304	-	24,304	1,165	21,507
M Youth Justice Board (net)	3,610	-	3,610	97,274	-	97,274	100,884	101,786	500	102,286	1,402	93,804
M Gov Facility Services Limited (net)	-	-	-	(162)	-	(162)	(162)	1	-	1	163	(360)
N Independent Monitoring Authority (net)	2,963	-	2,963	1,863	-	1,863	4,826	5,577	-	5,577	751	4,011
Total voted expenditure in DEL	528,507	(47,287)	481,220	11,108,583	(1,641,814)	9,466,769	9,947,989	10,101,953	-	10,101,953	153,964	9,231,192
Non-voted Expenditure
O Higher judiciary judicial salaries	109	-	109	171,492	-	171,492	171,601	164,131	-	164,131	(7,470)	163,084
P Levy income – Legal Services Board and Office for Legal Complaints (CFER)	-	-	-	-	(19,390)	(19,390)	(19,390)	(19,604)	-	(19,604)	(214)	(17,804)
Total non-voted expenditure in DEL	109	-	109	171,492	(19,390)	152,102	152,211	144,527	-	144,527	(7,684)	145,280
Total Resource DEL Spending	528,616	(47,287)	481,329	11,280,075	(1,661,204)	9,618,871	10,100,200	10,246,480	-	10,246,480	146,280	9,376,472
Spending in Annually Managed Expenditure (AME) limits Voted expenditure
Q Policy, Corporate Services and Associated Offices	-	-	-	33,780	-	33,780	33,780	252,610	(56,071)	196,539	162,759	119,815
R HM Prison and Probation Service	-	-	-	13,654	-	13,654	13,654	201,000	-	201,000	187,346	104,637
S HM Courts and Tribunals Service	-	-	-	(97,907)	-	(97,907)	(97,907)	76,900	-	76,900	174,807	69,436
T Legal Aid Agency	-	-	-	122,684	-	122,684	122,684	67,000	55,684	122,684	-	39,570
U Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority	-	-	-	4,506		4,506	4,506	5,000	-	5,000	494	(10,613)
V Office of the Public Guardian	-	-	-	(838)	-	(838)	(838)	200	-	200	1,038	(29)
W Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (net)	-	-	-	25,375	-	25,375	25,375	30,300	-	30,300	4,925	26,925
X Criminal Cases Review Commission (net)	-	-	-	304	-	304	304	266	38	304	-	(73)
Y Judicial Appointments Commission (net)	-	-	-	(4)	-	(4)	(4)	1	-	1	5	10
Z Legal Services Board (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	(74)
AA Office for Legal Complaints (net)	-	-	-	72	-	72	72	1	71	72	-	-
AB Parole Board (net)	-	-	-	167	-	167	167	50	117	167	-	31
AC Youth Justice Board (net)	-	-	-	(45)	-	(45)	(45)	100	-	100	145	(54)
AD Gov Facility Services Limited (net)	-	-	-	162	-	162	162	1	161	162	-	360
AE Independent Monitoring Authority (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-
Total Resource AME Spending	-	-	-	101,910	-	101,910	101,910	633,431	-	633,431	531,521	349,941
Total Resource	528,616	(47,287)	481,329	11,381,985	(1,661,204)	9,720,781	10,202,110	10,879,911	-	10,879,911	677,801	9,726,413

SOPS 1.2 Analysis of capital outturn by Estimate line

			Outturn			Estimate		Outturn
	Gross	Income	Net total	Total	Virements	Total including virements	Outturn vs Estimate saving/(excess)	2021-22 Prior year Outturn Total
	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Spending in Departmental Expenditure Limits (DEL) Voted expenditure
A Policy, Corporate Services and Associated Offices	367,902	(17,125)	350,777	392,054	(4,197)	387,857	37,080	426,544
B HM Prison and Probation Service	792,136	(7,647)	784,489	843,966	-	843,966	59,477	496,903
C HM Courts and Tribunals Service	215,497	(5,306)	210,191	207,014	3,177	210,191	-	483,338
D Legal Aid Agency	3,443	-	3,443	2,569	874	3,443	-	3,416
E Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority	57	-	57	100	-	100	43	104
F Office of the Public Guardian	926	-	926	1,000	-	1,000	74	8,295
G Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (net)	8,664	-	8,664	9,432	-	9,432	768	658
H Criminal Cases Review Commission (net)	35	-	35	213	-	213	178	455
I Judicial Appointments Commission (net)	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	117
J Legal Services Board (net)	12	-	12	74	-	74	62	10
K Office for Legal Complaints (net)	299	-	299	250	49	299	-	145
L Parole Board (net)	246	-	246	290	-	290	44	235
M Youth Justice Board (net)	637	-	637	600	37	637	-	598
Gov Facility Services Limited (net)	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-
N Independent Monitoring Authority (net)	61	-	61	1	60	61	-	40
Total voted expenditure in DEL	1,389,915	(30,078)	1,359,837	1,457,565	-	1,457,565	97,728	1,420,858
Non-voted Expenditure
O Higher judiciary judicial salaries	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
P Levy income – Legal Services Board and Office for Legal Complaints (CFER)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total non-voted expenditure in DEL	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total Capital DEL Spending	1,389,915	(30,078)	1,359,837	1,457,565	-	1,457,565	97,728	1,420,858
Spending in Annually Managed Expenditure Limits (AME) Voted expenditure
Q Policy, Corporate Services and Associated Offices	4,896	-	4,896	20,700	(980)	19,720	14,824	3,555
R HM Prison and Probation Service	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	1,340
S HM Courts and Tribunals Service	(270)	-	(270)	2,500	-	2,500	2,770	3,919
T Legal Aid Agency	251	-	251	1	250	251	-	90
U Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority	395		395	-	395	395	-	-
V Office of the Public Guardian	336	-	336	1	335	336	-	1,222
W Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (net)	-	-	-	100	-	100	100	393
X Criminal Cases Review Commission (net)	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	27
Y Judicial Appointments Commission (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Z Legal Services Board (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
AA Office for Legal Complaints (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
AB Parole Board (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
AC Youth Justice Board (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
AD Gov Facility Services Limited (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
AE Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total Capital AME Spending	5,608	-	5,608	23,304	-	23,304	17,696	10,546
Total Capital	1,395,523	(30,078)	1,365,445	1,480,869	-	1,480,869	115,424	1,431,404

