Victims and Courts Bill

Report stage
Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 13

Victims’ rights to make disclosures relating to criminal conduct

“For section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (disclosures by victims that cannot be precluded by agreement) substitute—

“17 Disclosures by victims that cannot be precluded by agreement

(1) Any provision in an agreement is void in so far as it purports to preclude a victim, or a person who reasonably believes they are a victim, from making—

(a) an allegation of, or a disclosure of information relating to, relevant criminal conduct, or

(b) an allegation, or a disclosure of information, relating to the response of any other party to the agreement to—

(i) relevant criminal conduct, or

(ii) the making of an allegation or disclosure within paragraph (a).

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to provision in an agreement (an “excepted agreement”) that satisfies such conditions as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations.

(3) But the Secretary of State may by regulations provide that any provision in an excepted agreement is void in so far as it purports to preclude the victim, or the person who reasonably believes they are a victim, from making an allegation or disclosure within subsection (1)(a) or (b)—

(a) to a specified description of person;

(b) for a specified purpose;

(c) in specified circumstances.

(4) Nothing in this section affects the operation of any other enactment or rule of law by virtue of which provision in an agreement may be void.

(5) Subject to subsections (6), (7) and (8), this section binds the Crown.

(6) This section does not apply to provision in an agreement entered into by His Majesty in his private capacity (within the meaning of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947).

(7) This section does not apply to provision in an agreement entered into by the Crown for the purposes of—

(a) the Security Service;

(b) the Secret Intelligence Service;

(c) the Government Communications Headquarters.

(8) This section does not apply to provision in an agreement which—

(a) is between the Crown and a member or former member of the special forces, and

(b) governs the disclosure by the member or former member of any information relating to the work of the special forces.

(9) In this section—

“relevant criminal conduct” means conduct by virtue of which the person making the allegation or disclosure is, or reasonably believes they are, a victim (see section 1(1) and (2) of this Act);

“special forces” means those units of the armed forces of the Crown the maintenance of whose capabilities is the responsibility of the Director of Special Forces or which are for the time being subject to the operational command of that Director;

“specified” means specified in the regulations.”—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

This new clause substitutes section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which allows victims of criminal conduct to make disclosures in connection with that conduct. Under the new section 17, there will be no requirement that disclosure be made to certain persons in order to be permitted.

Brought up, and read the First time.

17:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 14—Restriction of parental responsibility for child conceived as a result of rape.

New clause 1—Child sexual abuse victims and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme—

(1) The Secretary of State must amend the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme to—

(a) widen eligibility for compensation to all victims of child sexual abuse, including online-facilitated sexual abuse;

(b) ensure applicants with unspent convictions are not automatically excluded where offences are linked to the circumstances of their sexual abuse as a child; and

(c) increase the time limit for applications for compensation from victims of child sexual abuse to seven years from—

(i) the date the offence was reported to the police; or

(ii) the age of 18, where the offence was reported while the victim was a child.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a new draft of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme within six months of this section coming into force.”

This new clause would widen eligibility for compensation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme to all victims of child sexual abuse.

New clause 2—Sentencing: duty when giving custodial sentence to offender who has a child—

(1) At the time of passing a custodial sentence by a judge or magistrate the relevant court must instruct HM Courts and Tribunals Service (“HMCTS”) to determine whether an offender has—

(a) a dependent child,

(b) parental responsibility for a child, or

(c) a child living in their household.

(2) As soon as reasonably practicable after establishing whether an offender has responsibility for or contact with a child as under subsection (1), HMCTS must notify the relevant local authority and relevant agencies where a child lives with such information about the sentenced individual as the Secretary of State sees fit, which must include—

(a) offence type,

(b) sentence length, and

(c) the offender’s registered home address and date of birth.

(3) In this Section—

“local authority” has the same meaning as in the Children Act 2004 (see section 65);

“relevant agency” in relation to a local authority area in England, means a person who exercises functions in that area in relation to children.”

This new clause would introduce a duty on courts to ascertain whether an offender has responsibility for, or contact with a child at the time of passing a custodial sentence and for the courts to notify relevant local safeguarding teams details of the sentence passed by a judge or magistrate.

New clause 4—Victim personal statements—

(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue revised guidance on the content of victim personal statements.

(2) The revised guidance issued under subsection (1) must stipulate that when making a victim personal statement, a victim shall be able to say anything they wish about the defendant, provided it is not contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech, makes allegations of untried criminal conduct or is disorderly language.

(3) The court must disregard any prejudicial comments made during a victim personal statement.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how to make victim personal statements less restrictive and clarify what can be included.

New clause 5—Duty to collect and publish data upon sentencing—

(1) At the time of passing a sentence by a judge or magistrate the relevant court must provide to HM Courts and Tribunals Service (“HMCTS”) the following information regarding the sentence passed—

(a) offence type,

(b) sentence length,

(c) such information about the sentenced individual as the Secretary of State sees fit, which must include—

(i) nationality,

(ii) method of entry to the United Kingdom,

(iii) visa route,

(iv) visa status,

(v) asylum status,

(vi) country of birth, and

(vii) biological sex.

(2) HMCTS must collect and collate the information on the basis set out in subsection (1) on sentences passed in the courts.

(3) Once every three months, the Secretary of State must publish statistics based on the information collected by HMCTS under subsection (2).”

New clause 6—Court transcripts of sentencing remarks—

(1) All sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court must be published within two sitting days of being delivered.

(2) All publications must be freely available to all members of the public.”

New clause 7—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.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to extend the Victim Contact Scheme to certain categories of victim. It would also ensure information is provided in a timely, trauma-informed way and require annual reporting on the Scheme’s uptake and accessibility.

