Written questions by Dhesi.

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 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.

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.

With reference to paragraph 88 of the UK Government Resilience Action Plan, how many meetings Ministers in their Department have attended related to the Home Defence Programme.

Ministers have regular discussions with officials, external experts and ministerial colleagues on a range of issues, including national security, defence and resilience.The Home Defence Programme was established in August 2024 to build the UK’s resilience to any potential escalation to conflict. It is an evolving and enduring programme of work which provides defence, security and resilience planning, focused on aligning military and civil effort in the event of a period of crisis and international hostilities affecting the UK, informed by and reflecting the recommendations from government strategies, including the Strategic Defence Review, National Security Strategy and Resilience Action Plan.The Ministry of Justice is actively supporting this work.

With reference to page 92 of the Strategic Defence Review, published on 2 June 2025, how many (a) public engagements and (b) private meetings Ministers in their Department have undertaken related to the national conversation on defence and security.

Ministers have regular discussions with officials, external experts and ministerial colleagues on a range of issues, including national security, defence and resilience, and associated public communications. As set out in the Strategic Defence Review, the national conversation will be a multi-year engagement designed to embed a whole-of-society approach, where Government, businesses, and the public all play a part in strengthening our resilience. This addresses the risks we face, including threats below and above the threshold of an armed attack. The Ministry of Justice is actively supporting this work.

Whether there are mechanisms in place to prevent a company director stopping high court enforcement by resigning as a director of that company during enforcement.

There are a number of different court procedures for enforcing High Court judgments, and the most appropriate method will depend on the circumstances of individual cases and the liability of the company and its director(s). Creditors should seek independent legal advice before deciding how to proceed.

What recent assessment has been made of the adequacy of support available to parents applying to the Court of Protection for an order authorising access to their child's (a) Child Trust Fund and (b) Junior ISA when their child lacks capacity to manage their financial assets.

Where a young adult lacks mental capacity, the law requires parents or a guardian to have legal authority to make decisions on their behalf about financial assets or property. This longstanding requirement is vital in ensuring that vulnerable people are safeguarded and protected from potential financial abuse. The requirement for legal authority extends to accessing funds held in a Child Trust Fund or a Junior ISA.On 9 June 2023, the Ministry of Justice published the ‘Making Financial Decisions for young people: parent and carer toolkit’ explaining the process by which parents and guardians of disabled children who lack capacity can obtain legal authority if no other arrangements are in place to provide such authority. This can be done by making an application to the Court of Protection for an order authorising access to monies held in a Child Trust Fund or Junior ISA. The toolkit is available on Gov.UK. Information to assist parents or carers in the completion of one of the required court forms can be found here: How to apply to make property and finance decisions on someone’s behalf (including Child Trust Funds) - GOV.UKMinisters are working closely to consider what further steps could be taken to ameliorate the process for supporting young people without capacity to access small value capital assets. The Ministry of Justice will continue to engage with key stakeholders to understand more about the difficulties and potential changes to address these while maintaining necessary safeguards.

What steps courts take to comply with data protection laws.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice. The Department is the data controller for HMCTS data, and the Ministry of Justice Data Protection Officer (DPO) covers HMCTS.HMCTS has a Data Protection Governance team which works closely with the Ministry of Justice DPO, to maintain a Data Protection Framework. The framework supports HMCTS staff to discharge their duties in compliance with data protection laws. HMCTS publishes Personal Information Charters for court and tribunal users, to help them understand how HMCTS uses and protects personal data. The HMCTS Personal Information Charters can be found here.HMCTS maintains Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIA) for processing activities and produces data sharing agreements where HMCTS data is shared with partners across the justice system.All HMCTS staff must complete annual mandatory data security training which covers handling and protecting personal data. These measures ensure that courts uphold high standards in the handling and protection of personal data in accordance with data protection legislation.