The total estimate columns include virements. Virements are the reallocation of provision in the Estimates that do not require Parliamentary authority (because Parliament does not vote to that level of detail and delegates to HM Treasury). Further information on virements is provided in the Supply Estimates Manual, available on GOV.UK

The outturn vs estimate column is based on the total including virements. The estimate total before virements have been made is included so that users can compare the value to the estimates laid before Parliament.

SOPS 2 Reconciliation of outturn to net operating expenditure

		2022-23 Outturn Total	2021‑22 Outturn Total
	Note	£000	£000
Total resource outturn in SOPS
Voted DEL	SOPS 1.1	9,947,989	9,231,192
Non-voted DEL	SOPS 1.1	152,211	145,280
Total DEL		10,100,200	9,376,472
Total AME	SOPS 1.1	101,910	349,941
		10,202,110	9,726,413
Add:
Capital grants (net of EU contributions)		13,506	(1)
Other
Research costs classified as capital under ESA 10		6,946	2,873
Other costs and income transferred to capital		-	29
		20,452	2,901
Less:
Income payable to the Consolidated Fund (excluding non-voted levy income)		(1,552)	(2,820)
Private Finance Initiative adjustments		2,150	32,471
		598	29,651
Net operating expenditure in CSoCNE		10,223,160	9,758,965

Outturn and the estimates are compiled against the budgeting framework, which is similar to, but different from, IFRS. This reconciliation therefore bridges the resource outturn to net operating expenditure, linking the SOPS to the financial statements.

Capital grants and research costs are budgeted for as CDEL but accounted for as spend on the face of the CSOCNE, and therefore function as a reconciling item between Resource and Net Operating Expenditure. The depreciation on certain PFI contract assets is accounted for as spend in the SOCNE, but is non-budget spend and therefore does not appear in the SOPS.

Regularity of expenditure

This section has been subject to audit.

Losses and special payments

Losses statement

		31 March 2023		31 March 2022
Values	Core department and agencies	Departmental group	Core department and agencies	Departmental group
	£000	£000	£000	£000
Cash losses	750	750	242	242
Claims abandoned	198	198	176	176
Administrative write-offs	10,350	10,374	7,624	7,625
Fruitless payments	3	3	10,265	10,265
Store losses	2,222	2,222	2,184	2,184
Constructive losses	3,702	3,704	5,660	5,660
Total value of losses	17,225	17,251	26,151	26,152

		31 March 2023		31 March 2022
Numbers	Core department and agencies	Departmental group	Core department and agencies	Departmental group
Cash losses	5,183	5,183	1,031	1,031
Claims abandoned	13	13	55	55
Administrative write-offs	4,348	4,350	4,313	4,318
Fruitless payments	6	6	4	4
Store losses	15,736	15,736	16,648	16,648
Constructive losses	3	4	4	4
Total number of losses	25,289	25,292	22,055	22,060

In 2022-23 there were seven losses (2021-22: six) over £300,000 as follows.

In HMPPS, work carried out in relation to developing a new Public Protection Unit database (PPUD) has been permanently halted. This resulted in a constructive loss of £2.7 million.

In LAA, a recovery of defence costs order debt of £1 million has been written off during the year. Our assessment is that further action will not lead to recovery of the debt and therefore the loss has been crystallised in 2022-23. 

In LAA, £606,000 has been written off in relation to a provider firm that has ceased trading and gone into liquidation. The debt relates to previous Payments on Account for which final bills have not been received. 

There were two losses in CICA totalling £1 million relating to the write down of intangible assets under construction to nil, following decisions in a prior year to change the approach to the projects involved. 

In HMCTS there was an agreed change of scope in the reformed Adoption project which has resulted in some of the development work on the functionality of the asset no longer being planned for use, leading to £873,000 of spend being a constructive loss. 

In MoJ, £432,000 of legacy receivables that arose from staff transfers to other government departments was written off. 

Special payments

		31 March 2023		31 March 2022
Values	Core department and agencies	Departmental group	Core department and agencies	Departmental group
	£000	£000	£000	£000
Compensation payments	28,733	29,078	26,320	26,459
Ex gratia	2,397	2,463	2,921	2,953
Extra-contractual payments	6	6	25,058	25,058
Total value of special payments	31,136	31,547	54,299	54,470

		31 March 2023		31 March 2022
Numbers	Core department and agencies	Departmental group	Core department and agencies	Departmental group
Compensation payments	7,117	7,251	6,768	6,893
Ex gratia	10,489	10,506	8,694	8,702
Extra-contractual payments	116	116	357	357
Total number of special payments	17,722	17,873	15,819	15,952

In 2022-23 there were thirteen (2021-22: eight) special payments over £300,000.

