Online Divorce Applications

Mike Freer Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my noble Friend Lord Bellamy KC, has today made the following statement:

There is a statutory bar against applying for an order for divorce before the end of one year from the date of the marriage (section 3 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973).

A digital service for divorce proceedings was first introduced in 2019, which included a validation function to stop applicants making their applications before one year and one day from the date of their marriage.

A new system was built to reflect the implementation of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 introducing no fault divorce, and it went live on 6 April 2022. We have identified a technical fault with the new system, which allowed applications to be made after a year of marriage (as opposed to one year and one day) between 6 April 2022 and 23 November 2022. The error was rectified as soon as it came to light, to prevent any future applications from members of the public being submitted early. We have since reviewed all 90,431 applications made during this period and identified 67 cases where members of the public submitted an early application and subsequently received their final divorce order from the courts. The premature applications were not rejected during the court process at the stage of issuing a conditional order, or a final order.

The independent judiciary are looking at how best to deal with the cases. Until they reach a decision, all final divorce orders of the court will remain final orders.

HM Courts and Tribunals Service has written to all those people who have received a final divorce order from the court. HMCTS has established a dedicated helpline and contact email to offer guidance and support.

[HCWS482]

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

Mike Freer Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) for her excellent work on this important Bill, and for navigating it to this point. It is to her great credit that the Bill has such support.

It is a sad reality that a small number of children commit offences so serious that there is no option other than to deprive them of their liberty in order to protect the public. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that they receive the appropriate support to prepare them for their eventual release and to turn their life around.

As the House will be aware, Charlie Taylor published his landmark review of the youth justice system in 2016. The report made a number of important recommendations, including on the need to reimagine how we care for children who commit serious enough offences to warrant detaining them in custody. His proposal was to create a new type of custodial environment, focused on the delivery of education, to offer children the opportunity to gain the skills and qualifications necessary to prepare them for their release into the community.

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 established secure schools in legislation as secure 16-to-19 academies, under both the Academies Act 2010 and the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015. The first ever secure school, Oasis Restore, is in the process of Ofsted registration and hopes to welcome children in the very near future. The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), visited the site yesterday to see for himself the impressive progress made on the school’s facilities. As work has continued, and as we near the opening of the first ever secure school, this Bill is now needed to ensure that the specific provisions of the Academies Act are relevant to secure 16-to-19 academies.

Why do we need secure schools? The number of children in custody has fallen drastically in recent years, with 82% fewer children under the age of 18 in custody than in 2010. It is right that we should deprive children of their liberty only as a last resort, and the decline has rightly been commended as a success of the youth justice system. However, for children who commit the most serious crimes, there remains a need to protect the public by detaining them in custody.

The children now in custody are among the most complex and vulnerable in society, and they present with very challenging behaviour. The majority have committed violence-related offences and are much more likely to reoffend upon release than adult prisoners. The latest Government statistics show that 62% of children released from custody go on to reoffend within a year. Secure schools are a necessary change to break this cycle of reoffending. The children in custody are also more likely than their peers to have had a disrupted education. Government analysis shows that around 90% of children sentenced to custody had a record of persistent absence. That means that these children have lost out on months or years-worth of learning. The evidence about the importance of education as a preventive factor in childhood offending is clear. Secure schools offer these children an opportunity to re-engage with education and make the most of their potential.

The secure school model has been developed in accordance with the best available evidence of what works in addressing the underlying causes of youth offending. That is why secure schools offer small and homely environments, with healthcare and education at their heart. In secure schools, children and young people will engage with integrated care services, including health and education, tailored to their individual needs. On entry, each young person will have a full assessment of their needs, to establish a baseline against which progress can be measured and to ensure that any unmet health and special education needs are identified. They will have personalised programmes that build on their strengths and develop their potential, with the use of evidence-based interventions that help them to build resilience and develop vital skills that will help them in the future.

Curriculum delivery will take place in appropriately sized groups, including through one-to-one interventions where needed. Children in secure schools will have the opportunity to make educational progress on a par with that of their peers in mainstream schools, proportionate to the length of their sentence. Secure schools will work closely with youth offending teams, with education, health and other community service providers and with young people’s families where appropriate. Planning for resettlement will start when a young person enters a secure school and will be adapted to support transition to the adult estate where appropriate.

The Government support the Bill, because secure schools are a landmark reform in youth custody that, as has been mentioned, will help to reduce reoffending and ultimately lead to fewer victims of youth crime, thereby protecting the public. However, it is only by ensuring that secure schools function well, with proportionate termination measures, and appropriate and efficient processes for opening new schools, that we will achieve that goal.

In closing, I would like to thank the Opposition for their support for my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, and also officials at the Ministry of Justice for supporting her in preparing the Bill. I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend for bringing it before the House. I also reiterate with great pleasure that the Government support this important Bill. I wish it well in its progress in the other place.

Post Office Casework Team Contingency Fund Application

Mike Freer Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

I hereby give notice of the Ministry of Justice’s intention to seek an advance from the Contingencies Fund totalling £1.15 million.



As the House knows, the Post Office Horizon IT scandal that began in the late 1990s has had severe impacts on the lives of the postmasters affected. On 10 January 2024 the Prime Minister made an announcement to introduce legislation to overturn the convictions of postmasters prosecuted by the Post Office and the Crown Prosecution Service due to the faulty Horizon IT system. The Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill was introduced on 13 March 2024. The Bill was introduced to the House of Lords on 30 April 2024 and we anticipate that it will receive Royal Assent before summer recess.



Accessing the Contingency Fund allows the Department to manage the expenditure associated with establishing the casework team to carry out preparatory work to enable the Government to identify convictions that are in scope of the Bill, notify these individuals as soon as possible after Royal Assent is achieved, and co-ordinate work to ensure relevant records are amended promptly.



Parliamentary approval for additional resource of £1,150,000 for this new service will be sought in a Main Estimate for the Ministry of Justice. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £1,150,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

[HCWS454]

Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation Bill

Mike Freer Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th May 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Elliott. I am pleased to speak to clause 1 stand part. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly on his private Member’s Bill. Its aim to legislate for the remaining SLAPP cases not covered by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency 2023 is welcomed by the Law Society, which says that

“it’s in the public interest that our justice system works for all people regardless of their means and produces fair outcomes.”

I praise the long-running campaign led by free speech organisations, media practitioners and parliamentarians that forms the backdrop to this Bill. Those organisations include the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, which was formed in 2021 and has campaigned for changes to the law to address SLAPPs, as well as supporting individuals targeted by SLAPPs.

Clause 1 sets the stage for action that is long overdue. I am sure that all Committee members agree with the Bill’s important ambition of preventing abuses of the administration of justice. This Bill is about inequality under the law and how we address it. The Opposition supported it on Second Reading and, significantly, it received endorsement across the Benches. From the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) noted:

“Labour has long recognised the danger posed by SLAPPs to our democratic values.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 963.]

I recognise that the Bill could be stronger, but we are content that it is necessary to bring about important change. We would not want to lose the Bill altogether or disrupt its progress. We recognise the importance of striving for a balance between the legitimate right to sue and freedom of expression. We would not want to close the door on individuals getting a remedy in court in appropriate cases.

As we have heard, clause 1(1)(b) will allow claims to be struck out if

“the claimant has failed to show that it is more likely than not that the claim would succeed at trial.”

I am mindful of the Law Society’s concerns that this measure will shift the onus of proof to the claimant in applications to strike out a claim:

“This represents a high threshold that a potential claimant would have to reach simply to be able to bring a claim. The test makes no allowances for cases in which a claimant may have a meritorious case but may not be able to demonstrate at the outset sufficient evidence to meet the threshold. This therefore has potential consequences for access to justice.”

I invite the Committee to discuss these concerns. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly will outline in a little more detail why clause 1(1)(b) is drafted as it is, or perhaps the responsibility for sorting this out falls to the Minister.

I turn to new clause 1. I am pleased, and unsurprised, to see the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden contributing to the Bill. His campaigning against lawfare cases is well known, and I pay tribute to his tireless commitment to shining a spotlight on the issues and calling for action. I heard the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has expressed about some aspects of the proposed new clause. I hope that the Minister will provide an appropriate response to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and perhaps see how we can help him in his ambitions for the Bill on Report.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott.

I will not detain the Committee long. I wish to state my support for the hon. Member for Caerphilly in introducing the Bill, and for the approach that he has taken in steering it forward. However, I will try to address all the concerns raised by various parties—not least the constructive and weighty contributions from right hon. and hon. Members.