New clause 8—Access to free court transcripts for victims—

(1) Victims of criminal offences shall be entitled to receive, without charge, court transcripts of—

(a) sentencing remarks,

(b) judicial summings-up,

(c) bail decisions and conditions relevant to their case.

(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that such transcripts are provided within 14 days of a request.

(3) The duty under subsection (1) shall apply irrespective of whether the victim gave evidence in the case.”

This new clause would give victims a right to receive, free of charge, court transcripts of sentencing remarks, judicial summings-up, and bail decisions relevant to their case. It requires that transcripts be provided within 14 days of a request and clarifies that this right applies whether or not the victim gave evidence in the case.

New clause 9—Victims of online and technology-enabled crimes—

(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, commission the Victims’ Commissioner to undertake a review of the support provided to victims of online or technology-enabled offences including, but not limited to—

(a) harassment and threats;

(b) deepfake image generation; and

(c) the premeditated filming and online sharing of violent attacks where the intent is to humiliate or cause distress.

(2) The review should consider the effectiveness of—

(a) the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales;

(b) any guidance on the treatment of victims in the criminal justice system; and

(c) support provided to victims by the criminal justice agencies.

(3) The Victims’ Commissioner must publish a report making recommendations to the Secretary of State within 12 months of the start of the review.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake and publish a review of the support provided to victims of online or technology-enabled offences.

New clause 10—Duty to commission support services for victims of abuse and exploitation—

(1) This section applies in respect of victims of offences relating to—

(a) domestic abuse,

(b) sexual violence, or

(c) child criminal exploitation.

(2) It is the duty of relevant authorities to commission sufficient and specific services for victims under subsection (1) in accordance with the Victims Code of Practice for England and Wales.

(3) Victim is defined as outlined in Section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.

(4) The services commissioned and provided for under subsection (2) must include, but are not limited to—

(a) specialist services for adult victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence,

(b) specialist services for child victims of exploitation, sexual abuse and domestic abuse,

(c) specialist advocacy and community-based services for victims with specific needs including (but not limited to)—

(i) child victims,

(ii) Deaf and disabled victims,

(iii) Black and minoritised victims, and

(iv) LGBTQ+ victims,

in compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty.

(5) In this section—

“child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given in the Crime and Policing Act 2025;

“relevant authorities” has the meaning given in section 13 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2025.”

New clause 11—Duty to commission support services for caregivers of victims of abuse and exploitation—

(1) This section applies in respect of victims of offences relating to—

(a) domestic abuse,

(b) sexual violence, or

(c) child criminal exploitation,

where the victim—

(i) at the time of the offence, was under the age of 18, or

(ii) is an adult at risk of harm.

(2) It is the duty of relevant authorities to commission sufficient and specific services for the parent, guardian or person who has responsibility for the victim under subsection (1) for the purpose of securing the rights of the victim under the Victims Code of Practice for England and Wales.

(3) Victim is defined as outlined in Section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.

(4) The services commissioned and provided under subsection (2) must be—

(a) appropriate to the needs of the caregiver in supporting the victim,

(b) trauma-informed and culturally competent, and

(c) accessible without unreasonable delay or procedural burden.

(5) In exercising their duty under this section, relevant authorities must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

(6) The Secretary of State must publish such guidance within six months of the passing of this Act, following consultation with relevant stakeholders including—

(a) victim support organisations,

(b) organisations representing children and vulnerable adults, and

(c) persons with lived-experience of the effects of sexual or violent offences.

(7) In this section—

“child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given in the Crime and Policing Act 2025,

“adult at risk of harm” means a person aged 18 or over who—

(a) has needs for care and support,

(b) is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect, and

(c) as a result of those needs is unable to protect themselves against the abuse or neglect or the risk of it, and

“relevant authorities” has the meaning given in section 13 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2025.”

New clause 12—Application of the Victims’ Code in respect of victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad—

(1) The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 2, insert—

“2A Application of the victims’ code in respect of victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad

(1) This section applies in respect of victims as defined under section 1(2)(c) who are a close relative of a British National resident in England and Wales, who was the victim of—

(a) murder;

(b) manslaughter; or

(c) infanticide,

committed outside the UK.

(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations issue an appendix to the victims’ code, setting out how the code applies to victims in the circumstances set out in subsection (1).

(3) The appendix must set out the services to be provided to victims as defined under subsection (1) by those persons based in England and Wales appearing to the Secretary of State to have functions of a public nature relating to—

(a) victims, or

(b) any aspect of the criminal justice system.

(4) The appendix must make provision for services based in England and Wales which reflect the principles that victims require—

(a) information to help them understand the criminal justice process;

(b) access to services within England and Wales which provide them with emotional and practical support (including, where appropriate, specialist services);

(c) in circumstances where the criminal justice process is engaged in England and Wales, the opportunity to make their views heard in the criminal justice process; and

(d) the ability to challenge decisions which have a direct impact on them.

(5) In setting out the services to be provided to victims under this section, the Secretary of State must specify the following:

(a) how such services will be provided with accessible information;

(b) how they access emotional and practical support.””

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to create an appendix to the Victims’ Code which outlines how the code applies to victims whose close relative was the victim of murder, manslaughter or infanticide outside the UK.

New clause 15—Right to referral to restorative justice services—

(1) A victim of an offence has the right, at any stage following the commission of the offence, to receive from a relevant criminal justice body—

(a) information about the availability and purpose of restorative justice services; and

(b) a meaningful referral to restorative justice services, where those services are available.