In HMPPS, four compensation payments were made to operational members of staff :  £1,000,000; £451,531; £442,305; £400,000; five to prisoners: £1,150,000; £1,066,967; £471,130; £431,255; £351,000; and two third-party legal claims: £645,000; £435,000.

In MoJ, two payments were made to media organisations to reimburse them for success fees paid to ‘no win, no fee’ lawyers. The recoverability of success fees in defamation cases ended following a European Court ruling and the introduction of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. MoJ did not change the rules on the payment of success fees in defamation cases until 2019. MoJ have reimbursed success fees paid in the intervening period: £750,000; £502,000.

Charitable donations

HMCTS made charitable donations totalling £25,000 in 2022-23 (2021-22: £25,000). These donations were made to organisations to support activities related to HMCTS’s operations.

Publicity and advertising

The department spent £3,120,675 on publicity and advertising in 2022-23 (£824,260 in 2021-22).

Gifts and hospitality

Details of the department’s ministers, directors general, permanent secretary and special advisers’ gifts, hospitality, travel and meetings can be found at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/MoJ-gifts-hospitality-travel-and-meetings#2023

Fees and charges

This section has been subject to audit.

MoJ is required, in accordance with HM Treasury’s Managing Public Money, to disclose results for the areas of its activities where fees and charges are levied. The analysis provided below is for fees and charges purposes and is not intended to meet the requirements of IFRS 8 Operating Segments.

					2022‑23	2021‑22
	Gross income net of remissions	Full cost	Surplus/ (deficit)	Fee recovery actual	Fee recovery target	Fee recovery actual
	£000	£000	£000	%	%	%
Office of the Accountant General	31,625	31,625	-	100%	100%	55%
Official Solicitor and Public Trustee
Litigation	1,473	8,001	(6,528)	18%	18%	18%
Trust and Estates	322	356	(34)	90%	90%	140%
HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Family	204,984	311,803	(106,819)	66%	100%	54%
Civil	516,531	556,757	(40,226)	93%	100%	87%
Asylum and Immigration	4,500	102,869	(98,369)	4%	0%	5%
Other	1,451	16,757	(15,306)	9%	0%	7%
Office of the Public Guardian	85,245	87,148	(1,903)	98%	100%	89%
Legal Services Board	4,260	4,260	-	100%	100%	100%
Office for Legal Complaints	15,316	15,316	-	100%	100%	100%
Family fee refunds - New Burden Settlement	(1,577)	-	(1,577)	-	-	-
HMCTS - Employment tribunal refunds	(68)	-	(68)	-	-	-
HMCTS CTLO Fee refunds and interest paid	(2,066)	-	(2,066)	-	-	-
HMCTS - Other fee refunds	(1,242)	-	(1,242)	-	-	-
HMCTS - Movement in fee refunds provision	2,615	-	2,615	-	-	-
Total	863,369	1,134,892	(271,523)

Fee charging segments

Office of the Accountant General (OAG)

OAG invests money on behalf of its clients in the court funds investment account, which earns interest at the Bank of England base rate, or in the Equity index tracker fund for long term investments. Clients do not pay fees for investment services but the operational costs of OAG are paid out of the surplus interest earned on their funds.

OAG is therefore intended to run at nil net cost to the department’s vote and in terms of the principles of cost recovery should be 100% self-funding.

Official Solicitor and the Public Trustee (OSPT)

The Official Solicitor’s civil, family and court of protection (CoP) litigation services continue to be largely publicly funded due to the nature of the cases dealt with, although where appropriate, alternative funding arrangements (such as conditional fee agreements) are also entered into. In some classes of CoP case, where appropriate to do so, the Official Solicitor charges clients at full cost for services provided.

OSPT charge for their work in administering trusts and estates. The fee income associated with Public Trustee trusts and estates cases is governed by a Fees Order and the Official Solicitor’s trusts and estates work is charged for on an hourly rate basis.

The Public Trustee also processes ‘Title on death’ applications under the Law of Property Act.

The budget allocation to OSPT also covers the cost of the Lord Chancellor’s ‘Reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders’ unit and the ‘International child abduction and contact unit’. This service is publicly funded in full.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service

HMCTS collects and reports upon fee charges that have been set by MoJ policy and which appear in statutory instrument fees orders. Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 gives the Lord Chancellor, with the consent of HM Treasury, the statutory power to set certain court and tribunal fees above cost recovery levels. The income generated must be reinvested back into the courts and tribunals service. Government introduced enhanced fee charging for money claims on 9 March 2015, and further enhanced fees including divorce, civil and some tribunals in March, April and July 2016. The system of ‘Help with fees’ (fee remissions) exists to ensure that individuals are not denied access to the courts if they genuinely cannot afford the fee. Only the civil and tribunal businesses have systems for charging fees. HMCTS reports on both the civil and tribunal fee-charging business segments. Civil business contains two business streams: family (including probate and court of protection) and civil (including civil business in the county court, higher courts and magistrates’ courts). Tribunal business contains two business streams: immigration and asylum; and other fee charging special tribunals (including lands, residential property, gambling and gender recognition). Further detail on current fees orders can be found within the HMCTS Annual Report and Accounts.

Office of the Public Guardian (OPG)

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides for fees to be charged for proceedings brought in relation to the functions carried out by the Public Guardian. The levels of charges are contained in two statutory instruments as well as the Lasting Powers of Attorney, Enduring Powers of Attorney, Public Guardian Regulations 2007 and the Public Guardian (Fees etc.) Regulations 2007.