What checks are undertaken to ensure Hon Members and other individuals are not sent court orders to which (a) they are not party and (b) have sensitive personal information of others.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) processed the claim accurately and in accordance with the information provided by the claimant.HMCTS has advised that the hon. Member for Slough’s parliamentary email address was included on the claim form by the claimant to the proceedings as the contact address for the Second Defendant. As a result, this was added to the court database and would generate court correspondence including court orders to the hon. Member’s parliamentary email address.HMCTS received an email from the MP’s office on 29 December 2025 and the court issued a response to him on the same day. The MP continued to receive correspondence because his office did not specify that the email address should be removed. The court would usually require notification and evidence that an administrative error has been made so the individual's details can be removed from the court record.Documents were sent to the hon. Member for Slough who is not a party to this case rather than to the second defendant. HMCTS has corrected this and is ensuring service on the second defendant and will notify all parties.This is not a matter for the Information Commissioners Office as HMCTS has followed the process and accurately recorded the claim details from the claimant’s form.

If he will write to the hon. Member for Slough outlining (a) why the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division Administrative Court has been (i) writing to the hon. Member for Slough and (ii) sending him sealed court orders regarding a court case to which he is not a party, (b) why this has continued after correspondence from his office, (c) whether all parties for this case are aware of (A) this case and (B) the orders relating to it, (d) whether all parties for this case are aware that the hon. Member for Slough has been sent this information and (e) whether, if required, the Information Commissioner's Office will be informed.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) processed the claim accurately and in accordance with the information provided by the claimant.HMCTS has advised that the hon. Member for Slough’s parliamentary email address was included on the claim form by the claimant to the proceedings as the contact address for the Second Defendant. As a result, this was added to the court database and would generate court correspondence including court orders to the hon. Member’s parliamentary email address.HMCTS received an email from the MP’s office on 29 December 2025 and the court issued a response to him on the same day. The MP continued to receive correspondence because his office did not specify that the email address should be removed. The court would usually require notification and evidence that an administrative error has been made so the individual's details can be removed from the court record.Documents were sent to the hon. Member for Slough who is not a party to this case rather than to the second defendant. HMCTS has corrected this and is ensuring service on the second defendant and will notify all parties.This is not a matter for the Information Commissioners Office as HMCTS has followed the process and accurately recorded the claim details from the claimant’s form.

What steps he is taking to reduce the number of court phone numbers that, when called, tell you to call a different number.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) is committed to improving the experience of users contacting us by telephone. We have migrated call handling for a number of services from local courts and tribunals to centrally managed National Service Centres. Since migration telephony wait times continue to improve, for example, average call waiting times in our digital service centres have fallen year on year, from 17 minutes in December 2023, to 15 minutes in December 2024, and to 13 minutes in December 2025, against our 15-minutes target.A proportion of callers continue to use older phone numbers that appear on historic paperwork or in third‑party online sources retained by citizens and professionals. To avoid leaving these callers without guidance, HMCTS maintains recorded messages on such lines to signpost to the correct, active number or service.

What steps his Department is taking to improve (a) customer service, (b) accessibility and (c) the ability of users to speak to a human operator in its court telephone system.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) is taking steps to improve the service it provides Court and Tribunal users, for example, through the delivery of the Service Improvement Framework which focuses on written communications, telephone call handling, complaint handling and public facing information. This will be in place from April 2026.HMCTS has developed an Accessibility Strategy following a Government Internal Audit Agency recommendation in September 2024 and is building an action plan to support delivery of the strategy.HMCTS’ new digital services are designed and built to be simple, accessible, and easy to use. HMCTS has a digital support service to help those who are digitally excluded (based on access, skills or confidence) to complete digital forms.  HMCTS digital services are required to comply with The Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) Accessibility Regulations 2018, under the Equality Act 2018. Our digital services are tested against the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2 AA Standard to make sure they comply with the regulations.To improve call handling within HMCTS, some services, including Crime Magistrates, Civil and Family, have migrated call handling from local Courts into National Service centres. This change was made in recognition that a more efficient and consistent service can be delivered through modern technology and centrally managed, dedicated contact centre teams.

How many people have been employed to answer phone enquiries for the High Court in each of the last 5 years.

HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) HR does not hold information relating to people employed to answer phone enquiries for the High Court. This is because answering telephone enquiries is a responsibility spanning multiple different role profiles.No HMCTS role has the sole responsibility of answering telephone enquiries in its entirety, and so the word “telephone” or “phone” does not feature in any job titles.

How many phone calls to court phone numbers are unanswered on average per day; and what is this number as a percentage of all calls.