(2) A referral under subsection (1) must be made—

(a) as soon as is reasonably practicable after the offender is identified; and

(b) at subsequent appropriate stages of the criminal justice process (including pre-charge, post-charge, and post-conviction) or if requested by the victim.

(3) In exercising the right under this section, a victim must at all times give informed consent, and participation in any restorative justice process shall be voluntary.

(4) A relevant criminal justice body must maintain a record (in such form as may be prescribed by regulations) of—

(a) the times when referrals under subsection (1) are made; and

(b) statistical information on how many victims accept, decline, or do not respond to referrals.

(5) For the purposes of this section, “relevant criminal justice body” includes (but is not limited to) the—

(a) police;

(b) Crown Prosecution Service;

(c) His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service;

(d) courts; and

(e) Commissioned victim service providers.

(6) The victims’ code must include provision consistent with this section for—

(a) the form, timing, and content of information to be given to victims about restorative justice;

(b) mechanisms and standards for referral and re-referral; and

(c) oversight and review of compliance with this section.

(7) In this section “restorative justice services” means services facilitating a process through which a victim and offender (or their representatives) may, with appropriate support, voluntarily engage to deal with the harm arising from the offence by means of a facilitated dialogue or meeting such as conferencing, or indirect exchanges of communication via trained practitioners.”

This new clause seeks to strengthen victims’ statutory rights to access restorative justice services.

New clause 16—Duty to report on the use of restorative justice services—

(1) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the use of restorative justice services by victims in England and Wales.

(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the level of use of restorative justice services;

(b) recommendations for increasing the use of restorative justice services; and

(c) any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment before Parliament.

(4) In this section “restorative justice services” means services facilitating a process through which a victim and offender (or their representatives) may, with appropriate support, voluntarily engage to deal with the harm arising from the offence by means such as mediation, conferencing, or reparation, under standards of safety and fairness.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the level of use of restorative justice services, and make recommendations for increasing their use.

New clause 17—The Victims’ Code: right to veto licence conditions relating to an offender’s release—

The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, revise the Victims’ Code to ensure that a victim of a serious or violent offence has a right of veto over licence conditions relating to the release of an offender from prison, including temporary release, which fails to reasonably prevent an offender travelling to specific locations and provide adequate protections to the victim.”

This new clause gives victims of a serious or violent offence a right of veto over licence conditions relating to the release of an offender from prison.

New clause 18—Victim navigators—

(1) The Secretary of State must, with six months of the passing of this Act, make provision for each police force in England and Wales to have access to one or more independent victim navigators.

(2) The purpose of an independent victim navigator under subsection (1) is to—

(a) liaise between the police force and potential victims of offences relating to slavery or human trafficking; and

(b) assist in the provision of specialist advice for either the police force or the potential victims.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide further guidance on the functions of independent victim navigators.

(4) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause seeks to introduce provisions for Independent Victim Navigators to be in operation on a national level in England and Wales, acting as a liaison between the police and potential victim of slavery or human trafficking in accessing the appropriate support.

New clause 19—Requirement for Strategic Planning and Funding of Victim Support Services—

(1) Each local authority and relevant authority must prepare and maintain a victim support strategy setting out how they will meet the needs of individuals affected by—

(a) offences related to domestic or family-related abuse,

(b) sexual offences, and

(c) offences related to child criminal exploitation,

in accordance with their rights under the victims’ code.

(2) Strategies prepared under subsection (1) must include—

(a) identification of gaps in existing services,

(b) specific plans to fund and deliver services for adults and children,

(c) measures to ensure accessibility for victims with particular needs, including (but not limited to) those who are disabled, deaf, from racially minoritised communities, or LGBTQ+.

(3) Any body subject to a duty under subsection (1) must report annually to the Secretary of State on progress in implementing their victim support strategy, including outcomes for service users.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

“victim” has the meaning given in section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024;

“child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given in the Crime and Policing Act 2025; and

“relevant authority” has the meaning given in section 13 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2025.”

This new clause would require local authorities and other relevant bodies to prepare victim support strategies for meeting the needs of victims of offences relating to domestic or family-related abuse, sexual offences, or child criminal exploitation.

New clause 20—Duty to report on availability of support services for carers of victims—

(1) Relevant authorities must prepare an annual report on the availability, accessibility, and adequacy of support services for carers of victims affected by—

(a) offences related to domestic or family-related abuse,

(b) sexual offences, and

(c) offences related to child criminal exploitation,

provided for the purpose of securing the rights of the victim under the victims’ code.

(2) A report produced under subsection (1) must include—

(a) an assessment of gaps in existing services for carers,

(b) the types of support available, including emotional, practical, and advocacy services,

(c) measures in place to ensure accessibility for carers with specific needs, including those who are disabled, blind, deaf, from racially minoritised communities, or LGBTQ+, and

(d) planned actions to improve service provision where gaps are identified.

(3) Relevant authorities with a duty under subsection (1) must publish the report and submit a copy to the Secretary of State no later than six months after the end of each financial year.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

“carer” means any individual providing unpaid support to a victim as defined in section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024,

“child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given in the Crime and Policing Act 2025, and

“relevant authority” has the meaning given in section 13 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2025.”

This new clause would require relevant authorities to prepare an annual report on the availability, accessibility, and adequacy of support services for carers of individuals victims affected by offences relating to domestic or family-related abuse, sexual offences, or child criminal exploitation.

New clause 21—Duty of the Secretary of State to make a statement following publication of reviews or reports relating to the experience of victims in the criminal justice system—

(1) This section applies where any review, report, or inquiry—

(a) is commissioned, conducted, or sponsored (in whole or in part) by the Secretary of State or the Victims’ Commissioner, and

(b) relates to the experience of victims in the criminal justice system.

