Thursday 19th June 2025
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Courts Bill 2024-26 View all Victims and Courts Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Amendments as at 19 June 2025 - (19 Jun 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 3, page 7, line 4, leave out from “and” to end of line 9.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 22.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 7, line 14, leave out from “and” to end of line 16.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 22.
Amendment 22, in clause 3, page 7, leave out line 20.
This amendment, along with Amendments 20 and 21, would ensure that there has to be a review by the family court in all instances where a prohibited steps order is issued.
Dr Mullan
We return to consider the measures on parental responsibility. There was significant debate in our earlier sitting on the need to balance the measures, and the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats both moved amendments to widen the Bill’s scope in ways that I think would have been proportionate and necessary to secure the maximum possible benefit from a novel measure to protect children from people who would not ordinarily be able to exercise their parental responsibility.
The debate was about the need for balance, which is why, at the same time as seeking to widen the scope of the measure, we want to secure balance by making amendments to ensure that the family court has a bigger role to play where we introduce automatic powers for taking this through the family court.
Under the Bill as drafted, a review by the family court is required only if an offender is acquitted or if their sentence is reduced to below a life sentence or a term of four years or more. The amendment deletes those conditions by removing proposed new section 10D(1)(b), which limits review to the specific appellant outcomes I have described.
We believe that automaticity, while preferable to the risk of inaction in relation to children, should be enhanced with a considered approach—when time allows—to taking the necessary protective steps. The amendment would ultimately require such orders to be reviewed on their own merit, in a family court, with children’s welfare as the guiding principle. Our amendments would ensure that the safeguarding lens of the family court is engaged in all cases, not just in those that meet certain technical thresholds. This morning, the Minister was keen to emphasise the novelty of these measures, as well as the importance of the family court in considering these issues more widely.
Our amendment would help to ensure that those correctly put points are enacted more consistently than they currently will be. An automatic power, while important, will inevitably have limitations in understanding the specific circumstances of each case. I have spoken to experts in this area, and they highlighted the rare but compelling cases where, despite one parent being convicted of a very serious offence, there may be similar safeguarding concerns about the other parent. Where parental responsibility is removed in one case, it might be left to a single person whom the family court might also consider inappropriate, in isolation, to be exercising parental responsibility.
As unusual as they might sound, I understand that those scenarios sometimes occur. That is why family court practitioners are concerned about the automatic suspension of parental responsibility. Our amendments are designed to counterbalance those concerns and give greater strength to the desire of both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats in broadening the scope of automaticity with a stronger safeguard for those exceptional circumstances where, at times, it might not be considered the best approach.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The amendment seeks to insert a requirement for the family court to consider every prohibited steps order made under clause 3. The shadow Minister’s intention in moving the amendment is noble. However, the Government must ensure that we are acting in the best interests of all children, and there are several reasons why this amendment cannot be accepted.
First, we must protect the children and families in these horrific circumstances from unnecessary procedural burdens, particularly when there is no challenge to an order by the parties involved. Under clause 3, the prohibited steps order will have been made because an offender has been convicted of serious child sexual abuse offences against a child for whom they hold parental responsibility. For the child, that means that the very person who was supposed to protect them has committed some of the most heinous acts of abuse against them.
In such cases, we believe it is right that a prohibited steps order is made automatically, and that it would not be in the best interests of the child or their siblings for their abuser to continue exercising parental responsibility. However, we have provided flexibility for cases to be considered by the family court, where there is an application to do so.
This amendment would require the victim and their family to go through another set of potentially traumatic legal proceedings after the criminal case has concluded. This would prevent them from moving on with their lives, and we do not want to put that burden on victims and their families at what will already be an incredibly difficult time. We think it is right that, instead of mandating further consideration in the family court, the offender and others should apply to the family court to vary or discharge an order.
Furthermore, we must consider the impact this amendment would have on other, unconnected children already involved in family court proceedings. The family court makes difficult decisions about some of the most vulnerable children in our society every single day. This amendment would increase the caseload in the family court and would undoubtedly impact on the time it takes to resolve cases. Every member of this Committee will have constituency casework involving the family court, and we do not wish to add to its caseload. It is important that the family court can resolve cases as quickly as possible, and the Government do not want to add to the volume of cases in the system, unless it is absolutely necessary.
