Written questions by Dhesi.

What recent estimate he has made of the waiting time for an application for deputyship to be seen at the Court of Protection.

Awaiting answer.

In each of the last 3 years, how many instances of delayed hearings and trials have been caused by the CPS giving insufficient time for the defence to consider evidence shared as part of disclosure.

The specific information requested is not held. However, data on trials that have been ineffective due to the prosecution failing to disclose unused evidence is published quarterly in the Criminal Courts Accredited Official Statistics. The latest available data can be found in the ‘Trial Effectiveness at the Criminal Courts tool’ here: Criminal court statistics quarterly: October to December 2025 - GOV.UK. The Government is carefully considering the recommendations on the disclosure regime made by Sir Brian Leveson as part of the Independent Review of Criminal Courts, and by Jonathan Fisher KC in his Independent Review of Disclosure Offences.

How many times (a) hearings and (b) trials have delayed as a result of the the Witness Care Unit not informing witnesses of the trial date in each of the last three years.

The specific information requested regarding delays to hearings and trials is not held. However, data on trials that have been ineffective or vacated is published in the Criminal Courts Accredited Official Statistics. The latest available data including reasons for trial outcomes can be found in the ‘Trial Effectiveness at the Criminal Courts tool’ here: Criminal court statistics quarterly: October to December 2025 - GOV.UK.Police Witness Care Units (WCUs) are integral to the criminal justice system which is reflected in their statutory obligations under the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime (the Victims’ Code). The Victims’ Code is clear that WCUs must inform victims of the time, date and location of any hearing. Right 8.1 sets out that WCUs must do this within 1 working day of them receiving the information from the court.The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 created a framework to monitor criminal justice agencies' compliance with the Victims' Code, including legislative duties for agencies to collect and share information on Code compliance. Alongside this, we are exploring digital and data improvements to strengthen data sharing cross the criminal justice system in order to streamline and improve victim experience.This Government is committed to ensuring victims and witnesses have the information and support they need to navigate court proceedings. That is why we are consulting on a new Victims’ Code to ensure we get the foundations right for victims.

How many and what proportion of jurors completed jury service lasting (a) one week or less from their first day of service, (b) more than one week but not more than two weeks, (c) more than two weeks but not more than three weeks, (d) more than three weeks but not more than four weeks, (e) more than four weeks but not more than five weeks, (f) more than five weeks but not more than six weeks, and (g) more than six weeks in the last two years.

When jurors are summoned, they are advised that Jury service usually lasts up to 10 working days, although some trials may extend beyond this period and jurors will be advised of this in advance. Jurors may also sit on more than one case during their service.Proportion of Jurors by Jury Service Duration (Weeks)PeriodJan 2024 – Dec 2025Jan 2024 – Dec 2025 (%)One week or less210,93053.1%Between 1 and 2 weeks155,17839.1%Between 2 and 3 weeks18,8064.7%Between 3 and 4 weeks5,0611.3%Between 4 and 5 weeks2,8410.7%Between 5 and 6 weeks1,6670.4%More than 6 weeks2,7730.7%Total397,256100.0%Source: HMCTS management information - Data extracted via Juror 16/4/2026 Notes:Length of service based on individual jurors using their start date in the Crown court irrespective of when or if they were sworn in.Data is taken from a live management information system and listed ahead dates can change over time.Data is management information and is 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.

How many instances of delayed hearings and trials were caused by breakdowns in infrastructure including a) power cuts, b) lack of water supply for drinking and flushing toilets, c) broken lifts and d) water ingress from the roof in each of the last 3 years.

The questions have been interpreted as asking for data for all Magistrates’ and Crown Courts in the last 3 full calendar years (2023, 2024 and 2025).The specific information requested is not held. However, data on trials that have been ineffective or vacated due to Accommodation / equipment failure generally, is published quarterly in the Criminal Courts Accredited Official Statistics. The latest available data can be found in the ‘Trial Effectiveness at the Criminal Courts tool’ here: Criminal court statistics quarterly: October to December 2025 - GOV.UK.

How many instances of delayed hearings and trials were caused by technical problems with the a) Crown Court Digital Case System and b) Common Platform in each of the last 3 years.