(2) Within two weeks of the date of publication, the Secretary of State must make a statement to both Houses of Parliament setting out—

(a) the principal findings and recommendations of the review, report, or inquiry, and

(b) the Government’s initial response, including any intended actions or further consideration to be undertaken.

(3) The statement under subsection (2) must be made by oral statement unless exceptional circumstances make a written ministerial statement more appropriate.

(4) For the purposes of this section a review, report, or inquiry may be statutory or non-statutory.

(5) The Secretary of State must publish guidance on the operation of this section within three months of the passing of this Act.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Justice to make a statement to Parliament within two weeks of the publication of any review, report, or inquiry relating to the experience of victims in the criminal justice system, including those commissioned or conducted by the Victims’ Commissioner. The statement must summarise the findings and set out the Government’s initial response.

Amendment 8, in clause 3, page 6, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert

“for a serious sexual offence committed against a child.”

This amendment would extend the provision of restricting parental responsibility where a parent is sentenced for a serious sexual offence committed against a child, regardless of whether it is their child or on the length of sentence handed down.

Amendment 1, page 6, line 1, leave out

“of 4 years or more”.

This amendment would ensure that where a person is sent to prison because of a sexual offence the court would be under a duty to make a prohibited steps order.

Government amendment 10.

Amendment 2, page 6, line 2, leave out

“for whom the offender has parental responsibility.”

This amendment would ensure the court was under a duty to make a prohibited steps order where anyone is sent to prison because of a sexual offence against a child, whether or not that child was one for which they had parental responsibility.

Amendment 3, page 6, line 20, leave out from “section” to end of line 25 and insert—

“ceases to have effect if the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal.

(5A) A prohibited steps order made under this section does not cease to have effect if the sentence is reduced, on appeal, so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of 4 years or more.”

This amendment would ensure that a prohibited steps order would cease to have effect if the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal. It would also require that a prohibited steps order remain in effect where a sentence is reduced on appeal so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of four years or more.

Government amendments 11 to 21.

Amendment 4, in clause 11, page 12, line 21, at end insert—

“(aa) in that sub-paragraph omit “28” and insert “56””

This amendment increases the window for applying to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme from 28 days to 56 days.

Amendment 5, page 12, line 23, after “(2)” insert—

“unless an application is made by a victim, or their deceased victim’s next of kin, in which case notice of an application shall be given within one year.”

This amendment increases the window for applying to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme to one year for a victim of a crime or a deceased victim’s next of kin.

Amendment 6, page 12, line 29, leave out “28” and insert “56”.

This amendment is contingent on Amendment 4.

Amendment 7, page 12, line 39, at end insert—

“(5) In accordance with the provision under sub-paragraph (1) the Crown Prosecution Service must write to the victim, or a deceased victim’s next of kin, within 10 working days of the sentence being delivered to make them aware of their ability to apply for a review of sentencing.”

This amendment is contingent on Amendment 5. It would require the CPS to write to a victim, or a deceased victim’s next of kin, within 10 working days of a sentence being delivered to make them aware of their ability to apply for a review.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It is truly an honour to open this debate and to bring the Victims and Courts Bill before the House. This Bill is about people—victims who have suffered unimaginable trauma and their families—and ensuring that they receive justice. It is about restoring faith in a justice system that can often feel cold and confusing, and it delivers on this Government’s driving mission for safer streets, making sure that victims are supported, that offenders are held to account, and that justice is delivered swiftly and fairly.

The deep-rooted issues in our criminal justice system need no repeating here. The House knows that the system requires large-scale reform after years of neglect. There is a long road ahead, but this Bill takes an important step forward. At its core are victims’ experiences. This Government are bringing forward real, tangible measures to ensure that victims’ voices are heard, their needs are recognised, and their rights are respected. The Bill will strengthen our courts, improving efficiency and fairness across the system. These are much-needed changes, and I am deeply grateful to hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House for their time and their insight in considering the measures, and to all the organisations, advocates and survivors who have shared their experiences and helped us shape this legislation.

I am sure that the House will therefore join me in paying tribute to the families of Jan Mustafa, Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa, and I welcome to this place Ayse Hussein, Cheryl Korbel and Antonia Elverson, who are in the Public Gallery today. I also thank Jebina Islam, Farah Naz, the Justice for Victims group—which includes Susan and Jeremy Everard, Glenn and Becky Youens, Katie Brett, Paula Hudgell and Ayse Hussein—and the Bethan family for their courage and strength in campaigning amid immense grief for their loved ones.

Three Government amendments on Report will further strengthen the Bill, delivering clearer, stronger protection for victims, and I will turn to them briefly now. I again thank all those who have worked so constructively with me and officials in the Ministry of Justice to discuss their issues and concerns.

New clause 14 and amendments 12 to 21 restrict the exercise of parental responsibility for perpetrators of rape, where their crime has resulted in the birth of a child. These amendments will protect children, but will also help shield the victim from their perpetrator interfering in their lives, because those who commit this horrific crime should clearly never be able to use parental rights to control or torment their victim. I take a moment to pay tribute to a woman who I am proud to call my colleague and even prouder to call my friend. Many in this House will already have deep admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), and I place on record that this change is hers. It is for her, her children and those just like them up and down the country—the people to whom she has dedicated her life to fighting tirelessly for.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I add my personal admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), who has been a fantastic champion for this new clause. Her predecessor in the House was called the beast of Bolsover, but I think she is the brave of Bolsover, because every time she speaks in this House she is incredibly brave, and I pay tribute to her.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I echo those sentiments entirely It has genuinely been my privilege to hear her story, and to work with her to ensure that this measure stops rapists taking an active role in a child’s life when that child was conceived as a result of rape. I cannot imagine the enormous complexity that mothers such as her face in this situation, and I am in awe of her bravery and that of so many others. This measure will ensure that rapists cannot take active steps in a child’s life when that child has been conceived as a result of the crime for which they have been convicted.

