Written questions by Snowden.

Whether she will have discussions with the Solicitors Regulation Authority on standards of ethical behaviour of (a) solicitors’ and (b) barristers’ during (i) police interviews and (ii) court proceedings.

The legal profession and regulation of the profession in England and Wales operates independently of government. This framework is set out in the Legal Services Act 2007. Regulation of the sector is carried out by independent regulators, overseen by the Legal Services Board (LSB). The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and law firms in England and Wales, while the Bar Standards Board (BSB) regulates barristers.An independent legal services sector is a pillar of the rule of law. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate for ministers or their officials to seek to influence how individual solicitors or barristers are regulated.Nevertheless, while ministers do not play any role in individual disciplinary matters, the Ministry of Justice maintains regular dialogue with the legal regulators in respect of their statutory functions. This ensures that regulatory independence is respected while also supporting the wider objective of protecting consumers and maintaining public confidence in the justice system.Solicitors advising clients during police interviews or throughout court proceedings are bound by professional duties, as set out in the SRA’s Code of Conduct. Barristers are bound by the BSB Handbook, which requires them to act with honesty, integrity, and independence. Both regulators have powers to investigate allegations of professional misconduct and to take disciplinary action where necessary. For solicitors, this includes sanctions such as fines or referral to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, which can suspend or strike a solicitor off the roll. The BSB can refer cases of professional misconduct to the independent Bar Tribunals and Adjudication Service, whose Disciplinary Tribunal has powers to impose sanctions, including suspension or disbarment.

If she will require the mapping platform what3words to limit access to the prison estate.

To protect the public, prisons must hold prisoners securely to prevent further crime, maintain order and provide an environment conducive to reform. The Department is committed to taking every possible measure to strengthen prison security.Whilst we cannot share our full range of countermeasures, our approach is continually evolving, and includes working closely across Government, with law enforcement, and also the private sector to identify and mitigate emerging threats. This includes mitigating any threats from geocoding services. For example, in this 2025-26 financial year we are investing over £40 million in physical security across 34 prisons. This includes circa £10 million on anti-drone measures such as secure windows and robust netting at 15 prisons.

If she will conduct a review of the quality of rehabilitation of prisoners released from an open prison, in comparison with prisoners released from other penal settings.

Prisons of different categories shape their rehabilitation offer to meet the needs of the prisoner cohorts they accommodate.In open prisons, the intention is for carefully risk-assessed prisoners to participate in activities in the community under Release on Temporary Licence. Suitable, risk assessed prisoners may be allowed out during the day to work, attend college, attend an interview or re-establish links with their family. This helps them develop responsibility and gain valuable skills.Before moving to the open estate, prisoners will have spent time in prisons of other categories, so it is not straightforward to compare the quality of rehabilitation and attribute outcomes (for example education achievement, employment after release or reoffending rates) to the services in any one prison.

How many prisoners failed drugs tests in each of the last 12 months.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Data on the total number of random mandatory drug tests carried out is published as part of the HMPPS Annual Digest. The most recently released version confirms that in the 12 months to March 2025, there were 53,341 random mandatory drug tests, however, the data is currently not sufficient to robustly estimate the percentage positive. The Digest can be accessed via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hmpps-annual-digest-april-2024-to-march-2025. Statistics regarding needs, rather than use, are included in the 'Identified offender needs, custody and community, 31 October 2024'. This shows the level of drug misuse need amongst the prison population. It can be accessed via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/identified-offender-needs-custody-and-community-31-october-2024/identified-needs-of-offenders-custody-and-community-31-october-2024. We conduct targeted drug testing in custody to help keep people safe and identify individuals who may benefit from a treatment referral, or inform disciplinary action. To drive down demand for drugs and support recovery, there are also 85 prisons with Incentivised Substance Free Living Units. These provide a dedicated, supportive environment for any prisoner who wants to live drug-free in prison. To bring together this rehabilitative and security focused approach to tackling drug use, 54 Drug Strategy Leads in key prisons are working to ensure that local drug strategies are effectively implemented.

What meetings her Department has had with (a) prison officers, (b) prison officers' unions and (c) other representative bodies of prison staff to discuss assaults in open prisons in the last 12 months.

We have maintained regular and structured engagement with staff and their recognised trade union representatives on this matter. All prison governors in the open estate routinely hold local staff engagement forums, providing frontline officers with the opportunity to raise concerns or share feedback. His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service (HMPPS) ensures that the safety statistics, which are published, reviewed, and discussed quarterly with recognised trade unions, including the POA. These meetings form part of HMPPS’s formal engagement and allow unions to raise concerns on safety matters. There are also more frequent open-estate trade union stocktakes to provide additional engagement opportunities on this issue, and other matters of concern to members. HMPPS headquarters officials meet every two weeks with governors of open prisons, and convene quarterly forums specifically focused on open prison operations, where safety is a standing agenda item. These engagements reflect our continuing commitment to transparency, collaboration, and continuous improvement in custodial safety.