As we have heard, SLAPPs are the purview of corrupt individuals seeking to stifle free speech and a free press by abusing our courts and our laws, and to undermine our democracy. No matter who brings the case, SLAPPs must always be recognised as an affront to our renowned courts and legal system, and they should be tackled swiftly.

The Ministry of Justice has been keen to ensure swift passage of the Bill, and I pay tribute to the officials who have provided support to the hon. Member for Caerphilly and other Members in trying to fine-tune it. I gently say to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill that the Department has certainly not been a roadblock—quite the reverse. We have been doing our best to ensure a swift and smooth passage.

Strategic litigation against public participation is a bullying display of power designed to silence investigations and reporting in the public interest. SLAPPs cause harm not only by stifling public comment but by forcing its removal or editing, leaving a sanitised version of events that may far underplay the true severity of the information covered. They discourage journalists, academics and campaigners from investigating issues in the first place, using intimidation to ensure that matters of public interest remain hidden, and leave the British public in the dark. The effect of SLAPPs is pernicious, and we cannot allow our media to be helpless to act to expose the actions of some people and organisations due to aggressive legal tactics and unlimited resources.

[Liam Byrne]

I hope the Minister did not mishear me: I was hoping to ensure that the Ministry of Justice does not become a roadblock in the future. I am very grateful for the work that he has done so far. Will he use this moment to put on the record whether he agrees with subsection (1) of new clause 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden? It provides that the Bill’s purpose should be interpreted as being

“to protect and promote the ability of individuals and organisations to participate in public debate, advance accountability, and speak out on matters of public interest, and to prevent the use of the courts to undermine these rights through abusive legal action”.

Is that basically the intent of the Bill?

[Mike Freer]

Let me take this opportunity to address two points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. First, on pre-litigation issues, I will have to write to him to ensure that I get correct the rights that the Lord Chancellor, the Department or the courts will have before a matter gets to court. I will make sure that I get the details so that I do not misinform him.

We cannot support new clause 1, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. As I have said to him, I am more than happy, between now and Report, to sit down and try to flesh out where we can find more agreement, but at this stage we cannot support the new clause. While we support the whole thrust of what he is trying to achieve, we feel that the Bill has actually—

[Sir David Davis]

The Minister has now said twice that the Government support the thrust of new clause 1. Given the consensus that we have maintained from the beginning, I would rather not divide the Committee. Alongside me, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill has been the primary driver on this issue since—I cannot remember the actual date, but it was the day after I called for Boris to go. That is the new reference point: not anno Domini, but anno B, after Boris.

If the Minister agrees with the thrust of the new clause, and if he will come back on Report with an equivalent that makes it plain to the judges what the Bill proposes, I will not press it—but I do need that undertaking.

[Mike Freer]

I can give the undertaking that I will work with my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill to try to ensure that the Bill meets those objectives. We believe that the Bill creates a balance of rights and responsibilities that ensures that we protect free speech while balancing the rights of both claimants and defendants, so that the bad behaviour that has been documented is addressed. Also, the examples of bad behaviour in the Bill and the explanatory notes are not exhaustive.

[Liam Byrne]

I am very grateful for that constructive reply, but I want the Minister to underline and crystallise the point for the Committee: he is saying that the Government support the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

I think the whole Bill supports the thrust of protecting freedom of speech. Equally, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill mentioned, we do not have a first amendment, so there is a nervousness about going down a path of establishing some form of first amendment, as the Americans have. We want to ensure that the Bill maintains a balance between claimants and defendants while protecting defendants who cannot protect themselves from the pernicious behaviour that we have all seen and read about.

[Sir David Davis]

I raised the first amendment issue, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill was responding to that. This is not a first amendment clause at all. The Minister knows as well as I do that, throughout the debate, the argument has been about how the judges will interpret every clause. The fact that the hon. Member for Caerphilly will move the other amendments today indicates that we did not get that balance right in the beginning; indeed, we might have made the problem worse. That is what this is about.

As I said, I do not want to divide the Committee if I can avoid it, and I seek an undertaking from the Minister. The alternative is to bring the new clause back on Report and then whip the thing on behalf of our own argument.

[Mike Freer]

I repeat my offer to my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill: I am happy to discuss how we ensure that we come to an agreement that the Bill delivers what they want to achieve. However, we believe that new clause 1 is not necessary. Of course, if they believe that the Bill still needs it, my right hon. Friend has the right to move it during the remaining stages.

The offer is there: let us try to work together to see whether we can bridge the gap and persuade each other that we are right. At this point, the Department’s view is that the Bill creates a balance of rights and responsibilities while addressing the bad behaviour and listing, but not exhaustively listing, what bad behaviour will be curtailed.

[Liam Byrne]

I am grateful to the Minister for his characteristic generosity. He has just told the Committee that he does not think that new clause 1 is needed and that the intention of the Bill as a whole is to support the objectives of the new clause. The new clause is very carefully drafted. It states:

“The purpose of this Act is to protect and promote the ability of individuals and organisations to participate in public debate, advance accountability, and speak out on matters of public interest”.

It therefore falls short of an American first amendment-style provision and, in that sense, has been quite carefully sculpted. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he does not think it is needed because that is the thrust of the Bill overall, and it is important that that is on the record. I am happy to work with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and others to ensure that we have got that beyond doubt.

[Mike Freer]

We broadly agree, I think, that the Bill is in a good place, but the right hon. Gentleman may wish to take us up on our offer to discuss further why we believe that the Bill strikes a balance in achieving what he wants to achieve while protecting rights and balances when it comes to claimants and defendants. It will stop the pernicious behaviour that we know has been happening while, equally, ensuring that there are no unintended consequences or problems with other rights and responsibilities that could have resulted from the new clause. Let us park that for now and try to flesh the issues out between now and Report. I realise that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill reserve their right to move an amendment at a later stage.

The Government firmly believe that clause 1 creates the most appropriate and effective framework for courts to deal with SLAPPs, allowing such claims to be dismissed swiftly. There will also be a fair and proportionate assessment of whether any such claim or part of it should be allowed to proceed, and a fair and proportionate costs sanction should it do so. Allied to the other provisions in the Bill, that framework will ensure that courts will be able to properly tackle SLAPPs in a fair and proportionate way, to ensure that justice to both claimants and defendants is done.

Although the Government share the important concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill that the purpose of the Bill should be achieved in practice, they consider that the current draft will do so. As I said, we have significant concerns about the possible unwarranted effects of the purpose and interpretation provision in new clause 1. That is why I have made the offer to sit down and work through whether we can find some form of agreement.

I want to put it on the record that we have given careful thought to ensuring that public participation and free speech are protected and that all convention rights are also protected. These reforms are carefully balanced to protect access to justice—a fundamental tenet of our legal system—and to provide the courts with the ability to broadly interpret and apply the principles, to make sure that no devious misuse of litigation is left unaddressed.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Before the Minister brings his remarks to a close, I would like to go back to new clause 1, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis). Does the Minister think it important that, in passing this legislation, the Committee and the House should give some direction that considers that people with a public profile should be subjected to greater accountability and debate and that they are different from ordinary private citizens? Should judges take into account whether the criticism of a high-profile person is fair comment in an open society because they are a public figure and different from a private person who would never seek the public eye?

[Mike Freer]

I am not a lawyer, so I will not be tempted down the path of discussing whether certain people should be subject to greater or less scrutiny in the eyes of the law. In my view, the law applies equally; it is up to the judges to interpret the intention of the Bill, which we have clearly laid out in what we have said and in the explanatory notes. We are seeking to redress the balance when it comes to the rich and powerful misusing our courts, and to protect freedom of speech. I do not want to say that certain people should have more or less scrutiny; I leave it to the judges to clearly interpret the intent of the Bill and the House through the Bill itself, the explanatory notes and the words that right hon. and hon. Members have spoken.

[Damian Collins]

Does the Minister agree that one of the challenges that judges will always face is that every claimant will say that their cause is just and reasonable and that great hurt and offence has been caused by what has been written and said about them? It is important that judges have the confidence to know when they can make a call to say that the litigation is strategic rather than legitimate.

[Mike Freer]

I believe that the Bill itself, the explanatory notes and comments made by right hon. and hon. Members will give clear direction to the judges so that they understand the intent of the Bill, which is not to stifle a defendant’s access to justice but to stop the bad behaviour that we have seen. Judges will know the intent of the Bill in respect of those seeking to bring the rich and powerful to account or to shine the light of good journalism—the disinfectant of sunlight—on inappropriate actions; equally, however, everyone must have their right to justice as well.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will the Minister address directly the concerns of the Law Society in relation to clause 1(1)(b)? The clause states that a claim can be struck out if the claimant

“has failed to show that it is more likely than not that the claim would succeed at trial.”

