Corporate report

Annual report and accounts 2023-24: Accountability (HTML)

Updated 22 November 2024

Applies to England and Wales

1. 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 2023-24.

2. 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 2023-24.

2.1 Departmental Board, Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, and Nominations Committee member attendance from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024

Meetings attended per member of those eligible to attend

Members	Departmental Board	Audit and Risk Assurance Committee	Nominations Committee [footnote 1]
Ministers[footnote 2]
The Rt Hon Alex Chalk MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 21 April 2023)	3 of 3	-	-
The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP, Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 25 October 2022 to 20 April 2023)	0 of 0	-	-
Lord Christopher Bellamy KC, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 7 June 2022)	3 of 3	-	-
Mike Freer MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 20 September 2022)	2 of 3	-	-
The Rt Hon Edward Argar MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 27 October 2022)	3 of 3	-	-
The Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 27 October 2022 to 12 November 2023)	1 of 1	-	-
Gareth Bacon MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 13 November 2023)	2 of 2	-	-
Laura Farris MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 13 November 2023)[footnote 3]	2 of 2	-	-
Executive management
Dame Antonia Romeo DCB, Permanent Secretary	3 of 3	6 of 8	1 of 1
Jo Farrar, Second Permanent Secretary (from 1 September 2022 to 31 May 2023)	0 of 0	0 of 1	-
Amy Rees, Director General, Chief Executive of HMPPS	3 of 3	-	-
Nick Goodwin, Chief Executive, HMCTS	3 of 3	-	-
James McEwen, Chief Operating Officer	3 of 3	7 of 8	-
Jerome Glass, Director General, Policy Group – Courts and Access to Justice	3 of 3	-	-
Richard Price, Director General, Performance, Strategy and Analysis	3 of 3	-	-
Ross Gribbin, Director General, Policy Group – Prisons, Offenders and International Justice (from 16 November 2023)	2 of 2	-	-
Megan Lee-Devlin, Director General, Service Transformation (from 28 March 2024)	0 of 0	-	-
Non‑executive or independent members
Mark Rawlinson, Lead Non-Executive Member	3 of 3	-	1 of 1
Paul Smith, Non-Executive Member and Chair of Audit and Risk Assurance Committee	3 of 3	8 of 8	-
Mark Beaton, Non-Executive Member	3 of 3	5 of 5	-
Jennifer Rademaker, Non-Executive Member (from 21 August 2023)	2 of 2	-	0 of 0
Andrew Robb, Non-Executive Member (from 21 August 2023)	2 of 2	-	-
Jonathan Spence, Non-Executive Member (from 21 August 2023)	1 of 2	2 of 2	-
Heather Savory, Independent Member of Audit and Risk Assurance Committee	-	7 of 8	-
Nicky Wilden, Independent Member of Audit and Risk Assurance Committee	-	6 of 8	-
Alison Bexfield, Independent Member of Audit and Risk Assurance Committee	-	8 of 8	-

2.2 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 on GOV.UK.

Links to our executive and non-executive register of interest can be found on GOV.UK.

2.3 Personal data-related incidents

MoJ handles millions of records containing personal data and takes all data incidents seriously. The following table provides a summary report of personal data-related incidents reported to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in 2023‑24. MoJ has seen an 11% reduction in the number of reportable incidents in comparison to the previous financial year.

All staff are required to undertake mandatory data protection training on joining the department and yearly afterwards. Security measures are implemented effectively 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.

Personal data incidents reported to the ICO

Date incident reported	Nature of incident	Nature of data involved	Number of people potentially affected	Notification status
18-Apr-23	Details of offenders attending a sex offender treatment programme found in the street by a member of the public	Name, health and criminal offence data	10	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (18 August 2023)
10-Aug-23	Disclosure of the confidential address of an applicant to a respondent in a special guardianship case	Name and address	3	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (28 March 2024)
14-Aug-23	Disclosure of the confidential address of an applicant to a respondent in a divorce case	Name and address	2	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (4 September 2023)
18-Aug-23	Disclosure of a victim’s clinical psychologist report in an offender’s parole dossier, which included details of victim’s children	Confidential psychologist report and victim impact statement	5	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (9 April 2024)
17-Nov-23	Disclosure of the surname and 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 (27 November 2023)
27-Nov-23	Disclosure of the home address of a data subject to an offender who had been in contact with them via the Email a Prisoner service	Name and address	1	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (12 December 2023)
29-Dec-23	Disclosure of the bail address of defendant to a non-party	Name and address	1	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (2 January 2024)
15-Feb-24	Disclosure of confidential information on an offender’s ex-partner’s three children in the offender’s parole dossier	Names and addresses	3	Case closed by the ICO with no further action (3 April 2024)

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 page 90.

Complaints to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman 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. The department’s performance for the year 2023‑24 is shown below. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s annual analysis of the complaints it has received for each government department can be found at: www.ombudsman.org.uk

The completed Ombudsman investigations refer to complaints made in relation to HMCTS and OPG. Further details can be found in those bodies’ annual report and accounts. Where complaints are upheld or partly upheld, we review the case to identify any learnings and make improvements.

Number of complaints accepted for investigation in 2023-24*	Number of completed investigations in 2023-24**	Investigations upheld or partly upheld		Investigations not upheld		Investigations resolved without a finding or discontinued
		Number	%	Number	%	Number	%
5	6	2	33.3%	3	50%	0	0%
			Complied with		Not complied with		Total
The number of Ombudsman recommendations			2		-		2

*Includes enquiries about organisations that are accountable to the department.

**This is inclusive of investigations started in 2022-23 but not completed until 2023-24.

3. Statement of Accounting Officer’s responsibilities

Under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (the GRAA), 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 GRAA 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 that 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 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 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 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 that the department makes to its sponsored bodies are applied for the purposes intended, 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 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 body for which the Accounting Officer is 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.

3.1 Accounting Officer System Statement

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 provides Parliament with 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 Accounting Officer System Statement is available at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/accounting-officer-system-statements

4. Governance statement

This governance statement sets out the main features of the governance, risk management and internal control frameworks operated in 2023-24 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).

4.1 The department’s governance structures

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 together 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 Corporate Governance Code for Central Government Departments

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

• aligns with the updated Orange Book’s risk control framework

I have structured MoJ’s governance arrangements 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.

5. Board and committee information

A diagram setting out the MoJ’s governance structure through boards and committees. The Departmental Board has a ministerial-level chair. It is supported by the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, which has a non-executive-level chair, and the Nominations Committee and Executive Committee, which have executive-level chairs. There is also the Delivery Board, which has a non-executive-level chair. The Executive Committee is supported by the Finance, Performance and Risk Committee, the People Business Committee, the Investment Committee and the Portfolio Committee, which all have executive-level chairs.

The Departmental 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 for detailed engagement and challenge during discussions.

Departmental Board

Chair: Secretary of State

Meetings in 2023-24: 3

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 business plan.

Meeting composition

20 members:

• 5 female

• 15 male

• 5 ministers

• 9 executive directors

• 6 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

• consideration of the recommendations and actions from the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee

• prison capacity update and prison estates strategy

• probation delivery

• annual board effectiveness review

Audit and Risk Assurance Committee

Chair: Non-executive board member

Meetings in 2023-24: 8

Purpose: The Audit and Risk Assurance Committee supports the Departmental Board and Principal Accounting Officer in their responsibilities to ensure effective arrangements for governance, risk management and internal control are in place for the department. It does this by focusing on assurance arrangements over governance, financial reporting, and the annual report and accounts, including the evidence for and content of the governance statement. The committee ensures there is an adequate and effective risk management and assurance framework in place to meet the board and Accounting Officer’s assurance.

Meeting composition

5 members:

• 3 female

• 2 male

• 4 non-executive directors

• 1 independent member

Activities in the year under review included:

• consideration of the Government Internal Audit Agency findings

• consideration of the work of external audit, including reviewing end-of-year accounting estimates and judgements and the controls and processes to reduce the risk of error

• consideration and challenge of the department’s approach to demand and supply modelling, workforce capacity, recruitment, retention and reward, climate change and sustainability, estates, cyber, and data and information

• reviewing the annual report and accounts and providing independent oversight and challenge on its content

• continuing oversight of public bodies and executive agencies through dedicated meetings with public bodies and executive agencies’ Audit and Risk Assurance Committee chairs to increase openness, encourage collaboration and share information

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

• considering MoJ’s overall risk profile to ensure there is an adequate and effective risk management and assurance framework in place

Nominations Committee

Chair: Permanent Secretary

Meetings in 2023-24: 1

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

Meeting composition

4 members:^{[footnote 4]}

• 2 female

• 2 male

• 2 non-executive director

• 2 executive directors

The standing agenda in 2023-24 included appraisal of directors general, and discussing and advising on performance assessment. The meeting considered:

• pay award recommendations

• talent strategy

• succession planning

Executive Committee

Chair: Permanent Secretary

Meetings in 2023-24: 42

Purpose: I chair the Executive Committee, which is the executive leadership team for the department and comprises senior officials. It 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 allocates financial and other resources.

Meeting composition

12 members:

• 4 female.

• 8 male.

• 12 executive directors.

Activities in the year under review included:

• reviewing and monitoring the department’s performance against its budget and 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 review of the overall departmental risk profile

• reviewing the approach to capital spend and fiscal planning, 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 manage risks and address pressures

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

Delivery Board

Chair: Lead non-executive board member

Meetings in 2023-24: 5

Purpose: The Delivery Board provides assurance to the Principal Accounting Officer and the Departmental Board on the delivery of the department’s strategy, Outcome Delivery Plan and Government Major Projects Portfolio. This includes oversight and scrutiny of the activities, projects and programmes that drive agreed outcomes, ensuring that plans are well evidenced and strategic benefits are on track to be delivered.

Meeting composition

9 members:

• 2 female

• 7 male

• 3 non-executive directors

• 3 executive directors

• 3 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, that strategic benefits are on track to be delivered, and that there is a clear line of sight from objectives and activities through to defined outputs and measurable outcomes

• 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 2023-24: 12

Purpose: The Finance, Performance and Risk Committee is responsible for scrutinising, challenging and supporting departmental delivery against the Outcome Delivery Plan and the department’s performance framework. It also informs management of the department’s principal and secondary risks, examines in-year finances, and monitors compliance with functional standards and other government, legal or professional requirements.

Meeting composition

13 members:

• 5 female

• 8 male

• 13 executive directors

Activities in the year under review included:

• examining the department, its executive agencies, and other public 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: Chief People Officer

Meetings in 2023-24: 11

Purpose: The People Business Committee supports the Executive Committee in its leadership and management of people and workforce strategies to improve the co-ordination of design, decision making, and implementation of cross-cutting programmes of work.

Meeting composition

21 members:

• 11 female

• 10 male

• 21 executive directors

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

• reviewing workforce planning activity including headcount, geographical location and capability

• 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 management actions

Investment Committee

Chair: Chief Operating Officer

Meetings in 2023-24: 24

Purpose: The Investment Committee has delegated powers to make investment decisions on the Executive Committee’s behalf, with oversight of the MoJ portfolio. This includes ensuring that portfolio projects remain strategically aligned, affordable and deliverable from inception through to implementation. The committee considers and, where appropriate, approves investment decisions on behalf of the Executive Committee, including gated release of funds for change programmes, ensuring that investments deliver value for money, meet regularity and propriety considerations, and are affordable and sustainable.

Meeting composition

17 members:

• 4 female

• 13 male

• 17 executive directors

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: Chief Operating Officer

Meetings in 2023-24: 11

Purpose: The Portfolio Committee provides oversight of our major change portfolio, reporting to both the Executive Committee and Delivery Board. It ensures projects are set up for success, resolves issues that may compromise successful delivery and improves overall delivery confidence, further 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

9 members:

• 2 female

• 7 male

• 9 executive directors

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

• 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 on GOV.UK.

In addition to standing arrangements, new governance structures were introduced to strengthen departmental oversight of the immediate prison capacity challenges. The Custodial Options Taskforce co-ordinated information flows on capacity forecasts and supply and demand choices across the department and reported this to the Executive Committee, ministers and No 10. It also fed into and received updates from the Criminal Justice System Strategic Command, a multi-agency group set up to manage the impact across the wider criminal justice system, ensuring cross-government collaboration and alignment.

Departmental Board performance and effectiveness

A board effectiveness evaluation was undertaken during the year. In alignment with the requirement for regular external input as set out in the HM Treasury Corporate Governance Code for Central Government Departments, this year’s evaluation was independently led. The report highlighted opportunities for improvement for consideration by board members, concluding that overall, the Departmental Board is operating effectively.

Identifying and managing conflicts of interests

MoJ’s Declaration and Management of Outside Interests Policy is based on Cabinet Office guidance and is available to all employees via the intranet. The policy sets out the expectations and process for declaring an interest. It is the responsibility of individuals 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.