Finally, the amendment has inconsistencies that would create difficulties in its application. It maintains the definition of “local authority” as the relevant local authority at the time the verdict of acquittal is entered or the sentence is reduced. As drafted, the amendment leaves open questions as to who the relevant local authority is in cases where no appeal has been made. This would place an additional burden on the Crown court to ascertain who the relevant local authority is and would risk the measure being applied inconsistently.
The good intentions behind this amendment are clear. We all want to ensure that children and their welfare are protected. However, this amendment is not the way to do that. For the reasons I have outlined, we do not think that mandating a family court review is the right approach in these cases, and I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Mullan
I would like to make two points. First, on the drafting, I appreciate that the Government are ultimately responsible for the wording of legislation, but I gently say that perhaps the Minister might review this with her officials. The wording of the amendment was taken from the previously approved drafting of a similar measure in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which was introduced by the last Government, so there must have been a change of heart in the official advice to the Minister.
On the issue of substance, perhaps the Minister will elaborate on a compromise outside the Committee. These are new and novel measures, and undoubtedly there will be guidance for local authorities when they come into force. The Opposition would be reassured if the Minister committed to ensuring that the guidance highlights to local authorities the importance of carefully considering their role in seeking further review of a case, outside the limited scope of the legislation, in circumstances where parental responsibility is removed through an order. Local authorities will perhaps be in a better position to judge whether leaving someone with sole parental responsibility might not be the ideal scenario.
The Minister will not have a chance to respond, but I would be grateful if she could assure me, perhaps outside in the Committee corridor, that the guidance will be absolutely clear on the burden that will be placed on local authorities, as well as on the importance of local authorities acting swiftly. An automatic order is not necessarily in the best interests of children in all circumstances, when considering the wider factors.
I will not press the amendment to a vote, as I take it in good faith that the Minister will at least have a further discussion with me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 1.
Clause 4 stand part.
Alex Davies-Jones
We have already debated these clauses at length. I do not wish to labour the Committee or subject it to my voice any longer than necessary. The spirit of the clauses has been debated on the record.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Victims’ rights to make representations and receive information etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 2.
New clause 11—Extension of Victim Contact Scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that the Victim Contact Scheme is made available to—
(a) victims of offenders sentenced to less than 12 months for violent and sexual offences,
(b) victims in cases involving coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking, or harassment, and
(c) bereaved families in manslaughter or death by dangerous driving cases.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that information under the Victim Contact Scheme is communicated in a timely and trauma-informed manner.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish data each year on uptake and accessibility of the Victim Contact Scheme.”
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for tabling new clause 11, which would expand eligibility for the victim contact scheme, ensure timely and sensitive communication under the scheme, and require the Secretary of State to publish a report covering key data on the scheme. I am pleased to reassure him that victims of coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking and harassment will already be eligible for the new victim contact scheme, regardless of sentence length. I am also pleased to say that bereaved families whose loved ones have died as a result of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving will also be eligible for the scheme where the offender has received a sentence of 12 months or more.
I wholeheartedly agree that victims of violent, sexual and dangerous driving offences that have resulted in a sentence of less than 12 months should also have a clear route to request and receive information about their offender. That is why the Bill guarantees that these cohorts can request information through a new dedicated victim helpline, and where appropriate, they will receive the information. We think this is the right approach. It targets resources and delivers proactive contact through the victim contact scheme to those who need the information most, while still providing a new dedicated helpline for all victims to request information.
Turning to the second part of the new clause, the hon. Member for Eastbourne is right that victims deserve timely communication that is sensitive to their needs, but this is properly a matter of guidance and practice, not primary legislation. The upcoming consultation on the victims code offers an opportunity to consider how we can improve the delivery of the victim contact scheme, and I would welcome all Members’ engagement with that consultation once it launches.