In other words, the onus in terms of proof is shifted on to the claimant rather than the defendant. The Law Society says:

“This represents a high threshold that a potential claimant would have to reach simply to be able to bring a claim.”

[Mike Freer]

It was certainly not the view of the hon. Member for Caerphilly or the Department that the amendments should be accepted, because we felt that the arguments put forward by the Law Society were not supported and that our Bill created a careful balance. In a nutshell, we did not agree with what the Law Society put forward—neither the amendments nor that particular argument. We think the Bill creates a careful balance between claimants and defendants, and we support it.

[Sir David Davis]

On a point of order, Ms Elliott. I have listened to the Minister carefully, and my interpretation is that he will seek to resolve this problem before Report. I will therefore not press new clause 1 today and will seek consensus across the board. However, I give notice that if we do not resolve this issue, it will come back on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

As we have heard, consensus has broken out. It is all very pleasant, unlike some issues that I have debated with the Minister in the past. I welcome amendments 1, 3, 4, 8 and 9, which will reorder the themes so that public interest is referred to before freedom of speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has more than adequately outlined the necessity of the clauses, and I support his efforts to improve the Bill’s application.

I am also pleased to see amendments 2 and 5, which will ensure a more objective approach to the identification of intent. As we have heard, requiring the courts to engage in a subjective inquiry into the mind of a claimant or defendant would create uncertainty and might be practically and evidentially difficult to assess. These requirements could create satellite litigation and uncertainty at an early stage and might have the unwanted effect of introducing further delay and driving up costs.

The definition in the Bill should, at a minimum, include an objective element so that it relates to claims concerning disclosures that are or would be made on matters of genuine public interest. That would make the text similar to section 4(1)(a) of the Defamation Act 2013. I know that the amendments have the backing of the Law Society and the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. The News Media Association, a member of the coalition, says that the amendment is required to allow a judge to define a case as a SLAPP based on a reasonable interpretation of a claimant’s actions, rather than a complex inquiry into a claimant’s state of mind. It agrees that the latter would result in complex, time-consuming and costly legal wrangling that would defeat the object of a Bill intended to dismiss egregious SLAPP cases swiftly.

Amendments 6 and 7 restate sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) of clause 2 for the purpose of clarifying the condition in subsection (1)(c). They have our support.

Clause 2(3) attempts to set out a definition of “public interest” to help with identifying SLAPP cases. That includes matters such as illegality, false statements, public health and safety, the climate or the environment, or investigations by a public body. Concerns have been raised to me that the original drafting lacks clarity and risks creating problems for implementation; it also proves contradictory in relation to the Defamation Act 2013. I therefore support my hon. Friend’s amendment 10, which will go some way towards addressing those issues by making it clear that the list set out in the clause is not exhaustive, and that other matters not specified in the Bill can be considered by the court to be of public interest.

It would not be appropriate to privilege certain types of public interest speech and create an unnecessary and problematic hierarchy. Without amendment 10, the examples in the definition of “public interest” in clause 2(3) would cut across principles in the Defamation Act and in data protection law, making it harder for defendants to use the full scope of defences available at trial. That is because it would naturally be difficult for a court to decide that an article was not in the public interest under the Bill’s narrow definition but then take a different course at trial. We are happy to support amendment 10.

[Mike Freer]

If I may, I will address a few points raised by hon. Members and then make some final remarks.

On the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor about whether it is possible to strike out all or part of the claim or seek an appeal, he is absolutely correct.

I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden is not pressing his amendments. I reiterate that I am happy to discuss his remaining concerns about the Bill and how it needs to be tweaked before the remaining stages.

On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, the Department has engaged extensively with the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. It is fair to say that we can never get all stakeholders entirely happy, but I am advised that the coalition is broadly supportive of the Bill. On the issue that she raised about behaviour, particularly with respect to domestic violence issues, of course it is not expected that the Bill seeks to facilitate behaviour, as she has outlined, in domestic violence issues. She has specific concerns as to how she believes domestic violence is being facilitated by elements of the Bill. I am more than happy to meet her to go through them in more detail, but we do not believe those concerns will be borne out by the Bill.

On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I confess that I am not exactly au fait with the Media Bill, but I will be more than happy to write to him about his specific points.

On the points that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill raised about clause 2(1)(c), of course all litigation causes alarm, but as paragraph 31 of the explanatory notes states, the

“behaviour must be intended to cause the defendant harassment, alarm, distress, expense, or any other harm or inconvenience, beyond that which would ordinarily be encountered in properly conducted litigation.”

That broadens it. Of course when someone gets litigation or letters from a lawyer, people are naturally alarmed or distressed, but what is the intent? To what extent does that behaviour meet the criteria and those descriptors in paragraph 31 of the explanatory notes, which clarify the behaviour we are seeking to curtail?

I reiterate that the Bill will protect the individuals and organisations that engage in important public debate. It will advance accountability for those who would obfuscate their dealings, and it will ensure that speaking out in the public interest is given the support that it deserves. The Bill will safeguard our courts, ensuring that our highly regarded legal system is protected from the insidious abuse of process that could undermine its reputation of achieving justice for all.

The amendments tabled to clause 2 by the hon. Member for Caerphilly will ensure that public interest is kept at the heart of the issues, as its suppression is a key hallmark of SLAPP cases. The introduction of the reasonableness component of the test will ensure that inappropriate behaviour and weaponised processes are identified and tackled at the earliest possible opportunity. The centring of the behaviour of the claimant will ensure that it is abundantly clear to those who would use SLAPPs that they cannot act poorly and remain unchecked and unchallenged, whether that behaviour happens in the courtroom, via privately funded surveillance or a social media campaign to undermine the credibility of an author, academic or whistleblower. The Government are content fully to support all 10 of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, which we believe will strengthen the Bill.

With respect to amendment 12, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, the Government laud his intention to ensure that the Bill is properly drafted so that it captures all SLAPPs. I hope I have reassured him that the matters he raises are in many respects already covered by the existing draft of the Bill for a number of reasons. I repeat my offer to meet him to reassure him further, if necessary.

[Sir David Davis]

To be clear, I do not think that the Bill, as drafted, meets the requirements. I will not press my amendments to a vote, because they are flawed, but I will table something on Report to deal with the issue. I hope that we can agree on what it should be.

[Mike Freer]

I thank my right hon. Friend and reiterate my offer to sit down with him and go through this in detail, whether for me to reassure him that the Bill meets his objectives or for him to convince me that we need to go further.

Clause 2(1)(c), to which amendment 12 would add, is broad: “any” behaviour can be considered by the court as evidence of misconduct. Subsections (4) and (5) give examples, but are certainly not intended to be exhaustive lists. Furthermore, many matters in the amendment are covered by clause 2(4). For example, the reference to

“disproportionate reaction to the matters complained of in the claim”

will cover excessive disclosure requests and dilatory strategies, as well as questions regarding the choice of jurisdiction.

The Government expressly support the amendments of the hon. Member for Caerphilly to clause 2 and the reasonableness test. We will not support the amendments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden has tabled but not moved, as we believe that materially they cover the same ground. However, I repeat my offer to meet and see where we can agree.

I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Member for Caerphilly for promoting this important Bill, and I confirm the Government’s continuing support for it. The Bill will ensure that all those who speak out against corruption, hold the powerful to account and guard our freedoms through raising their voice are protected.

[Wayne David]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Windsor is absolutely correct that what we have experienced today and previously highlights the fact that this is a good process. There should be more private Members’ Bills and more time allocated to them in the procedures of this House. That is an important point to make.

I am extremely grateful for the knowledgeable contributions from hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill. I have very much relied on their experience and good advice in the passage of the Bill so far. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse for her excellent contribution about her personal experience, which shows clearly why the Bill is required.

It is worth noting that the Bill has changed remarkably during its passage. The amendments to which we are in the process of agreeing will substantially strengthen the legislation. A number of stakeholders have been intimately engaged in the process. The Anti-SLAPP Coalition, to which several hon. Members have referred, has done a remarkable job and many of its suggestions have been directly incorporated into the legislation.

May I particularly thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden for his amendments? He noted that it looks rather strange to see the names “David” and “Davis” together on the amendment paper. The only conclusion is that we must both have Welsh blood in our veins—there must be some commonality that transcends our party political differences. His amendments show that his careful consideration has enhanced our process enormously.

On amendment 11, I wholly agree in principle with the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal to give the public interest element of clause 2 greater prominence. Indeed, that is why I have tabled amendments 1, 3, 4, 8 and 9, which have the same aim. In view of the specific language in clause 2(1)(a) and (b), I consider that the formulation used in amendments 1, 3, 4, 8 and 9 will better achieve that purpose.