We are unable to provide data on calls made to local Court and Tribunal venues. However, HM Courts & Tribunals Service regularly publishes data on calls made to service centres which can be found through the following link: HMCTS management information – modernised services - GOV.UK.

Who is the Chief Risk Officer for national security risks relating to the work of their Department.

Secretaries of State and Accounting Officers are ultimately responsible for all risks a Department owns. Each risk in the National Risk Register (NRR) has a designated Risk Owner, working within the Lead Government Department which is responsible for designated risk areas.

How many additional cases are expected to be heard each year under the new swift courts compared with existing Crown Court processes.

Of the 3% of criminal trial cases that proceed to a jury trial in the Crown Court, over half would still proceed to the Crown Court and get a jury trial post-reform. The remainder would be expected to stay in the magistrates’ courts or would be allocated to the new ‘swift courts’.The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court, and this means they will be dealing with the same cases that come into the Crown Court. As mode of trial allocations and trial listing remain a matter for the independent judiciary and are dependent on case mix, the Ministry of Justice is unable to comment on how cases arriving at the Crown Court will be distributed between ‘swift courts’ and jury trials.

If he will make an estimate of the number of people who will be sentenced to more than three years in prison by new swift courts within the Crown Court in each of the next five years.

The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court which means the same procedures in the Crown Court will apply, apart from mode of trial. Judges will assign triable-either-ways cases to the new Crown Court Bench Division where the likely sentence is three years or less, but they will retain the full sentencing powers of the Crown Court. Sentencing decisions remain a matter for the independent judiciary and the Ministry of Justice is unable to provide estimates.

What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the introduction of new swift courts within the Crown Court on the number of wrongful convictions.

The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court framework, following the same process and procedures. Safeguards will be in place including the existing appeals procedure, and judges in the ‘swift courts’ will be required to provide reasoned judgments when delivering decisions to convict or acquit.

What the maximum sentence will be that a judge could impose on a convicted person when tried under the proposed new swift courts within the Crown Court.

The new ‘swift courts’ will operate within the existing Crown Court which means the same procedures in the Crown Court will apply, apart from mode of trial. Judges will assign triable-either-ways cases to the new Crown Court Bench Division where the likely sentence is three years or less, but they will retain the full sentencing powers of the Crown Court.

Whether he has made an assessment of the potential impact of increasing sentences for serial offenders on (a) public safety and (b) crime rates.

This Government takes prolific offending extremely seriously, which is why we commissioned the Independent Sentencing Review (ISR) to specifically consider the sentencing approach in cases involving prolific offenders alongside, more broadly, how the sentencing framework could be reformed to reduce reoffending, cut crime, and make our streets safer. We know prolific offenders are one of the most challenging cohorts with high levels of criminogenic needs, that typically commit a multitude of low-harm but high-nuisance offences, such as shoplifting, which attract maximum sentences of up to 12 months. The ISR referenced robust Ministry of Justice evidence which shows that offenders released from short prison sentences of less than 12 months reoffend at a higher rate than similar offenders given a community or suspended sentence. The ISR therefore recommended that the Government legislate to ensure that short custodial sentences are only used in exceptional circumstances. For prolific offenders specifically, the ISR recommended that the Government expand the availability of Intensive Supervision Courts (ISCs) to address prolific offending. The ISCs provide a robust alternative to custody, using enhanced community-based sentences to divert those at risk of facing custodial sentences of two years in the Crown Court, and twelve months in the Magistrates’ Court. International studies show that similar courts reduce arrests by 33% compared to standard sentences. We ran an Expression of Interest process to identify new sites which closed on 17 October 2025. We will announce successful new sites in the coming months. The Sentencing Bill 2025 delivers many of the reforms recommended by the ISR. For instance, Clause 1 introduces a presumption for the courts to suspend short sentences of immediate custody of 12 months or less. We are not abolishing short sentences. They will continue to be available where an offender has committed an offence involving, or closely connected to, breach of a court order – including breaching the requirements of a previous suspended sentence order or committing a further offence. Short prison sentences will also be available where an individual is at significant risk of harm, and in exceptional circumstances. Limiting the use of short sentences will not only help offenders to leave the merry-go-round of re-offending but reduce crime, leading to fewer victims and safer communities.