Legal Services Board (LSB) and Office for Legal Complaints (OLC)

LSB and the OLC income relates to levies receipted from approved regulators. This income is surrendered to the Consolidated Fund in line with the Legal Services Act 2007. In return, LSB and OLC receive grant-in-aid funding from the department equal to the income surrendered.

Remote contingent liabilities

This section has been subject to audit.

As required by Managing Public Money, in addition to contingent liabilities disclosed in accordance with IAS 37 in Note 26 to the accounts, HMPPS discloses, for Parliamentary reporting and accountability purposes, certain statutory and non-statutory contingent liabilities where the likelihood of transfer of economic benefit is remote. 

Heathrow Airport Holdings Limited indemnity: Assurance has been given to Heathrow Airport Holdings Limited and other third parties (e.g. airlines) which may be affected by the operations of HMPPS. The likelihood of a liability arising from these contingencies is considered to be remote. The assurance covers the following amounts:

• up to £50 million for damage or injury per incident to third parties caused airside in the event of negligence of HMPPS

• up to £250 million to damage or injury to third parties per incident in the event of negligence by HMPPS while on board an aeroplane

• personal accident and/or sickness for HMPPS staff while on escorting duties

Privately managed prisons: HMPPS would be liable as underwriter of last resort to meet certain losses incurred by the privately managed prisons.

Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) guarantee: The Secretary of State for Justice has provided a guarantee to the Greater Manchester Pension Fund (GMPF) in respect of the Community Rehabilitation Companies’ (CRCs) participation in the GMPF for pension liabilities that transferred to the CRCs. The responsibility for funding the past service liabilities associated with the original employees who are deferred or pensioner members of the LGPS transferred to HMPPS under the Secretary of State for Justice. 

Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA): on occasions, compensation cases at appeal stage, under the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal – Criminal Injuries Compensation, may proceed to judicial review. These could have an impact on CICA’s future liabilities. These cases are not included within the provision due to the fact that a possible obligation exists which will only be confirmed by the occurrence or non-occurrence of one or more uncertain future events not wholly within the control of CICA.

Antonia Romeo

Principal Accounting Officer

24 November 2023

The Certificate and Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General to the House of Commons

Opinion on financial statements

I certify that I have audited the financial statements of the Ministry of Justice and of its departmental group for the year ended 31 March 2023 under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. The department comprises the core department and its executive agencies. The departmental group consists of the department and the bodies designated for inclusion under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Estimates and Accounts) Order 2022. The financial statements comprise the department’s and the departmental group’s: 

• Statement of Financial Position as at 31 March 2023;

• Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure, Statement of Cash Flows and Statement of Changes in Taxpayers’ Equity for the year then ended; and

• the related notes including the significant accounting policies.

The financial reporting framework that has been applied in the preparation of the group financial statements is applicable law and UK adopted international accounting standards 

In my opinion the financial statements:

• give a true and fair view of the state of the department and the departmental group’s affairs as at 31 March 2023 and its net expenditure for the year then ended; and

• have been properly prepared in accordance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 and HM Treasury directions issued thereunder.

Opinion on regularity

In my opinion, in all material respects: 

• the Statement Outturn against of Parliamentary Supply properly presents the outturn against voted Parliamentary control totals for the year ended 31 March 2023 and shows that those totals have not been exceeded; and

• the income and expenditure recorded in the financial statements have been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions recorded in the financial statements conform to the authorities which govern them.

Basis for opinions

I conducted my audit in accordance with International Standards on Auditing (UK) (ISAs UK), applicable law and Practice Note 10 Audit of Financial Statements and Regularity of Public Sector Bodies in the United Kingdom (2022). My responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements section of my certificate. 

Those standards require me and my staff to comply with the Financial Reporting Council’s Revised Ethical Standard 2019. I am independent of the department and its group in accordance with the ethical requirements that are relevant to my audit of the financial statements in the UK. My staff and I have fulfilled our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with these requirements. 

I believe that the audit evidence I have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for my opinion. 

The framework of authorities described in the table below has been considered in the context of my opinion on regularity.

Framework of authorities
Authorising legislation	Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000
Parliamentary authorities	Supply and Appropriations Act 2022
HM Treasury and related authorities	Managing Public Money

Conclusions relating to going concern 

In auditing the financial statements, I have concluded that the department and its group’s use of the going concern basis of accounting in the preparation of the financial statements is appropriate.

Based on the work I have performed, I have not identified any material uncertainties relating to events or conditions that, individually or collectively, may cast significant doubt on the department or its group’s ability to continue as a going concern for a period of at least twelve months from when the financial statements are authorised for issue. 

My responsibilities and the responsibilities of the Accounting Officer with respect to going concern are described in the relevant sections of this certificate.

The going concern basis of accounting for the department and its group is adopted in consideration of the requirements set out in HM Treasury’s Government Financial Reporting Manual, which requires entities to adopt the going concern basis of accounting in the preparation of the financial statements where it anticipated that the services which they provide will continue into the future.

Overview of my audit approach

Key audit matters

Key audit matters are those matters that, in my professional judgement, were of most significance in the audit of the financial statements of the current period and include the most significant assessed risks of material misstatement (whether or not due to fraud) identified by the auditor, including those which had the greatest effect on: the overall audit strategy; the allocation of resources in the audit; and directing the efforts of the engagement team.

These matters were addressed in the context of the audit of the financial statements as a whole, and in forming my opinion thereon. I do not provide a separate opinion on these matters.