The right hon. Gentleman’s amendment 12 was drafted to expand the categories of conduct that show wrongful behaviour on the part of the claimant, in turn expanding the misconduct element of the test to establish whether a case is a SLAPP. The current drafting was purposely designed on the basis of evidence gathered, from stakeholders across the spectrum of views, in the Ministry of Justice’s call for evidence. The list is non-exhaustive and allows the court to take into consideration any matter that may be relevant. On that basis, I believe the categories of wrongful behaviour under clause 2 to be more than sufficient to identify whether the behaviour of the claimant amounts to misconduct.

I thank all hon. Members again for their contributions and their participation. I particularly thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden for tabling his amendments but not pressing them, which has ensured an excellent debate this morning. I look forward to cross-party unanimity being expressed clearly at the end of our deliberations.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments made: 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, after “claim” insert

“is such that it is reasonable to conclude that the behaviour”.

This amendment ensures that the condition in subsection (1)(a) is met if the court determines that it is reasonable to conclude that the claimant’s behaviour has or is intended to have the effect in question.

Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 9, after “exercise” insert

“by that disclosure or potential disclosure”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 1.

Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, leave out from beginning to “and” in line 11.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 1.

Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 13, after “claim” insert

“is such that it is reasonable to conclude that the behaviour”.

This amendment ensures that the condition in subsection (1)(c) is met if the court determines that it is reasonable to conclude that the claimant’s behaviour is intended to have the specified effect.

Amendment 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 14, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) and insert “any harm or inconvenience”.

This amendment and amendment 7 restate sub-paragraphs (i) to (iii) for the purpose of clarifying the condition in subsection (1)(c).

Amendment 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert—

“(1A) In subsection (1)(c) the reference to ‘harm’ includes (but is not limited to) a reference to any of the following—

(a) expense;

(b) harassment;

(c) alarm;

(d) distress.”

See the explanatory statement for amendment 6.

Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, leave out “or (b)”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 1.

Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, leave out “(1)(b)” and insert “(1)(aa)”.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 1.

Amendment 10, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, leave out from second “the” to end of line 24 and insert

“matters that are of ‘public interest’ include (but are not limited to) the following—”.—(Wayne David.)

This amendment rephrases the opening words of subsection (3) so as to make it explicit that matters of “public interest” are not limited to the specified matters.

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Chief Coroner’s 10th Annual Report to the Lord Chancellor

Mike Freer Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

I am pleased to lay and publish the Chief Coroner’s tenth annual report to the Lord Chancellor on the operation of coroner services, under section 36 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

The report provides a comprehensive overview of all the work taken forward across the coroner service in England and Wales in the calendar year 2023, under the leadership of the Chief Coroner. It provides valuable insights into the service’s operations and future direction.

In particular, the Chief Coroner’s report sets out:

An overview of the work that he, as well as coroners, their officers and their staff have undertaken in 2023;

Statistics for 2023, with particular focus on cases over 12 months old, service deaths and PFD—prevention of future deaths—reports;

The training courses and updated guidance that coroners and their officers have received, and engagement with a wide range of stakeholders; and

Recommendations on changes to improve coroner services further.

The report also includes the Chief Coroner’s 10 years post-reform review of the coroner service, which was published in January 2024.

I am very grateful to His Honour Judge Thomas Teague KC for his work during the course of 2023 in guiding and supporting coroners. As he prepares to retire in May, I also extend my heartfelt appreciation for his dedication and leadership since his appointment in December 2020, particularly in navigating the complexities of the pandemic and in ensuring the post-pandemic recovery of the coroner system. His contribution has been invaluable, and I thank him for his unwavering commitment to the service.

I am grateful, too, to all coroners and their officers and other staff, for supporting the Chief Coroner and HM Government in improving services for the bereaved, and for their unwavering commitment and dedication to the crucial work which they undertake.

The report will be laid in Parliament and will be available online at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/chief-coroners-annual-report-2023

[HCWS441]

Oral Answers to Questions

Mike Freer Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

2. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of legislation on cremation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

The law on cremation has been updated when needed. For example, the 2008 cremation regulations are currently being amended as part of the ongoing death certification reform. However, the primary legislation on cremation dates back to 1902, and in the light of developments since then, I believe that a more comprehensive review is needed. That is why the Law Commission has agreed to consider the law governing cremation as part of its project on burial, cremation and new funerary methods. That project has commenced, and we await its findings with interest.

[Dr Evans]

I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. Obviously, given what is going on in Hull, there are great concerns. I know that the Minister cannot speak directly about that issue because of the investigation, but there is no formal regulation of funeral directors on these issues. Joseph Barsby, the managing director at G. Seller—a much-loved local funeral director that is at the forefront of funeral facilities in Hinckley—is very concerned, because G. Seller wants to lead, not be tarnished by being sucked into problems in the industry. Will the Minister meet with Joseph to discuss ways in which we can improve the system? Failing that, will there be a way for funeral directors to feed in information and ideas on how to improve the system?

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Department has already started work on a call for evidence on where we go with the regulation of the funeral director sector; that will be issued shortly. I am more than happy to ensure that the views of any funeral director are fed in, and, of course, to meet with the firm in his constituency.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the productive and supportive way that he has engaged with me on the appalling situation with Legacy funeral directors in Hull. I am utterly committed to regulating this industry and never again allowing that appalling, heartbreaking situation to be repeated. I have heard the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans), but could he speak a little bit more about timeframes? Does he agree that in the interval before statutory regulation comes in, we should encourage all funeral directors to subject themselves to voluntary regulation by one of the trade bodies, and to do everything they can to reassure the public that not all funeral directors are in a situation like the appalling situation that we have had in my constituency?

[Mike Freer]

If I may return the compliment, the hon. Lady has handled this appalling incident in her constituency with a great deal of skill. I am committed to working with her and the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who is leading on some of the initial responses, alongside the local authority. The call for evidence on where we go on regulation will commence in the next few months; the decision, of course, will have to wait for the public consultation. This afternoon, I am meeting the two major trade bodies to discuss how they can assist with voluntary inspections, to ensure that after this terrible incident—what has been happening is quite horrific—which nobody thought could occur, we get this right, so that people have confidence in the vast majority of funeral directors, who are entirely respectable and treat the deceased with the respect and care that we would expect.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

3. What steps he is taking to reduce reoffending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to prevent the potential abuse of lasting power of attorney agreements.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

When an LPA application is submitted, there is a statutory four-week waiting period before the LPA can be registered, during which objections can be lodged. As for registered LPAs, any concerns about an attorney abusing one can be reported to the Office of the Public Guardian, which will investigate. As part of the modernisation of LPAs following the passage of the Powers of Attorney Act 2023, new identity verification processes will be introduced to further strengthen the system.

[Fabian Hamilton]

More than 6 million people in Britain have lasting power of attorney agreements. I have been inundated recently with so many harrowing stories from across the country of abusers targeting elderly people and stealing their estate from under their nose. Will the Minister ensure that a proper medical assessment is carried out before an LPA is activated, and that the digitisation of LPAs does not lead to families losing their loved one’s estate to unscrupulous abusers?

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I am more than happy to take that away and write to him about the steps we take to ensure that that level of check is in place. I reassure the House that people can check the “use a lasting power of attorney” service on gov.uk to see where LPAs have been issued, and whether one has been issued without their knowledge.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What steps he is taking to reduce violence in the secure youth estate.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

Delays in decision making during care proceedings can have a significant impact on children, and we recognise that there is more to do to address that challenge. That is why last year the Government published their response to the independent review of children’s social care, setting out a programme of action to achieve better outcomes. The Department for Education is investing an extra £10 million on new initiatives to address the longest delays and meet the statutory requirement to resolve proceedings within 26 weeks.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Data from Cafcass shows that children who have been removed from their parents by the state have to wait an average of 46 weeks to get a final decision on where they will live. That is heartbreaking. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of extended family proceedings on the mental health of the children involved and their ability to access support and child and adolescent mental health services?

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Lady raises a very serious point. The impact on the child and the wider family is appreciated. We have invested in capacity, with more money for Cafcass, judges and recorders, and more sitting days to ensure that we increase capacity so that hearings can be heard effectively. We are also focusing on the public law outline, which sets a maximum number of hearings and the time limits, to ensure that proceedings are heard on time. If the hon. Lady wishes to raise any specific cases, I will be happy to meet her to get to the bottom of any specific problems.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Despite the response given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), the Government are still a long way from solving the crisis in the family courts. We have heard of the 46-week average, but in 13 of the 42 designated family judge areas in England and Wales, the wait is double the statutory target of 26 weeks. Then, there are the 80,000 private family law cases that can take 45 weeks to be resolved, and the number of new cases is increasing faster than disposals. Do the Government have any concern or compassion for some of the most vulnerable children in the country who are being let down? I invite the Minister to try again and assure the House that the crisis will not get even worse.

