Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, 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.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
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.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what steps courts take to comply with data protection laws.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
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.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, 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.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
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.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many people have been employed to answer phone enquiries for the High Court in each of the last 5 years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
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.
Asked by: Freddie van Mierlo (Liberal Democrat - Henley and Thame)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of (a) trends in the level of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation and (b) the potential impact of those lawsuits on public-interest advocacy and journalism.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Due to the covert nature of Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) cases, with many threats occurring before cases reach the courts, it is difficult to know precise figures. On the available qualitative evidence we recognise that such tactics continue to be used to intimidate and silence journalists and others acting in the public interest. By curtailing free speech, SLAPPs cause a chilling effect on public interest journalism and pose a threat to both our legal system and our democracy. We are considering all options for reform to address this issue.
Asked by: Julian Smith (Conservative - Skipton and Ripon)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an assessment of the potential impact of current waiting times in the civil justice system on the competitiveness of the justice system in England and Wales compared to other jurisdictions.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Government understands the importance of timely and effective civil justice to England and Wales’ position as an international centre of dispute resolution. We are working towards our goal of a civil justice system in which people and businesses can resolve their disputes and exercise their rights quickly and efficiently at the earliest opportunity.
We acknowledge that the slow processing of claims can have a detrimental effect on business, and that lengthy civil disputes are a drag on economic growth. The quarterly period covering July to September 2025 showed the median time taken for small claims to go from issue to trial 5.9 weeks faster than the year before. For fast, intermediate and multi-track claims, it was 5.1 weeks faster than the year before. It is worth noting, however, this metric only captures the claims which go to full hearing: less than 5% of County Court claims issued. Timeliness is not the only factor which makes our justice system competitive; the high quality of our legal services and judiciary, the international appeal of English Law and our clear procedural rules all contribute to our status as jurisdiction of choice for international litigation.
Asked by: Zöe Franklin (Liberal Democrat - Guildford)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will make an assessment of the adequacy of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Civil Procedure Rules provide a framework for a fair, transparent, efficient and proportionate civil justice system. The Rules are regularly updated to support court services, to reflect wider changes in legislation and societal need, and in response to issues in practice and case law. Generally, there are at least two statutory instruments per year (April and October) which amend the Rules and ensure they remain up to date and relevant. These updates are made under the negative resolution SI process, which is subject to the related parliamentary scrutiny, having first been signed by Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) members, Master of the Rolls and Minister of State for Justice.
In addition to the Government keeping the Rules under review in conjunction with the CPRC, the Civil Justice Council (a statutory advisory body chaired by the Master of the Rolls) keeps the civil justice system under review and makes recommendations on, how to make the civil justice system more accessible, fair, and efficient. The Council routinely refers proposed amendments to the Rules to the CPRC for consideration.
Asked by: James McMurdock (Independent - South Basildon and East Thurrock)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, how many enforcement actions or penalties have been issued for age discrimination in recruitment in each of the past three years.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
Data on compensation and costs awarded for Employment Tribunal on age discrimination is published within the official statistics: Employment_and_EAT_2023_24.ods.
Asked by: Martin Wrigley (Liberal Democrat - Newton Abbot)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the complaints system through the Legal Ombudsman in cases where large numbers of consumers are affected by the collapse of a single legal firm.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
The Office for Legal Complaints (OLC) is the independent body responsible for administering the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) scheme. The Legal Services Board (LSB), as the oversight regulator, has statutory duties to monitor the OLC.
The collapse of a law firm does not prevent complaints being investigated by the LeO or any remedies it might direct from being recovered. Although the LeO requires each affected consumer to raise a complaint about the law firm, it has procedures that can be put in place to manage situations where a large number of consumers may be affected. These include the ability to prioritise cases where it is appropriate to do so and to work with other bodies, such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority, to ensure consumers are supported and appropriately signposted.
While the OLC and LeO remain independent in their decision-making, the Ministry of Justice provides additional oversight and accountability to ensure they operate effectively and in the public interest. For monitoring purposes, the OLC reports regularly to both the LSB and the Ministry of Justice on performance, including information on demand, backlogs and timeliness.
The Department has not undertaken a specific assessment of LeO’s complaints system in cases involving the collapse of a single legal firm affecting large numbers of consumers. However, the Government recognises that the LeO has faced wider operational pressures in recent years and continues to monitor the performance and resilience of the complaints system by engaging the LSB and the OLC Board through existing oversight arrangements.
Asked by: Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Labour - Slough)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, 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.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
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.