In order to protect as many children as possible, our measure features a two-track process. When the Crown court is satisfied that a child was conceived as a result of rape, it must make a prohibited steps order restricting the offender’s parental responsibility, unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so. We recognise that rape can occur within an abusive relationship, and that this may make it difficult to prove at a criminal trial that it led to the child’s conception. When that is the case, but the court considers that the rape may have led to the conception of the child, it will refer the matter to the family court via the local authority. This two-track process sends a clear message that we will protect all children born of rape, no matter what the circumstances.

The Government recognise the clear risk that serious child sex offenders pose to their children, which is why we tabled amendment 10, which will expand clause 3 of the Bill. It means that when someone is sentenced to four or more years for serious child sexual abuse, against any child, the courts will automatically restrict their parental responsibility. The process will remain the same: at the point when an offender is sentenced, the Crown court will be required to make a prohibited steps order restricting the offender’s exercise of parental responsibility for all children for whom they hold it. For offenders to be in scope of the amendment, they will have demonstrated that they are unable to protect children and to consider their welfare. That is why it includes all serious child sexual abuse offences against all children. Unlike the last Government’s plans in the Criminal Justice Bill, this proposal is not limited to offences of child rape. What is more, unlike the last Government, this Government will actually deliver on it. We are taking this important step today to protect even more children by preventing these individuals from taking active steps in their children’s lives.

We have recognised the strength of feeling on this issue, and I am grateful to Members—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, whom I have already mentioned, but also my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and Baroness Harman. They have been unwavering in their advocacy for the protection of children. Safeguarding children is of the utmost importance to this Government, and amendment 10 ensures that we are doing just that.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has just mentioned some pioneering women in the House who have campaigned on this very issue for a number of years, but today’s amendment stands on the shoulders of the brave victims and survivors who have spoken out for so long. It will correct a historic injustice whereby, while children are protected from convicted sex offenders and paedophiles, their own children are not, through no fault of their own. This Government are now taking steps to ensure that children and their parents are protected from these vile sex offenders.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My right hon. Friend is right. The Bill is a testament to those brave victims and survivors who have spoken out about this injustice, and it is this Government who are correcting that. My right hon. Friend also said that the amendment stands on the shoulders of brave, brilliant women in this place who have come before us and are still here, and it is apt for me to pay tribute to her as well, because new clause 13, concerning the misuse of nondisclosure agreements, is a testament to her brilliant campaigning.

The Government are very clear about the fact that NDAs must not be used to silence victims or witnesses of crime. Victims must be free to tell their truth, to seek help, and to warn others. New clause 13 will void NDAs to the extent that they seek to prevent a victim or a direct witness from speaking about criminal conduct to anyone, and for any purpose. It will also protect disclosures about how the other party responded to the conduct or allegation, so that victims are not prevented from sharing the full context of their experience. It builds on the Employment Rights Bill, which addresses the use of NDAs in cases of workplace harassment and discrimination. It will bind the Crown, but will not apply to a narrow cohort of specified agreements for national security reasons. It includes regulation-making powers to define “excepted NDAs”, where both parties genuinely wish to retain confidentiality, and to ensure that certain disclosures will always be permitted. Once commenced, this measure will replace section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which allows limited disclosures to certain bodies. Together with the Employment Rights Bill, we are taking the necessary steps to ensure that NDAs cannot be misused to silence victims or obstruct justice.

Let me now briefly address a number of other concerns that have been raised and led to the tabling of amendments. I will not pre-empt what will be said later today, and I will give Members the time to make their cases. However, I again thank those in all parts of the House for engaging with me and setting out their concerns.

New clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), would place a statutory duty on the Crown court and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to determine whether an offender has parental responsibility for a child following sentencing. The new clause is well intentioned, but it risks creating practical difficulties. Determining whether a person holds parental responsibility, has dependent children or has children living in their household may require interpretation of family court orders, birth records or informal care-giving arrangements. These are matters for the family court; imposing such a duty on the Crown court risks delaying sentencing. This Government gave a manifesto commitment to identify and provide support for children affected by parental imprisonment, and the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Education are working together to determine the best way to deliver on that commitment and ensure that every child gets the support that it needs.

The right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) have tabled amendments to remove the four-year custodial threshold that applies to clause 3, and to expand the number of cases in which the clause will apply. This is not simply about when parental responsibility should be restricted; it is about when that restriction should happen automatically. We need to be mindful that this is a very novel proposal. Removing the threshold would add a very large number of cases to what is an untested approach. More cases will also mean more applications to the family court, and it is important we do not overwhelm the court and create delays that would put the vulnerable children already in the system at further risk.

We want to be sure that there are no adverse consequences for those children and their families who are already in the family court. That is why we have sought to keep these measures narrow, so that we can understand exactly how they are working in practice and what the impacts are. As I said on Second Reading and in Committee, this is just the beginning. As part of the implementation of these measures, we will seek to understand how they operate in practice and ensure that there are clear routes through the family court for the restriction of the parental responsibility of any perpetrator who does not fall into this category.