[Mike Freer]

If there is a lever that I have not pulled, I invite the shadow Minister to let me know what it is, and I will address it. This Government are spending more money on attracting more judges and recorders, maximising sitting days and investing in the public law outline and, on the flip side of public family law, on private family law as well as mediation. We are investing an extra £55 million, as announced in the Budget, to address productivity and the backlogs. Every single lever that will increase capacity and productivity is being pulled, but I am more than happy for the hon. Member to share any insight with me, and I am sure that we can work on a better solution.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to reduce the backlog in the Crown court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

12. What assessment his Department has made of the adequacy of legal aid for immigration cases.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

The Legal Aid Agency monitors the provision of immigration legal aid and takes whatever actions are operationally available to it to ensure a supply of providers.

[Chris Law]

I was hoping for an answer but did not get one, so let me try this. While we all desperately want to see the Tories’ asylum backlog cleared, this effort must be well funded and must ensure access to justice. What we have instead is an under-resourced bureaucracy and a push to make rushed asylum decisions, combined with severe difficulty in accessing immigration legal aid, and as a result thousands of asylum seekers have effectively been denied the right to legal representation. Why do the UK Government stand alone in not recognising the enormous crisis in immigration legal aid?

[Mike Freer]

In fact, the Government spent £44 million on immigration legal aid in 2022-23. We have increased the hourly rate for those undertaking this kind of work, and we are looking at remote access and payment for travelling. All those steps we have taken to raise the level of funding in this important area. I have to say, however, that I think it takes a particular bit of brass neck for the SNP to lecture us on the funding of legal aid. I refer the hon. Gentleman to Scottishlegal.com, which has commented on how the SNP has decimated legal aid in Scotland.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Perhaps the Minister can answer this question. The Bar Council has repeatedly highlighted the fact that asylum claimants who have otherwise meritorious cases have often gone through multiple appeals due to very poor or no legal representation. That jacks up the costs for the courts, the Home Office and local authorities, all the while trapping vulnerable people in an agonising limbo. If the Government will not address the crisis in immigration legal aid because it is the right thing to do, will they at least do so because it is the financially sound thing to do?

[Mike Freer]

As I have said, we are already increasing the fees for those who take on legal aid work in connection with the Illegal Migration Act 2023. That is a 15% increase on the increase that we have already seen. On top of that, we are rolling out remote access to the duty advice scheme and introducing payment for travel. Those are major steps towards ensuring the availability of legal aid. I therefore do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s description of the position. If he wants to start swapping comments from the Bar Council, I can quote the Scottish Bar Council’s views on the SNP’s record.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

14. What recent assessment his Department has made of the impact of outcomes data from the Justice Data Lab on the recommissioning of HM Prison and Probation Service reoffending programmes in the last 12 months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The Government’s plans to introduce employment tribunal fees suggest that users should pay towards running costs, implying that only those using the system benefit from it. However, Resolution Foundation research shows that tribunals are heavily relied upon to enforce workers’ rights for all. Does the Justice Secretary not appreciate that any action to deter lower-paid workers from bringing forward cases will be to the detriment of the system as a whole?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

We do not believe that a £55 claim issue fee will be a deterrent. The tribunal system costs the taxpayer £80 million a year, and we do not think it is unreasonable that those who use it should pay a small contribution. To answer the question, we do not think it is a deterrent.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

T7. The tragic reality is that when intimate partners murder, women are the victims in 90% of cases. What progress have the Government made since the Wade review on ensuring that justice is done in these cases?

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. People want access to justice. The Women’s Budget Group has found that, as a result of the disastrous Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, 85% of vulnerable women are unable to access civil legal aid and the majority of them are reaching crisis point. Does the Minister think it is right that these women are being left without basic access to justice?

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Lady raises an important point and I would be happy to meet her and take representations on that specific point. I will also discuss it with Lord Bellamy, who, alongside me, deals with civil legal aid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

T4. The number of outstanding cases before Gwent magistrates courts has risen by 21% in the last year alone. However, the number of magistrates is now 20% lower in the whole of south Wales. We have heard today about the great work of the magistrates courts and the fact that magistrates come from all walks of life. What are the Government doing to ensure that hard-to-reach people are offering their services as magistrates, including ethnic minorities and, in particular, younger people?

[Mike Freer]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. I lead on diversity in the Department, and a piece of work is already under way on how we can increase the diversity of the magistracy and ensure that we recruit from those hard-to-reach groups. I am more than happy to meet him to swap ideas and discuss how we can continue to change the face of our magistrates.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State for Justice agree that in England and across the United Kingdom, the ancient principle of innocent until proven guilty should be upheld and restored, and that the punishment should never be the process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Mather (Selby and Ainsty) (Lab)]

T10. Selby is classed by the Law Society as a legal advice desert for housing, education and family legal aid. What are the Minister’s plans to fix that?

[Mike Freer]

The Legal Aid Agency keeps the location of providers under constant review. We have invested an additional £10 million over the last few months in those specific types of legal aid. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I can give him the details of where the spend is going in his local area.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Joshua Rozenberg KC has presented “Law in Action” on Radio 4 over the past 20 years, and it has frequently shed important light on areas of our justice system that need attention. Does the Secretary of State share my disappointment that today’s broadcast will be the programme’s last, because it has not been recommissioned? Will he also pay tribute to Joshua Rozenberg for his work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Do we have enough crematoriums in the UK, given that many families are now having to wait three, four, five or six weeks for a funeral slot? Why is there such a gap between the cheapest crematorium in the country, which charges £408, and the most expensive, in Stevenage, which charged £1,400 last year?

[Mike Freer]

The challenges facing crematoriums, and in fact the whole funeral sector, are being reviewed by the Law Commission. This is about not just crematoriums, but burial space. There are challenges across the whole death management landscape, to use the technical term, which is why the Law Commission is investigating and bringing forward proposals.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The fees for civil legal aid are half what they were in 1996 and the number of providers has fallen by 40% in the past 10 years. If the Minister actually wants to do something about civil legal aid, why has he kicked the civil legal aid review into the long grass?

[Mike Freer]

Legal aid is always under constant review and I will always take advice from those closest to it. That is why I engage with, for example, the Bar Association, the Law Society and the judiciary on what we need to do. As for kicking things into the long grass, all I can say is that I want to get this right and if that takes time, it will take time.

[Mr Speaker]

For the final question, I call Debbie Abrahams.

Child Trust Funds

Mike Freer Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir Jeremy Quin) for securing the debate and continuing the conversation we have had for some time. I was pleased to meet him and his constituent Mr Turner last May to discuss the issue, and I welcome the ongoing debate that we are having.

I will not tiptoe down memory lane, as colleagues have —I am not sure that revisiting the coalition Governments of 2010 onwards is particularly helpful to today’s debate. What I want to do and what is important—and I am sorry if it is dry—is lay out the legal framework that is there is to protect vulnerable people. I understand clearly that the actions of the vast majority of parents are well intentioned, and that they act with great honour and kindness looking after their child or young adult. However, my job is also to protect vulnerable people from any form of abuse, and that weighs heavily on any reforms that we take forward. I appreciate that people will disagree vehemently with me, but I have to take into account the fact that not every parent would act with the best of intentions when accessing the funds.

It is a well-established common-law principle that an adult must obtain proper legal authority to access or manage the finances or property of another adult. That includes, for the purpose of today’s debate, a matured child trust fund of a young adult. People are understandably unaware of that legal principle, and it may be surprising to parents and carers who have been heavily involved in decision making for their young person prior to their turning 18. I want to iterate the steps that we have already taken to try to improve the process, particularly as regards awareness of what steps need to be taken as the young person reaches the age of 18.

[Ed Davey]

Before the Minister talks about reforms that have been made, can I bring him back to the point of principle that he outlined at the beginning of his remarks? I do not think anyone disagrees that there is an important principle, but there is equally a principle of proportionality that I mentioned in my speech. Can the Minister address that point? Where does proportionality arise in his thinking about the principles involved?

[Mike Freer]

I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am happy to have an ongoing conversation. In fact, this is the first time we have discussed the matter face to face since I took on my portfolio. Proportionality is a valid point, but what is the level of risk that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to take? It will be different from the one that I or the Government are prepared to take. The right hon. Gentleman or anybody in this room may be prepared to say that 10, 20, 100 or 1,000 young people could have their money accessed inappropriately. That is a proportionate risk that they are willing to take. My view is that I want to minimise that risk and that proportionality is not easily measured.