Dr Mullan
As the Minister outlined, we are discussing changes primarily to the victim contact scheme and victim helpline. We supported the operation of those services in Government, and it is perfectly in order for the Government to seek to expand them further. But, during the Committee evidence sessions, the Minister will have noted the questions about the resources available to individuals for accessing those services. I note that the witnesses from HM Prison and Probation Service and others felt that there were the necessary resources, or at least that the impact of the expansion on the resource requirements would not be particularly significant, but I would welcome the Minister assuring the Committee that she has done the due diligence necessary to ensure that we do not raise expectations in those expansions and additions to victim support services that are not realised.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to reassure the hon. Member on that point. These provisions have been drafted in consultation with colleagues, including from HMPPS, to ensure that we have the necessary resources. He will know that we have provided additional funding for the new helpline, and for the additional resources required to expand the victim contact scheme. That is all laid out in the economic impact assessment of the legislation. We will, of course, keep it under review to ensure that adequate resources are available to support victims, and give them the communication that they require.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 11 would give access to the victim contact scheme for victims of violent and sexual offences where the offender is sentenced to less than 12 months. I think the Minister said that such access is included under the provisions of the Bill.
The new clause also mentions access for
“victims in cases involving coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking, or harassment and…death by dangerous driving”.
Caroline Voaden
I thank the Minister for clarifying that. New clause 11 would also require the Government to produce annual reports on the uptake and accessibility of the scheme, increasing transparency and accountability. We believe that it is important to know who is using the scheme so that we can know who is not accessing it. That will help us to improve the scheme, and to widen access to those victims who, for whatever reason, have not heard about the scheme or managed to access it.
On the training for the people managing and running the helpline, could the Minister give me some reassurance that there is funding and capacity available to give adequate training in gender-based violence and the effects of stalking and sexual violence on people, and particularly women, who may be quite scared about the potential release of an offender and what that means?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for those questions. I can happily and wholeheartedly reassure her on the last point. She will have heard the evidence given the Committee by colleagues in the Probation Service, who were quite forthright about the trauma-informed training provided to call handlers, which is so vital in such cases. They are well used to that, and we have provided additional funding and resources to enable training to continue so that they are well equipped to deal with the increased caseload that the expansion of the scheme and the new helpline will provide. On the annual report, the hon. Lady will have heard me say that there is a duty under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 to provide an annual report on victims code compliance. The victims code includes the right to information—the right to be notified—so that will be included in the compliance report.
However, I take on board the hon. Lady’s comments about the need to make sure that victims are aware of the scheme, and that they are able to apply to it. All that will be brought into the victims code consultation that we will take forward later this year, to ensure that we bring more victims up to speed on what their rights are and what they are entitled to under the criminal justice system. We have a long way to go to ensure that victims are aware of their rights on the whole—not just rights to communication and contact.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 6
Commissioner’s power to act in individual cases relevant to public policy
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
The next three clauses of the Bill, clauses 6 to 8, pertain to increasing the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. In 2024, the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act strengthened the role of the Victims’ Commissioner. Among other measures, it placed a duty on relevant bodies to co-operate with the Commissioner’s requests and respond to their recommendations. The Government’s manifesto committed to build on those powers, providing the Victims’ Commissioner with the full suite of tools to drive systemic change. These clauses deliver on that manifesto commitment.
I take this opportunity to thank the Victims’ Commissioner, Baroness Newlove, for her engagement on these clauses and on the vital work she does every single day to support victims and witnesses. The Victims’ Commissioner’s role is fundamental to appropriate scrutiny of, and accountability for, the systems that support victims and of the criminal justice system. The clauses on the Victims’ Commissioner empower the commissioner better to hold the system to account. They are an important step towards building victims’ confidence in the system and rebuilding their trust. They will ensure that victims’ voices are heard and that the system that supports victims of crime and of antisocial behaviour are held to the same standards, and are effectively and thoroughly scrutinised.
Clause 6 bolsters the Victims’ Commissioner’s ability to promote the interests of victims and witnesses by giving them a legislative foundation to act on individual cases, which expose systemic failure. Individuals’ lived experiences offer invaluable insights into how the system delivers for victims. Existing legislation lacks clarity on the extent to which the commissioner can act explicitly within the parameters of her existing functions in those individual cases.
The clause makes it clear that the Victims’ Commissioner can choose to act on individual cases and where such cases raise public policy issues. That will promote the interests of other victims and witnesses who may face similar systemic problems. In practical terms, therefore, if the commissioner identifies an issue or a failure—such as a policy not being followed, or the absence of a relevant policy—that may have wider implications for other victims, she may request information from the relevant agencies. That could include an explanation of what went wrong and the steps being taken to address that, and recommendations on how improvements can be made across the system.