I have determined that there are no other key audit matters to communicate in my certificate and report. 

I consider the following areas to be of particular audit focus to be those areas that had the greatest effect on my overall audit strategy, the allocation of resources in my audit and directing the efforts of the audit team in the current year. These matters were addressed in the context of my audit of the financial statements as a whole, and in forming my opinion thereon, and I do not provide a separate opinion on these matters.

This is not a complete list of all risks identified through the course of my audit but only those areas that had the greatest effect on my overall audit strategy, allocation of resources and direction of effort. I have not, for example, included information relating to the work I have performed around the mandatory audit risk on the potential for management override of controls; fraud in revenue recognition, and the potential impairment of intangibles where my work has not identified any matters to report. 

The key audit matters were discussed with the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee. 

1. Value of defined benefit pension liabilities

Description of risk 

The department and group has highly material defined benefit pension liabilities including HMPPS’s share of the net asset of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund (GMPF) valued at £199 million; Cafcass’s share of the net liability of the West Yorkshire Pension Fund (WYPF) valued at £12 million; and the net asset of Legal Services Commission Staff Pension Scheme  valued at £66 million.

Significant estimates are made in determining the key assumptions used in valuing the group’s gross defined benefit pension scheme obligations. When making these assumptions management take independent actuarial advice relating to their appropriateness.

A small change in assumptions and estimates can have a material financial impact on the group’s gross defined benefit pension obligations. 

The most significant assumptions are discount rate, inflation rate and mortality/life expectancy. As part of my risk assessment, I determined that the gross defined benefit pension scheme obligations have a high degree of estimation uncertainty, with a potential range of reasonable outcomes greater than my materiality for the financial statements, which is the reason why I considered it a key matter for my audit. The financial statements (note 25) disclose the sensitivity estimated and the key judgments made by the department.

How the scope of my audit responded to the risk

For these pension schemes, my procedures included:

• Benchmarking assumptions: Challenging, with the support of actuarial specialists, the key assumptions applied, being the discount rate, inflation rate and mortality/life expectancy against externally derived data in the context of market practice and the macroeconomic uncertainties.

• Methodology assessment: my actuarial specialists reviewed the schemes’ triennial valuation, considering the implications over the accounting estimate and demographic assumptions. Specifically, I considered whether it was appropriate to recognise the surplus calculated by the actuaries of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund, which resulted in an adjustment to the financial statements. The judgments supporting this conclusion are noted on pages 247 to 248.

• Assessing transparency: Considering the adequacy of the group’s disclosures in respect of the sensitivity of the deficit to these assumptions.

Key observations

Following the adjustment noted above, I am satisfied that the amounts recognised within the financial statements are appropriate.

2. Valuation of property

Description of risk 

The group owns significant property valued at £12.4 billion; which includes prison and probation estate (£8.7 billion) and courts estate (£3.7 billion). The majority of the group’s estate is considered specialised and is valued on a Depreciated Replacement Cost basis. 

The valuation of this property requires significant judgement and estimation by management and its external valuers the Valuation Office Agency. Inaccuracies in inputs or unreasonable bases used in these judgements (namely in respect of determining the modern equivalent asset; the level of obsolescence and applying the correct gross internal area) could result in a material misstatement of the Statement of Financial Position.

How the scope of my audit responded to the risk

In response to the risk over the valuation of property, I:

• Obtained an understanding of the group’s processes and controls around the valuation of properties;

• Evaluated the competence of the group’s external valuers, the Valuation Office Agency (VOA), which included consideration of its qualifications and expertise;

• Met with VOA to discuss its valuation approach and the judgements it made in assessing the property valuation. Such judgements included, for DRC valuations: the MEA (Modern Equivalent Asset), building costs, floor areas and obsolescence, and for Existing Use Valuations: the method of valuation used and other assumptions that impact the value;

• Assessed and challenged these judgements made by VOA considering the macro-economic conditions and climate change. This included considering the potential impact on the values caused by the presence of (Reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete) RAAC in the estate. As disclosed in note 30, management consider that the impact of RAAC on the valuations is unlikely to be material to the financial statements. I have considered the results of the surveys and other work completed to date and whilst there remains uncertainty over the final impact, I agree with management’s conclusions;

• Selected a sample of properties based on a number of factors including size and risk. For this sample of properties, I tested source documentation provided by the group to VOA. This included validating relevant floor area data to relevant sources of evidence including a sample of site visits;

• Engaged valuation experts who reviewed and challenged the valuation approach and assumptions for the same sample of properties. My experts have, reviewed the key inputs adopted by the VOA in its valuation calculations, and confirmed that the valuation methodology used is consistent with the RICS Valuation Standards and the FReM. This included specific consideration of updated beacon costs used by the VOA to determine the value of the prison estate; and

• Assessed the adequacy of the disclosures of estimates and valuation assumptions in note 1.7 that were made in accordance with IFRS 13 – Fair Value Measurement.

Key observations

I am satisfied that the amounts recognised within the financial statements are appropriate.

3. Legal Aid Agency: Valuation of net receivables

Description of risk 

The Legal Aid Agency (LAA) recognises receivables for contributions towards legal aid costs and overpayments to legal aid providers, with gross fund receivables of £422 million. LAA does not expect to recover all of these and has recognised an impairment of £248 million to reflect this. There are two categories of these receivables:

• Receivables held at amortised cost are debts owed to LAA by providers and funded clients and recovery of costs and damages. Impairment for these amounted to £207 million against gross debt of £281 million at 31 March 2023. A number of assumptions are made within the models used to calculate the value of impairment and there is significant estimation uncertainty in the recoverability of these debts;

• Receivables held at fair value through profit and loss are debts owed to LAA by funded clients on civil schemes that are secured by a charge against a property. The calculation of the fair value of these receivables is based on unobservable inputs, which results in significant estimation uncertainty.

