Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, 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.
Answered by Douglas Alexander - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
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.
Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, 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.
Answered by Douglas Alexander - Minister of State (Cabinet Office)
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.
Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Department for Business and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what the (a) role and (b) responsibilities are of the trade envoys to (i) Israel and (ii) the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Answered by Gareth Thomas - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade)
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.
Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, 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.
Answered by Stephen Kinnock - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
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.
Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, 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.
Answered by Alex Norris - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government)
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.
Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of ineffective Crown Court trials which started after day one of the set trial date in 2024 reached completion.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
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.
Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what proportion of ineffective trials in the Crown Court started later than day one of the set trial date in 2024.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
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.
Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, whether trials in the Crown Court starting on day two or later are classified as ineffective.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
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.’
Court | W1 - 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 available |
Defence | Q1 - 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 advocate |
Other | S3 - Defendant not produced by PECS |
| W5 - No interpreter available |
| Y - Outstanding cases in a Magistrates' Court |
| Z - Outstanding cases in other Crown Court centre |
Prosecution | M1 - 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 start |
Where 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.
Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what metrics determine whether a Crown Court trial is classified as ineffective.
Answered by Sarah Sackman - Minister of State (Ministry of Justice)
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.’
Court | W1 - 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 available |
Defence | Q1 - 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 advocate |
Other | S3 - Defendant not produced by PECS |
| W5 - No interpreter available |
| Y - Outstanding cases in a Magistrates' Court |
| Z - Outstanding cases in other Crown Court centre |
Prosecution | M1 - 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 start |
Where 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.
Asked by: Andy Slaughter (Labour - Hammersmith and Chiswick)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, 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.
Answered by Hamish Falconer - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office)
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.