The right hon. Member for Newark has tabled amendments on the unduly lenient sentencing scheme. Parliament intended the scheme to be an exceptional power, and I recognise the importance of finality in sentencing to avoid ongoing uncertainty for victims, those convicted, and society more broadly about the sentence to be served. However, I also recognise the exceptionally difficult circumstances for victims and their families in making a referral to the Attorney General within the 28-day limit.

The Law Commission is carrying out a review of criminal appeals, and held a public consultation that sought views from a range of individuals on reforms to the ULS scheme, including extending the time limit and offences in scope. The Government will , of course, carefully consider the review’s final recommendations, but I can assure Members on both sides of the House that I have heard the strength of feeling on the ULS scheme. The amendments that have been tabled on the matter raise important issues, and I will continue to look at the issue carefully as the Bill progresses towards the other place. On that, I make a commitment.

The right hon. Member for Newark has also tabled an amendment on victim personal statements, a topic on which I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) for his dedicated campaigning. Victim personal statements can be an incredibly powerful way for victims and their families to tell the court how the crime has impacted them, and for the court to directly hear evidence about the harm caused when considering its sentencing of the offender. This is the victim’s voice in the courtroom.

It is important to understand that these statements are evidence submitted to the court to assist it in determining sentences. As evidence they are subject to strict rules, which the court applies to ensure that the criminal justice process works fairly and effectively. That is why the content is limited to explaining the impact of the crime.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

This takes me back to speaking with the family and father of young Violet-Grace, who was killed in 2017, at four years old, by someone who was going 80 mph in a 30 mph zone and then went missing. During the court case some years later, the family wanted to read out their victim statement fully in court. The defendant’s barrister objected, and the judge accepted that objection.

18:00

The Crown Prosecution Service barrister gave the parents a copy of their victim statement, highlighted with everything they could not say. They went out of the courtroom to alter their statement. This was a young couple with a younger child. What happened to Violet-Grace, and the impact on her mother’s life, was just horrendous. The parents went into that court and were made to feel like the criminals. They felt like the defendants. They felt that they were doing wrong. They were asking, “What can we say? What can we not say?”

The father texted me this morning and said, “Thank you, Marie. After all these years, I can see some light in the future. We don’t want other people to suffer this.” I do hope that this measure goes through, and that we can get something for this family, who now have another little girl. I thank this Government for getting round to it, because Bills and Acts have been going through, and it has been so terribly traumatic. The whole town feels for the parents. On behalf of Violet-Grace’s parents, thank you so much.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the case of Violet-Grace. She has been a tireless campaigner and supporter of the family for many years. I have had the privilege of meeting the Youens family several times and hearing directly how they were affected by their experience with their victim impact statement and the limitations placed on them as to what they could say in court. It essentially silenced them, and meant that their pain was not heard by the perpetrator. I am committed to working with them and the other Families for Justice campaigners. I have had extensive conversations with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and with many other hon. Members across this House, on looking for a way forward to ensure that victims’ voices are best represented in sentencing.

We do not need legislation for that. In fact, legislation could potentially make things worse through retraumatising victims by making them give two separate statements or by limiting—even further—in statute the parameters of what can be said. I do not want to limit or silence any victims; I want to work with them to ensure that there is universality, that there is support for them when completing their victim impact statements, and that the guidance is there so that everyone knows exactly what can be said in that impact statement. It is vital that we give victims a voice, and I am determined to achieve that.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft will speak to her amendment on placing a duty on certain authorities to commission specific support services for victims—and caregivers of victims—of abuse and exploitation. Again, this measure is well intentioned, but we do not agree that it is helpful to place a statutory obligation on certain authorities to commission certain support services.

The Ministry of Justice already provides grant funding to police and crime commissioners that is used to commission support services for victims of abuse and exploitation. That includes ringfenced funding for sexual violence and domestic abuse services. It is for the PCCs to determine what support is best for their local areas. However, I remain committed to working with my hon. Friend and others to ensure that victims get the best support.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has tabled an amendment that seeks to reform the criminal injuries compensation scheme in relation to compensating victims of child sexual abuse. This Government are, of course, absolutely committed to supporting victims. However, we believe that reforming the scheme in a way that benefits only victims of child sexual abuse—or any other single crime type—would undermine its principle of universality.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham—as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), and all those who attended the Westminster Hall debate earlier this year—will know the strength of feeling about the criminal injuries compensation scheme: it is not working, and it needs reform. I am committed to working with them and others, including victims and survivors, to ensure that that reform is not piecemeal and to look at how we can make it the most effective and sustainable scheme, to provide compensation to victims.

The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) will no doubt speak to his amendment on support for families bereaved by homicide abroad. Bereaved families will, in many instances, need support tailored to their cases. We have heard that these families need more clarity about that offer from UK agencies, what the homicide service even is, and how to access it. That is why we are working with Departments across Government, agencies, and the Victims’ Commissioner to produce a clear, accessible guide to support families bereaved by homicide abroad. I am grateful to the charity Murdered Abroad for working alongside us to ensure that that guidance delivers on its aims, and that we help those families who are stuck in limbo.

I will close by emphasising again the importance of this Bill. It is a foundation for a better justice system—one that provides even greater protection for victims and that delivers swifter and more efficient justice. It will not solve every issue we face overnight, but it is a strong, determined step forward: a signal that this Government stand shoulder to shoulder with victims.