The questions have been interpreted as asking for data for all Magistrates’ and Crown Courts in the last 3 full calendar years (2023, 2024 and 2025).The specific information requested is not held. However, data on trials that have been ineffective or vacated due to Accommodation / equipment failure generally, is published quarterly in the Criminal Courts Accredited Official Statistics. The latest available data can be found in the ‘Trial Effectiveness at the Criminal Courts tool’ here: Criminal court statistics quarterly: October to December 2025 - GOV.UK.

How many instances of delayed hearings and trials were caused by the defendant not being produced from prison as required in each of the last three years.

The figures below show the total number of reported delays to hearings and trials over the last three years where the defendant was not produced from prison as required on time. The figures reflect overall reported incidents rather than being attributed solely to the PECS supplier.2023 = 10722024 = 12722025 = 1297Evidence from recent performance reporting shows consistent sustained levels of PECS supplier delivery to court, with supplier-attributable delays remaining low relative to overall court production volumes. In 2025, overall criminal justice system delivery to court was timely in 98.19% of cases; PECS suppliers met contractual expectations by delivering prisoners to court on time in 99.91% of cases.We recognise the problems we inherited in prisoner transfer with delays occurring at prisons, en route between prison and court and at courts themselves in bringing prisoners to the dock. The Minister of State for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending and I have launched a new oversight body established to review prisoner transfer from end to end. This will monitor and drive performance improvements in prisoner transfer across the country.

How many instances of delayed hearings and trials were caused by the court having failed to book an interpreter in each of the last three years.

An ineffective trial is defined as a trial that does not proceed on the scheduled trial date and therefore requires a further listing. This may arise due to action or inaction by the prosecution, the defence, the court, or a combination of these factors.The Ministry of Justice does not hold data on the number of delayed hearings or trials specifically attributable to the court failing to book an interpreter. While published data includes ineffective trials recorded under the reason “no interpreter available”, this category covers a range of circumstances. These include situations where the supplier was unable to fulfil a booking, or where a booked interpreter cancelled at short notice and there was insufficient time to secure a replacement, as well as the court having failed to book an interpreter. The data cannot be disaggregated further to distinguish between a failure to make a booking and other interpreter related issues that may have caused the delay.

With reference to paragraph 88 of the policy paper entitled UK Government Resilience Action Plan, published on 14 July 2025, how many meetings have been attended by civil servants within their Department in relation to the Home Defence Programme; which directorate in the Department owns the Departmental contribution to the Home Defence Programme; and what the job title is of the civil servant leading and cohering the Departmental contribution to the Home Defence Programme.

The Resilience Action Plan sets out the Government’s strategic approach to how we will strengthen our domestic resilience and invest to protect the nation. A range of senior officials from across the Ministry of Justice, including the Permanent Secretary, regularly attend meetings to discuss the implementation of the Resilience Action Plan as well as matters of national security and defence.

If he will ask HM Prison and Probation Service to respond to the coroner's Prevention of Future Death report following the death of Darren Docherty.

HMPPS is now preparing a response to the coroner’s Prevention of Future Death report.

When his Department intends to respond to the coroner's Prevention of Future Death report following the death of Christine McDonald.

The Director General of Operations for HM Prison and Probation Service responded to the coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths report following the inquest into the death of Christine McDonald on 26 July 2024. The response is available on the Chief Coroner’s website.

Pursuant to the Answer of 28 October 2025 to Question 84672, whether his Department was asked to respond to the Prevention of Future Death report of Stephen Sleaford in its own capacity and separately from the response by HM Prison and Probation Service.

The Prevention of Future Deaths report following the death of Stephen Sleaford was addressed to the Lord Chancellor and the Minister of State for Prisons. The Director General of Operations for HM Prison and Probation Service responded on their behalf because the matters of concern raised in the report were of an operational nature.No separate response from the Ministry of Justice is considered necessary.

If he will ask a) HM Prison and Probation Service and b) HMP Wandsworth, to respond to the coroner's Prevention of Future Death report following the death of Daniel Beckford.

The Director General of Operations for HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) responded to the coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths report following the inquest into the death of Daniel Beckford on 8 January 2025. This response addressed the matters of concern raised in the report and a separate response from the prison was not considered necessary. For reasons that are not clear, whilst it is dated 11 June 2024, the report was not received by HMPPS until November 2024, and the response was then provided promptly.

