Written questions by Slaughter.

Pursuant to the Answer of 13 February 2025 to Question 30065 on Trade Promotion: Israel and Occupied Territories, whether Trade Envoys paid travel and accommodation expenses.

Travel and accommodation expenses directly associated with activities undertaken in the role will be arranged and met by the Department or reimbursed. Where possible, the Trade Envoy will be offered accommodation at the Residence to minimise costs.Trade Envoys are expected to adhere to the Department’s expenses guidance which apply to the programme’s use of public funds and only incur costs which have been agreed beforehand.

Pursuant to the Answer of 13 February 2025 to Question 30065 Trade Promotion: Israel and Occupied Territories, if he will list his department’s current priorities identified for (a) export and (b) investment services in (i) Israel and (ii) the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Current priorities identified for export and investment services in Israel include infrastructure (construction and energy), healthcare (medicinal and pharmaceutical products), food and drink, financial and professional services.Priorities for the Occupied Palestinian Territories include cars, tech, food and drink, and financial, professional business, and digital services.

Pursuant to the Answer of 13 February 2025 to Question 30065 on Trade Promotion: Israel and Occupied Territories, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the role of the Trade Envoys to (a) Israel and (b) the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Following the announcement by the Secretary of State on 28th January of the appointment of a new team of Trade Envoys, we are in the process of developing specific objectives to measure the performance and impact of the Trade Envoys supporting Departmental priorities including Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Pursuant to the Answer of 13 February 2025 to Question 30065 on Trade Promotion: Israel and Occupied Territories, how much of his Department's budget has been allocated to each of the Trade Envoys for (a) Israel and (b) the Occupied Palestinian Territory in the (i) 2024-25 and (ii) 2025-26 financial years.

The Department has so far not spent any of its budget this Financial Year to support the Trade Envoys to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.The funding for next Financial Year 2025-26 for the Trade Envoys to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories will be allocated on a case-by-case basis to meet costs of travel and subsistence needed to undertake their role.Any costs incurred are subject to Departmental guidelines which apply to the programme’s use of public funds.

Pursuant to the Answer of 11 February 2025 to Question 28899 on Grenfell Tower Inquiry, what (a) criteria and (b) evidence her Department plans to use in prioritising its work on preventing future deaths; and with reference to the Justice Committee's (i) First Report of Session 2021–22 entitled The Coroner Service, HC 68 and (ii) Third Special Report of Session 2021–22 entitled The Coroner Service: Government Response to the Committee’s First Report, HC 675, what assessment she has made of the potential merits of the coronial reforms recommended by that Committee.

The Government is clear that Prevention of Future Death (PFD) reports are vital in contributing to public safety through learning from death investigation. We expect recipients to have a framework in place for considering any reports they receive, and to take their responses – and related actions - very seriously.However, we recognise that more needs to be done to improve accessibility to information from PFD reports; and to ensure, particularly across government, that lessons are learned; that this learning is disseminated as quickly and widely as possible; and that it is effectively monitored and evaluated.We are addressing this issue as part of the reformed, forward-looking framework for coroner services which we intend to deliver in light of the Justice Committee’s recent Inquiries into the Coroner Service, working closely with the Chief Coroner, local authorities and other key partners. The Government’s formal responses to the Committee were provided on 10 September 2021 and 10 December 2024 respectively.

Whether his Department (a) encourages and (b) supports UK businesses involved in (i) economic and (ii) financial activities that (A) support and (B) maintain Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

The UK government does not recognise the Occupied Palestinian Territories as part of Israel. The UK government has a clear position that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace, and threaten the long-term stability of a two-state solution. We do not encourage or offer support to economic and financial activities in the settlements, and our commitment to a two-state solution is unwavering, as is our commitment to international law. We advise British businesses to strongly consider the UK government's stance towards settlements when considering their investments and activities in the region.

What the (a) role and (b) responsibilities are of the trade envoys to (i) Israel and (ii) the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Trade Envoys support HMG export and investment services already provided in a market. Each Trade Envoy role is tailored according to the requirements of their respective markets and the Trade Envoys to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories will align with the Departmental priorities identified for those markets.

Whether it is his policy to not (a) encourage and (b) support UK businesses seeking involvement in (i) economic and (ii) financial activities in Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The UK government has a clear position that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We do not encourage or offer support to economic and financial activity in the settlements, and our commitment to a two-state solution is unwavering, as is our commitment to international law. We advise British businesses to consider the UK government's stance towards settlements when considering their investments and activities in the region.

Communities and Local Government, when she plans to publish the Government’s response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report; and if she will implement the recommendation in paragraph 113.40 of that report.

We are considering the recommendations set out in the Grenfell Inquiry report. The Prime Minister has committed to respond in full to the Inquiry’s recommendations within 6 months and to update Parliament annually on our progress against every commitment made.