Whether she has made an assessment of the potential impact of the Independent Sentencing Review on the population of open prisons.

A formal assessment has not yet been made. This will form part of the operational implementation planning over the coming months.

What the average length of time spent by prisoners in open prisons was in the last (a) 12 months, (b) three years and (c) five years.

Prisoners may be accommodated in more than one open prison during the course of a sentence. The data that would need to be collated to calculate the average length of time in open conditions is not held centrally and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of automatically transferring prisoners in open prisons who fail drugs tests to Category C prisons.

Prisoners held in open conditions can be re-categorised to higher security conditions at any time if their risk increases, if there is a material change in circumstances that impacts security risk, or information (including existing information not considered before) is identified that indicates that the prisoner cannot safely be managed in the current security conditions. The purpose of categorisation is to ensure that those sentenced to custody are assigned the lowest security category appropriate to managing their risk.

What proportion of prisoners failed drugs tests upon arrival in the last 12 months.

The information requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Data on the total number of random mandatory drug tests carried out is published as part of the HMPPS Annual Digest. The most recently released version confirms that in the 12 months to March 2025, there were 53,341 random mandatory drug tests, however, the data is currently not sufficient to robustly estimate the percentage positive. The Digest can be accessed via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hmpps-annual-digest-april-2024-to-march-2025. Statistics regarding needs, rather than use, are included in the 'Identified offender needs, custody and community, 31 October 2024'. This shows the level of drug misuse need amongst the prison population. It can be accessed via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/identified-offender-needs-custody-and-community-31-october-2024/identified-needs-of-offenders-custody-and-community-31-october-2024. We conduct targeted drug testing in custody to help keep people safe and identify individuals who may benefit from a treatment referral, or inform disciplinary action. To drive down demand for drugs and support recovery, there are also 85 prisons with Incentivised Substance Free Living Units. These provide a dedicated, supportive environment for any prisoner who wants to live drug-free in prison. To bring together this rehabilitative and security focused approach to tackling drug use, 54 Drug Strategy Leads in key prisons are working to ensure that local drug strategies are effectively implemented.

With reference to her Department's press release entitled Justice Secretary introduces democratic lock over Sentencing Council, published on 2 September 2025, what plans she has for enabling Parliament to (a) scrutinise and (b) influence future Sentencing Council guidelines.

The Lord Chancellor has brought forward measures in the Sentencing Bill to ensure that there is stronger democratic and judicial oversight of sentencing guidelines the Sentencing Council produces.The Council will be placed under a statutory obligation to obtain approval from both the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice for all guidelines. This means that no guidelines can be issued without the Lord Chancellor and Lady Chief Justice each explicitly approving it. The Council will also be required to obtain Lord Chancellor approval of its annual business plan.The Sentencing Council has an existing statutory obligation to consult with the Justice Select Committee on draft sentencing guidelines, which is unaffected by the measures we are taking forward in the Sentencing Bill.

What discussions she has had with the (a) Law Society and (b) Solicitors Regulation Authority on the consequences of legal advice that may contribute to the suppression of evidence during police interviews.

The legal profession in England and Wales operates independently of government. This framework is set out in the Legal Services Act 2007. Regulation of the sector is carried out by the approved regulators, overseen by the Legal Services Board. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is responsible for regulating the professional conduct of solicitors and law firms, while the Law Society represents solicitors in England and Wales. An independent legal services sector is a key pillar of the rule of law, and it is therefore important to maintain this regulatory independence. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate for ministers or their officials to seek to influence how solicitors are regulated. Solicitors advising clients during interviews are bound by professional duties, as set out in the SRA’s Code of Conduct. Where necessary, the SRA has a duty to investigate allegations of professional misconduct by solicitors. It has a range of disciplinary powers available at its disposal, including the ability to impose fines and refer matters to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, which can suspend or strike a solicitor off the roll. Complaints about a solicitor’s conduct can be made directly to the SRA at: https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor/. The Ministry of Justice will continue to engage with legal regulators to ensure that consumers are protected and public confidence in the justice system is maintained.

Whether her Department plans to pause or review court digitisation efforts in light of the reported failures in HMCTS IT systems.