Again, I sincerely thank Members on all sides of the House for their engagement with this Bill. We work together in this place, and it is at its best when we come together for the sake of victims and survivors. I look forward to hearing the debate and responding to all of the views—I am looking forward to a really healthy debate. For now, I commend the Government amendments and new clauses to the House.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

The cornerstone of our justice system should always be the support and protection of victims and survivors—ensuring that those who have suffered at the hands of others can go on to live a life without fear, and not be defined by the actions of those who harmed them. That is achieved by putting victims’ and survivors’ needs at the heart of the justice process, and ensuring that justice is served—and seen to be served—swiftly, through properly funded support. Both protection and rehabilitation must also be robust and effective.

All of that has underpinned many of the issues that victims and survivors currently face—the things that fill our local surgery appointments and our inboxes, often with harrowing accounts of system failures that continue to compound their trauma. We recognise that this Labour Government is having to untangle that mess: the court backlogs that delay justice; prison overcrowding; criminals released on to the streets without warning; and the hollowing out of support services that victims rely on.

We in the Liberal Democrats therefore welcome the intention of this Bill, and its many measures aimed at ensuring that victims are listened to and that their experiences in the system improve. In particular, we welcome the measures compelling offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. For many victims, that is seeing justice done—an important aspect of the process—a moment of closure or, for some, the beginning of their recovery. It is something that, more often than not, they have waited far too long to see. Offenders being seen to face the consequences of their actions is vital for many victims’ journeys.

We also welcome the provisions, both in the Bill and in the Government’s amendments, to restrict parental responsibility in instances of rape or sexual assault against a child, including when a child is conceived after a rape and when an offender has parental responsibility for any child. I give credit to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for being a tireless advocate for this and for being so brave in sharing her personal story.

That change is something that my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) also called for in Committee, and it has been a long-standing campaign for families and victims across the country. It is reassuring that the Justice Secretary and the Minister for Victims have heard their calls, picked this up and made it an important part of the Bill.

We are also really pleased to hear about the victims helpline, which could provide valuable support for so many, although we remain concerned about the sufficiency of the resources behind that to make the service genuinely effective. I would appreciate further clarity from the Minister on the resources being made available for the helpline.

Likewise, the extension of the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers is a constructive move. Empowering them to work on behalf of victims when a case is in the public interest is important for improving the experiences of victims and witnesses and, most importantly, for learning lessons for the future, which successive Governments have not been very good at doing.

We also believe that there are gaps in the provisions of this Bill that could be improved on. These have formed the bases for our amendments, but I am pleased to hear the Minister say that this is not the end of the journey, and we are laying out where we would like to see the Bill go. To that end, new clause 7 seeks to extend the victim contact scheme to repair some of the gaps in provision. Ensuring that victims have information about offenders, and about how they can apply for licence conditions, provide statements to parole hearings and appeal decisions, is vital for many victims’ journeys after a crime and for their feeling of safety. We therefore believe that the scheme should be extended to victims of offenders serving less than 12 months for violent or sexual offences, to victims in cases involving coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking or harassment, and to bereaved families in cases of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving.

New clause 8 would ensure that victims of criminal offences are entitled to free court transcripts, which should be universal to ensure transparency and an accessible method of processing court cases for all those involved in the criminal justice system, given that so much that happens in a court trial feels like a foreign language to so many accessing it, who need to process it afterwards. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) has done exemplary work on this topic and that the issue has support across the House, notably in an amendment tabled by the Conservatives, despite their decision to ignore it during the decade in which they were in charge of the Ministry of Justice. The roll-out of free court transcripts for victims of rape is a welcome step, but it should not be the end of our ambition to ensure that all victims can have this important document following a trial.

New clause 21 would require the Secretary of State for Justice to make a statement to the House within two weeks of the publication of any review, report or inquiry into the experiences of victims, including those produced by the Victims’ Commissioner. When things go wrong in serious national cases where hundreds, or perhaps thousands, have been let down by the justice system, it is vital that the country sees acknowledgment, apology and action from the relevant authorities, including the Government. This new clause would give hon. Members from across the country the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s response in all instances.

New clause 19 would specifically mandate local authorities to prepare strategies for victim support, to ensure that there are no postcode lotteries in support services relating to domestic abuse, sexual offences and child exploitation. New clause 20 would require relevant authorities to prepare an annual report on the availability and adequacy of support services for carers of victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault. These services are essential for victims finding pathways to moving on from horrific crimes.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

This Bill’s support for domestic abuse survivors is very welcome, but it is only half the story. In Horsham, one of my constituents arrived at court to see her abuser stand trial, only to be told at the courthouse door that the case had been pulled due to a lack of capacity. That trial was delayed for two years, by which time her abuser had breached two restraining orders. Does my hon. Friend agree that unless we see concrete measures to improve capacity above and beyond the recent increase in sitting days, this Bill cannot fulfil its promise to the public?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the impact that court delays have on victims. I think it is an opinion shared across the House that it is totally unacceptable when a victim arrives to have their day in court and then gets sent away. The reason that we have a lot of legislation coming through at the moment is because the Government are trying to address the issue from multiple different angles, and I hope to see ambition in this area.

I will briefly highlight the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), who tabled new clause 12. It would require necessary updates to the victims code for relatives of victims of murder or manslaughter abroad, who currently sit outside the victims code. Although this affects around 80 families annually, the toll on them from falling out of scope and receiving little to no support, or from not knowing where to go to get support, is unacceptable.

As has been outlined, we Liberal Democrats are concerned about gaps in this Bill and believe that more can be done to support victims and survivors, but we recognise the ambition behind it. We urge the Government to take on board our amendments to better protect victims and survivors.

18:15

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

In the interests of time, I will focus only on new clause 2, which stands in my name, though I also support new clauses 1, 10 and 11, and I very much welcome Government new clause 14. I thank the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) for originally tabling new clause 2. His subsequent elevation to the shadow Cabinet means that he has had to withdraw his name.