To achieve that, the element of the legislative bar preventing the commissioner’s involvement in individual cases will be amended. Other elements of the bar will remain the same, including the preservation of the existing restrictions on the commissioner interfering with certain proceedings and with prosecutorial or judicial functions. The clause will enable the Victims’ Commissioner better to promote the interests of victims and witnesses on the issues that impact on them directly.
Dr Mullan
Again, the role and importance of the Victims’ Commissioner was something that we supported, reformed and strengthened during our time in Government, as the Minister highlighted. I too pay tribute to Baroness Newlove, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting on a number of occasions to discuss a whole variety of issues related to victims. She brings her incredible experience—and that of her wider family, who have their own perspectives —to so many different issues. I welcome measures that seek to strengthen her role.
I only have one question for the Minister. The new power will sit within a number of bodies—the ombudsman and others—who have roles to play. I am sure that Baroness Newlove and her successor will be forceful and proactive in helping to understand how the powers sit within those remits. Nevertheless, the Government and the Ministry of Justice have a convening and overarching role to ensure that, with all the different parties, the new power and the new individual approach do not confuse victims and that it is clear to everyone what the new Victims’ Commissioner role will or will not involve. Co-operation with others will be necessary to pick up cases that might need that. I will be grateful to the Minister for assurance that the MOJ is sighted of that issue, of ensuring that there is not confusion across the patch.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to clarify that the powers in the Bill that we are extending to the Victims’ Commissioner to allow that measure to take place will bring them in line with other commissioners, such as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Children’s Commissioner, which do those functions and operate well across different agencies. Therefore, it is just a matter of replicating the powers of the Children’s and the Domestic Abuse Commissioners, and how they work in those other jurisdictions. I take that on board.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Duty to co-operate with Commissioner: anti-social behaviour
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
The clause places a duty on local authorities and social housing providers, where they are engaged with victims of antisocial behaviour, to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. Antisocial behaviour is more than merely a nuisance. It can erode personal freedom, harm mental wellbeing and, ultimately, shatter the feeling of safety and belonging that defines a home.
Antisocial behaviour is not, however, always a criminal justice issue. Local authorities and social housing providers often play a key role in supporting victims and in finding a resolution. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 introduced a duty for certain criminal justice agencies responsible for providing those victims code services to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. That duty does not apply to local authorities or social housing providers, so there is a gap in terms of ensuring that the commissioner has the tools to do their job effectively for victims of antisocial behaviour. This duty will close that gap and ensure that the commissioner is able to access the right information to identify the systemic issues, make more informed recommendations and scrutinise how the system as a whole responds to antisocial behaviour from a victim’s perspective.
Dr Mullan
Everybody in the Committee today will be familiar with the importance of engaging with local authorities and social housing providers in relation to antisocial behaviour. We will all have seen examples of good work and proactive local authorities and social housing providers, but we have almost certainly also seen examples of where they do not do the basics that we might expect for our constituents as residents of their housing. We therefore welcome the expansion of the role of the Victims’ Commissioner into this area.
My question is about understanding the different roles that agencies will have. First, what discussions did the Minister have with her colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government about ensuring that local authorities are minded and sighted to these changes, as well as on how they will operate and play their convening role when it comes to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the regulators of social housing.
I am sure the Victims’ Commissioner will do their own work and engagement, but the MHCLG and the MOJ will have an important role ensuring that all stakeholders understand and co-operate to make the most of these new powers, for the benefit of all our constituents who experience antisocial behaviour in local authority and social housing.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. He will know that MHCLG already has a legal duty to respond to recommendations in the commissioner’s reports when relating to some of these measures, so it will feed into that more systemically as a result of these new powers. This Government are not legislating in a vacuum; the new powers in this Bill sit alongside and complement the new measures in the Crime and Policing Bill currently before the House, particularly the duty to create the new antisocial behaviour case reviews.