I am not a lawyer. I look to my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and my legal friends to say that there may be a legal definition of proportionality. However, the definition of proportionality for those who are making decisions against those who are asking for change may be different. I am willing to see if we can bridge the gap, but my view is that I want to ensure that we can both improve access and that protections remain in place so that those who may not have the best interests of the young adults in mind do not get access to funds with total liberty.

[Ed Davey]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. It was direct and to the point, and he has given way again, which is generous.

When we look at the risk, we have evidence from the industry, which has looked at the case and many firms and funders have said that they are prepared to take on the risk themselves. Even though the Government are behind it, because the risk and the amount of money are so small, the firms have taken on that risk themselves. Is that not a lesson that the Minister should dwell on? If the MOJ is not prepared to act on that, would he at least go and talk to his colleagues at the Treasury and see if they can make a statement about the way in which the financial services could take on that risk and how the Government would support that?

[Mike Freer]

I am always happy to discuss with any provider and certainly the provider I have spoken to. No provider has beaten a path to my door saying, “We think you have got it wrong and our risk assessment is right.” Any organisation is entitled to make their own risk assessment and accept the consequences if they get it wrong. That is their decision. As for my risk assessments, perhaps I am being over-cautious. I am willing to be challenged on that and I appreciate that people have a different view, but I want to ensure that I take the least risk regarding vulnerable adults.

I will talk briefly in the time left about the work we have done with the Investing and Saving Alliance to try to improve accessibility and knowledge. Given the time, I will have to skip over the part of my speech about the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. I think everyone in the room is probably aware of the methodology of applying for the deputyship that gives people access or the ability to act on other people’s behalf. I will not go through that in any great depth.

We have heard that the court process was cumbersome, which is why we looked at how we could change that. We consulted on what kind of different system we could put in place, but there was not a consistent view from the consultation on how we should reform access to the funds. In fact, if we go into the consultation, many people wanted to add safeguards to a new form of access that actually made the system even more cumbersome than the one we were trying to reform. That was a difficulty, as we did not get a common view on what checks and balances needed to be in place. We talked not just to parents, but to charitable organisations, the legal and finance sectors, groups representing the elderly and so on, and we heard that it was too complex. The big message that came out was that people were not really aware of what they had to do or when they had to do it.

I think that the first ask from my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham was whether we would extend appointeeships to cover child trust funds. We are working with the Department for Work and Pensions to extend the availability of information. I am more than willing to go back to the DWP and talk about whether its process is suitable for child trust funds. It is a very different process: it is about accessing regular payments rather than lump sums, so there is a different quantum at risk. It would take primary legislation to access the DWP-type processes—we double-checked that today. It is not a quick fix, but it is certainly one that I am more than happy to go back and have another look at.

I want to ensure that we are streamlining the processes. Can we take the paper out? Can we use more digital processes? We have seen that the time has reduced from 24 weeks to 12 weeks. We will continue to liaise with the President of the Court of Protection to monitor performance and see what more can be done.

A key issue is that people often do not know what they have to do until the child turns 18, and then they are locked out. We have done two things; I apologise if this sounds a little disjointed. I sat down with TISA, the major provider of child trust funds, and we agreed that as part of its normal maturity mailing, it will include advice and information about how to access and use the Court of Protection to get the relevant legal powers in place. We are taking early steps to educate people as to what they need to do before the person turns 18. That comes alongside the toolkit, which, as hon. Members have noted, provides practical guidance on how to access and navigate the legal process.

My right hon. Friend’s second ask was about making people aware of how to find lost funds. We are doing more work to provide information. People can use the “Find my child trust fund” service on gov.uk. We can continue to do more to raise awareness of that.

[Alex Cunningham]

It is a good idea that providers are prepared to write out and provide additional information. I welcome that, but it is not going to solve the problem. Does the Minister agree that it is no good just having a one-off? It will have to be done on a regular basis, as more young people become mature and approach the age of 18.

[Mike Freer]

The shadow Minister pre-empts me. This is a regular communication strategy: TISA will continue to notify those who are heading towards maturity of what they need to do to access the fund once they turn 18.

I have also been working with the Department for Work and Pensions on accessing its client bank. We have agreed with the DWP that we will contact the cohort of parents and carers who receive personal independence payments and who may lack the mental capacity to access their child trust fund. We have an agreement in principle that we will do a mailing—not a one-off, but a constant mailing—so that people in this cohort, which we think is particularly relevant to child trust funds and difficulties of access, will become aware in advance of what they need to do. One of the big messages from the consultation was about the lack of understanding and knowledge of the steps until it was too late.

I appreciate that hon. Members have said, “Give them the money.” I get that. As I mentioned at the start of my speech, the vast majority of parents act in the very best interests of the child. I am not a parent, so I cannot possibly understand the role of a parent having to juggle all the demands of everyday life while having a child who needs additional support. I accept that my knowledge is limited, but the risk of just one parent not acting in their child’s best interests, but accessing those funds inappropriately, weighs very heavily on me.

I accept all the points about proportionality, and I am happy to have a conversation about where the line on risk is drawn. Broadly speaking, where I am coming from is improving education, improving access and improving knowledge, but I cannot in all good conscience say that I am going to throw open the accounts and give unfettered access without some checks and safeguards to ensure that the very small minority do not have the ability to abuse a young adult. However, I will commit to following through with colleagues at the DWP to see whether there is anything we can do to copy or piggyback on their approach and make the system more accessible.

Duty Solicitor Scheme

Mike Freer Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for securing this debate, and for his focus on this important matter. I will begin by commending criminal legal aid solicitors for the invaluable work that they do across the whole criminal justice system. Legal aid is a fundamental pillar of our free and fair justice system. It underpins the rule of law so that ordinary citizens can uphold their rights and liberties. In the criminal justice system it supports those charged with an offence to defend themselves, and assures that the allegations made against them are properly tested. Criminal legal aid solicitors play a vital role in ensuring that the system works.

It may be helpful to explain that in England and Wales, two duty solicitor schemes operate in parallel. The police station duty solicitor scheme enables a person who is arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence to consult a solicitor free of charge, either in person or over the telephone, while in police custody. The court duty solicitor scheme allows a person who has already been charged with an offence to consult and be represented by a solicitor free of charge at the magistrates court on their first appearance if they do not have, or have simply not contacted, their own solicitor.

Turning to the funding for solicitors, we have boosted the system with immediate investment in response to the criminal legal aid independent review, known as CLAIR, and are introducing further reforms that will support solicitors. Access to justice is a fundamental right, and in 2023 we spent £1.86 billion on legal aid, of which £873 million was on crime. Investment in the legal aid sector is continuing. In September 2022, we uplifted most criminal legal aid fee schemes by 15%, including a 15% increase to the police station scheme and the magistrates court scheme, which includes youth court work. That was in direct response to CLAIR, to support and strengthen the criminal legal aid sector.

To give my hon. Friend a glimmer of hope, since we introduced the fee scheme and the new standard crime contract came into force, we have seen an increase in the number of duty solicitors registering for the scheme. In fact, between October 2022 and April 2023, the number of duty solicitors rose by about 7.5%. While I accept that that does not take the numbers to where they were several years ago, it is an early sign of at least some stabilisation in the scheme.

[Kevin Foster]

Will the Minister commit to writing to me, and perhaps placing a copy of the letter in the Library, setting out where the numbers have changed in each region as defined by the areas that are covered in the duty rota schemes?

[Mike Freer]

If I can break it down by region, I will give my hon. Friend a full response. I will happily share the figures I have available, and I will place a copy of them in the Library.

On 29 January this year, we published a consultation on proposed reforms to the police station fee scheme and the youth court fees, where an additional £21.1 million per year has been allocated. We expect our reforms to criminal legal aid to increase investment in the solicitor profession by about £85 million every year, including a 30% increase in funding for solicitors’ work in police stations and a 20% increase for their work in magistrates courts once we introduce the additional £21 million a year.

The investment, alongside planned longer-term reforms, increases criminal legal aid spending by up to £141 million a year, which means the overall spend for criminal legal aid is expected to be up to £1.2 billion per year—the highest level of investment in criminal legal aid in a decade. That additional funding into the system will contribute to the sustainability of the market and help to ensure that legal aid is accessible in the future.