MoJ holds a central register of declarations of interests for all members of the Senior Civil Service (SCS) and non-executive directors employed by the department. This includes details of any financial interests declared, secondary employment and appointments, personal interests, and any other relevant interests. There is an annual declaration of interest exercise and individuals are required to submit an updated declaration when there is a change in circumstance during the year. Declarations of interest for employees in the delegated grades are recorded and managed locally. MoJ’s register of interests can be found on GOV.UK.

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 GOV.UK.

In line with the current declaration of interest 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
Hannah Galley	Ms Galley was Deputy Chairman of Membership and Fundraising, Cities of London, and Westminster Conservative Association. Ms Galley was also on the approved candidates list for the Conservative Party.

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, including when they apply and the application process, can be accessed by all employees via the intranet. All exit management letters contain wording on the business appointment rules as a reminder to employees of their obligations.

MoJ has a clear procedure in place for considering applications under the business appointment rules employees at grades SCS2 and below. The process is managed by the people policy and transparency team and includes input from the individual, their line manager, the Chief Commercial Officer and the Chief People Officer. In exceptional cases the Permanent Secretary is consulted on business appointment rule applications.

MoJ liaises with the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments for applications from ministers and directors general (SCS3) and above.

During 2023-24 there were 20 Civil Service exits from the department at SCS level. 20 business appointment rule applications were made as follows:

• ministers

  – nine ministerial applications

• civil servants

  – one SCS3 application

  – two SCS2 applications

  – three Grade 6 applications

  – four Grade 7 applications

  – one application below Grade 7

No applications were found to be unsuitable for the applicant to take up. All applications below SCS2 were approved with conditions set. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments determines 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. There is advice published by the department on specific business appointments. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments publishes advices on business appointment rule applications for director general SCS3 and above.

Whistleblowing

MoJ has a clear whistleblowing policy in place. It provides guidance on the process for raising a whistleblowing concern (including roles and responsibilities, and public interest disclosures), advice on the protection afforded to an individual who raises a concern, and reassurance that concerns will be investigated promptly and professionally. The policy is accessible to all staff on the intranet.

In response to feedback from assurance activities, MoJ’s People Function has strengthened awareness of the whistleblowing policy across the department through continuous improvement activities. MoJ has engaged with and promoted the cross-government ‘Speak Up’ campaign and appointed a senior civil servant whistleblowing champion. Work has taken place to develop the network of nominated officers who provide an independent route to raise a whistleblowing concern and impartial advice to the individual.

A new record management system has been introduced to improve the accuracy of recording whistleblowing cases. This will improve the way that disclosures are managed and provide greater assurance that concerns raised within the department are dealt with efficiently.

Significant control issues

Throughout 2023-24, we had appropriate governance in place to mitigate control challenges and issues with the exception of criminal jurisdiction data.

Criminal jurisdiction data

In June 2024, in HMCTS, concerns about the quality of key data inputs for criminal courts statistics led to the postponement of the release of latest statistics for further quality assurance. At the time of publication of this annual report and accounts, HMCTS’ quality assurance is still ongoing. HMCTS leadership has committed as part of this process to assess and review potential control failures that may have led to material errors in key data inputs and to rectifying these swiftly.

6. Risk management arrangements

6.1 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. It is 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 respond agilely 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 who is actively engaged with the department’s governance arrangements. The Chief Risk Officer’s responsibilities include:

• 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 assessing the department’s risk appetite to inform decision making

Our risk management framework has continued to evolve and improve during 2023-24. We are now close to compliance with the Orange Book with one exception, that the Departmental Board requires a greater focus on risk management arrangements as identified in this year’s board effectiveness evaluation. This will be addressed in the coming months.

Activities we have undertaken include:

• our risk management framework was revised in November 2023 to strengthen risk owner responsibilities

• our principal risks have been considered and discussed by the Finance, Performance and Risk Committee and Executive Committee quarterly, and reported to the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee quarterly

• an ongoing programme of principal risk deep dives are now in place with several conducted to date – notably property, sustainability and commercial risk

• risks are now routinely assessed as a part of investment decisions and within the lifecycle of our projects, programmes and commercial relationships

• the Departmental Operations Centre horizon scan the external environment routinely and principal risks are assessed against 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 has been provided to our risk community and leaders throughout the year, including a Risk Awareness Week in November 2023 with the theme of making risk mainstream

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

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. These include those presented by widespread industrial action across the public sector, the Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete identification programme, and delivery of departmental activities associated with His Majesty the King’s Coronation.

The department has received external validation that the corporate business continuity policy and processes are aligned to the International Standard for Business Continuity (ISO22301). We have taken several steps to strengthen the general organisational resilience of the department, including:

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

• conducting departmental self-assessment processes against international standards

• running several cross-cutting exercises within the department and developing an exercise suite to allow business areas to manage their own test events

• developing an assurance approach to ensure preparedness for seasonal risks

A director-led departmental Business Continuity and Resilience Governance Board meets quarterly and is 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.

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 policy and the corporate fire safety policy. These provide clear performance outcomes aligning our health and safety strategy to the Health and Safety Executive’s Plan, Do, Check, Act model, and aligning our fire safety strategy to British Standard 9997. We are committed to ensuring that all prison accommodation meets modern fire safety standards and remain actively engaged with stakeholders to support various improvement initiatives and the standardisation of policies and practices across the department. The policies’ statements of intent are endorsed by the Chief Operating Officer, on my behalf.

6.2 Internal control framework

As the Principal Accounting Officer, I am responsible for the development and maintenance of effective systems of internal control for the department, its executive agencies and other public bodies. This is supported through a framework of delegated authorities with 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 2023-24, as well as material issues where we have responded to limitations in our control framework.

Functional maturity

Functional standards exist to create a coherent, effective and mutually understood way of doing business within central government organisations. These standards are mandated for use across central government and provide a stable basis for assurance, risk management and capability improvement, supporting value for money for the taxpayer.

MoJ’s Functional Forum has agreed a collective approach to improving functional maturity. Throughout 2023-24, the functions’ understanding of the requirements of their cross-government functional standards have deepened, with all functions currently participating in an ongoing programme of continuous improvement. A report is produced at regular intervals to track progress in-year and set levels of maturity against the most important aspects of a standard (developing, good, better or best) alongside wider functional considerations.

The Functional Forum continues to support functions in integrating additional best practice elements from their respective standards into their operating models.

A regular programme of functional deep dives is in place to provide the Chief Operating Officer with an opportunity for support and challenge twice annually. These sessions are an improvement-focused environment where plans for embedding functional standards and progress on improving compliance and engagement are discussed.

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 its public bodies 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.

Commercial

The Chief Commercial Officer holds the delegated authority to sign, seal, vary or extend commercial agreements on behalf of the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor, entering the department into a commercial agreement with a third party provider. The delegated commercial authority for property-related transactions, such as property licences, leases and deeds, 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.

During 2023-24 we managed multiple supply chain risks, working closely with our business partners and suppliers to maintain MoJ frontline operations with minimal disruptions. We consistently work with the Cabinet Office and Crown Commercial Services across suppliers, and with supplier financial health to incorporate supplier financial distress risk.

Projects and programmes

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

Senior responsible owners are expected to manage projects and programmes in accordance with the Government Functional Standard on 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 Projects 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, using a panel of functional experts to test against their relevant functional standards.

Established processes are in place which test compliance with MoJ standards, which enables the identification and management of any significant area of non-compliance.

Portfolio reporting enables our senior leaders to understand and scrutinise the overall performance and achievability of MoJ’s major projects and programmes. The Project Delivery Function has made significant enhancements in portfolio reporting, which has driven rich discussions at departmental committees including the Delivery Board and Portfolio Committee. This has prompted positive feedback from our non‑executive directors and board members.

In 2024-25, we will continue to focus on project delivery fundamentals, including risk management, benefits management and planning.

People

During 2023-24, a review of the People Function was undertaken to drive performance improvements and efficiencies. Through reviewing the operating model and governance approaches and seeking insight from stakeholders and delivery partners, the process generated significant changes to organisational and decision-making structures in the People Function. These improved transparency, collaboration and efficiencies through:

• implementing a structure based on professional best practice which builds on the People Function Target Operating Model and brings together our HR business partnering, supported by consolidated centres of expertise and a single People Function – this sits alongside a new Business Architecture Function spanning the whole of the department

• establishing a new governance model rooted in a monthly People Function Executive Leadership Team Performance Hub and Change Hub – sitting beneath these are three director-led sub-groups to manage the portfolios, policies and risks associated with workforce capacity, capability and experience, and a HR Delivery and Approval Board to manage all our HR change projects

• strengthening assurance, including risk management, to understand how we are delivering against our commitments for MoJ on an ongoing basis, as well as the opportunity to use what our customers tell us about our services such as through the Civil Service-wide HR functional standards survey

Property

We continue to make improvements in the governance arrangements for the Property Function. The Chief Property Officer attended the Finance, Performance and Risk Committee, the Executive Committee and the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee to discuss property as a principal risk. Conversations focused on the increasing impact on operational delivery and how the Property Function was managing the risk by tracking the effectiveness of a number of thematic controls. As a result, each board had a better understanding of the scale of the risk being managed across the estate and provided the Chief Property Officer with helpful feedback on ongoing activity to strengthen the approach to risk management.

We have continued to embed the Government Functional Standard on Property into our ways of working and demonstrated continuous improvement in several categories, such as the strategic asset management plan, roles and accountabilities, and delivery. Our annual assurance statement, which assessed 113 elements, demonstrates a reduction in the partially compliant criteria from eight last year to two this year.

One of our main sources of independent assurance has come from working closely with the Government Internal Audit Agency. Over the last 12 months, the Government Internal Audit Agency has carried out several audits on behalf of the Property Function, looking at themes such as strategic estates planning, corporate fire health and safety, and licences, leases and deeds. Those reports have led to several improvements such as the establishment of an MoJ Property Board and the creation of a three-to-five-year property strategy.

Environmental sustainability

The Climate Change and Sustainability Control Framework has been reviewed for effectiveness. Given many of the controls introduced as a result are recent, assessment of effectiveness is not practical at this stage. However, it is acknowledged that in terms of the most significant risks faced, current controls in place will have limited impact.

Information security

There is increasing risk from internal and external threats of exposure to loss of personal or sensitive information. The scale and complexity of MoJ coupled with large volumes of sensitive information remains a challenging factor in reducing the security risks. We have worked hard to improve our information security culture through implementation of government standards, policy and guidance. We continue to focus on improving our response to and recovery from security breaches across MoJ.

Data and quality of information

The Analysis Function has operated in a challenging environment over the last 18 months, with significant demands for analysis at pace to inform departmental policy and operational delivery.

Building agile and responsive analytical capacity to meet increasing demand in the face of major operational challenges (such as the acute prison capacity pressures) is a priority. We are committed to developing this capacity to ensure the function remains responsive to emerging and ongoing needs and has the right capabilities to provide advice for critical decision-making.

We have enhanced the analytical assurance process, strengthened our training offerings, promoted user ownership of analytical products and worked on the culture across the function.

Given the distribution of analytical resources across both MoJ HQ and its public bodies and growing demands for work, effective prioritisation will continue to be required to balance the needs with the available resources.

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. This provides a business partner capability to MoJ public bodies 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 2023-24, the Centre of Expertise has focused on improving fraud management information and on financial recoveries.

The Centre of Expertise works with stakeholders across the department to embed fraud risk assessments and, where appropriate, initial fraud impact assessments in accordance with our counter fraud strategy and the mandate from the Public Sector Fraud Authority.

The Centre of Expertise works with the department’s agencies and arm’s length bodies to reduce the risk of fraud and error across our activities. For example, we work closely with LAA to reduce error and increase provider compliance as the department strives to meet the requirements set out in the Counter Fraud Functional Standard. The level of error is continually scrutinised and managed as part of LAA’s approved stewardship arrangements. The effectiveness of this work is demonstrated through LAA’s net regularity error rate, which they are maintaining within the agreed threshold.

MoJ is committed to meeting the requirements of the Counter Fraud Functional Standard and the Public Sector Fraud Authority’s mandate. A current initiative with the Government Internal Audit Agency involves a review of high-level fraud risk assessments and the production of a global fraud risk assessment 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 Public Sector Fraud Authority.

Grants

The department’s grants are overseen by a senior officer responsible for the grant and delivery of its expected outcomes. They are expected to manage grants in accordance with the Government Functional Standard on Grants, Managing Public Money and other centrally issued guidance. Roles and responsibilities are set out in a senior officer responsible appointment letter. They are supported by a Grants Centre of Expertise which provides a holistic view of MoJ’s grant-giving to improve the effectiveness of grant spend and to strengthen governance and assurance.