Given the important and sensitive work undertaken across the civil, family and tribunal jurisdictions, and the Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) Tribunal in particular, it is entirely understandable that there will be concern at reports of an IT bug. It is important to reaffirm the Ministry of Justice’s commitment to a fair, open, and transparent justice system. Public trust in our courts is paramount, and any suggestion that this trust may have been compromised is taken extremely seriously.There is no evidence of any impact on case outcomes to date. However, actions are underway by HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the technical error has not resulted in adverse outcomes or materially influenced judicial decisions. Recognising the importance of the effective running of HMCTS’s digital case managements systems, a technical fix was applied as a priority within the relevant jurisdictions with the final fix applied in January 2025.In 2023, under the previous Government, HMCTS identified that a technical issue in the Civil, Family and Tribunals case management system was having an impact on some services because of the way that services were interacting with the Core Case Data (CCD) database. This technical issue had the potential to cause some documents and data fields to be hidden from view in certain cases across Civil, Family, and Tribunal jurisdictions.Following a risk-based assessment, HMCTS initially undertook targeted investigations, which have since been significantly expanded. In Tribunals, the area affected was SSCS cases. In recent weeks, HMCTS has carried out additional work which has continued to assure that the technical issue was indeed of very low incidence and confirmed that there is no evidence of any impact on case outcomes to date. Further assurance work is ongoing.In Civil and Family jurisdictions, no impact on judicial decisions has been identified to date. In Family Public Law, operational mitigations – such as local authorities supplying full bundles directly to the court – reduce the risk of missing documents on the CCD system affecting case outcomes.Due to the sensitivity of these matters, further re-assurance work is still under way. Any further steps will be determined and communicated to parties should this work identify any cases of concern.HMCTS follows established escalation protocols to ensure that technical issues are assessed and, where appropriate, disclosed to judges and legal professionals. In light of this episode, Ministers have asked that these processes are strengthened, including improvements to incident management and governance structures to update the risk assessment criteria on which HMCTS considers communication about technical problems to relevant affected partners or users, and strengthening the systematic handling of cross-cutting or architectural risks.HMCTS staff can raise concerns through internal whistleblowing channels, which are managed independently and in line with departmental policy. All concerns are investigated and escalated appropriately.The internal report referenced in media coverage was part of a whistleblowing investigation conducted in line with Ministry of Justice policies. In line with standard practice, we do not publish internal HR and whistleblowing reports. Likewise, it would not be appropriate to comment on questions about specific internal disciplinary investigations, other than to confirm that departmental policy and process are followed as required.There are no plans to pause court digitisation. While technical challenges are an inevitable part of digital transformation, they are investigated and triaged according to risk. We are continuing to digitise and improve our services to support swift access to justice.Over the span of the HMCTS Reform Programme there will have been many organisations involved in the development of the HMCTS case management systems, of which there are several. Major delivery partners are listed in Reform Programme documentation and procurement records, which are publicly available. The main suppliers which have worked on the development of the Civil, Family and Tribunals Platform (that includes Core Case Data) during the period of 2016 to present are:AtosCapgeminiCGICognizantMethodsPA ConsultingScrumconnectTransform UKSolirius ConsultingVersion 1This includes the provision of any services in the development of the case management system, such as: development, quality assurance testing, architecture, user-centred design, data architecture, delivery management amongst others.

If she will publish the internal HMCTS report leaked to the BBC regarding the case management software failures.

Given the important and sensitive work undertaken across the civil, family and tribunal jurisdictions, and the Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) Tribunal in particular, it is entirely understandable that there will be concern at reports of an IT bug. It is important to reaffirm the Ministry of Justice’s commitment to a fair, open, and transparent justice system. Public trust in our courts is paramount, and any suggestion that this trust may have been compromised is taken extremely seriously.There is no evidence of any impact on case outcomes to date. However, actions are underway by HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the technical error has not resulted in adverse outcomes or materially influenced judicial decisions. Recognising the importance of the effective running of HMCTS’s digital case managements systems, a technical fix was applied as a priority within the relevant jurisdictions with the final fix applied in January 2025.In 2023, under the previous Government, HMCTS identified that a technical issue in the Civil, Family and Tribunals case management system was having an impact on some services because of the way that services were interacting with the Core Case Data (CCD) database. This technical issue had the potential to cause some documents and data fields to be hidden from view in certain cases across Civil, Family, and Tribunal jurisdictions.Following a risk-based assessment, HMCTS initially undertook targeted investigations, which have since been significantly expanded. In Tribunals, the area affected was SSCS cases. In recent weeks, HMCTS has carried out additional work which has continued to assure that the technical issue was indeed of very low incidence and confirmed that there is no evidence of any impact on case outcomes to date. Further assurance work is ongoing.In Civil and Family jurisdictions, no impact on judicial decisions has been identified to date. In Family Public Law, operational mitigations – such as local authorities supplying full bundles directly to the court – reduce the risk of missing documents on the CCD system affecting case outcomes.Due to the sensitivity of these matters, further re-assurance work is still under way. Any further steps will be determined and communicated to parties should this work identify any cases of concern.HMCTS follows established escalation protocols to ensure that technical issues are assessed and, where appropriate, disclosed to judges and legal professionals. In light of this episode, Ministers have asked that these processes are strengthened, including improvements to incident management and governance structures to update the risk assessment criteria on which HMCTS considers communication about technical problems to relevant affected partners or users, and strengthening the systematic handling of cross-cutting or architectural risks.HMCTS staff can raise concerns through internal whistleblowing channels, which are managed independently and in line with departmental policy. All concerns are investigated and escalated appropriately.The internal report referenced in media coverage was part of a whistleblowing investigation conducted in line with Ministry of Justice policies. In line with standard practice, we do not publish internal HR and whistleblowing reports. Likewise, it would not be appropriate to comment on questions about specific internal disciplinary investigations, other than to confirm that departmental policy and process are followed as required.There are no plans to pause court digitisation. While technical challenges are an inevitable part of digital transformation, they are investigated and triaged according to risk. We are continuing to digitise and improve our services to support swift access to justice.Over the span of the HMCTS Reform Programme there will have been many organisations involved in the development of the HMCTS case management systems, of which there are several. Major delivery partners are listed in Reform Programme documentation and procurement records, which are publicly available. The main suppliers which have worked on the development of the Civil, Family and Tribunals Platform (that includes Core Case Data) during the period of 2016 to present are:AtosCapgeminiCGICognizantMethodsPA ConsultingScrumconnectTransform UKSolirius ConsultingVersion 1This includes the provision of any services in the development of the case management system, such as: development, quality assurance testing, architecture, user-centred design, data architecture, delivery management amongst others.

What assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of data corruption on judicial decisions made in (a) civil, (b) family and (c) tribunal courts following the HMCTS IT bug.

Given the important and sensitive work undertaken across the civil, family and tribunal jurisdictions, and the Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) Tribunal in particular, it is entirely understandable that there will be concern at reports of an IT bug. It is important to reaffirm the Ministry of Justice’s commitment to a fair, open, and transparent justice system. Public trust in our courts is paramount, and any suggestion that this trust may have been compromised is taken extremely seriously.There is no evidence of any impact on case outcomes to date. However, actions are underway by HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the technical error has not resulted in adverse outcomes or materially influenced judicial decisions. Recognising the importance of the effective running of HMCTS’s digital case managements systems, a technical fix was applied as a priority within the relevant jurisdictions with the final fix applied in January 2025.In 2023, under the previous Government, HMCTS identified that a technical issue in the Civil, Family and Tribunals case management system was having an impact on some services because of the way that services were interacting with the Core Case Data (CCD) database. This technical issue had the potential to cause some documents and data fields to be hidden from view in certain cases across Civil, Family, and Tribunal jurisdictions.Following a risk-based assessment, HMCTS initially undertook targeted investigations, which have since been significantly expanded. In Tribunals, the area affected was SSCS cases. In recent weeks, HMCTS has carried out additional work which has continued to assure that the technical issue was indeed of very low incidence and confirmed that there is no evidence of any impact on case outcomes to date. Further assurance work is ongoing.In Civil and Family jurisdictions, no impact on judicial decisions has been identified to date. In Family Public Law, operational mitigations – such as local authorities supplying full bundles directly to the court – reduce the risk of missing documents on the CCD system affecting case outcomes.Due to the sensitivity of these matters, further re-assurance work is still under way. Any further steps will be determined and communicated to parties should this work identify any cases of concern.HMCTS follows established escalation protocols to ensure that technical issues are assessed and, where appropriate, disclosed to judges and legal professionals. In light of this episode, Ministers have asked that these processes are strengthened, including improvements to incident management and governance structures to update the risk assessment criteria on which HMCTS considers communication about technical problems to relevant affected partners or users, and strengthening the systematic handling of cross-cutting or architectural risks.HMCTS staff can raise concerns through internal whistleblowing channels, which are managed independently and in line with departmental policy. All concerns are investigated and escalated appropriately.The internal report referenced in media coverage was part of a whistleblowing investigation conducted in line with Ministry of Justice policies. In line with standard practice, we do not publish internal HR and whistleblowing reports. Likewise, it would not be appropriate to comment on questions about specific internal disciplinary investigations, other than to confirm that departmental policy and process are followed as required.There are no plans to pause court digitisation. While technical challenges are an inevitable part of digital transformation, they are investigated and triaged according to risk. We are continuing to digitise and improve our services to support swift access to justice.Over the span of the HMCTS Reform Programme there will have been many organisations involved in the development of the HMCTS case management systems, of which there are several. Major delivery partners are listed in Reform Programme documentation and procurement records, which are publicly available. The main suppliers which have worked on the development of the Civil, Family and Tribunals Platform (that includes Core Case Data) during the period of 2016 to present are:AtosCapgeminiCGICognizantMethodsPA ConsultingScrumconnectTransform UKSolirius ConsultingVersion 1This includes the provision of any services in the development of the case management system, such as: development, quality assurance testing, architecture, user-centred design, data architecture, delivery management amongst others.

What procedures are in place to ensure that known IT failures affecting evidence handling are promptly disclosed to judges and legal professionals.