How the scope of my audit responded to the risk

In response to this risk, I:

• Assessed the design and implementation of controls that management has in place over each of the models used to calculate recoverability of debt. These controls include management’s challenge of the assumptions behind the different models; assurance processes over the data inputs and flows within the model; governance processes over the model and any changes to the model during the year; and retrospective review, where applicable;

• Reviewed the key assumptions applied to each of the models, and assessed whether these are reasonable and complete;

• Assessed the appropriateness of the methodology used;

• Understood management’s assessment of macroeconomic factors on the expected credit losses for the assets held at amortised cost and on the fair value of other assets. I assessed whether this is reasonable particularly in light of outcomes against prior year estimates;

• Tested the completeness and accuracy of the historic caseload data inputs entered drawing upon IT audit specialists to review the extraction of data;

• Tested the logical integrity of the model, through reperformance of the calculation and the key sensitivity analysis;

• Reviewed the adequacy of the disclosures including the sensitivity analysis in note 20 of the financial statements.

Key observations

I am satisfied that the amounts recognised within the financial statements are appropriate.

4. Group provisions

Description of risk

The group has a provisions balance of £1.56 billion. This balance is made up of a number of different liabilities with different inherent risks. The most significant liability is for the value of unbilled work completed by legal aid providers (£830 million). This liability is calculated based on different models for each Legal Aid stream. The underlying models and methodology used for these provisions is complex and are based on assumptions about the operation of the legal aid market and courts. As part of my risk assessment, I determined that these provisions for work in progress have a high degree of estimation uncertainty, with a potential range of reasonable outcomes greater than my materiality for the financial statements. The financial statements (note 20) disclose the sensitivity estimated by the group.

The remaining balance of provisions that I considered to be a key audit matter are injury benefit schemes; legal claims and criminal injuries compensation.

How the scope of my audit responded to the risk

In respect of the Legal Aid work in progress provisions, I have:

• Reviewed the key assumptions which are applied within each of the underlying models and assessed whether these are reasonable and complete;

• Understood the changes in assumptions from the prior year and assess whether these are reasonable and complete, in light of outcomes against prior year estimates. I paid particular attention to how management modelled the impact of COVID-19 on the progress of cases through the courts;

• Tested the completeness and accuracy of the data inputs and drawing upon the work of IT audit specialists;

• Reviewed the results of post date analysis for the prior year model;

• Using modelling experts, tested the logical integrity of the models including independently recalculating the output;

• Reviewed the adequacy of the disclosures including the sensitivity analysis in note 20 of the financial statements.

Across the other provisions balances I performed procedures as appropriate focussing on data inputs, assumptions, calculations and disclosures.

Key observations

I am satisfied that the amounts recognised within the financial statements are appropriate.

5. Valuation of lease liabilities

Description of risk 

In 2021-22, the group adopted the new leasing standard, IFRS 16 for the first time. The group now holds £1.48 billion of lease liabilities across a broad portfolio of assets, mostly in the court estate alongside related right of use assets of £1.41 billion.

The lease liabilities are subject to valuation risk because they are dependent on a number of assumptions, for example whether management may exercise a break clause or how management has estimated the term of leases where the contract has expired. These assumptions change depending on the group’s strategy for its property and require re-assessment each year. Given that changes in these assumptions can have a material impact of the accounts, I have identified the value of lease liabilities as a significant risk.

The group are currently using an offline solution to manage its lease portfolio before a digital system is implemented in 2023-24, which increases the risk of error.

How the scope of my audit responded to the risk

In response to this risk, I have:

• Assessed the design and implementation of relevant controls over the leasing model;

• Reviewed a sample of new and modified leases in year, including the completeness of new leases;

• Tested the lease model and confirmed that it calculates the lease liability appropriately;

• Reviewed the key assumptions applied in the model and assessed whether these were reasonable and complete;

• Evaluated how management has addressed estimation uncertainty in relation to the values and its consideration of alternative assumptions and inputs in its estimate; and

• Assessed the adequacy of disclosures (note 1.11), including the sufficiency of disclosures in relation to estimation uncertainty.

Key observations

I am satisfied that the amounts recognised within the financial statements are appropriate.

Application of materiality

Materiality 

I applied the concept of materiality in both planning and performing my audit, and in evaluating the effect of misstatements on my audit and on the financial statements. This approach recognises that financial statements are rarely absolutely correct, and that an audit is designed to provide reasonable, rather than absolute, assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement or irregularity. 

A matter is material if its omission or misstatement would, in the judgement of the auditor, reasonably influence the decisions of users of the financial statements. 

Based on my professional judgement, I determined overall materiality for the department and its group’s financial statements as a whole as follows:

	Departmental group	Department
Materiality	£110 million	£100 million
Basis for determining materiality	1% of expenditure (Group)	1% of expenditure (Core department and agencies)
Rationale for the benchmark applied	The expenditure of the group on activities to support the criminal justice system is of significant user interest.	As with the group, expenditure is key to the ability for the Ministry of Justice to deliver their key functions.