Further governance and assurance are 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 regarding grant necessity or 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 was ongoing in 2023-24 and is now expected to be completed during 2024-25.

2023-24 was the second year of a three-year programme to review several public bodies within the Cabinet Office-led Public Bodies Review Programme. During the year, reviews of CICA and IMA for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements were completed and published. Reviews of Cafcass and OPG were carried out and will be published in early in 2024-25. Following a self-assessment review of HMPPS, a further assurance-focused review will take place in late 2024-25.

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

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

• regular holding-to-account meetings between the Public Bodies Centre of Expertise assurance partners, finance business partners, policy officials and public bodies, with relevant risks escalated to the business group risk register or the departmental risk register as appropriate

• quarterly updates on governance, risk and performance to senior sponsors about the oversight of public bodies

• regular attendance by the Head of the Public Bodies Centre of Expertise at the departmental Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, 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 public bodies. The relationship between the department and its public bodies is informed by the ‘Arm’s length body sponsorship code of good practice’, which sets out the common standards for good sponsorship arrangements between government departments and public bodies.

6.3 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 the 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 spent

• the views of the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee 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 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 chief executives 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 assess the level of compliance against departmental policies and guidance

• completion of a risk and control maturity assessment, to consider how effectively functional governance, risk management and compliance controls operate, and to identify opportunities for improvement

• completion of board and committee effectiveness reviews, to ensure we maintain robust and effective governance and oversight

• information on levels of compliance with relevant government functional standards, 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 public bodies, assessed for materiality at MoJ level, providing an overview of compliance for their organisation

Government Internal Audit Agency

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 Audit and Risk Assurance Committee with a clear view on issues highlighted emerging from internal audit work.

The internal audit programme is closely aligned to the principal risks of the department, its executive agencies and other arm’s length bodies. 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. This is 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 arm’s length bodies. They have all been given a ‘moderate’ opinion, with the exception of Cafcass, which is ‘substantial’.

The Government Internal Audit Agency has highlighted that our new performance framework aligns with the department’s strategic goals, providing a good overview of performance, and that our key performance indicators provide an adequate view of current performance. Their operationally focused work has enabled them to conclude that we have a strong focus on the delivery of outcomes while also delivering challenging programmes of change and managing acute demand pressures. Audit work has shown that there are some improvements in the delivery of change, but that there remain challenges to embed new systems and processes and realise the anticipated benefits. 

They have reported that the department has an adequate framework in place to ensure the effectiveness of risk management and referenced our appetite to do more to embed stronger risk management. In-year we have appointed single risk owners, undertaken risk tolerance exercises and conducted risk deep dives within our governance meetings. They highlight that this has improved understanding of our overall risk position, but our principal risks continue to exceed our tolerance. Adequately addressing these risks requires material and sustained investment which the department will continue to pursue through the Spending Review process.

In-year, our internal qualitive assessments of committees have confirmed a broadly positive picture in relation to effectiveness. Where the Government Internal Audit Agency has undertaken board effectiveness reviews in arm’s length bodies, their findings have also been positive. They highlight our ability to flex governance to meet challenges such as prison capacity and risks which have emerged in-year, such as Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete, but that we will need to continue to review the fitness for purpose of these structures in the more medium term.

The Government Internal Audit Agency’s view on the effectiveness of our controls and compliance with required standards has remained static across recent years. They have highlighted areas of good practice but have also continued to raise issues with clarity of accountabilities, the understanding of control effectiveness and how internal assurance structures operate to provide us with confidence over the operation of control. Additionally, their work across the agencies and arm’s length bodies has continued to highlight issues with the documenting of processes to enable effective compliance and ensure organisational resilience and continuity.

External audit

The National Audit Office scrutinises public spending on behalf of Parliament, auditing financial statements to hold government to account and improve public services.

The notional cost of the statutory audit for the core department was £757,250 (2022-23: £716,000), which also includes the statutory external audit of the consolidated accounts, Office of the Accountant General and the Judicial Pension Scheme.^{[footnote 5]} The total cost of statutory external audits across the departmental group was £2,715,050, of which £592,800 was cash and £2,122,250 was notional cost (2022-23: £2,492,900 comprising £520,400 cash and £1,972,500 notional cost). The notional external audit cost includes the cost of the HMCTS Trust Statement which is not consolidated as part of these accounts.

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 code.

Independent oversight of assurance arrangements

The department is subject to independent oversight in several 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 and 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

6.4 Conclusion

I have considered the evidence provided regarding the production of the governance statement and the independent advice and assurance provided by the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee. I conclude that the department has satisfactory governance and risk management systems in place with the necessary policies and procedures 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.

Dame Antonia Romeo DCB
Permanent Secretary and Principal Accounting Officer

8 November 2024

7. 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 Government Financial Reporting Manual as issued by HM Treasury.

7.1 Remuneration policy

The remuneration of senior civil servants 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.

7.2 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).

7.3 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. 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.

7.4 Remuneration and pension entitlement

The following sections provide details of the remuneration and pension interests of the ministers and most senior management (such as board members) of the department.

Remuneration: salary and payments in kind (audited)

Remuneration					2023-24					2022-23
	Total amount of salary and fees	All taxable benefits (nearest £100)	Pension-related benefits [footnote 6](nearest £1,000)	Severance payments	Total (nearest £1,000)	Total amount of salary and fees	All taxable benefits (nearest £100)	Pension-related benefits [footnote 6] (nearest £1,000)	Severance payments	Total (nearest £1,000)
Ministers[footnote 7]	£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£	£
The Rt Hon Alex Chalk KC MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 21 April 2023)	63,755 (FYE 67,505)	-	16,000	-	80,000	-	-	-	-	-
The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP, Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 25 October 2022 to 20 April 2023)[footnote 8]	3,750 (FYE 67,505)	-	-	16,876	21,000	58,462 (FYE 67,505)	-	-	9,043	68,000
The Rt Hon Brandon Lewis MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 6 September to 24 October 2022)	-	-	-	-	-	9,043[footnote 9] (FYE 67,505)	-	3,000	16,876	29,000
Lord Christopher Bellamy KC, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 7 June 2022)[footnote 10]	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Mike Freer MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 20 September 2022)	22,375	-	6,000	-	28,000	11,871 (FYE 22,375)	-	3,000	-	15,000
The Rt Hon Edward Argar MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 27 October 2022)	31,680	-	8,000	-	40,000	13,626 (FYE 31,680)	-	3,000	-	17,000
Laura Farris MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 13 November 2023)[footnote 10]	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Gareth Bacon MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 13 November 2023)	8,577 (FYE 22,375)	-	2,000	-	11,000	-	-	-	-	-
The Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 27 October 2022 to 12 November 2023)	19,624 (FYE 31,680)	-	5,000	-	24,000	13,626 (FYE 31,680)	-	6,000	-	20,000
Gareth Johnson MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 20 September to 27 October 2022)	-	-	-	-	-	2,308 (FYE 22,375)	-	0[footnote 11]	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)	-	0[footnote 11]	5,593	8,000
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)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Simon Baynes MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 8 July to 7 September 2022)[footnote 10]	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Rachel Maclean MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 7 September to 25 October 2022)	-	-	-	-	-	4,241 (FYE 31,680)	-	1,000	0[footnote 11]	5,000
Sarah Dines MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 8 July to 19 September 2022)	-	-	-	-	-	3,595 (FYE 17,917)	-	-	-	4,000
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
James Cartlidge MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 17 September 2021 to 7 July 2022)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
The Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 14 February 2020 to 6 July 2022)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Victoria Atkins MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 16 September 2021 to 6 July 2022)	-	-	-	-	-	8,431 (FYE 31,680)	-	2,000	7,920	18,000
Lord David Wolfson of Tredegar KC, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 22 December 2020 to 14 April 2022)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

Remuneration: salary and payments in kind (audited)

Remuneration					2023-24					2022-23
	Total amount of salary and fees	All taxable benefits (nearest £100)	Bonuses paid [footnote 12]	Pension-related benefits [footnote 13] (nearest £1,000)	Total	Total amount of salary and fees	All taxable benefits (nearest £100)	Bonuses paid	Pension-related benefits [footnote 14] (nearest £1,000)	Total
Senior managers	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Dame Antonia Romeo DCB, Permanent Secretary	195-200	-	10-15	91	300-305	185-190	-	-	50	235-240
Jo Farrar, Second Permanent Secretary for Ministry of Justice and Chief Executive of HMPPS (to 1 September 2022), Second Permanent Secretary (from 1 September 2022 to 31 May 2023) [footnote 16]	25-30 (165-170 FYE)	-	-	4	30-35	165-170	-	-	26	190-195
Amy Rees, Director General, Chief Executive of HMPPS (from 1 September 2022) [footnote 15] [footnote 16] [footnote 17]	160-165	33.1	15-20	23	235-240	90-95 (150-155 FYE)	13.1	15-20	22	140-145
Nick Goodwin, Chief Executive of HMCTS[footnote 15] [footnote 17]	135-140	-	-	54	190-195	130 -135	-	-	109	240-245
Ross Gribbin, Director General, Policy – Prisons, Offenders and International Justice (from 16 November 2023)	50-55 (135-140 FYE)	-	0-5	27	80-85	-	-	-	-	-
James McEwen, Chief Operating Officer	150-155	-	10-15	82	250-255	140-145	-	0-5	97	240-245
Jerome Glass, Director General, Policy Group (to 28 November 2022), Director General, Policy Group – Courts and Access to Justice (from 29 November 2022)	140-145	-	0-5	61	200-205	130-135	-	5-10	44	180-185
Richard Price, Director General, Performance, Strategy and Analysis (from 9 May 2022)	140-145	-	-	53	190-195	115-120 (130-135 FYE)	-	-	55	170-175
Megan Lee-Devlin, Director General, Service Delivery Transformation (from 28 March 2024)	0-5 (170-175 FYE)	-	-	1	0-5	-	-	-	-

Remuneration: salary and payments in kind (audited)^{[footnote 18]}

Remuneration			2023-24			2022-23
	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	0.5	-	10-15	-	-
Jennifer Rademaker, Non-Executive Member (from 21 August 2023)	5-10	-	-	-	-	-
Jonathan Spence, Non-Executive Member (from 21 August 2023)	5-10	1.4	-	-	-	-
Andrew Robb, Non-Executive Member (from 21 August 2023)	5-10	-	-	-	-	-
Shirley Cooper OBE, Non-Executive Member (to 3 August 2022)	-	-	-	5-10	-	-
Nick Campsie, Non-Executive Member (to 3 June 2022)	-	-	-	0-5	-	-

7.5 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 therefore 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 (£86,584 from 1 April 2023) 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.

7.6 Benefits in kind

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.

7.7 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-executive board member and the Chief People Officer. The bonuses reported in 2023-24 relate to performance in 2023-24 and 2022-23. The comparative bonuses reported for 2022-23 relate to performance in 2022-23 and 2021-22.

Pension entitlements: ministerial pensions (audited)

The pension benefits of any members affected by the public service pensions remedy which were reported in 2022-23 on the basis of alpha membership for the period between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022 are reported in 2023-24 on the basis of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) membership for the same period.

Taking account of inflation, the CETV funded by the employer has decreased in real terms.

Pension benefits
	Accrued pension at age 65 as at 31 March 2024	Real increase in pension at age 65	CETV at 31 March 2024	CETV at 31 March 2023 [footnote 21]	Real increase/ (decrease) in CETV
Ministers	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
The Rt Hon Alex Chalk KC MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 21 April 2023)	0-5	0-2.5	44	25	10
The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP, Deputy Prime Minister, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 25 October 2022 to 20 April 2023)	-	-	-	-	-
The Rt Hon Brandon Lewis MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (from 6 September to 24 October 2022)	-	-	-	105	-
Lord Christopher Bellamy KC, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 7 June 2022)[footnote 19]	-	-	-	-	-
Mike Freer MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 20 September 2022)	0-5	0-2.5	53	41	6
The Rt Hon Edward Argar MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 27 October 2022)	0-5	0-2.5	48	37	5
Laura Farris MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 13 November 2023)[footnote 19]	-	-	-	-	-
Gareth Bacon MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 13 November 2023)	0-5	0-2.5	3	-	2
The Rt Hon Damian Hinds MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 27 October 2022 to 12 November 2023)	5-10	0-2.5	92	83	3
Gareth Johnson MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 20 September to 27 October 2022)	-	-	-	5	-
Rob Butler MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 20 September to 26 October 2022)	-	-	-	0[footnote 20]	-
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)[footnote 19]	-	-	-	-	-
Simon Baynes MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 8 July to 7 September 2022)[footnote 19]	-	-	-	-	-
Rachel Maclean MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 7 September to 25 October 2022)	-	-	-	17	-
Sarah Dines MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (from 8 July to 19 September 2022)	-	-	-	2	-
The Rt Hon Stuart Andrew MP, Minister of State for Justice (from 8 July to 19 September 2022)	-	-	-	30	-
James Cartlidge MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (to 7 July 2022)[footnote 19]	-	-	-	-	-
The Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP, Minister of State for Justice (to 6 July 2022)[footnote 19]	-	-	-	-	-
Victoria Atkins MP, Minister of State for Justice (to 6 July 2022)	-	-	-	25	-
Lord David Wolfson of Tredegar KC, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Justice (to 14 April 2022)[footnote 19]	-	-	-	-	-

7.8 Ministerial pension benefits

Pension benefits for ministers are provided by the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund. The scheme is made under statute and the rules are set out in the Ministers’ Etc. Pension Scheme 2015.