Given the important and sensitive work undertaken across the civil, family and tribunal jurisdictions, and the Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) Tribunal in particular, it is entirely understandable that there will be concern at reports of an IT bug. It is important to reaffirm the Ministry of Justice’s commitment to a fair, open, and transparent justice system. Public trust in our courts is paramount, and any suggestion that this trust may have been compromised is taken extremely seriously.There is no evidence of any impact on case outcomes to date. However, actions are underway by HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the technical error has not resulted in adverse outcomes or materially influenced judicial decisions. Recognising the importance of the effective running of HMCTS’s digital case managements systems, a technical fix was applied as a priority within the relevant jurisdictions with the final fix applied in January 2025.In 2023, under the previous Government, HMCTS identified that a technical issue in the Civil, Family and Tribunals case management system was having an impact on some services because of the way that services were interacting with the Core Case Data (CCD) database. This technical issue had the potential to cause some documents and data fields to be hidden from view in certain cases across Civil, Family, and Tribunal jurisdictions.Following a risk-based assessment, HMCTS initially undertook targeted investigations, which have since been significantly expanded. In Tribunals, the area affected was SSCS cases. In recent weeks, HMCTS has carried out additional work which has continued to assure that the technical issue was indeed of very low incidence and confirmed that there is no evidence of any impact on case outcomes to date. Further assurance work is ongoing.In Civil and Family jurisdictions, no impact on judicial decisions has been identified to date. In Family Public Law, operational mitigations – such as local authorities supplying full bundles directly to the court – reduce the risk of missing documents on the CCD system affecting case outcomes.Due to the sensitivity of these matters, further re-assurance work is still under way. Any further steps will be determined and communicated to parties should this work identify any cases of concern.HMCTS follows established escalation protocols to ensure that technical issues are assessed and, where appropriate, disclosed to judges and legal professionals. In light of this episode, Ministers have asked that these processes are strengthened, including improvements to incident management and governance structures to update the risk assessment criteria on which HMCTS considers communication about technical problems to relevant affected partners or users, and strengthening the systematic handling of cross-cutting or architectural risks.HMCTS staff can raise concerns through internal whistleblowing channels, which are managed independently and in line with departmental policy. All concerns are investigated and escalated appropriately.The internal report referenced in media coverage was part of a whistleblowing investigation conducted in line with Ministry of Justice policies. In line with standard practice, we do not publish internal HR and whistleblowing reports. Likewise, it would not be appropriate to comment on questions about specific internal disciplinary investigations, other than to confirm that departmental policy and process are followed as required.There are no plans to pause court digitisation. While technical challenges are an inevitable part of digital transformation, they are investigated and triaged according to risk. We are continuing to digitise and improve our services to support swift access to justice.Over the span of the HMCTS Reform Programme there will have been many organisations involved in the development of the HMCTS case management systems, of which there are several. Major delivery partners are listed in Reform Programme documentation and procurement records, which are publicly available. The main suppliers which have worked on the development of the Civil, Family and Tribunals Platform (that includes Core Case Data) during the period of 2016 to present are:AtosCapgeminiCGICognizantMethodsPA ConsultingScrumconnectTransform UKSolirius ConsultingVersion 1This includes the provision of any services in the development of the case management system, such as: development, quality assurance testing, architecture, user-centred design, data architecture, delivery management amongst others.

If she will publish a list of all organisations involved in the development of the HMCTS case management software systems.

Given the important and sensitive work undertaken across the civil, family and tribunal jurisdictions, and the Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) Tribunal in particular, it is entirely understandable that there will be concern at reports of an IT bug. It is important to reaffirm the Ministry of Justice’s commitment to a fair, open, and transparent justice system. Public trust in our courts is paramount, and any suggestion that this trust may have been compromised is taken extremely seriously.There is no evidence of any impact on case outcomes to date. However, actions are underway by HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the technical error has not resulted in adverse outcomes or materially influenced judicial decisions. Recognising the importance of the effective running of HMCTS’s digital case managements systems, a technical fix was applied as a priority within the relevant jurisdictions with the final fix applied in January 2025.In 2023, under the previous Government, HMCTS identified that a technical issue in the Civil, Family and Tribunals case management system was having an impact on some services because of the way that services were interacting with the Core Case Data (CCD) database. This technical issue had the potential to cause some documents and data fields to be hidden from view in certain cases across Civil, Family, and Tribunal jurisdictions.Following a risk-based assessment, HMCTS initially undertook targeted investigations, which have since been significantly expanded. In Tribunals, the area affected was SSCS cases. In recent weeks, HMCTS has carried out additional work which has continued to assure that the technical issue was indeed of very low incidence and confirmed that there is no evidence of any impact on case outcomes to date. Further assurance work is ongoing.In Civil and Family jurisdictions, no impact on judicial decisions has been identified to date. In Family Public Law, operational mitigations – such as local authorities supplying full bundles directly to the court – reduce the risk of missing documents on the CCD system affecting case outcomes.Due to the sensitivity of these matters, further re-assurance work is still under way. Any further steps will be determined and communicated to parties should this work identify any cases of concern.HMCTS follows established escalation protocols to ensure that technical issues are assessed and, where appropriate, disclosed to judges and legal professionals. In light of this episode, Ministers have asked that these processes are strengthened, including improvements to incident management and governance structures to update the risk assessment criteria on which HMCTS considers communication about technical problems to relevant affected partners or users, and strengthening the systematic handling of cross-cutting or architectural risks.HMCTS staff can raise concerns through internal whistleblowing channels, which are managed independently and in line with departmental policy. All concerns are investigated and escalated appropriately.The internal report referenced in media coverage was part of a whistleblowing investigation conducted in line with Ministry of Justice policies. In line with standard practice, we do not publish internal HR and whistleblowing reports. Likewise, it would not be appropriate to comment on questions about specific internal disciplinary investigations, other than to confirm that departmental policy and process are followed as required.There are no plans to pause court digitisation. While technical challenges are an inevitable part of digital transformation, they are investigated and triaged according to risk. We are continuing to digitise and improve our services to support swift access to justice.Over the span of the HMCTS Reform Programme there will have been many organisations involved in the development of the HMCTS case management systems, of which there are several. Major delivery partners are listed in Reform Programme documentation and procurement records, which are publicly available. The main suppliers which have worked on the development of the Civil, Family and Tribunals Platform (that includes Core Case Data) during the period of 2016 to present are:AtosCapgeminiCGICognizantMethodsPA ConsultingScrumconnectTransform UKSolirius ConsultingVersion 1This includes the provision of any services in the development of the case management system, such as: development, quality assurance testing, architecture, user-centred design, data architecture, delivery management amongst others.