I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the reduction in the number of duty solicitors, notwithstanding the recent increase. I meet the Legal Aid Agency regularly to discuss matters pertaining to criminal legal aid, including the duty solicitor schemes. The Legal Aid Agency regularly reviews and monitors the number of duty solicitors on each local duty scheme to ensure adequate provision and access to legal aid. It has arrangements in place to ensure that all duty rotas have cover 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I accept that in some areas that is sometimes quite a big ask, but the Legal Aid Agency works closely with practitioners to ensure coverage in areas where it is tight.

[Kevin Foster]

On the numbers, I want to be clear that the issue is people actively taking cases. One retired solicitor who knew I had secured this debate told me that he still gets an email each year saying that he is still licensed to do stuff, even though he has not actually practised as a criminal lawyer in 10 years. It is the numbers of people actively doing things.

[Mike Freer]

I will have to double check, but my understanding is that those numbers are for those who that have signed up for the standard crime contract. I am not sure a retired solicitor would have signed, so that individual should not be captured in the figures.

I assure my hon. Friend that although the numbers of solicitors firms offering criminal legal aid and offices delivering the service have declined, police station and court duty solicitor schemes remain fully covered. I am slightly less worried about the number of offices; I think we can sometimes get fixated on that. I appreciate that in more rural areas having a physical office is important, but in other parts of the country, with mergers of firms, I do not believe we need to get hung up about physical presence as long as we have the solicitors on the ground. That is a more important measure than the number of offices.

[Kevin Foster]

I agree with the Minister about physical office locations, not least in an era of homeworking. My concern is not so much about the physical local of an office. If firms merge, there is still the potential for conflicts. If there are four firms doing this work in Devon, and five defendants, there is the potential for so-called cut-throat defence. It is not about whether there is a physical office; it is the fact that if those firms join together, conflicts can arise.

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend, being a practising solicitor, has greater knowledge of the intricacies than I do, but I will take that point on board. I assure him that the provision of duty solicitors is a priority and we are actively taking steps to ensure all schemes continue to operate, both now and in the future.

I will touch on a couple of points that my hon. Friend mentioned. The judicial review relating to the funding for criminal solicitors has ended. As he mentioned, a year ago the Law Society filed a JR claim challenging the funding decision taken by the previous Lord Chancellor in response to the criminal legal aid independent review. It focused mostly on the litigators’ graduated fee scheme and the decision not to apply the full 50% uplift across all elements of it. LGFS is a remuneration scheme for solicitors undertaking Crown court work. We were clear in our response to CLAIR why we did not increase the fees for pages of prosecution evidence. That was due to the perverse incentives identified by CLAIR, whereby payments are based primarily on the volume of pages served to the prosecution, irrespective of whether they are read, and not on the work done.

The judgment was handed down on 31 January. Although the claimants were successful on a specific narrow grounds relating to the decision-making process, the majority of the arguments were rejected by the court. We are carefully considering the judgment and will respond in due course.

Furthermore, we are currently working with stakeholders through a sub-group of the Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board on reform of the LGFS. One aim of the reform is to address the perverse incentives of pages of prosecution evidence identified by CLAIR. We are aiming to consult on LGFS reform later this year.

To answer the point about the number of younger practitioners in the sector, I understand the concern. That is why the chair of CLAAB, Her Honour Deborah Taylor, asked for the numbers on the board to be increased, to include younger practitioners both at the criminal Bar and in the solicitor sector. That has been agreed and the younger voices of the sector are on CLAAB, which will hopefully help to inform decisions so that we can ensure a flow of younger solicitors into the criminal representation side of the justice system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay also raised the issue of training and ensuring that crime pays, as it were. I accept the point that we seem to have a revolving door. In particular, solicitor firms invest in training solicitors, who then leave and move on to different parts of the criminal justice system once training is completed. We are conscious of that, and Her Honour Deborah Taylor is looking at what we can do to change how training is funded to address that revolving door. Obviously, that is still a work in progress and the sector is being consulted.

Have I answered all my hon. Friend’s questions? He is welcome to intervene if I have missed anything.

[Kevin Foster]

The Minister is being very generous in inviting interventions. He will know that I sometimes hear with interest the words “in due course”—they are commonly used, and it is amazing what they can cover. Can he give me a flavour of any timelines that have been set for work on the response? For example, is he aiming to publish it by the summer? I hear what he says about training, and academic years are obviously vital in that area with new trainees starting each September, so has he set himself a particular timeline for the work to be done, to allow him to respond in due course?

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. The Criminal Legal Aid Advisory Board does not work to my timeline, but I will contact Her Honour Deborah Taylor to see whether she can share a timeline for when at least some initial thoughts, if not a final report, will be made available.

We have a shared aim of achieving a system that fairly reflects the work of our excellent legal professionals and sustains criminal legal aid well into the future. We appreciate that the system is under pressure, and we want to ensure that it is robust and that people have access to justice. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate and to the points raised by my hon. Friend. I hope that he has found my answers at least helpful and informative.

Question put and agreed to.

Presumption of Parental Involvement in Child Arrangements

Mike Freer Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Kniveton) on securing this important debate. I sincerely commend the bravery she has shown by sharing her story and using her experience to support others in similar circumstances. I often find that the House is at its best when colleagues from across the House use their own personal experience to help shape legislation and improve things for those who follow them.

I apologise if some of what I have to say will sound rather cold and clinical, but, sadly, the law is not always warm and friendly, as much as we would like it to be. I will come on to the presumption of parental involvement, but I wish to begin by saying that the acts of abuse perpetrated by the ex-partner of my hon. Friend were clearly and totally abhorrent.

Sadly, the frequency and intensity of violence, psychological abuse, sexual assault, and other types of domestic abuse within households is the horrific reality for too many people in this country, and particularly—although not exclusively—for women and girls. The Government, including myself and my noble Friend Lord Bellamy, are committed to taking every possible action to stop this, and to allowing victims of abuse and their children to live free of the fear and harm inflicted by their abusers.

When such cases come to the family court, the Government are dedicated to ensuring that the court can identify and safeguard both children and parents against such abuse. When the court makes a decision that affects a child, the involvement of parents is often a factor. However, it is the welfare of the child that is the court’s utmost priority in every case. That principle, of the paramountcy of the child’s welfare, is what underpins the Children Act 1989.

The court does seek to protect the adults in a child’s life from harm; for cases involving domestic abuse, the provisions of this are also enshrined in our laws and rules of court. For example, the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 prevents cross-examination of victims by perpetrators and requires rules of court to be made about special measures for victims, such as screens to prevent them from seeing the perpetrator in court.

In family courts, practice direction 12J, as my hon. Friend mentioned, notes that the court must be satisfied that any order does not expose either the child or parent to a risk of further harm. Therefore, while the welfare of the child is absolutely paramount, the welfare of parent victims is an equally important consideration of the family court and of the Government.

Moving on to the presumption of parental involvement itself, the Government are very mindful of the need to ensure that, where it is safe, a child should benefit from the involvement of both parents in their lives, but I do stress that it is only where it is safe to do so.

The aim of the introduction of the statutory presumption in 2014 was to codify decades of existing case law and international commitments, and to place in law a process whereby the potential risk posed by a parent is fully considered, and only subsequently is their involvement in a child’s life considered.

The presumption is therefore designed to achieve two vitally important aims: to ensure that, when safe, children are able to maintain some form of relationship with both their parents, even after they separate; and to ensure that parents who may subject their child or ex-partner to the dangerous and despicable behaviours inherent in domestic abuse are prevented from involvement in their children’s lives. In the example given by my hon. Friend of the serious and horrific cases involving sexual abuse, let me tell her that when the parents in these cases present a risk of harm to their child, they should not be granted involvement in their life.

My hon. Friend has also raised the terrible circumstances in which one parent has murdered the other. We have amended the Victims and Prisoners Bill, so that parents who kill a partner or ex-partner with whom they have children will have their parental responsibility suspended upon sentencing. We are carefully considering options for strengthening the safeguards and procedures already in place to ensure that the family courts can properly protect children.

Ensuring that the survivors of domestic abuse are fully protected by the family court remains a priority for this Government. In 2019, the Ministry of Justice commissioned a review of how the risk of harm to children and parents was assessed in private family law—most commonly known as the harm panel report, to which my hon. Friend referred. Following the recommendations of the panel, we commissioned a further review of how the presumption of parental involvement was being applied in the family courts. I know that my hon. Friend, like several others in this House, has expressed concern over the time taken to complete the review. I can put on record that Ministers in the Department share that frustration of how long it has taken to bring forward our response.

As my hon. Friend said, the delay is, in part, due to covid making it difficult to conduct research, particularly in terms of accessing physical court files, and the challenges in accessing court documents that are in a useable format. However, I am delighted to be able to confirm that the review and the accompanying Government response into the presumption of parental involvement will in fact be published by late spring or early summer of this year. I hope that provides some reassurance that we at least have a slightly firmer date coming forward.