Those ministers who are MPs may also accrue an MPs’ pension under the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund (details of which are not included in this report).

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.

7.9 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.

7.10 Real increase in value of the cash equivalent transfer value

This is the element of the increase in accrued pension funded by the Exchequer. It excludes increases due to inflation and contributions paid by the minister. It is worked out using common market valuation factors for the start and end of the period.

Civil Service pensions (audited)^{[footnote 25]}

	Accrued pension and related lump sum at pension age as at 31 March 2024	Real increase in pension and related lump sum at pension age	CETV at 31 March 2024	CETV at 31 March 2023	Real increase/ (decrease) in CETV	Employer partnership pension account at 31 March 2024
Senior managers	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	Nearest £100
Dame Antonia Romeo DCB, Permanent Secretary	55-60 plus a lump sum of 145-150	5-7.5 plus a lump sum of 0-2.5	1,214	1,045	62	-
Jo Farrar, Second Permanent Secretary for Ministry of Justice and Chief Executive of HMPPS (to 1 September 2022), Second Permanent Secretary (from 1 September 2022 to 31 May 2023)[footnote 22]	-	-	-	-	-	4,300
Amy Rees, Director General, Chief Executive of HMPPS (from 1 September 2022)[footnote 23]	-	-	-	734	-	23,300
Nick Goodwin, Chief Executive of HMCTS[footnote 24]	40-45 plus a lump sum of 110-115	2.5-5 plus a lump sum of 0-2.5	890	780	34	-
Ross Gribbin, Director General, Policy – Prisons, Offenders and International Justice (from 16 November 2022)	35-40	0-2.5	587	554	17	-
James McEwen, Chief Operating Officer	55-60	2.5-5	945	813	51	-
Jerome Glass, Director General, Policy Group (to 28 November 2022), Director General, Policy Group – Courts and Access to Justice (from 29 November 2022)	45-50	2.5-5	767	666	34	-
Richard Price, Director General, Performance, Strategy and Analysis (from 9 May 2022)	55-60 plus a lump sum of 150-155	2.5-5 plus a lump sum of 0	1,336	1,188	37	-
Megan Lee-Devlin, Director General, Service Delivery Transformation (from 28 March 2024)	10-15	0-2.5	108	108	0	-

7.11 Civil Service pensions

Pension benefits are provided through the Civil Service pension arrangements. Before 1 April 2015, the only scheme was the PCSPS, which is divided into a few different sections. Classic, premium and classic plus provide benefits on a final salary basis, while nuvos provides benefits on a career average basis. 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. All newly appointed civil servants, and the majority of those already in service, joined the new scheme.

The PCSPS and alpha are unfunded statutory schemes. Employees and employers make contributions (employee contributions range between 4.6% and 8.05%, depending on salary). The balance of the cost of benefits in payment is met by monies voted by Parliament each year. Pensions in payment are increased annually in line with the pensions increase legislation. Instead of the defined benefit arrangements, employees may opt for a defined contribution pension with an employer contribution, which is the partnership pension account.

In alpha, pension builds up at a rate of 2.32% of pensionable earnings each year, and the total amount accrued is adjusted annually in line with a rate set by HM Treasury. Members may opt to give up (commute) pension for a lump sum up to the limits set by the Finance Act 2004. All members who switched to alpha from the PCSPS had 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 accrued pensions shown in this report are the pension the member is entitled to receive when they reach normal pension age, or immediately on ceasing to be an active member of the scheme if they are already at or over normal pension age. Normal 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 in this report show pension earned in PCSPS or alpha – as appropriate. Where a member has benefits in both the PCSPS and alpha, the figures show the combined value of their benefits in the two schemes but note that the constituent parts of that pension may be payable from different ages.

When the government introduced new public service pension schemes in 2015, there were transitional arrangements which treated existing scheme members differently based on their age. Older members of the PCSPS remained in that scheme, rather than moving to alpha. In 2018, the Court of Appeal found that the transitional arrangements in the public service pension schemes unlawfully discriminated against younger members.

As a result, steps are being taken to remedy those 2015 reforms, making the pension scheme provisions fair to all members. The public service pensions remedy is made up of two parts. The first part closed the PCSPS on 31 March 2022, with all active members becoming members of alpha from 1 April 2022. The second part removes the age discrimination for the remedy period, between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022, by moving the membership of eligible members during this period back into the PCSPS on 1 October 2023. This is known as ‘rollback’.

For members who are in scope of the public service pension remedy, the calculation of their benefits for the purpose of calculating their CETV and their single total figure of remuneration, as of 31 March 2023 and 31 March 2024, reflects the fact that membership between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022 has been rolled back into the PCSPS. Although members will in due course get an option to decide whether that period should count towards PCSPS or alpha benefits, the figures show the rolled back position with PCSPS benefits for that period.

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).

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

7.12 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 median remuneration of the organisation’s workforce.

The banded remuneration of the highest paid director in MoJ in the financial year 2023-24 was £215,000 to £220,000 (2022-23: £185,000 to £190,000).^{[footnote 26]} This was 6.7 times (2022-23: 6.0) the median remuneration of the workforce, which was £32,539 (2022-23: £31,265).

In 2023-24, 20 (2022-23: 10) employees, with their pay annualised,  received remuneration in excess of the highest paid director. 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 2023-24.

Of the 20 agency workers, nine worked less than 30 days in the year, and three received actual compensation in excess of the highest paid director. Remuneration ranged from £20,000 to £25,000, to £365,000 to £370,000 (2022-23: £15,000 to £20,000, to £415,000 to £420,000).

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 CETV of pensions.

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

		2023-24		2022-23
	Salary	Bonus payments	Salary	Bonus payments
Staff average	10%	29%	3%	-17%
Highest paid director	-11%	-	0%	-100%

The highest paid director received a bonus in 2023-24 but did not receive a bonus in 2022-23, so a comparative percentage cannot be calculated.

The highest paid director in 2023-24 is different to the highest paid director in 2022-23. Total remuneration is higher but the salary is lower, which explains the 11% decrease.

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
2023-24	8.1:1	6.7:1	5.5:1
2022-23	7.4:1	6:1	4.9:1

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

		Lower quartile		Median		Upper quartile
	2023-24	2022-23	2023-24	2022-23	2023-24	2022-23
Salary	26,653	25,342	32,268	31,250	39,821	38,289
Total remuneration	27,000	25,342	32,539	31,265	39,821	38,530

7.13 Compensation for loss of office

This section has been subject to audit.

The Rt Hon Dominic Raab MP received compensation of £16,876.

7.14 Staff numbers and composition

This section has been subject to audit.

Staff costs

Departmental group

				2023‑24	2022‑23
	Permanently employed staff*	Other	Ministers**	Total	Total
	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Wages and salaries	3,470,597	269,554	397	3,740,548	3,314,616
Social security costs***	373,752	1,862	45	375,659	341,478
Other pension costs	791,846	30	-	791,876	888,611
Sub total	4,636,195	271,446	442	4,908,083	4,544,705
Early departure costs	45,052	-	-	45,052	25,268
Early departure provisions	-	-	-	-	-
Add inward secondments	12,974	12,814	-	25,788	13,960
Less recoveries in respect of outward secondments	(13,894)	-	-	(13,894)	(20,750)
Total net costs	4,680,327	284,260	442	4,965,029	4,563,183
Of which:
Core department and agencies	4,453,347	247,444	442	4,701,233	4,303,449
Non-departmental public bodies	226,980	36,816	-	263,796	259,734
	4,680,327	284,260	442	4,965,029	4,563,183

*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.

During the period ended 31 March 2024, £26.5 million of staff costs (2022-23: £22.6 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 2023-24 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 2023‑24, the Lord Chancellor’s full year equivalent salary was £67,505 (2022-23: £67,505) and the associated combined social security costs were £8,627 (2022‑23: £14,123). One severance payment totalling £16,876 was made to ministers in 2023‑24 (2022-23: five payments of £45,470).

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 2020. Details can be found in the accounts of the Cabinet Office: Civil Superannuation on GOV.UK.

For 2023-24, employers’ contributions of £648.6 million were payable to the PCSPS (2022-23: £585.5 million) at one of four rates which ranged from 26.6% to 30.3% (2022-23: 26.6% to 30.3%) of pensionable pay, based on salary bands. 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 2023-24 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% (2022-23: 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, are covered by the provisions of the Local Government Pension Scheme via one pension fund, Greater Manchester Pension Fund, administered by Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council. For the year to 31 March 2024, HMPPS paid employers’ contributions of £181.1 million to the Greater Manchester Pension Fund, relating to current probation staff, at 26.5% (2022‑23: £174.7 million at 29.6%).

Past employees of the community rehabilitation companies are also members of the Local Government Pension Scheme via the Greater Manchester Pension Fund. In 2023-24, MoJ paid employers’ contributions of £0.6 million in respect of these staff (2022-23: £0.7 million).

Employees of Cafcass are members of the Local Government Pension Scheme through the West Yorkshire Pension Fund. For 2023-24 employer contributions of £17.7 million were payable at a rate of 19.4% (2022-23: £16.8 million at a rate of 19.4%).

Employees can opt to open a partnership pension account, which is a stakeholder pension with an employer contribution. Employers’ contributions to partnership pension accounts were £2.0 million (2022-23: £1.9 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% (2022-23: 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 2024, employer contributions of £0.03 million were paid (2022-23: £0.03 million).

In addition, other pension costs include Greater Manchester Pension Fund pension cost recharge adjustments of £60.8 million (2022-23: £87.6 million), West Yorkshire Pension Fund pension cost recharge adjustments of £0.3 million (2022-23: £18.9 million), and other pension scheme costs of £2.8 million (2022-23: £2.5 million) for some of the department’s arm’s length bodies. For further details on employers’ pension contributions and contribution rates for the Legal Services Commission (LSC), Cafcass and probation pension schemes, refer to Note 25.

57 employees (2022-23: 41 employees) retired early on ill health grounds. The total additional accrued pension liabilities in the year were £320,000 (2022-23: £184,000).

Judicial costs

Departmental group

				2023‑24	2022‑23
	Senior judicial salaries	Other judicial salaries	Fee‑paid judiciary	Total	Total
	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Wages and salaries	158,821	120,258	153,851	432,930	403,400
Social security costs	21,447	16,339	16,060	53,846	51,905
Other pension costs	81,320	62,916	57,747	201,983	186,919
Total net costs	261,588	199,513	227,658	688,759	642,224

The Judicial Pension Scheme is an unfunded multi-employer defined benefit scheme which prepares its own accounts, but for which the department (through HMCTS) is unable to identify its share of the liabilities. Details of the most recent completed valuation (as at March 2020) are available in the Judicial Pension Scheme Annual Report and Accounts 2023-24.

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), and 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. The 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

MoJ HQ* (8%)	7,748
HMCTS (17%)	16,423
HMPPS* (67%)	65,111
Legal Aid Agency (1%)	1,143
Other departmental agencies (2%)	2,112
Non-departmental public bodies (5%)	4,779

*Includes staff engaged in capital projects

Departmental group

					2023‑24	2022‑23
	Permanently employed staff*	Other	Ministers	Special advisers	Total	Total
MoJ HQ and associated offices
Chief Operating Officer Group	2,988	89	0.4	0.2	3,078	2,829
Performance, Strategy and Analysis Group	984	3	-	-	987	888
Policy Group	1,648	2	2.8	1.6	1,654	1,519
Service Transformation Group	1,342	433	-	-	1,775	1,581
Agencies
HMCTS	14,489	1,933	0.5	0.3	16,423	16,768
OPG	1,629	177	0.1	-	1,806	1,626
HMPPS	63,974	1,134	1.7	0.9	65,111	60,677
LAA	1,142	1	0.1	-	1,143	1,093
CICA	306	-	0.1	-	306	296
Non‑departmental public bodies
Non-departmental public bodies	4,233	546	-	-	4,779	4,955
Capital projects
Staff engaged on capital projects	200	54	-	-	254	470
Total	92,936	4,371	5.7	3	97,316	92,702
Of which:
Core department and agencies	88,703	3,825	5.7	3	92,537	87,747
Non-departmental public bodies	4,233	546	-	-	4,779	4,955
	92,936	4,371	5.7	3	97,316	92,702

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

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

				2023‑24	2022‑23
	Senior judicial salaried	Other judicial salaried	Fee‑paid judiciary	Total	Total
Core department and agencies	964	947	1,120	3,031	2,985
Total	964	947	1,120	3,031	2,985

The judiciary is independent. Their payroll costs disclosed within HMCTS 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.