If he will consider the merits of implementing safety recommendation R/2025/055 in the report by the Health Service Safety Investigations Body entitled Mental health inpatient settings: Creating conditions for the delivery of safe and therapeutic care to adults, published on 30 January 2025.

We are grateful to the Health Services Safety Investigations Body for their report on creating conditions for learning from deaths in mental health inpatient settings. The report highlights important concerns and safety recommendations that can help us to improve inpatient mental health services.We will formally respond to all the recommendations for the Department made within this report in due course.

What proportion of ineffective trials in the Crown Court started later than day one of the set trial date in 2024.

Of all Crown Court trials that were ineffective between January and September 2024, 21% were subsequently effective on a later date (up to the end of September 2024). The remainder will include trials listed for a date beyond the end of September 2024, as well as those cases no longer requiring a trial date (for example the defendant has pleaded guilty). Of all ineffective trials that subsequently started between January and September 2024, 80% had reached conclusion by the end of September 2024. These data are management information and are not subject to the same level of checks as official statistics. The data provided is the most recent available and for that reason might differ slightly from any previously published information. Recent data are especially vulnerable to quality checking and so may be subject to change.

What proportion of ineffective Crown Court trials which started after day one of the set trial date in 2024 reached completion.

Of all Crown Court trials that were ineffective between January and September 2024, 21% were subsequently effective on a later date (up to the end of September 2024). The remainder will include trials listed for a date beyond the end of September 2024, as well as those cases no longer requiring a trial date (for example the defendant has pleaded guilty). Of all ineffective trials that subsequently started between January and September 2024, 80% had reached conclusion by the end of September 2024. These data are management information and are not subject to the same level of checks as official statistics. The data provided is the most recent available and for that reason might differ slightly from any previously published information. Recent data are especially vulnerable to quality checking and so may be subject to change.

Whether trials in the Crown Court starting on day two or later are classified as ineffective.

If the trial does not go ahead on the scheduled day of listing due to action or inaction by the prosecution, the defence or the court (see list of reasons in table below), and a further listing for trial is required, it is termed ‘ineffective.’ CourtW1 - Another case over-ran W2 - Judge / magistrate availability due to illness etc. W3 - Case not reached / insufficient cases drop out / floater not reached W4 - Equipment / accommodation failure X - Insufficient jurors availableDefenceQ1 - Defence not ready: disclosure problems (inc. late alibi notice) Q2 - Defence not ready: specify in comments (inc. no instructions) Q3 - Defence asked for additional prosecution witness to attend R - Defence witness absent S1 - Defendant absent - did not proceed in absence (judicial discretion) S2 - Defendant ill or otherwise unfit to proceed S4 - Defendant absent - unable to proceed as Defendant not notified of place and time of hearing T - Defence increased time estimate, insufficient time for trial to start U1 - Defence advocate engaged in other trial U2 - Defence advocate failed to attend V - Defendant dismissed advocateOtherS3 - Defendant not produced by PECS W5 - No interpreter available Y - Outstanding cases in a Magistrates' Court Z - Outstanding cases in other Crown Court centreProsecutionM1 - Prosecution not ready: served late notice of additional evidence on defence M2 - Prosecution not ready: specify in comments M3 - Prosecution failed to disclose unused evidence N1 - Prosecution witness absent: police N2 - Prosecution witness absent: professional / expert N3 - Prosecution witness absent: other O1 - Prosecution advocate engaged in another trial O2 - Prosecution advocate failed to attend P - Prosecution increased time estimate - insufficient time for trial to startWhere a trial is not ready to go ahead, it is recorded as ineffective and listed again, either for the following day, or if not possible, for some future date agreed by the court. If the trial starts on the second day, it will then be marked as effective. However, if it is still unable to proceed on the second day, it will be marked as ineffective again.

What metrics determine whether a Crown Court trial is classified as ineffective.