What steps she is taking to overhaul the governance and oversight structures of HMCTS.

Given the important and sensitive work undertaken across the civil, family and tribunal jurisdictions, and the Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) Tribunal in particular, it is entirely understandable that there will be concern at reports of an IT bug. It is important to reaffirm the Ministry of Justice’s commitment to a fair, open, and transparent justice system. Public trust in our courts is paramount, and any suggestion that this trust may have been compromised is taken extremely seriously.There is no evidence of any impact on case outcomes to date. However, actions are underway by HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the technical error has not resulted in adverse outcomes or materially influenced judicial decisions. Recognising the importance of the effective running of HMCTS’s digital case managements systems, a technical fix was applied as a priority within the relevant jurisdictions with the final fix applied in January 2025.In 2023, under the previous Government, HMCTS identified that a technical issue in the Civil, Family and Tribunals case management system was having an impact on some services because of the way that services were interacting with the Core Case Data (CCD) database. This technical issue had the potential to cause some documents and data fields to be hidden from view in certain cases across Civil, Family, and Tribunal jurisdictions.Following a risk-based assessment, HMCTS initially undertook targeted investigations, which have since been significantly expanded. In Tribunals, the area affected was SSCS cases. In recent weeks, HMCTS has carried out additional work which has continued to assure that the technical issue was indeed of very low incidence and confirmed that there is no evidence of any impact on case outcomes to date. Further assurance work is ongoing.In Civil and Family jurisdictions, no impact on judicial decisions has been identified to date. In Family Public Law, operational mitigations – such as local authorities supplying full bundles directly to the court – reduce the risk of missing documents on the CCD system affecting case outcomes.Due to the sensitivity of these matters, further re-assurance work is still under way. Any further steps will be determined and communicated to parties should this work identify any cases of concern.HMCTS follows established escalation protocols to ensure that technical issues are assessed and, where appropriate, disclosed to judges and legal professionals. In light of this episode, Ministers have asked that these processes are strengthened, including improvements to incident management and governance structures to update the risk assessment criteria on which HMCTS considers communication about technical problems to relevant affected partners or users, and strengthening the systematic handling of cross-cutting or architectural risks.HMCTS staff can raise concerns through internal whistleblowing channels, which are managed independently and in line with departmental policy. All concerns are investigated and escalated appropriately.The internal report referenced in media coverage was part of a whistleblowing investigation conducted in line with Ministry of Justice policies. In line with standard practice, we do not publish internal HR and whistleblowing reports. Likewise, it would not be appropriate to comment on questions about specific internal disciplinary investigations, other than to confirm that departmental policy and process are followed as required.There are no plans to pause court digitisation. While technical challenges are an inevitable part of digital transformation, they are investigated and triaged according to risk. We are continuing to digitise and improve our services to support swift access to justice.Over the span of the HMCTS Reform Programme there will have been many organisations involved in the development of the HMCTS case management systems, of which there are several. Major delivery partners are listed in Reform Programme documentation and procurement records, which are publicly available. The main suppliers which have worked on the development of the Civil, Family and Tribunals Platform (that includes Core Case Data) during the period of 2016 to present are:AtosCapgeminiCGICognizantMethodsPA ConsultingScrumconnectTransform UKSolirius ConsultingVersion 1This includes the provision of any services in the development of the case management system, such as: development, quality assurance testing, architecture, user-centred design, data architecture, delivery management amongst others.

Whether any (a) HMCTS and (b) Ministry of Justice staff have been subject to disciplinary investigation in connection with the handling of the IT system failures.