			2023‑24			2022‑23
	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
Less than £10,000	-	169	169	-	166	166
£10,000 - £25,000	-	126	126	1	74	75
£25,001 - £50,000	-	170	170	-	171	171
£50,001 - £100,000	-	309	309	-	229	229
£100,001 - £150,000	-	107	107	-	18	18
£150,001 - £200,000	-	8	8	-	7	7
£200,001 - £250,000	-	3	3	-	2	2
£250,001 - £300,000	-	-	-	-	-	-
£300,001 - £350,000	-	1	1	-	-	-
Total number of exit packages by type	-	893	893	1	667	668
Of which:
Core department and agencies	-	893	893	1	667	668
Non-departmental public bodies	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total cost of exit packages by type (£000)	-	46,647	46,647	12	27,785	27,797
Of which:
Core department and agencies	-	46,647	46,647	12	27,785	27,797
Non-departmental public bodies	-	-	-	-	-	-

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 IAS 19 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.

In 2023-24, the figures include 272 departures of £21.4 million for HMPPS staff members leaving under a voluntary departure scheme as part of the delivery of the One HMPPS model. HMPPS is committed to savings on non-frontline staffing by redefining HQ to deliver more efficient and effective support to frontline services. Some of these exits relate to staff who are members of the Local Government Pension Scheme, a funded scheme, and therefore result in additional costs. Other departure exit costs include 576 efficiency departure exit packages at a value of £24.3 million (2022-23: 614 at a value of £24 million) within payment bands not exceeding £250,000 (2022-23: £250,000). 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

			2023‑24			2022‑23
	Core and agencies	Non-departmental public bodies	Total	Core and agencies	Non-departmental public bodies	Total
	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Consultancy	18,329	92	18,421	7,292	225	7,517
Temporary staff	232,874	15,891	248,765	217,244	6,368	223,612
Total	251,203	15,983	267,186	224,536	6,593	231,129

Increases in consultancy spend include work on technical debt across our IT estate and the property transformation programme. The work on technical debt includes service delivery that goes beyond the provision of advice. Overall, the number of temporary staff decreased due to successful local recruitment campaigns, particularly in HMPPS, across the Probation Service, where band 2 and 3 agency staff have been replaced with permanent staff. Daily rates for employing temporary staff increased leading to an increase in agency costs of 11%.

7.15 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: civilservicecommission.independent.gov.uk/recruitment/recruitment-principles.

Inclusion is at the centre of our recruitment practice. It 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.

This year MoJ was announced as the winner of the Civil Service Commission’s 2023 Mark of Excellence Award. The award was a reflection of the advancements made by the department and in particular:

• recognising the work done to provide bespoke recruitment pathways for veteran candidates and those with lived experience of the justice system

• focusing on outreach and local engagement to attract a more diverse range of candidates

• supporting a number of recruitment objectives such as Places for Growth and providing enhanced development opportunities

Over the last year vacancy managers have been supported to enhance candidate attraction, reinforce best practice throughout the recruitment process, and ensure that the recruitment principles are followed without bias. We continue to upskill vacancy managers on the Civil Service success profiles framework for assessments and anonymised applications up to the point of interview or assessment for all grades up to SCS2.

We have also acted to respond to legislative changes. This can be reflected in the work to include prison officers as a skilled worker eligible for visa sponsorship via the department. Following the changes to legislation from 4 April 2024, the department has worked to provide candidates and vacancy managers with all the information required to support future applications for visa sponsorship.

We are committed to delivering ongoing innovation to the business through modern policies and technology which support all aspects of the recruitment journey, from candidate attraction to selection and onboarding. The overall objective is to streamline our time to hire while retaining the highest levels of quality assurance in the recruitment process.

Case study: Mark of Excellence

MoJ was announced the winner of the 2023 Mark of Excellence, awarded by the Civil Service Commission, recognising the department for its innovation and commitment to recruitment best practice. The award reflected the scale of recruitment activity and innovative projects delivered by teams working across the department.

This included:

• designing a bespoke scheme for veteran candidates to fill critical roles in the prison and probation services in locations most in need while ensuring greater employment of Armed Forces veterans as set out the government’s Veterans’ Strategy Action Plan: 2022 to 2024

• bringing lived experience to delivery of the justice system and setting up a clear process to recruit prison leavers into MoJ roles

• establishing new satellite offices within the MoJ estate, which encouraged greater geographical diversity in the workforce at all levels and contributed to Places for Growth

• continuing outreach with college and school leavers in areas with greater social mobility challenges, and introducing a dedicated development scheme to attract a location-specific cohort in the North of England

• attracting more external expertise to the Civil Service by delivering a national HMPPS advertising campaign, hosting a large-scale careers showcase, developing tools to engage local communities, and delivering candidate webinars across business areas to engage candidates on the format of Civil Service applications

The award reinforced MoJ’s responsibility for ensuring our department reflects the society we serve, and the commitment of its teams to making that ambition a reality so it has positive outcomes for our current and future workforce.

Employment of people with disabilities

During 2023-24 MoJ was re-accredited as a Disability Confident Leader, demonstrating our commitment to attracting, recruiting, developing and retaining disabled people and those with long-term conditions. The department continues to ensure its processes, policies and organisational culture promote disability inclusion with leadership from a board-level disability champion, SCS disability leads and staff networks.

The department continued to support staff transferring from the Department for Work and Pension’s Access to Work Scheme to MoJ’s internal workplace adjustment arrangements via the Workplace Adjustment Service. In addition, for technology-based adjustments, the MoJ assistive technology team provides advice, access to assistive technology equipment, installation and training to staff.

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

All staff have access to resources relating to disability inclusion, mental health and wellbeing. MoJ promotes an evidence-led, person-centred approach to wellbeing that recognises each employee as an individual, with their own unique set of needs who can access specific support on particular issues as required.

Diversity, inclusion and wellbeing

MoJ is committed to delivering the government’s vision as set out in the Civil Service Diversity and Inclusion Strategy. The strategy forms the basis of the ambition of achieving ‘a culture rooted in our values’ in the MoJ People Strategy.

MoJ is also delivering cross-government social mobility initiatives including the Catapult mentoring and sponsorship scheme (around 16,000 participants) and the Schools Programme (350 events delivered in 2023-24), supported by over 3,200 volunteer ambassadors across government.

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 on page 129, and MoJ staff diversity data can be found in the Civil Service statistics tables.

We publish gender pay gap information annually, including our action plan to close the gap. We publish our equalities objectives as part of our Outcome Delivery Plan.

We continue to make progress against our diversity targets. At the end of March 2024, women make up 51% of the department’s SCS, and female representation across all grades is 58%. Reporting rates (previously referred to as declaration rates) have risen in the department over the last year. Between March 2023 and March 2024, reporting rates have risen for ethnicity (from 84% to 85%), disability (from 79% to 80%), religion (from 75% to 77%) and sexual orientation (from 76% to 78%). At the end of March 2024, of those staff who have reported their ethnicity, 17% of staff (16% at March 2023) and 9% of SCS (10% at March 2023) are from ethnic minorities. Of those staff who have reported their disability status, 17% of staff (17% at March 2023) and 13% of SCS (12% at March 2023) have indicated that they have a disability.

Headline departmental People Survey scores (which includes some questions on wellbeing) can be found in the: Civil Service People Surveys.

Modern slavery

The MoJ Modern Slavery Leadership Group brings together leaders from the organisation’s functions to provide leadership of this agenda at a corporate level.

MoJ contributes to the cross-government modern slavery statement.

Sickness absence data

Across the department (including its executive agencies), the number of average working days lost in the last 12 months was 10 at the end of March 2024, compared to 11.2 at the end of March 2023. This reflects the range of operational and non-operational functions across the organisation. Mental health and muscular-skeletal issues remain the main absence drivers.

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.

Number of average working days lost at 31 March each year

2020	9.1
2021	7.1
2022	12.2
2023	11.2
2024	10

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 LAA only.

This year we have continued to engage on pay strategy, developing progressive people policies and supporting our people through organisational change.

HMPPS recognises ten trade unions. For prisons, the Youth Custody Service and HQ, these are the POA, PGA and NTUS (comprising PCS, UNITE, FDA, PROSPECT and GMB). For probation, these are NAPO, GMB SCOOP and Unison. The prime focus of engagement during 2023-24 has been on managing the operational pressures of the prison capacity situation and on the strategic measures to relieve this, including resetting probation work to facilitate a move to a more community-based sentencing model. It remains critical that these trade union relationships and levels of engagement continue to be constructive to support operational delivery and reform. HMPPS has strong engagement frameworks in place to ensure this remains the case.

Health and safety at work

All MoJ members of staff are afforded the necessary protection outlined within the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Accordingly, all work processes are subject to the required risk assessment process in order to identify and mitigate potential hazards.

To strengthen the protection of MoJ’s employees, the roles within the corporate fire, health and safety team have been revitalised. This strategic move ensures a heightened focus on safety protocols and enhances our capacity to address emerging risks.

Additionally, the team has revisited, reviewed and renewed all governance and assurance routes as necessary to ensure alignment with the latest safety standards and best practices.

Staff engagement

The 2023 Civil Service People Survey was completed by 47,141 (48%) employees, our highest number of responses to date, but a decrease of 1 percentage point on 2022 (from 49% to 48%). The Prison Service and Youth Custody Service response rate remains low (27%) meaning results may not be representative of the overall population. HMCTS also saw a decrease in response rate, down 5 percentage points to 55%.

The Employee Engagement Index score increased 1 percentage point, rising to 61%, and we maintained or increased our scores in all nine core themes at department level. Analysis of the learning and development theme shows an increase of 3 percentage points to 55%. The pay and benefits score also increased 3 percentage points to 28%, with analysis of the free text comments made by survey respondents, suggesting that employees are becoming more concerned about work-life balance than pay.

We are committed to taking action on the survey results. Colleagues who thought effective action had been taken on the previous survey increased by 3 percentage points to 32%, and belief that action will be taken on this year’s survey was up 1 percentage point to 42%.

Staff turnover

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

In HMPPS, the retention oversight process continues and has been expanded across the estate following a sustained decrease in leavers across the original eight sites which previously accounted for 18.6% of all band 3-5 resignations. They now account for 12.7%. The now business‑as‑usual process involves monthly reviews of attrition rates and insights from exit interviews.

Deep dives are commissioned to tackle individual issues and have shown that career progression, ways of working, and health and wellbeing continue to be the top reasons for leaving. To address this, a HMPPS career progression toolkit was published, a level transfer scheme was launched and a HMPPS wellbeing review was commenced, with designated regional wellbeing leads to be in place by April 2024.

Across MoJ HQ, each business group has unique challenges in terms of retention and each area is encouraged to have a clear retention oversight process as recommended by a recent internal audit on retention and we are continuing to strengthen the exit survey process whilst piloting stay surveys and interviews. Transfers to other government departments are the main reason for leaving and, whilst this presents some operational challenges, there are huge benefits in the transfer of skills, expertise and expanding networks across the Civil Service. We are currently reviewing options to improve developmental loans and secondments so employees can gain added skills and experience and bring them back into MoJ.

CICA saw an increase in turnover of staff in 2023-24 with promotion opportunities and better pay  often cited as a factor for leaving. However, the majority of leavers progress their careers within the Civil Service. While the attrition of experienced staff presents an ongoing challenge for CICA, they remain an attractive employer both in the external marketplace and within the Civil Service, attracting a high number of good quality applicants for generalist and specialist posts.

Staff turnover

		2023-24		2022-23
	Turnover	Departmental turnover	Turnover	Departmental turnover
MoJ HQ	5.8%	12.1%	8.3%	15.4%
HMPPS	10.9%	12.1%	11.6%	12.7%
HMCTS	11.4%	14.5%	12.7%	15.9%
OPG	6.4%	10.2%	6.4%	9.8%
LAA	6.3%	8.6%	6.3%	8.3%
CICA	7.3%	12.8%	3.1%	8.8%

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

Workforce composition^{[footnote 27]}

The number of staff split between male and female in the five years to 31 March 2024 is as follows.