It is really important that we do not legislate in a vacuum. That is something that has been done previously, but this Government are taking a different approach, looking at how we can tackle issues across Government. We have made these Bills complementary because, in order to solve these problems, we have to do things together across Government and across different agencies. That is why colleagues across Government and from different Departments, including MHCLG and the Home Office, have been carefully involved in the creation of these new powers.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Duty of Commissioner to report on compliance with victims code
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 8 requires the Victims’ Commissioner to produce an annual report to Ministers that will provide an independent assessment of compliance with the victims code. The code sets out the minimum level of service that victims should receive from the criminal justice system in England and Wales. It is part of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role and core functions to keep the code’s operation under review.
The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 contained a new code compliance framework that will require criminal justice bodies to provide Ministers with data demonstrating how they are complying with the code, but that measure lacked independent oversight and scrutiny. In recognition of the role of the Victims’ Commissioner in keeping the operation of the code under review, this measure will place a duty on them to produce their own independent assessment of code compliance. The measure will strengthen their role within the code compliance framework and enhance independent and victim-focused scrutiny of code compliance, with the aim of improving the service that victims receive from criminal justice bodies.
The report will also form a key part of the evidence that informs the ministerial annual report on code compliance. Once the code compliance framework is in force, Ministers will be under a statutory duty to have regard to the new report from the Victims’ Commissioner when preparing their own. As a result, we are removing the existing duty on Ministers to consult the commissioner during the preparation of their annual report, as previously set out in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The Victims’ Commissioner will also be able to use this report to make recommendations to authorities within their remit, to which those authorities will be required to respond, helping to drive up compliance with the code. As a result, I urge that clause 8 stand part of the Bill.
Dr Mullan
As we have come to the conclusion of the clauses relating to these powers, I thought I might bring Baroness Newlove into the room and quote her view overall on the measures that we are passing. She says:
“These important and welcome reforms give the Victims’ Commissioner the statutory powers needed to deliver on the role’s promise: championing victims’ rights, scrutinising compliance with the Victims code, holding agencies to account, and spotlighting the true victim experience to drive meaningful change. This marks a step towards a more accountable system that puts victims first.”
The measures have also been welcomed by SafeLives, Green & Burton ASB Associates and Victim Support, which we heard from during evidence sessions earlier in the week. Therefore we do not intend to oppose this final measure of the three; as I say, they all reflect our long-standing commitment over 14 years in government to the role of the Victims’ Commissioner, which we sought to enhance over time. Of course, as I said, it is right for this Government to think further about other changes that can be made for the benefit of victims.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Appointment of Crown Prosecutors
Alex Davies-Jones
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 9, page 11, line 4, leave out “persons” and insert “a person”.
This amendment and Amendments 2 to 7 ensure that exemptions conferred by sections 1 and 5 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 remain available to persons with rights of audience in relation to certain proceedings in the Senior Courts and all proceedings in the county court and magistrates’ court.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 2 to 7.
Clause stand part.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is vital to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service can recruit and retain sufficient qualified Crown prosecutors. Clause 9 supports that aim by increasing CPS recruitment flexibility through the removal of an unnecessary legislative barrier. In turn, this will help to increase the pool of eligible candidates for appointment as Crown prosecutors.
Currently, the CPS is restricted as to whom it can appoint as Crown prosecutors, because of an unnecessary legal requirement. That legislative barrier, set out in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, provides that Crown prosecutors and those who prosecute cases on behalf of the CPS must hold a general qualification. That definition excludes certain legal professionals, including most Chartered Institute of Legal Executives—CILEX—criminal practitioners. Those legal professionals hold the right skills and the specialist qualifications required to perform the Crown prosecutor role, including rights of audience, but they do not meet the “general qualification” criterion. That restriction limits the Director of Public Prosecutions’ ability to consider a wider pool of legal talent. It also reduces the CPS’s flexibility in managing existing and future recruitment challenges.
The purpose of clause 9 is to remove the requirement for a general qualification under sections 1(3) and 5(1) of the 1985 Act. In so doing, it gives the Director of Public Prosecutions the discretion to appoint appropriately qualified legal professionals, such as CILEX practitioners, as Crown prosecutors for the CPS. It is important to stress that the removal of the “general qualification” criterion does not change the reality that prospective applicants must hold the necessary practice rights and meet the required competency standards in order to become Crown prosecutors. Rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation also remain protected as reserved legal activities under the Legal Services Act 2007.