Performance Materiality 

I set performance materiality at a level lower than materiality to reduce the probability that, in aggregate, uncorrected and undetected misstatements exceed the materiality for the financial statements as a whole. Group performance materiality was set at 75% of group materiality for the 2022-23 audit (2021-22: 75%). In determining performance materiality, I have also considered the uncorrected misstatements identified in the previous period.

Other Materiality Considerations 

As well as quantitative materiality there are certain matters that, by their very nature, would if not corrected influence the decisions of users, for example, any errors reported in the Accountability Report. Assessment of such matters would need to have regard to the nature of the misstatement and the applicable legal and reporting framework, as well as the size of the misstatement.

I applied the same concept of materiality to my audit of regularity. In planning and performing audit work in support of my opinion on regularity and evaluating the impact of any irregular transactions, I took into account both quantitative and qualitative aspects that I consider would reasonably influence the decisions of users of the financial statements. 

Error Reporting Threshold 

I agreed with the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee that I would report to it all uncorrected misstatements identified through my audit in excess of £300,000, as well as differences below this threshold that in my view warranted reporting on qualitative grounds. I also report to the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee on disclosure matters that I identified when assessing the overall presentation of the financial statements.

Total unadjusted audit differences reported to the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee would have decreased net expenditure by £39.7 million, decreased net assets by £33.3 million and decreased reserves by £73 million.

Audit scope 

The scope of my group audit was determined by obtaining an understanding of the department and its group and their environment, including group‑wide controls, and assessing the risks of material misstatement at the group level.

The departmental group incurred operating expenditure of £11.9 billion. The group’s largest components are HM Prisons and Probation Service; HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS); the Legal Aid Agency and the core department.

I have audited the full financial information of the core department, as well as the group consolidation. The audits of the above significant components, which are overseen by the same engagement director, were complete at the time of my completion of the group audit.

In addition, specific work was performed on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority tariff scheme provision; the recoveries collected by the HMCTS Trust Statement and accounted for as income within the group account; and the pension liabilities of Children and Family Courts Advisory Service. As group auditor, I have gained assurance from the auditors of the significant and material components and engaged regularly on the group significant risks.

I covered 97% of the group’s gross expenditure and 99% of the group’s gross assets through audit work on significant components, with the remainder covered by analytical procedures performed on non-significant components. For most of these non-significant components, the audit of the financial information was either completed or sufficiently well progressed to give me the evidence I needed for my opinion on the group financial statements as a whole.

Gross expenditure of significant components of the Ministry of Justice group (as at 31 March 2023)

• Significant components by size or risk (HMPPS, HMCTS, Legal Aid Agency, Core department, Cafcass and CICA) 97%

• Non-significant components 3%

Gross assets of the significant components of the Ministry of Justice group (as at 31 March 2023)

• Significant components by size or risk (HMPPS, HMCTS, Legal Aid Agency, Core department, Cafcass and CICA) 99%

• Non-significant components 1%

Other Information

The other information comprises information included in the Annual Report but does not include the financial statements and my auditor’s certificate and report thereon. The Accounting Officer is responsible for the other information. 

My opinion on the financial statements does not cover the other information and except to the extent otherwise explicitly stated in my certificate, I do not express any form of assurance conclusion thereon. 

In connection with my audit of the financial statements, my responsibility is to read the other information and, in doing so, consider whether the other information is materially inconsistent with the financial statements, or my knowledge obtained in the audit or otherwise appears to be materially misstated. 

If I identify such material inconsistencies or apparent material misstatements, I am required to determine whether this gives rise to a material misstatement in the financial statements themselves. If, based on the work I have performed, I conclude that there is a material misstatement of this other information, I am required to report that fact. 

I have nothing to report in this regard.

Opinion on other matters

In my opinion the part of the Remuneration and Staff Report to be audited has been properly prepared in accordance with HM Treasury directions made under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. 

In my opinion, based on the work undertaken in the course of the audit:

• the parts of the Accountability Report subject to audit have been properly prepared in accordance with HM Treasury directions made under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000;

• the information given in the Performance and Accountability Reports for the financial year for which the financial statements are prepared is consistent with the financial statements and is in accordance with the applicable legal requirements.

Matters on which I report by exception

In the light of the knowledge and understanding of the department and its group and their environment obtained in the course of the audit, I have not identified material misstatements in the Performance and Accountability Reports. 

I have nothing to report in respect of the following matters which I report to you if, in my opinion:

• I have not received all of the information and explanations I require for my audit;

• adequate accounting records have not been kept by the department and its group or returns adequate for my audit have not been received from branches not visited by my staff;

• the financial statements and the parts of the Accountability Report subject to audit are not in agreement with the accounting records and returns;

• certain disclosures of remuneration specified by HM Treasury’s Government Financial Reporting Manual have not been made or parts of the Remuneration and Staff Report to be audited is not in agreement with the accounting records and returns; or

• the Governance Statement does not reflect compliance with HM Treasury’s guidance.

Responsibilities of the Accounting Officer for the financial statements

As explained more fully in the Statement of Accounting Officer’s Responsibilities, the Accounting Officer is responsible for:

• maintaining proper accounting records;

• providing the C&AG with access to all information of which management is aware that is relevant to the preparation of the financial statements such as records, documentation and other matters;

• providing the C&AG with additional information and explanations needed for his audit;

• providing the C&AG with unrestricted access to persons within the department and its group from whom the auditor determines it necessary to obtain audit evidence;

• ensuring such internal controls are in place as deemed necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements to be free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error;

• ensuring that the financial statements give a true and fair view and are prepared in accordance with HM Treasury directions made under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000;

• ensuring that the annual report, which includes the Remuneration and Staff Report, is prepared in accordance with HM Treasury directions made under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000;

• assessing the department and its group’s ability to continue as a going concern, disclosing, as applicable, matters related to going concern and using the going concern basis of accounting unless the Accounting Officer anticipates that the services provided by the department and its group will not continue to be provided in the future.