	2019-20		2020-21		2021-22		2022-23		2023-24
	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female
Board	17	20	26	23	34	31	28	30	24	26
SCS staff only[footnote 28]	150	173	157	174	165	168	164	179	152	161
Non SCS staff	34,776	41,350	35,468	43,547	37,315	49,776	38,679	53,239	40,538	55,337

In August 2023, the equivalent Civil Service grade for HMPPS band 12s was recategorised from SCS to G6 for reporting purposes leading to a decrease in overall SCS figures.

Departmental core diversity statistics: payroll staff in post on 31 March 2024

A chart showing the departmental core diversity statistics for payroll staff in post on 31 March 2024. Gender: 58% female, 42% male. Ethnicity: 83% white, 17% ethnic minority. Full or part time: 83% full time, 17% part time. Disability: 83% non-disabled, 17% disabled.

These statistics provide a snapshot of the department’s workforce. Further detail on MoJ workforce diversity can be found within the Civil Service statistics for 2024.

SCS equivalent staff – headcount by band

		SCS  or equivalent within band as at 31 March 2024		SCS or equivalent within band as at 31 March 2023
Salary band	Number	Percentage	Number	Percentage
£60,000-£69,999	0	0%	0	0%
£70,000-£79,999	17	5%	114	33%
£80,000-£89,999	143	46%	74	22%
£90,000-£99,999	46	15%	59	17%
£100,000-£109,999	54	17%	59	17%
£110,000-£119,999	20	6%	17	5%
£120,000-£129,999	13	4%	7	2%
£130,000-£139,999	8	3%	6	2%
£140,000-£149,999	3	1%	3	1%
£150,000-£159,999	3	1%	2	1%
£160,000-£169,999	3	1%	1	0%
£170,000-£179,999	2	1%	0	0%
£180,000-£189,999	0	0%	1	0%
£190,000-£199,999	1	0%	0	0%
£200,000-£209,999	0	0%	0	0%
Total	313	100%	343	100%

Off-payroll engagements

During the financial year 2023-24, MoJ has reviewed off-payroll engagements where we are required to consider intermediaries (IR35) legislation using HM Revenue and Customs’ 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 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.

8. Parliamentary accountability

This section has been subject to audit.

8.1 Statement of Outturn against Parliamentary Supply

In addition to the primary statements prepared under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), the Government 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 use. 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 contains a summary table, detailing performance against the control limits that Parliament has 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:

• outturn by estimate line, providing a more detailed breakdown (Note 1)

• a reconciliation of outturn to net operating expenditure in the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Net Expenditure (CSoCNE), to tie the SOPS to the financial statements (Note 2)

• a reconciliation of outturn to net cash requirement (Note 3)

• an analysis of income payable to the Consolidated Fund (Note 4)

Summary of resource and capital outturn 2023-24

									2023-24	2022-23
				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	11,165,495	164,623	11,330,118	11,244,352	155,510	11,399,862	78,857	69,744	10,100,200
Capital	SOPS 1.2	1,458,412	-	1,458,412	1,518,494	-	1,518,494	60,082	60,082	1,359,837
Annually managed expenditure
Resource	SOPS 1.1	505,264	-	505,264	697,300	-	697,300	192,036	192,036	101,910
Capital	SOPS 1.2	7,471	-	7,471	23,304	-	23,304	15,833	15,833	5,608
Total budget		13,136,642	164,623	13,301,265	13,483,450	155,510	13,638,960	346,808	337,695	11,567,555
Non-budget
Resource	SOPS 1.1	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total		13,136,642	164,623	13,301,265	13,483,450	155,510	13,638,960	346,808	337,695	11,567,555
Total resource		11,670,759	164,623	11,835,382	11,941,652	155,510	12,097,162	270,893	261,780	10,202,110
Total capital		1,465,883		1,465,883	1,541,798	-	1,541,798	75,915	75,915	1,365,445
Total		13,136,642	164,623	13,301,265	13,483,450	155,510	13,638,960	346,808	337,695	11,567,555

Net cash requirement 2023‑24

				2023-24	2022-23
		Outturn	Estimate	Outturn vs estimate, saving/(excess)	Outturn total
Item	Note	£000	£000	£000	£000
Net cash requirement	Annex A, SOPS 3	11,835,073	12,325,774	490,701	10,616,135

Administration costs 2023‑24

				2023-24	2022-23
		Outturn	Estimate	Outturn vs estimate, saving/(excess)	Outturn total
Type of spend	SOPS Note	£000	£000	£000	£000
Administration costs	1.1	517,106	546,582	29,476	481,220

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 2023-24, the RDEL budget for day-to-day spending was £11,400 million (2022-23: £10,246 million) and the final outturn was £11,330 million (2022-23: £10,100 million). The main factors behind the year-on-year increase were an 8.8% increase in staff costs, driven principally by additional staff in HMPPS and the annual pay award, depreciation and impairments of property, plant and equipment, and higher expenditure under the legal aid schemes.

AME spend is by its nature inherently volatile. The department has a relatively small AME budget and therefore large variances are not unusual. In 2023-24, the department budgeted for £721 million (2022-23: £657 million) of AME and the final outturn was £513 million (2022-23: £108 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 Notes 3 and 4 in Annex A form part of the SOPS. These notes are subject to audit.

8.2 Notes to the Statement of Outturn against Parliamentary Supply 2023‑24

SOPS 1. Outturn detail, by estimate line

SOPS 1.1 Analysis of resource outturn by estimate line

								Resource outturn			Estimate		Outturn
				Administration			Programme
		Gross	Income	Net	Gross	Income	Net	Total	Total	Virements	Total including virements	Outturn vs estimate saving/(excess)	2022-23 outturn total
		£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Spending in DEL voted expenditure
A	Policy, corporate services and associated offices	474,077	(35,802)	438,275	1,702,784	(1,208,450)	494,334	932,609	1,056,136	(99,017)	957,119	24,510	810,027
B	HM Prison and Probation Service	21,773	(11)	21,762	5,565,250	(281,360)	5,283,890	5,305,652	5,273,002	34,982	5,307,984	2,332	4,642,263
C	HM Courts and Tribunals Service	22,183	(222)	21,961	2,334,973	(62,708)	2,272,265	2,294,226	2,233,967	61,318	2,295,285	1,059	2,117,191
D	Legal Aid Agency	15,098	-	15,098	2,177,883	(38,326)	2,139,557	2,154,655	2,200,566	(10,632)	2,189,934	35,279	1,912,249
E	Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority	1,361	(1,807)	(446)	180,475	(18,903)	161,572	161,126	153,548	7,578	161,126	-	167,391
F	Office of the Public Guardian	81	-	81	96,220	(115,046)	(18,826)	(18,745)	(10,996)	47	(10,949)	7,796	(8,338)
G	Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (net)	5,820	-	5,820	148,268	-	148,268	154,088	152,599	1,489	154,088	-	143,070
H	Criminal Cases Review Commission (net)	946	-	946	7,555	-	7,555	8,501	8,609	225	8,834	333	7,361
I	Judicial Appointments Commission (net)	652	-	652	8,674	-	8,674	9,326	9,384	54	9,438	112	8,777
J	Legal Services Board (net)	-	-	-	4,550	-	4,550	4,550	4,729	-	4,729	179	4,255
K	Office for Legal Complaints (net)	-	-	-	16,484	-	16,484	16,484	16,783	-	16,783	299	15,056
L	Parole Board (net)	2,994	-	2,994	25,245	-	25,245	28,239	29,171	-	29,171	932	23,139
M	Youth Justice Board (net)	2,985	-	2,985	102,258	-	102,258	105,243	105,756	-	105,756	513	100,884
N	Gov Facility Services Limited (net)	-	-	-	485	-	485	485	1	484	485	-	(162)
O	Independent Monitoring Authority (net)	3,544	-	3,544	2,078	-	2,078	5,622	5,847	38	5,885	263	4,826
P	Oasis Restore Trust	3,434	-	3,434	-	-	-	3,434	5,250	3,434	8,684	5,250	-
Total voted expenditure in DEL		554,948	(37,842)	517,106	12,373,182	(1,724,793)	10,648,389	11,165,495	11,244,352	-	11,244,352	78,857	9,947,989
Non-voted expenditure
Q	Higher judiciary judicial salaries	99	-	99	185,625	-	185,625	185,724	177,022	-	177,022	(8,702)	171,601
R	Levy income – Legal Services Board and Office for Legal Complaints	-	-	-	-	(21,101)	(21,101)	(21,101)	(21,512)	-	(21,512)	(411)	(19,390)
Total non-voted expenditure in DEL		99	-	99	185,625	(21,101)	164,524	164,623	155,510	-	155,510	(9,113)	152,211
Total resource DEL spending		555,047	(37,842)	517,205	12,558,807	(1,745,894)	10,812,913	11,330,118	11,399,862	-	11,399,862	69,744	10,100,200
Spending in AME voted expenditure
S	Policy, corporate services and associated offices	-	-	-	345,854	-	345,854	345,854	404,282	(50,286)	353,996	8,142	33,780
T	HM Prison and Probation Service	-	-	-	(31,522)	-	(31,522)	(31,522)	87,000	-	87,000	118,522	13,654
U	HM Courts and Tribunals Service	-	-	-	7,349	-	7,349	7,349	44,100	-	44,100	36,751	(97,907)
V	Legal Aid Agency	-	-	-	102,673	-	102,673	102,673	103,919	-	103,919	1,246	122,684
Y	Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority	-	-	-	81,150	-	81,150	81,150	32,000	49,150	81,150	-	4,506
X	Office of the Public Guardian	-	-	-	(733)	-	(733)	(733)	200	-	200	933	(838)
Y	Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (net)	-	-	-	(409)	-	(409)	(409)	25,374	-	25,374	25,783	25,375
Z	Criminal Cases Review Commission (net)	-	-	-	1,006	-	1,006	1,006	266	740	1,006	-	304
AA	Judicial Appointments Commission (net)	-	-	-	(6)	-	(6)	(6)	1	-	1	7	(4)
AB	Legal Services Board (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-
AC	Office for Legal Complaints (net)	-	-	-	67	-	67	67	1	66	67	-	72
AD	Parole Board (net)	-	-	-	383	-	383	383	53	330	383	-	167
AE	Youth Justice Board (net)	-	-	-	(63)	-	(63)	(63)	100	-	100	163	(45)
AF	Gov Facility Services Limited (net)	-	-	-	(485)	-	(485)	(485)	1	-	1	486	162
AG	Independent Monitoring Authority (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-
AH	Oasis Restore Trust	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-
Total resource AME spending		-	-	-	505,264	-	505,264	505,264	697,300	-	697,300	192,036	101,910
Total resource		555,047	(37,842)	517,205	13,064,071	(1,745,894)	11,318,177	11,835,382	12,097,162	-	12,097,162	261,780	10,202,110

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)	2022-23 outturn total
		£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000	£000
Spending in DEL voted expenditure
A	Policy, corporate services and associated offices	258,585	(5,877)	252,708	245,051	7,657	252,708	-	350,777
B	HM Prison and Probation Service	972,154	(22,209)	949,945	1,039,428	(31,085)	1,008,343	58,398	784,489
C	HM Courts and Tribunals Service	230,218	(1,949)	228,269	224,734	3,535	228,269	-	210,191
D	Legal Aid Agency	189	(479)	(290)	148	-	148	438	3,443
E	Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority	5,290	-	5,290	4,100	1,190	5,290	-	57
F	Office of the Public Guardian	1,138	-	1,138	1,100	38	1,138	-	926
G	Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (net)	2,041	-	2,041	2,579	-	2,579	538	8,664
H	Criminal Cases Review Commission (net)	165	-	165	215	-	215	50	35
I	Judicial Appointments Commission (net)	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-
J	Legal Services Board (net)	148	-	148	146	2	148	-	12
K	Office for Legal Complaints (net)	244	-	244	250	-	250	6	299
L	Parole Board (net)	42	-	42	140	-	140	98	246
M	Youth Justice Board (net)	109	-	109	600	-	600	491	637
N	Gov Facility Services Limited (net)	1,071	-	1,071	1	1,070	1,071	-	-
O	Independent Monitoring Authority (net)	(61)	-	(61)	1	-	1	62	61
P	Oasis Restore Trust	17,593	-	17,593	-	17,593	17,593	-	-
Total voted expenditure in DEL		1,488,926	(30,514)	1,458,412	1,518,494	-	1,518,494	60,082	1,359,837
Non-voted expenditure
Q	Higher judiciary judicial salaries	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
R	Levy income – Legal Services Board and Office for Legal Complaints	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total non-voted expenditure in DEL		-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total capital DEL spending		1,488,926	(30,514)	1,458,412	1,518,494		1,518,494	60,082	1,359,837
Spending in AME voted expenditure
S	Policy, corporate services and associated offices	4,675	-	4,675	21,881	(3,581)	18,300	13,625	4,896
T	HM Prison and Probation Service	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-
U	HM Courts and Tribunals Service	(601)	-	(601)	1,500	-	1,500	2,101	(270)
V	Legal Aid Agency	96	-	96	200	-	200	104	251
W	Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority	1,310	-	1,310	(600)	1,910	1,310	-	395
X	Office of the Public Guardian	1,013	-	1,013	1	1,012	1,013	-	336
Y	Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (net)	784	-	784	319	465	784	-	-
Z	Criminal Cases Review Commission (net)	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-
AA	Judicial Appointments Commission (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
AB	Legal Services Board (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
AC	Office for Legal Complaints (net)	194	-	194	-	194	194	-	-
AD	Parole Board (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
AE	Youth Justice Board (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
AF	Gov Facility Services Limited (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
AG	Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements (net)	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
AH	Oasis Restore Trust	-	-	-	1	-	1	1	-
Total capital AME spending		7,471	-	7,471	23,304	-	23,304	15,833	5,608
Total capital		1,496,397	(30,514)	1,465,883	1,541,798	-	1,541,798	75,915	1,365,445