Given the important and sensitive work undertaken across the civil, family and tribunal jurisdictions, and the Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) Tribunal in particular, it is entirely understandable that there will be concern at reports of an IT bug. It is important to reaffirm the Ministry of Justice’s commitment to a fair, open, and transparent justice system. Public trust in our courts is paramount, and any suggestion that this trust may have been compromised is taken extremely seriously.There is no evidence of any impact on case outcomes to date. However, actions are underway by HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the technical error has not resulted in adverse outcomes or materially influenced judicial decisions. Recognising the importance of the effective running of HMCTS’s digital case managements systems, a technical fix was applied as a priority within the relevant jurisdictions with the final fix applied in January 2025.In 2023, under the previous Government, HMCTS identified that a technical issue in the Civil, Family and Tribunals case management system was having an impact on some services because of the way that services were interacting with the Core Case Data (CCD) database. This technical issue had the potential to cause some documents and data fields to be hidden from view in certain cases across Civil, Family, and Tribunal jurisdictions.Following a risk-based assessment, HMCTS initially undertook targeted investigations, which have since been significantly expanded. In Tribunals, the area affected was SSCS cases. In recent weeks, HMCTS has carried out additional work which has continued to assure that the technical issue was indeed of very low incidence and confirmed that there is no evidence of any impact on case outcomes to date. Further assurance work is ongoing.In Civil and Family jurisdictions, no impact on judicial decisions has been identified to date. In Family Public Law, operational mitigations – such as local authorities supplying full bundles directly to the court – reduce the risk of missing documents on the CCD system affecting case outcomes.Due to the sensitivity of these matters, further re-assurance work is still under way. Any further steps will be determined and communicated to parties should this work identify any cases of concern.HMCTS follows established escalation protocols to ensure that technical issues are assessed and, where appropriate, disclosed to judges and legal professionals. In light of this episode, Ministers have asked that these processes are strengthened, including improvements to incident management and governance structures to update the risk assessment criteria on which HMCTS considers communication about technical problems to relevant affected partners or users, and strengthening the systematic handling of cross-cutting or architectural risks.HMCTS staff can raise concerns through internal whistleblowing channels, which are managed independently and in line with departmental policy. All concerns are investigated and escalated appropriately.The internal report referenced in media coverage was part of a whistleblowing investigation conducted in line with Ministry of Justice policies. In line with standard practice, we do not publish internal HR and whistleblowing reports. Likewise, it would not be appropriate to comment on questions about specific internal disciplinary investigations, other than to confirm that departmental policy and process are followed as required.There are no plans to pause court digitisation. While technical challenges are an inevitable part of digital transformation, they are investigated and triaged according to risk. We are continuing to digitise and improve our services to support swift access to justice.Over the span of the HMCTS Reform Programme there will have been many organisations involved in the development of the HMCTS case management systems, of which there are several. Major delivery partners are listed in Reform Programme documentation and procurement records, which are publicly available. The main suppliers which have worked on the development of the Civil, Family and Tribunals Platform (that includes Core Case Data) during the period of 2016 to present are:AtosCapgeminiCGICognizantMethodsPA ConsultingScrumconnectTransform UKSolirius ConsultingVersion 1This includes the provision of any services in the development of the case management system, such as: development, quality assurance testing, architecture, user-centred design, data architecture, delivery management amongst others.

What mechanisms exist for whistleblowers within HMCTS to report concerns about IT system flaws and their impact on justice.

Given the important and sensitive work undertaken across the civil, family and tribunal jurisdictions, and the Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) Tribunal in particular, it is entirely understandable that there will be concern at reports of an IT bug. It is important to reaffirm the Ministry of Justice’s commitment to a fair, open, and transparent justice system. Public trust in our courts is paramount, and any suggestion that this trust may have been compromised is taken extremely seriously.There is no evidence of any impact on case outcomes to date. However, actions are underway by HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the technical error has not resulted in adverse outcomes or materially influenced judicial decisions. Recognising the importance of the effective running of HMCTS’s digital case managements systems, a technical fix was applied as a priority within the relevant jurisdictions with the final fix applied in January 2025.In 2023, under the previous Government, HMCTS identified that a technical issue in the Civil, Family and Tribunals case management system was having an impact on some services because of the way that services were interacting with the Core Case Data (CCD) database. This technical issue had the potential to cause some documents and data fields to be hidden from view in certain cases across Civil, Family, and Tribunal jurisdictions.Following a risk-based assessment, HMCTS initially undertook targeted investigations, which have since been significantly expanded. In Tribunals, the area affected was SSCS cases. In recent weeks, HMCTS has carried out additional work which has continued to assure that the technical issue was indeed of very low incidence and confirmed that there is no evidence of any impact on case outcomes to date. Further assurance work is ongoing.In Civil and Family jurisdictions, no impact on judicial decisions has been identified to date. In Family Public Law, operational mitigations – such as local authorities supplying full bundles directly to the court – reduce the risk of missing documents on the CCD system affecting case outcomes.Due to the sensitivity of these matters, further re-assurance work is still under way. Any further steps will be determined and communicated to parties should this work identify any cases of concern.HMCTS follows established escalation protocols to ensure that technical issues are assessed and, where appropriate, disclosed to judges and legal professionals. In light of this episode, Ministers have asked that these processes are strengthened, including improvements to incident management and governance structures to update the risk assessment criteria on which HMCTS considers communication about technical problems to relevant affected partners or users, and strengthening the systematic handling of cross-cutting or architectural risks.HMCTS staff can raise concerns through internal whistleblowing channels, which are managed independently and in line with departmental policy. All concerns are investigated and escalated appropriately.The internal report referenced in media coverage was part of a whistleblowing investigation conducted in line with Ministry of Justice policies. In line with standard practice, we do not publish internal HR and whistleblowing reports. Likewise, it would not be appropriate to comment on questions about specific internal disciplinary investigations, other than to confirm that departmental policy and process are followed as required.There are no plans to pause court digitisation. While technical challenges are an inevitable part of digital transformation, they are investigated and triaged according to risk. We are continuing to digitise and improve our services to support swift access to justice.Over the span of the HMCTS Reform Programme there will have been many organisations involved in the development of the HMCTS case management systems, of which there are several. Major delivery partners are listed in Reform Programme documentation and procurement records, which are publicly available. The main suppliers which have worked on the development of the Civil, Family and Tribunals Platform (that includes Core Case Data) during the period of 2016 to present are:AtosCapgeminiCGICognizantMethodsPA ConsultingScrumconnectTransform UKSolirius ConsultingVersion 1This includes the provision of any services in the development of the case management system, such as: development, quality assurance testing, architecture, user-centred design, data architecture, delivery management amongst others.