If the trial does not go ahead on the scheduled day of listing due to action or inaction by the prosecution, the defence or the court (see list of reasons in table below), and a further listing for trial is required, it is termed ‘ineffective.’ CourtW1 - Another case over-ran W2 - Judge / magistrate availability due to illness etc. W3 - Case not reached / insufficient cases drop out / floater not reached W4 - Equipment / accommodation failure X - Insufficient jurors availableDefenceQ1 - Defence not ready: disclosure problems (inc. late alibi notice) Q2 - Defence not ready: specify in comments (inc. no instructions) Q3 - Defence asked for additional prosecution witness to attend R - Defence witness absent S1 - Defendant absent - did not proceed in absence (judicial discretion) S2 - Defendant ill or otherwise unfit to proceed S4 - Defendant absent - unable to proceed as Defendant not notified of place and time of hearing T - Defence increased time estimate, insufficient time for trial to start U1 - Defence advocate engaged in other trial U2 - Defence advocate failed to attend V - Defendant dismissed advocateOtherS3 - Defendant not produced by PECS W5 - No interpreter available Y - Outstanding cases in a Magistrates' Court Z - Outstanding cases in other Crown Court centreProsecutionM1 - Prosecution not ready: served late notice of additional evidence on defence M2 - Prosecution not ready: specify in comments M3 - Prosecution failed to disclose unused evidence N1 - Prosecution witness absent: police N2 - Prosecution witness absent: professional / expert N3 - Prosecution witness absent: other O1 - Prosecution advocate engaged in another trial O2 - Prosecution advocate failed to attend P - Prosecution increased time estimate - insufficient time for trial to startWhere a trial is not ready to go ahead, it is recorded as ineffective and listed again, either for the following day, or if not possible, for some future date agreed by the court. If the trial starts on the second day, it will then be marked as effective. However, if it is still unable to proceed on the second day, it will be marked as ineffective again.

Commonwealth and Development Affairs, what steps his Department plans to take in response to (a) the case of Sayed Hassan Jawad, (b) reports that political detainees in Jaw Prison had to be transferred to hospital and (c) other allegations of ill-treatment of political prisoners in Bahrain.

The UK maintains a dialogue with Bahrain on issues including detention and prison conditions at Jau. We encourage individuals alleging concerns about treatment in detention to report them to Bahrain's oversight bodies, which are established to deal with such matters. The FCDO has not raised the case of Sayed Hassan Jawad.

Whether the Prime Minister discussed with the Prime Minister and Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia the (a) application of (i) Juvenile Law 2018 and (ii) Royal Decree 2020 and (b) risk of (A) the re-imposition of a death sentence on Abdullah al-Howaiti and (B) potential execution of Abdullah al-Derazi during their meeting on 9 December 2024.

I refer the Hon Member to the read-out of the meeting.

Whether the Prime Minister made representations to the Prime Minister and Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia on the prison sentences given to (a) Salma al-Shehab and (b) Noura al-Qahtani during his meeting on 9 December 2024.

I refer the Hon Member to the read-out of the meeting.

Whether the Prime Minister raised the use of the death penalty for offences that do not meet international standards for the most serious crimes during his meeting with the (a) Prime Minister and (b) Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.

I refer the Hon Member to the read-out of the meeting.

Whether her Department is taking steps to utilise supported accommodation rather than custody to reduce the impact of prison.

HMPPS offers a three-tier structure of temporary accommodation known as Community Accommodation Service (CAS), two tiers of which provide accommodation that can be used to support community orders, releases on Home Detention Curfew, and bail. CAS1 (also known as Approved Premises) provides 24-hour staffed accommodation with a high level of monitoring, and CAS2 provides accommodation with a minimum of two hours support per week from a support worker, in addition to probation supervision.We are establishing a Women’s Justice Board, to set the vision and strategic direction to address the distinct needs of women in or at risk of contract with the Criminal Justice System and will include a focus on residential alternatives to custody.We know that, for women specifically, supported accommodation as an alternative to custody can be particularly valuable: women supported in the community are 4 percentage points less likely to reoffend than those on short custodial sentences. CAS1 can be used to fulfil a community order residential requirement, CAS2 can support individuals with temporary accommodation who are part of the current Intensive Supervision Court pilots, including the female pilot; and we are providing grant funding for dedicated residential women’s centres to build the evidence base around their use and inform future work. We are working closely with the Judiciary and Offender Managers to promote greater awareness and use of these options.

Whether her Department has made an assessment of the potential merits of supported accommodation rather than custody for (a) women and (b) their families.

HMPPS offers a three-tier structure of temporary accommodation known as Community Accommodation Service (CAS), two tiers of which provide accommodation that can be used to support community orders, releases on Home Detention Curfew, and bail. CAS1 (also known as Approved Premises) provides 24-hour staffed accommodation with a high level of monitoring, and CAS2 provides accommodation with a minimum of two hours support per week from a support worker, in addition to probation supervision.We are establishing a Women’s Justice Board, to set the vision and strategic direction to address the distinct needs of women in or at risk of contract with the Criminal Justice System and will include a focus on residential alternatives to custody.We know that, for women specifically, supported accommodation as an alternative to custody can be particularly valuable: women supported in the community are 4 percentage points less likely to reoffend than those on short custodial sentences. CAS1 can be used to fulfil a community order residential requirement, CAS2 can support individuals with temporary accommodation who are part of the current Intensive Supervision Court pilots, including the female pilot; and we are providing grant funding for dedicated residential women’s centres to build the evidence base around their use and inform future work. We are working closely with the Judiciary and Offender Managers to promote greater awareness and use of these options.