This change reflects the modern legal services landscape. Alternative routes to qualification are increasingly common and professionals from non-traditional backgrounds play a growing role in the justice system. By removing the unnecessary legislative barrier, the clause also supports the recruitment of a more diverse and representative cohort of Crown prosecutors. The measure does not require the CPS to appoint any specific type of legal professional; however, it gives it the flexibility to do so where appropriate and ensures that recruitment decisions remain firmly within the Director of Public Prosecutions’ control.
Government amendments 1 to 7 are technical amendments to address an unintended consequence arising from the previous drafting of the removal of the statutory exemptions in the 1985 Act—it happens to the best of us, Mr Stringer. Although the policy aim was to ensure that only suitably qualified individuals could act as Crown prosecutors, we have since identified that many existing CPS barristers currently rely on the statutory exemption in section 1(6) of the Act to conduct litigation without separate authorisation from the Bar Standards Board. That exemption is appropriate, because those barristers act under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions when conducting litigation. The amendments ensure that the exemption remains in place, preserving the status quo for those who already rely on it, while removing it for other legal professionals, who do not meet the relevant qualification requirement but are now eligible to be designated as Crown prosecutors. This approach avoids unintended barriers for those barristers, supports the CPS’s operational needs and maintains the policy intent of enabling a broader, properly qualified pool of Crown prosecutors.
The amendments will ensure that the clause operates as intended, broadening access to the CP roles while maintaining appropriate safeguards and supporting the CPS to meet its recruitment needs effectively. I commend the provisions to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
The Opposition recognise that flexibility in how we decide which professionals can perform important functions in our criminal justice system is important, and we do not object to the widening of the scope, for example by including CILEX members. However, the Minister will know that it has not been universally welcomed. In particular, former Director of Public Prosecutions Lord Macdonald described it as a
“cost cutting measure rather than a measure designed to improve the quality of justice”.
We will not oppose the measure, but given the significant expansion of the professionals involved, what plans do the Government have to review the impact of the change to ensure that there have not been any unintended consequences? It would reassure not just the Opposition but wider stakeholders if the Government kept a close eye on the measure and formally reviewed its implementation.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will happily reassure the Committee that the measures will not reduce professional standards in any way. As I have said, they will simply remove unnecessary barriers that prevent qualified individuals from becoming Crown prosecutors. We are all aware, sadly, of the issues with backlogs in our Crown courts and cases waiting a long time to get to trial. Part of the reason for that is recruitment challenges in the CPS.
I respectfully challenge the comments from the previous DPP. The measures are not a cost-cutting exercise. They are about ensuring that we have the broadest level of talent while maintaining the highest professional standards, so that more victims see justice and more perpetrators are held to account for their crimes.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments made: 2, in clause 9, page 11, line 5, after “subsection (3)” insert
“who does not have a general qualification (within the meaning given by section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 11, line 11, leave out
“persons designated for the purposes of subsection (3)”
and insert “such a person”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 11, line 19, after “omit ’” insert “but”.
This amendment updates the text to be omitted from section 5(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 so that the provision reads correctly in light of the amendment to that provision currently included in the Bill.
Amendment 5, in clause 9, page 11, line 22, leave out “persons” and insert “a person”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 6, in clause 9, page 11, line 23, after “subsection (1)” insert
“who does not have a general qualification (within the meaning given by section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 7, in clause 9, page 11, line 29, leave out
“persons appointed under subsection (1)”
and insert “such a person”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Private prosecutions: regulations about costs payable out of central funds
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
In 2020, the Justice Committee carried out an inquiry into the private prosecution sector, resulting in the publication of a report, “Private prosecutions: safeguards”, on 2 October that year. I thank it for its diligent work and carefully considered recommendations. It made a number of recommendations to address the systemic issues highlighted by the Post Office Horizon scandal, and the Ministry of Justice has recently concluded a separate public consultation on the regulation and oversight of private prosecutors more generally. We are carefully considering the responses to that consultation, and will in due course publish a Government response on the steps we are taking to improve practice in the private prosecutorial landscape, including legislation if necessary.