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, which is 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

		2023-24	2022-23
		Outturn total	Outturn total
	Note	£000	£000
Total resource outturn in SOPS
Voted DEL	SOPS 1.1	11,165,495	9,947,989
Non-voted DEL	SOPS 1.1	164,623	152,211
Total DEL		11,330,118	10,100,200
Total AME	SOPS 1.1	505,264	101,910
		11,835,382	10,202,110
Add:
Capital grants (net of EU contributions)		(1,903)	13,506
Other
Research costs classified as capital under ESA 10		6,284	6,946
Other costs and income transferred to capital		-	-
		4,381	20,452
Less:
Income payable to the Consolidated Fund (excluding non-voted levy income)		(975)	(1,552)
Other		-	-
RDEL Private Finance Initiative adjustments		15,498	2,150
Other adjustments		1,880	-
		16,403	598
Net operating expenditure in CSoCNE		11,856,166	10,223,160

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 capital DEL 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 Private Finance Initiative contract assets is accounted for as spend in the CSoCNE, but is non-budget spend and therefore does not appear in the SOPS.

8.3 Regularity of expenditure

This section has been subject to audit.

Losses and special payments^{[footnote 29]}

Losses statement

		31 March 2024		31 March 2023 restated
Values	Core department and agencies	Departmental group	Core department and agencies	Departmental group
	£000	£000	£000	£000
Cash losses	475	480	204	204
Claims abandoned	205	212	198	198
Administrative write offs	16,128	16,427	10,896	10,920
Fruitless payments	3	1,735	3	3
Store losses	3,143	3,143	2,222	2,222
Constructive losses	11,893	11,893	3,702	3,704
Total value of losses	31,847	33,890	17,225	17,251

		31 March 2024		31 March 2023 restated
Numbers	Core department and agencies	Departmental group	Core department and agencies	Departmental group
	£000	£000	£000	£000
Cash losses	617	622	633	633
Claims abandoned	29	44	13	13
Administrative write offs	16,482	16,484	8,898	8,900
Fruitless payments	14	15	6	6
Store losses	20,584	20,584	15,736	15,736
Constructive losses	4	4	3	4
Total number of losses	37,730	37,753	25,289	25,292

4,550 write offs, with a total value of £546,000, were reported under cash losses in 2022-23 but have been re-stated above as administrative write offs.

In 2023-24, there were six losses (2022-23: seven) over £300,000 as follows.

A company that supplied modular cells to HMCTS and HMPPS ceased trading. In both cases bringing the supplied cells into use did not offer value for money leading to constructive losses of £1.2 million and £5.1 million respectively.

HMCTS took a decision to retain an existing digital case management system used in Crown Courts rather than replace it by enhancing the functionality within the common platform. As a result, related development work on the common platform was stopped, leading to a constructive loss of £5.6 million.

In December 2023, Gov Facility Services Limited discovered an error in the configuration of its payroll, which meant that tax relief on employee pension contributions had been overclaimed since 2018. The error was corrected with effect from January 2024, and the overclaimed tax relief was repaid to HM Revenue and Customs in March 2024 via a voluntary disclosure. A fruitless payment has been recognised for £1,732,000, comprising tax of £1,597,000 and interest of £135,000. There was no penalty. Recovery of the excess tax relief from the individual employees was not a fair or viable option.

In MoJ HQ, £356,000 has been written off in relation to partial retirement overpayments made to 30 judges in the First-Tier Tribunal.

£2.5 million of PAYE and national insurance recoveries are due from HM Revenue and Customs across the MoJ Group. These are reported within administrative write offs. There is no net loss to the taxpayer.

Special payments

		31 March 2024		31 March 2023
Values	Core department and agencies	Departmental group	Core department and agencies	Departmental group
	£000	£000	£000	£000
Compensation payments	31,184	31,841	28,733	29,078
Ex gratia	4,644	4,768	2,397	2,463
Extra-contractual payments	4	184	6	6
Total value of special payments	35,832	36,793	31,136	31,547

		31 March 2024		31 March 2023
Numbers	Core department and agencies	Departmental group	Core department and agencies	Departmental group
	£000	£000	£000	£000
Compensation payments	6,430	6,619	7,117	7,251
Ex gratia	8,262	8,274	10,489	10,506
Extra-contractual payments	91	92	116	116
Total number of special payments	14,783	14,985	17,722	17,873

In 2023-24 there were 10 (2022-23: 13) special payments over £300,000.

In 2023-24, HMPPS made eight special payments over £300,000 (2022-23: 11). Six compensation payments were made to operational members of HMPPS staff: £1,300,000 (in addition to £1,499,712 paid in previous financial years), £850,000, £665,457, £650,464, £595,477, £396,200, one to a prisoner: £1,895,000 (in addition to £949,219 paid in previous financial years), and one to a contractor to settle a commercial dispute: £4,200,000.

In MoJ HQ, compensation payments were made to five fee-paid judges of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Chamber of the First-Tier Tribunal in relation to the underpayment of pay and pension when preparing cases and writing up judgements between 2008 and 2023 (payments include interest). One compensation payment was over £300,000: £341,365.

An ex gratia payment of £2.2 million was made in refunding fees paid following the reversal of a judicial decision. An initial application was made to the court in respect of 2,000 cases as one ‘omnibus’ claim, but the High Court directed the claimants to make individual applications, which meant in excess of £2 million in court fees being paid, rather than a single £10,000 fee. On appeal, this decision was overturned with the court ruling the case should have been an omnibus case and the additional court fees should be refunded by HMCTS.

Charitable donations

HMCTS made charitable donations totalling £25,000 in 2023-24 (2022-23: £25,000). These donations were made to organisations to support activities related to HMCTS’s operations.

Publicity and advertising

The department spent £12,609,151 on publicity and advertising in 2023-24 (£3,120,675 in 2022-23).

The increase in publicity and advertising spend resulted primarily from MoJ’s launch of a national TV and radio campaign, in September 2023, to recruit prison officers and probation officers. The HMPPS ‘Extraordinary Jobs’ brand campaign was launched in September 2023, including TV, social and digital audio and display media, to reach a larger audience of prospective candidates. It aimed to drive awareness and interest in frontline roles, to increase applications and build pride and confidence among existing staff. It led to a 21% increase in the volume of prison officer and Operational Support Grade applications compared to the pre-campaign levels.

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.

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.

					2023‑24	2022‑23
	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	4,129	4,885	(756)	85%	100%	100%
Official Solicitor and Public Trustee
Litigation	1,265	8,860	(7,595)	14%	N/A	18%
Trust and estates	849	329	520	258%	N/A	90%
HM Courts and Tribunals Service
Family	201,863	306,868	(105,005)	66%	100%	66%
Civil	534,171	619,671	(85,500)	86%	100%	93%
Asylum and immigration	5,399	106,844	(101,445)	5%	N/A	4%
Other	1,430	20,978	(19,548)	7%	N/A	9%
Office of the Public Guardian	114,887	107,773	7,114	107%	100%	98%
Legal Services Board	4,659	4,659	-	100%	100%	100%
Office for Legal Complaints	16,551	16,551	-	100%	100%	100%
Family fee refunds – new burden settlement	(23)	-	(23)	-	-	-
HMCTS – employment tribunal refunds	(99)	-	(99)	-	-	-
HMCTS – council tax liability orders fee refunds and interest paid	(242)		(242)	-	-	-
HMCTS – other fee refunds	(316)	-	(316)	-	-	-
HMCTS – movement in fee refunds provision	2,845	-	2,845	-	-	-
Total	887,368	1,197,418	(310,050)

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

OSPT charges 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)

HMCTS collects and reports on 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 HMCTS.

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 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 (such as 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 for 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.

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.

Dame Antonia Romeo DCB
Principal Accounting Officer

8 November 2024

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

9.1 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 2024 under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. The department comprises the core department and its 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 2023. The financial statements comprise: the department’s and the departmental group’s:

• Statement of Financial Position as at 31 March 2024; 

• 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 2024 and their net operating cost 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.

9.2 Opinion on regularity

In my opinion, in all material respects:

• the Statement of Outturn against Parliamentary Supply properly presents the outturn against voted parliamentary control totals for the year ended 31 March 2024 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.

9.3 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

9.4 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 12 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 is anticipated that the services which they provide will continue into the future.

9.5 Overview of my audit approach

Key audit matters

Key audit matters are those matters that, in my professional judgment, 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.

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 presumed risks around management override of controls and fraud in revenue recognition where my work has not identified any matters to report.

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

In this year’s report I have a key audit matter in relation to assets under construction which was not in my prior year report.

9.6 Valuation of property

Description of risk

The group owns significant property valued at £12.7 billion (2022-23: £12.4 billion); which includes the prison and probation estate £9.1 billion (2022-23: £8.7 billion) and courts estate £3.6 billion (2022-23: £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:

• Assessed the design and implementation 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.

• Engaged valuation experts who reviewed and challenged the valuation approach and assumptions for a 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 Government Financial Reporting Manual.

• For this same sample of properties, I tested source documentation provided by the group to VOA. This included validating relevant floor land area data to relevant sources of evidence including a sample of site visits.

• 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 have obtained sufficient assurance over this risk through my substantive testing. This work identified that due to a calculation error, the property valuations were understated by £52m. This has been corrected in the financial statements.

9.7 Assets under construction

Description of risk

Assets under construction are highly material to departmental group. Across the group during the year, there were additions of £1.2 billion (2022-23: £1 billion); transfers to live assets of £983 million (2022-23: £468 million) and a year-end balance of unfinished projects valued at £2 billion (2022-23: £1.8 billion).

There is a risk that spending for these projects has not been correctly recognised or does not meet the recognition criteria of the accounting standards.

There is also a risk that projects classified in under construction at year-end have gone live, and therefore require valuation at depreciated replacement cost rather than at cost, which might lead to differences in carrying value. This was an area where we found errors in the prior year testing.

How the scope of my audit responded to the risk

In response to the risk over assets under construction, I:

• Assessed the design and implementation of the group’s processes and controls over assets under construction;

• Tested a sample of in year capital additions, to ensure that they met the requirements for capitalisation under International Financial Reporting Standards;

• Reviewed a sample of assets reclassified from assets under construction to live, to ensure that assets were operational. I also considered the value of these assets to ensure that they were properly reflected in the financial statements; and

• Tested a sample of ongoing assets under construction projects to confirm that these projects remained live and to determine whether any needed to be impaired.

Key observations

I have obtained sufficient assurance over this risk through my substantive testing.  This identified £104 million of assets which should have gone live in 2022-23. This testing identified a significantly lower level of error in the closing balance.

9.8 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 £420 million (2022-23: £422 million). LAA does not expect to recover all of these and has recognised an impairment of £247 million (2022-23: £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 £210 million (2022-23: £207 million against gross debt of £265 million (2022-23: £265 million). 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.

• 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 24 of the financial statements.

Key observations

I have obtained sufficient assurance over this risk through my testing of the impairment models, data inputs and assumptions. I did not identify significant misstatements as a result of the work I have performed.

9.9 Legal Aid Agency: Work in progress provision

Description of risk

The provisions for the value of unbilled work completed by legal aid providers is highly material to the financial statements £936 million (2022-23: £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.