Auditor’s responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements

My responsibility is to audit, certify and report on the financial statements in accordance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. 

My objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue a certificate that includes my opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with ISAs (UK) will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of these financial statements.

Extent to which the audit was considered capable of detecting non-compliance with laws and regulations including fraud

I design procedures in line with my responsibilities, outlined above, to detect material misstatements in respect of non-compliance with laws and regulations, including fraud. The extent to which my procedures are capable of detecting non-compliance with laws and regulations, including fraud is detailed below.

Identifying and assessing potential risks related to non-compliance with laws and regulations, including fraud 

In identifying and assessing risks of material misstatement in respect of non-compliance with laws and regulations, including fraud, I considered the following:

• the nature of the sector, control environment and operational performance including the design of the department and its group’s accounting policies

• Inquiring of management, the Department’s head of internal audit and those charged with governance, including obtaining and reviewing supporting documentation relating to the department and its group’s policies and procedures relating to: 

  • identifying, evaluating and complying with laws and regulations and whether they were aware of any instances of non-compliance

  • detecting and responding to the risks of fraud and whether they have knowledge of any actual, suspected or alleged fraud; and

  • the internal controls established to mitigate risks related to fraud or non-compliance with laws and regulations including the department and its group’s controls relating to the department’s compliance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, Managing Public Money and the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2022

• discussing among the engagement team including significant component audit teams and involving relevant internal and external specialists, including actuaries and property valuation experts regarding how and where fraud might occur in the financial statements and any potential indicators of fraud

As a result of these procedures, I considered the opportunities and incentives that may exist within the department and its group for fraud and identified the greatest potential for fraud in the following areas: revenue recognition, posting of unusual journals, complex transactions and bias in management estimates. In common with all audits under ISAs (UK), I am also required to perform specific procedures to respond to the risk of management override.

I also obtained an understanding of the department and its group’s framework of authority as well as other legal and regulatory frameworks in which the department and group operates, focusing on those laws and regulations that had a direct effect on material amounts and disclosures in the financial statements or that had a fundamental effect on the operations of the department and its group. The key laws and regulations I considered in this context included Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000, Managing Public Money, Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2022, employment law, tax legislation and legislation setting out fees, charges and compensation in relation to legal aid, courts and tribunals and criminal injuries compensation.

Audit response to identified risk 

As a result of performing the above, the procedures I implemented to respond to identified risks included the following: 

• reviewing the financial statement disclosures and testing to supporting documentation to assess compliance with provisions of relevant laws and regulations described above as having direct effect on the financial statements;

• enquiring of management, the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee and in-house legal counsel concerning actual and potential litigation and claims;

• reading and reviewing minutes of meetings of those charged with governance and the Board and internal audit reports;

• in addressing the risk of fraud through management override of controls, testing the appropriateness of journal entries and other adjustments; assessing whether the judgements made in making accounting estimates are indicative of a potential bias; and evaluating the business rationale of any significant transactions that are unusual or outside the normal course of business;

• testing income to confirm appropriate fees have been applied; and

• reviewing the processes, verifying the data used and the appropriateness of the assumptions and judgements applied for material estimates presented within the accounts.

I also communicated relevant identified laws and regulations and potential fraud risks to all engagement team members including internal specialists and significant component audit teams and remained alert to any indications of fraud or non-compliance with laws and regulations throughout the audit. 

A further description of my responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements is located on the Financial Reporting Council’s website at: www.frc.org.uk/auditorsresponsibilities. This description forms part of my certificate.

Other auditor’s responsibilities

I am required to obtain appropriate evidence sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the Statement of Outturn against Parliamentary Supply properly presents the outturn against voted Parliamentary control totals and that those totals have not been exceeded. The voted Parliamentary control totals are Departmental Expenditure Limits (Resource and Capital), Annually Managed Expenditure (Resource and Capital), Non-Budget (Resource) and Net Cash Requirement. 

I am also required to obtain evidence sufficient to give reasonable assurance that the expenditure and income recorded in the financial statements have been applied to the purposes intended by Parliament and the financial transactions recorded in the financial statements conform to the authorities which govern them.

I communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and significant audit findings, including any significant deficiencies in internal control that I identify during my audit.

Report

I have no observations to make on these financial statements.

Gareth Davies

Comptroller and Auditor General

27 November 2023

National Audit Office

157-197 Buckingham Palace Road

Victoria

London

SW1W 9SP

1. Chief People Officer is a member of the Nominations Committee but is not listed in this table as they are not a member of the Departmental Board. ↩

2. The Rt Hon Alex Chalk MP succeeded the Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP, as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State on 21 April 2023. ↩

3. No cash is paid, as these costs are settled through the funding process. ↩

4. The data represents the department and executive agencies (HMPPS, HMCTS, LAA, OPG and CICA). Disability and ethnicity percentages are calculated based on all staff who have provided information on their ethnicity or disability status. ↩

5. Headcount for the department and its executive agencies (excluding NDPBs), at 31 March 2023. The number of staff reported on page 115 represent the average number of full time equivalent (FTE) staff over the year. ↩