Separately, the Justice Committee made a recommendation about the costs recoverable from central funds by private prosecutors. It found that there is a disparity between the compensation available to a private prosecutor seeking to recover their expenses from public funds and a defence practitioner whose client is in receipt of legal aid. A private prosecutor can apply to the court for an order of payment from central funds of an amount that offers reasonably sufficient compensation for their expenses. However, there is little clarity about what constitutes reasonable sufficiency and, as a result, cost orders for private prosecutors tend to be at least five times higher than the rates available to legal aid lawyers, often for acting in the same cases.
The Select Committee referred to evidence that the current cost regime for private prosecutions may give rise to perverse financial incentives, which are unlikely to lead to a just system. The Committee therefore recommended that the Government should review the funding arrangements for private prosecutions to reduce the disparity between payment rates for claims made by private prosecutors and defendants from central funds.
Dr Mullan
I am pleased to say that I was a member of the Select Committee, and I sat on that inquiry and signed off its recommendations. The issue of costs was particularly pertinent to me at the time. I welcome the commitment to extensive consultation, because while the Select Committee absolutely recognised the growing disparity between costs restrictions in non-private prosecutions and private prosecutions, we heard that that was still an important route to justice for some people and we would not want to overly restrict it, so the rate at which costs restrictions are set and the process for that will be important.
The rest of my remarks relate to what the Government are not doing. I note the Minister’s commitment to considering further changes, but she will know that opportunities to legislate do not always come along when we might want them to. Of course, the Government have committed to legislating later in the year on sentencing, and they will almost certainly be legislating on court reform, following Brian Leveson’s review. That is a hefty timetable of legislation in the increasingly short time available in this Parliament, so it may well be that there are not future opportunities to legislate in this important area.
I am sure that all hon. Members are familiar with just how badly private prosecutions can go wrong for some people, particularly in relation to the Post Office Horizon scandal. While there was some CPS involvement in some of those prosecutions, the majority of them were private prosecutions, and we all know the devastating consequences of some of them. We are yet to see whether criminal proceedings might flow from the inquiry, and the extent to which misconduct may have taken place. That is why, as part of our report, the Committee called for regulation of private prosecutions to bring them in line with the ordinary expectations we have of the good practice of the CPS—they really should not be any different.
I would like to hear from the Minister a clear commitment, rather than a generic assurance, and a timetable, during this Parliament, for when the Government expect to develop and publish proposals for the regulation of private prosecutors and when they hope to legislate to bring them into force. It is all well and good for the previous Government and this Government to speak powerfully about the Post Office and the impact that the scandal has had on people, but I think the public want to see steps taken to ensure that it cannot happen again. I am sure the inquiry will have recommendations about that, but the regulation of the private prosecutions sector will be important in ensuring that we do not see a repeat. I would welcome comments from the Minister in that regard.
Alex Davies-Jones
On the wider concerns about private prosecutions, the shadow Minister will have heard me say that we will shortly be publishing our response to the consultation that this Government carried out. We recognise that there is more to do in this area, and we will act if the recommendations suggest that we should do so. He will also know that, sadly, this Government inherited a justice system in absolute chaos, which has resulted in us having to bring forward a number of urgent reviews, including into sentencing and court backlogs, and a number of legislative vehicles. I guarantee that there will be ample opportunity for us to legislate on these issues during this parliamentary Session should that be deemed appropriate given their nature.
Dr Mullan
The point I was trying to make is that regulation of the private prosecutions sector will not necessarily be in the scope of legislation on sentencing or court reform. The MOJ will already be bidding for parliamentary time to bring through two potentially big Bills. I ask again whether the Minister might want to reconsider whether this Bill, in which we are literally legislating on private prosecutions, is the right vehicle to address the sector’s regulation, because we may not get another opportunity in this Parliament.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am confident that there will certainly be more opportunities, given, as I have said, the nature of the issues facing the Ministry of Justice and the need for the Government to act to correct some of the difficulties and problems that we inherited. This Government are getting on with action to clean up the mess in our prisons, to reduce the criminal cases backlog and, through this Bill, to ensure that victims’ rights are heard. We are not sitting on our hands and waiting for appropriate vehicles; we are getting on with the job, and that is exactly what we are doing today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Samantha Dixon.)