How the scope of my audit responded to the risk

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

• Assessed the design and implementation of the group’s processes and controls over the work in progress provision;

• 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 assessed whether these are reasonable and complete, in light of outcomes against prior year estimates. I paid particular attention to how management modelled changes in court and provider behaviour;

• Tested the completeness and accuracy of the data inputs, 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; and

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

Key observations

I have obtained sufficient assurance over this risk through my testing of the models, data inputs and significant assumptions. I did not identify significant misstatements in the valuation of net receivables as a result of the work I have performed.

9.10 Other provisions

Description of risk

In addition to the work in progress provision discussed above, there are a further £1.1 billion (2022-23: £0.8 billion) of provisions, which in aggregate have a material level of estimation uncertainty. The three aspects of this balance that I have focused my work on are the criminal injuries compensation provision (£250 million); a provision for the benefits associated with injuries incurred by employees at HMPPS (£105 million) and the department’s legal provisions (£427 million).

For the criminal injuries provision and the injury benefits provision I considered the risk to be around the valuation of these liabilities. For the legal provision, the risk is around the valuation and the probability of whether the department will lose the individual cases accounted for.

How the scope of my audit responded to the risk

In response to this risk, I have assessed the design and implementation of the group’s processes and controls over the relevant provisions. I have also:

• Criminal injuries compensation provision:

  – Used my internal modelling experts to validate the methodology to calculate the provision to be reasonable and appropriate.

  – Tested the data and assumptions used in the model and identified no issues.

  – Considered the historic accuracy of the model; management’s own analysis identified a trend for cases to become more expensive whilst being considered by CICA. This has resulted in a change to the modelling approach and an increase to the provision by £61 million. I have audited the adjustment and have concluded that it is supported by the underlying evidence.

• MoJ legal claims:

  – Considered the MoJ’s legal advice regarding the probability of the outflow of economic benefits in relation to relevant proceedings. Where relevant I used my own legal experts to validate these judgements.

  – One material legal provision is valued based on a model; to validate this model I tested the significant assumptions; confirmed the data has been extracted properly from systems I had tested elsewhere and reviewed the calculation of the liability.

• HMPPS injury benefit:

  – Used actuarial support to validate the annuity factors which determine the estimated length of payments to injured individuals. This is the key source of estimation uncertainty in this balance.

Key observations

I have obtained sufficient assurance over this risk through my substantive testing. I did not identify significant misstatements in these provision balances as a result of the work I have performed.

9.11 Valuation of lease liabilities

Description of risk

The group holds £1.66 billion (2022-23: £1.78 billion) of lease liabilities across a broad portfolio of assets, mostly in the court estate alongside related right of use assets of £1.33 billion (2022-23: £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 reassessment each year. Given that changes in these assumptions can have a material impact on 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 2024-25, 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 have obtained sufficient assurance over this risk through my substantive testing. I did not identify significant misstatements in the valuation of lease liabilities as a result of the work I have performed.

9.12 Valuation of defined benefit pension net asset/liability

Description of risk

The departmental group has material defined benefit pension liabilities including HMPPS’s share of the net liability of the Greater Manchester Pension Fund (GMPF) valued at £529m (2022‑23: £199m (net asset)); and Cafcass’s share of the net asset of the West Yorkshire Pension Fund (WYPF) valued at £2 million (2022-23: £12.1m (net liability)). These net asset balances are derived from highly material asset and liability balances as set out in Note 25.

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 assets in these funds have low valuation risk as the majority are quoted investments; but given the size of this balance and the risk in the portion of harder to value assets, we consider there to be a risk of material misstatement in these balances.

How the scope of my audit responded to the risk

For these pension schemes, I:

• Assessed the design and implementation of the group’s processes and controls over the schemes.

• Challenged, 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.

• Engaged actuarial specialists to review the roll-forward methodology used to value the pensions liability based on the previous 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 two funds. The judgments supporting this conclusion are noted on pages 245 to 251.

• Considered the adequacy of the group’s disclosures in respect of the sensitivity of the deficit to these assumptions (note 25).

• Reviewed assurances about the procedures performed by the auditors of the two funds related to the valuation and existence of fund assets. I also considered the work performed over benefits paid; contributions received and membership data which feed into the calculation of the pension liability.

Key observations

I have obtained sufficient assurance over this risk through my substantive testing and based upon the work of the scheme auditors. I did not identify significant misstatements in the valuation of defined benefit pension net asset as a result of the work I have performed.

9.13 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	Additional group threshold	Parent (core department and agencies)	Additional parent threshold
Materiality	£170 million	£135 million	£165 million	£130m
Basis for determining materiality	1% of non‑current assets of £17 billion	1% of group gross expenditure excluding depreciation and impairment but including capital additions.	1% of non‑current assets of £17 billion	1% of group gross expenditure excluding depreciation and impairment but including capital additions.
Rationale for the benchmark applied	Non-current assets are the largest item in the departmental group Statement of Financial Position. Significant public benefit is derived from the prison and courts estate, driving user interest in the extent and condition of those assets.	This threshold is set to reflect the sensitivity of financial statement users to transactions and balances reflecting taxpayer-backed financial activity. Capital additions are included since these form part of Total Managed Expenditure voted by Parliament, and depreciation is excluded to avoid double-counting.	As the core department and agencies account for over 95% of the department group, the same rationale for materiality thresholds applies to the parent as well as the group.

This is the first year I have adopted a percentage of non-current assets as the overall group materiality base. There is significant public interest in the department’s financial information both in respect of its stewardship of nationally important infrastructure, and in respect of its application of taxpayer money to its objectives. In previous years, an overall materiality based on the balances and transactions most closely related to these perspectives would not have resulted in significantly different materiality figures, and I based my materiality on gross expenditure. However, following the implementation of IFRS 16 and increases in the value of the departmental group’s assets, non-current assets are a significantly higher base for materiality, and I have elected to use this balance as the basis for my overall materiality. This ensures a focus on the asset base which uses a level of relative precision like that used in the past, while also ensuring - through an additional threshold – an appropriate level of attention on transactions and balances reflecting taxpayer-backed financial activity given the continuing user interest from that perspective.

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 of the financial statements as a whole. Group performance materiality was set at 70% of group materiality for the 2023-24 audit (2022-23: 75%). In determining performance materiality, we have also considered the uncorrected misstatements identified in the previous period.

Other materiality considerations

Apart from matters that are material by value (quantitative materiality), there are certain matters that are material by their very nature and would influence the decisions of users if not corrected. Such an example is any errors reported in the related parties note in the financial statements. Assessment of such matters needs 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 my audit work to support my opinion on regularity and in evaluating the impact of any irregular transactions, I considered both quantitative and qualitative aspects that 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 have increased net assets by £38.2 million.

9.14 Audit scope

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

The departmental group incurred operating expenditure of £13.6 billion (2022-23: £11.9 billion) and gross assets of £18.2 billion (2022-23: £18.1 billion). The group’s largest components are HM Prison and Probation Service; HM Courts and Tribunals 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 net assets 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 components of the Ministry of Justice Group for the year to 31 March 2024 in a pie chart. Significant components by size or risk (HMPPS, HMCTS, Legal Aid Agency, core department, Cafcass and CICA): 97%. Non-significant components: 3%.

Gross assets of components of the Ministry of Justice Group as at 31 March 2024 in a pie chart. Significant components by size or risk (HMPPS, HMCTS, Legal Aid Agency, core department, Cafcass and CICA): 99%. Non-significant components: 1%.

9.15 Other Information

The other information comprises the 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.

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.

9.16 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 issued 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 issued 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.

9.17 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 Report.

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

• 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; or

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

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

• 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.

9.18 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 Comptroller and Auditor General (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;

• preparing financial statements which give a true and fair view and are in accordance with HM Treasury directions issued under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000;

• preparing the annual report, which includes the Remuneration and Staff Report, in accordance with HM Treasury directions issued under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000; and

• 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.

9.19 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 nature of the sector, control environment and operational performance including the design of the department and its group’s accounting policies, and its parliamentary control totals.

• inquired 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 on:

  – identifying, evaluating and complying with laws and regulations;

  – detecting and responding to the risks of 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

• inquired of management, the department’s head of internal audit and those charged with governance whether:

  – they were aware of any instances of non-compliance with laws and regulations;

  – they had knowledge of any actual, suspected, or alleged fraud,

• discussed with the engagement team, including significant component audit teams, and the relevant  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 required to perform specific procedures to respond to the risk of management override.

I obtained an understanding of the department and group’s framework of authority and other legal and regulatory frameworks in which the department and group operates. I focused 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 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

To respond to the identified risks resulting from the above procedures:

• I reviewed 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;

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

• I reviewed minutes of meetings of those charged with governance and the board and internal audit reports; and

• I addressed the risk of fraud through management override of controls by testing the appropriateness of journal entries and other adjustments; assessing whether the judgements on 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.

I communicated relevant identified laws and regulations and potential risks of fraud 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 required to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence 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 I identify during my audit.

Report

I have no observations to make on these financial statements.

Gareth Davies
Comptroller and Auditor General

12 November 2024

National Audit Office
157-197 Buckingham Palace Road
Victoria
London
SW1W 9SP

1. The 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. There was a change in ministerial team following the general election in July 2024. ↩

3. Laura Farris MP holds a joint ministerial role with the Home Office. ↩

4. Jennifer Rademaker joined the Nominations Committee in August 2023. ↩

5. Jennifer Rademaker joined the Nominations Committee in August 2023. ↩

6. The value of pension benefits accrued during the year is calculated as (the real increase in pension multiplied by 20) less (the contributions made by the individual). The real increase excludes increases due to inflation or any increase or decrease due to a transfer of pension rights. ↩ ↩²

7. There was a change in ministerial team following the general election in July 2024. Information disclosed above relates to the period in which the individuals were in post as ministers. ↩

8. Dominic Raab MP opted out of the pension scheme. ↩

9. A correction was made to the salary reported in the 2022-23 annual report and accounts restating from £14,668 to £9,043. ↩

10. Laura Farris MP and Simon Baynes MP are paid by the Home Office. Lord Christopher Bellamy KC is an unpaid Parliamentary Under Secretary of State. ↩ ↩² ↩³

11. A zero value is shown where a figure has been rounded down to zero. A nil value is represented by a dash. ↩ ↩² ↩³

12. Bonus figures include 2022-23 performance-related pay which was paid out in 2023-24. ↩

13. 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. ↩

14. The pension benefits of any members affected by the public service pensions remedy which were reported in 2022-23 on the basis of alpha membership for the period between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022 are reported in 2023-24 on the basis of PCSPS membership for the same period. ↩

15. Amy Rees and Jo Farrar are members of the partnership pension scheme and as such did not accrue Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) pension benefits in 2023‑24. The employer contributions to her partnership pension account are included in the ‘Pension related benefits’ column of this table and the cash equivalent transfer value (CETV) table below. ↩ ↩²

16. Amy Rees is remunerated by HMPPS and Nick Goodwin is remunerated by HMCTS. ↩ ↩²

17. Nick Goodwin’s remuneration is also published in the 2023-24 HMCTS annual report and accounts. Amy Rees’s remuneration is also published in the 2023-24 HMPPS annual report and accounts. ↩ ↩²

18. 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. ↩

19. The ‘CETV at start date’ figure may differ to the figure used for the end date on the 2022-23 annex return. This is due to a change in the factors used in part of the calculation since the previous figures were run. ↩

20. These ministers were not paid by MoJ during the reporting year. Lord David Wolfson, James Cartlidge MP and Lord Christopher Bellamy KC served as unpaid ministers, and therefore they received no pension benefits from MoJ. Laura Farris MP, Tom Pursglove MP, Simon Baynes MP and Kit Malthouse MP 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 ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷

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

22. Any members affected by the public service pensions remedy were reported in the 2015 scheme for the period between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022 in 2022-23, but are reported in the legacy scheme for the same period in 2023-24. ↩

23. Dr Jo Farrar is a member of the partnership pension scheme. No PCSPS pension benefits were accrued in 2023-24 (2022-23: £0). There were no employer contributions to the Local Government Pension Scheme. ↩

24. Amy Rees is a member of the partnership pension scheme. No PCSPS pension benefits were accrued in 2023-24 (2022-23: 55-60 plus a lump sum of 5-10). There were no employer contributions to the Local Government Pension Scheme. ↩

25. Nick Goodwin’s remuneration is also published in the 2023-24 HMCTS annual report and accounts. Amy Rees’ remuneration is also published in the 2023-24 HMPPS annual report and accounts. ↩

26. To calculate the remuneration of the highest paid director, we include salary, performance pay and bonuses and benefit-in-kind allowances. We exclude pension figures and severance payments. ↩

27. 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. ↩

28. Headcount for the department and its executive agencies (excluding non-departmental public bodies), at 31 March 2024. The number of staff reported on page 118 represent the average number of full-time equivalent staff over the year. ↩

29. Descriptions of the types of losses and special payments are covered in the glossary of this report. ↩