Again, I reassure my hon. Friend that Ministers are equally frustrated. We will bring the response forward. I assure her that the Ministry of Justice is giving full consideration to the literature review of the academic evidence, the sessions conducted with parents who have been through the family courts, the individual case file analysis, the contributions from stakeholders, and the feedback from the advisory board, which was established to ensure that we have drawn upon its expertise in working with victims and children.

The challenge of striking the right, careful balance between addressing the future risk to the child, and to the other parent, and the benefits of having two parents actively involved in the child’s life is one that has occupied Parliament, the judiciary and wider society for decades. It is crucial that, in setting out next steps from the review, we consider the full range of reforms at our disposal to manage the challenge. We must ensure that the understanding of the elements of risk and the best interests of the child in these cases is always clear, and that the balance of those elements is struck correctly.

Let me reiterate a few things that the Government have done to ensure that the child is at the centre, and that the family court system continues to reform and to be fit for purpose, ensuring that parents, and especially children, are protected. Last week, the Chancellor announced an additional £55 million for the family courts. A key element of that funding package is the commitment to funding the roll-out of the pathfinder court approach, which provides a more investigative approach to private law proceedings, with increased support for parties. The pilots engage domestic abuse agencies early on in proceedings to ensure that both parents and children are receiving the support and advice that they need. The approach also ensures that the needs and voice of the child are central to proceedings. That is achieved through detailed investigation into each individual child’s welfare and wishes early on in each case.

The pathfinder courts are currently operating in Dorset and north Wales, and expanding to Birmingham and south-east Wales in a matter of weeks. The additional funding will mean that many more families will benefit from the positive impacts of the model, with the roll-out of the pathfinder model across England and Wales happening as quickly as possible. The additional funding will also result in the creation of a new authoritative online support and advice service for separating parents, and the piloting of free early legal advice for those considering court to resolve their issues.

Over the past 13 years, we have also significantly increased the funding for independent domestic violence advisers, known as IDVAs, and independent sexual violence advisers, known as ISVAs, to support victims going through the family court. We have brought 43% more of those vital professionals into post from 2009-2010 to 2023, with the Ministry of Justice increasing IDVA and ISVA spending by over four times what it was in 2009-2010. Since November 2023, we have also increased our investment by £1.2 million over two years.

Rather than read out many more statistics, let me address one of the issues that my hon. Friend raised, which was the cost—the financial cost, let alone the mental cost. That is why we have been reforming the access to legal aid for victims of domestic abuse. Recently, we have changed the thresholds for income and capital; introduced a new lone parent allowance; created a mandatory disregard of inaccessible capital from the means assessment; removed the cap on the value of capital assets that are not considered in the means test assessment when they are disputed assets; and extended the equity disregard to apply to those who are forced to flee their homes. That will prevent victims who may be on a low income from having to sell their homes.

I share the frustration of my hon. Friend, and I have to say that her story and her campaigning have been incredibly moving. I hope that this Government will be able to address her concerns in the coming months, when we finally publish our response to the report.

Those who have perpetrated abuse against their partner or ex-partner should absolutely feel the consequences of that action. Our reforms of the family courts will continue to increase the support for survivors of domestic abuse and will aim to ensure that parents and children are protected against the abhorrent crime of domestic abuse.

Finally, I thank my hon. Friend once again for securing this debate to examine the issues. I hope that we have gone some way towards explaining how seriously the Government consider them and how seriously we are committed to bringing forward our response in the next few months.

Question put and agreed to.

Community and Suspended Sentences (Notification of Details) Bill

Mike Freer Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 23rd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)]

I thank the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) for bringing forward the Bill. I am grateful for the support of the Opposition. I will address some of the comments that the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) made, although I do not necessarily agree with his characterisation of the probation service.

Let me start with the main thrust of the Bill. It will place a new duty on offenders who are serving a sentence in the community, and who are being supervised by a probation or youth offending team, requiring them to inform the responsible officer if they begin using a different name or change their contact information, including telephone number or email address. We have a separate youth justice system, but it is of equal if not greater importance that youth offending teams are able to keep tabs on children and have the right information about them to do their job. We welcome the fact that this policy applies equally to offenders of all ages, and will create consistency across offenders on licence and offenders serving sentences in the community who are overseen by probation services or youth offending teams.

The offender will be required to comply with the requirement while their order is in effect and has not been revoked or discharged. For suspended sentence orders, the requirement will last for the period for which the offender must keep in touch with probation. For offenders serving community orders, youth rehabilitation orders and referral orders, the requirement will last for the whole duration of the order, while the offender is supervised by probation or their youth offending team, until the end date set by the court is reached, or the order is otherwise terminated.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent judiciary, and the courts have a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders. They can impose discharges, fines, community sentences, suspended sentences and imprisonment. This Government are clear that delivering public protection means imposing custodial sentences when the offence is so serious that custody is justified. It is worth noting, however, that even when that threshold is met, the court should consider whether a community sentence would be more suitable in a particular case. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) talked about some of the challenges on the women’s prison estate, including the prison’s distance from home. Clearly, that is a factor that the judiciary can take into account.

My hon. Friend also mentioned Clare’s law. My understanding is that the Bill does cover those covered by that law, but I will double check, so that I do not mislead her or the House. I will write to her and place a copy of the letter in the House of Commons Library.

In many cases, there is persuasive evidence that suspended and community sentences can be more effective than short custodial sentences in reducing reoffending. More than half of people given a custodial sentence of less than 12 months reoffend within a year. For offenders punished with suspended sentence orders that are served in the community, the reoffending rate is much lower. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) was making that point when he said that sometimes prison does not work and, in fact, makes things worse.

Under our sentencing framework, there is the flexibility to choose from and balance a range of community-based requirements, such as unpaid work, drug and alcohol treatments, curfews and electronic monitoring, with the intent of punishing the offender, ensuring reparation to the community, and addressing any criminogenic—that is a new word for me—or rehabilitative needs of the offender that might give rise to an increased likelihood of reoffending. Rigorous community offender management is vital to build confidence in the orders made, and to deliver effective rehabilitation while keeping the public safe.

The shadow Minister mentioned the probation service. I can reassure him that we share his commitment to making sure that the probation service is effective and is funded appropriately. We value its work, which is why we are investing an additional £155 million a year in the service, so that it can recruit record levels of staff, and are investing up to £93 million in community payback as a way of complimenting that. I would like to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), who raised the same points. In December 2023, recruitment numbers for band 4 probation officers were up 6.3 % on the previous year, and the numbers for band 3 probation officers were up 2.1% over the same period. We are confident that our probation service can deal with this issue.

However, I must point out that in the Bill, the duty is on the offender, not the probation service. Colleagues will see the words “duty of offender” repeated throughout the Bill. It is loud and clear that it is the responsibility of the offender to comply, and if they do not, they will have to bear the consequences.

As well as the investment in the probation service, there has been £532 million invested through the Department of Health and Social Care to increase substance misuse treatment provision in all local authorities in England. Of course, that will be devolved in Wales. Dedicated criminal justice staff have been recruited to increase the quality of treatment and assessment delivery. We believe that this approach dovetails with ensuring that community sentences support people with other issues.

The effectiveness of community sentences relies on probation and youth offending teams being able to manage offenders in the community successfully. That means having the right information about them. We agree that the Bill helps to strengthen the means that probation and youth offending team services have at their disposal to monitor offenders, but I reiterate that in the Bill, the duty rests with the offender. The Bill builds on secondary legislation passed in 2022, requiring offenders on licence to inform their probation officer if they change their name or contact details. We welcome the Bill from the hon. Member for Newport West, and we will continue to do all we can to assist its passage. In my view, these provisions are robust, and while the name or contact details change could be for valid reasons, they require any difference from what is being kept on file to be reported. They capture not just formal, legal changes of name by deed poll, but—for example—the use of an online alias, another issue that my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk highlighted.

As I have set out, we recognise the importance of ensuring that the public are protected, that rehabilitation can be effective, and that there is confidence in non-custodial sentences. That means ensuring that offenders managed in the community are being properly monitored by the probation service, with the ability for that service to take robust enforcement action where necessary. We agree that this Bill will make sure that our probation and youth offending teams undertake that monitoring effectively by ensuring that, while an offender is serving a sentence in the community, the responsible officer has the information that they need to keep tabs on that individual.

I will end by again congratulating the hon. Member for Newport West on bringing this Bill before the House. I am grateful to the official Opposition for their support of the Bill, and I place on record my thanks to the officials at the Ministry of Justice for assisting the hon. Lady in drafting it.