Whether her Department has made an estimate of how many child protection cases were impacted by missing documents reported in 2023.

Given the important and sensitive work undertaken across the civil, family and tribunal jurisdictions, and the Social Security and Child Support (SSCS) Tribunal in particular, it is entirely understandable that there will be concern at reports of an IT bug. It is important to reaffirm the Ministry of Justice’s commitment to a fair, open, and transparent justice system. Public trust in our courts is paramount, and any suggestion that this trust may have been compromised is taken extremely seriously.There is no evidence of any impact on case outcomes to date. However, actions are underway by HMCTS and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the technical error has not resulted in adverse outcomes or materially influenced judicial decisions. Recognising the importance of the effective running of HMCTS’s digital case managements systems, a technical fix was applied as a priority within the relevant jurisdictions with the final fix applied in January 2025.In 2023, under the previous Government, HMCTS identified that a technical issue in the Civil, Family and Tribunals case management system was having an impact on some services because of the way that services were interacting with the Core Case Data (CCD) database. This technical issue had the potential to cause some documents and data fields to be hidden from view in certain cases across Civil, Family, and Tribunal jurisdictions.Following a risk-based assessment, HMCTS initially undertook targeted investigations, which have since been significantly expanded. In Tribunals, the area affected was SSCS cases. In recent weeks, HMCTS has carried out additional work which has continued to assure that the technical issue was indeed of very low incidence and confirmed that there is no evidence of any impact on case outcomes to date. Further assurance work is ongoing.In Civil and Family jurisdictions, no impact on judicial decisions has been identified to date. In Family Public Law, operational mitigations – such as local authorities supplying full bundles directly to the court – reduce the risk of missing documents on the CCD system affecting case outcomes.Due to the sensitivity of these matters, further re-assurance work is still under way. Any further steps will be determined and communicated to parties should this work identify any cases of concern.HMCTS follows established escalation protocols to ensure that technical issues are assessed and, where appropriate, disclosed to judges and legal professionals. In light of this episode, Ministers have asked that these processes are strengthened, including improvements to incident management and governance structures to update the risk assessment criteria on which HMCTS considers communication about technical problems to relevant affected partners or users, and strengthening the systematic handling of cross-cutting or architectural risks.HMCTS staff can raise concerns through internal whistleblowing channels, which are managed independently and in line with departmental policy. All concerns are investigated and escalated appropriately.The internal report referenced in media coverage was part of a whistleblowing investigation conducted in line with Ministry of Justice policies. In line with standard practice, we do not publish internal HR and whistleblowing reports. Likewise, it would not be appropriate to comment on questions about specific internal disciplinary investigations, other than to confirm that departmental policy and process are followed as required.There are no plans to pause court digitisation. While technical challenges are an inevitable part of digital transformation, they are investigated and triaged according to risk. We are continuing to digitise and improve our services to support swift access to justice.Over the span of the HMCTS Reform Programme there will have been many organisations involved in the development of the HMCTS case management systems, of which there are several. Major delivery partners are listed in Reform Programme documentation and procurement records, which are publicly available. The main suppliers which have worked on the development of the Civil, Family and Tribunals Platform (that includes Core Case Data) during the period of 2016 to present are:AtosCapgeminiCGICognizantMethodsPA ConsultingScrumconnectTransform UKSolirius ConsultingVersion 1This includes the provision of any services in the development of the case management system, such as: development, quality assurance testing, architecture, user-centred design, data architecture, delivery management amongst others.