When his Department intends to respond to the coroner's Prevention of Future Death report following the death of Christopher MacGillivray.

The Director General of Operations for HM Prison and Probation Service responded to the coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths report following the inquest into the death of Christopher MacGillivray in August 2024. This response addresses the matters of concern raised in the report.

When his Department intends to respond to the coroner's Prevention of Future Death report following the death of Hayley Cowan.

The Ministry of Justice sent a preliminary reply, making a point of clarification, to the HM Senior Coroner for Greater Manchester on 3 October 2024, following the Prevention of Future Death report issued after the death of Hayley Cowan. No further action has been requested of the Department at this time.

If he will ask a) HM Prison and Probation Service and b) HMP Wandsworth, to respond to the coroner's Prevention of Future Death report following the death of Yuri Hatton.

The Director General of Operations for HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) responded to the coroner’s Prevention of Future Deaths report following the inquest into the death on 20 January 2025. This response addressed the matters of concern raised in the report and a separate response from the prison was not considered necessary. For reasons that are not clear, whilst it is dated 11 June 2024, the report was not received by HMPPS until November 2024, and the response was then provided promptly.

When his Department plans to respond to the coroner's Prevention of Future Death report following the death of Mark Pryor.

I can confirm that the Ministry of Justice does not hold policy or operational responsibility for health care in police custody settings. However, in order to resolve any lack of clarity that may exist, the Department will shortly respond formally to the coroner on that basis.

With reference to page 92 of the Strategic Defence Review, how many meetings officials from their Department have attended on the national conversation on defence and security; which directorate in their Department is responsible for the departmental contribution to that national conversation; and what the job title is of the official responsible.

Officials from the Ministry of Justice regularly attend meetings to discuss matters of national security, defence and resilience as well as the associated public communications required to deliver these lines of efforts. The conversation on National Defence was a recommendation in the 2025 Strategic Defence Review (SDR), which the Government accepted. The Ministry of Defence is the lead department for delivering the SDR, with support from the Cabinet Office, and particularly from the National Security Secretariat.As set out in the Strategic Defence Review, the national conversation will be a multi-year, cross-departmental effort designed to deliver on the whole-of-society approach to national security and defence allowing Government, the private sector and public to play their part in strengthening the UK’s resilience to any potential future shocks. This work addresses the risks and threats the UK faces, including those below and above the threshold of an armed attack.The Ministry of Justice is actively supporting this work and regularly fields senior officials from across the Department, including the Permanent Secretary, to cross-government meetings on a range of issues, including national security, resilience and defence.

What recent discussions he has had with the Solicitors Regulation Authority on the adequacy of waiting times for complaint resolutions.

The legal profession in England and Wales, together with its regulators, operates independently of government. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and most law firms in England and Wales. The Legal Services Board (LSB) oversees the SRA’s performance to ensure it operates effectively and in the public interest, including through performance assessments, targeted reviews and ongoing supervisory engagement. As the minister with responsibility for legal services I meet regularly with the SRA to hold it to account for its performance and am happy to rase the issue of waiting times for complaint resolutions at future meetings. Where allegations of solicitor misconduct are raised with the SRA, it assesses the complaint to determine whether it meets the threshold for formal investigation. The SRA publishes information about its performance, including data on the timeliness of investigations and enforcement activity, through its corporate reporting and Board papers. It has reported an increase in complaints about solicitor misconduct and has taken steps to manage this, including increasing investigative resource and seeking to improve the quality and timeliness of its investigation work. Within the framework of regulatory independence, Ministers and officials in the Ministry of Justice engage frequently with the SRA on matters relating to the regulatory framework. This has included engagement on the steps the SRA is taking to improve the timeliness of its investigations.

What assessment he has made of the adequacy of regulations relating to the i) regulation of conduct and operations and ii) remuneration of High Court Enforcement Officers.

On 9 June 2025, the Government announced a balanced package of measures to strengthen independent regulation of the enforcement sector to protect people in debt, whilst ensuring fair and effective enforcement. As part of this package, reforms to the Taking Control of Goods Procedure will be made to improve the experience of those facing enforcement action, as well as uplifting the enforcement fees High Court Enforcement Officers can charge to support sector sustainability.The Government intends to bring forward legislation to implement these reforms when parliamentary time allows.