On 21 May 2024, I introduced the Children (Parental Imprisonment) Bill—with immaculate timing, as it turned out, as the general election was called the next day. I was delighted that despite the lateness of the hour I managed to have a quick word with somebody from the Leader of the Opposition’s office, and a commitment to identify and support such children made it into the Labour election manifesto. I would rather the commitment in the manifesto had not quite been framed in the way it was, which was about breaking the cycle of reoffending. That is certainly one factor, but to focus solely on it risks adding to the stigma and shame that is often felt by children in this situation. However, the important thing was that the commitment was there.

At the time, we did not know how many children had a parent in prison, as most figures were based on out-of-date research or unreliable estimates, but we saw the publication of an official estimate 13 days after Labour were elected. I know that we were quick off the mark as a new Government, but that work was the result of lots of lobbying and campaigning that we had managed to get the previous Government to agree to. They set up something called the Better Outcomes through Linked Data project. Through that, we now know that around 190,000 children are affected by parental imprisonment each year—a huge number—but that is still only a ballpark figure. It does not tell us where in the country these children are, who is looking after them, whether they are getting support, what trauma they are going through and, in far too many cases, how long they have been coping completely on their own.

My Bill called on the Government to set up a statutory mechanism so that at the point when an adult is sentenced to imprisonment, efforts are made to find out whether they have any children at home, and if so, whether those children are being taken care of. That is what new clause 2 also seeks to achieve. I have to say that I was a little disappointed by the Minister’s reply, because it rather misses the point of what we are trying to do with this new clause. It has nothing to do with making a judgment about who has parental responsibility or not. The new clause says that the court should look at whether the offender has a dependent child, parental responsibility or a child living in their household. It talks about

“responsibility for or contact with”,

so there is no legal decision that needs to be made as to whether that parent is the sole carer or responsible for the child; it is about whether there is a child in the picture.

I very much believe that the Minister is passionate about this issue, and I know she has met representatives of the excellent charity Children Heard and Seen. I know she wants to act, but 16 months on from the general election, there are still no timelines for when identification and support will be brought forward for these invisible children. I want to make it very clear that this is about the welfare of children; it is not about prisoners. There is important work to be done on the rehabilitation of prisoners, and we are fortunate to have an excellent Prisons Minister who totally gets that. Research has shown that maintaining family ties for prisoners is very much part of that rehabilitation, but that is not what we are talking about today. I am concerned with the welfare of the children and specific child-focused support for those with a family member in prison, regardless of whether they have contact with that parent or not. We should not conflate the two, and I am concerned that the MOJ does so, which is in part because its responsibilities and funding streams are all focused on prisons and prisoners, whereas in the Department for Education there is a risk that these children get lost in the mix among other children who are suffering adverse childhood experiences.

In their responses to me, Ministers have highlighted the “Working Together to Safeguard Children” multi-agency working statutory guidance, published under the last Government in 2023. This guidance says that prisons need arrangements in place that take prisoners’ children’s needs into account. It recommends that on the first night of a prisoner’s sentence, they are to be

“supported to make suitable care arrangements for any dependent children”,

with the involvement of children’s social care services where needed. It advises the Prison Service to ask all prisoners during their custody screening whether they have caring responsibilities for children under the age of 18.

The inclusion of that in the guidance was positive, but it does not address the fact that some prisoners deliberately avoid revealing that they have children at home. Children Heard and Seen, the charity I mentioned, reports that some parents are scared of their children being taken away by social services, so much so that they do not tell anyone about their children. Furthermore, the prisoner in question might not have caring responsibilities. They might not even any longer have contact with the child. They might have been convicted of domestic violence against the child’s mother, or convicted of sexual abuse or offences against the child themselves, but their imprisonment is still important in terms of the trauma, stigma and shame that the child will be going through. I have heard of so many cases where children of sex offenders have had their homes targeted. They have been driven out of where they live, they have been humiliated at school, and they have had to move town and change their names because of what their imprisoned parent—usually the father—has done.

The Government’s “Keeping children safe in education” statutory guidance for schools and colleges, which was published in September, rightly notes that children with family members in prison are at a higher

“risk of poor outcomes including poverty, stigma, isolation and poor mental health.”

It signposts to the National Information Centre on Children of Offenders as a source of support for school staff helping children with a parent in prison, but the guidance has not been properly maintained for years. Many of the resources it redirects to no longer work, but families and professionals are still being referred there. On the MOJ side, the Government published a multidisciplinary training offer tender for professionals on the impact of parental imprisonment, but this tender was taken down and the Department will not clarify why or when it will go back up. In the meantime, children are still being left without support.

Given that all prisoners have contacts with His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, there is a missed opportunity for early identification of such children. This new clause would not necessarily pick up all of them, but it would be a really good step forward. New clause 2 would go further than current guidance by instructing courts to determine whether prisoners have children, to ensure they are protected. This could include using official data and working more closely with councils or local authorities, as well as speaking to the offender directly about how a child will be looked after. It could also involve working with schools.

The new clause would present another opportunity for prisoners, before they enter the prison estate, to report that there are children at home. The more opportunities that prisoners are given to do that, the more likely they are to tell officials. I was particularly struck by one of the accounts I heard, in which a woman had been in prison for about four months before revealing—she was having a counselling session or something—that she had children of school age who were left behind at home by themselves. The new clause could also bring forward a structure and process for having those conversations to reassure prisoners that informing the authorities about any child at home is the right thing to do for their children. Statutory guidance is non-binding official advice and cannot carry the force of the law, but the new clause would instruct the relevant agencies to go further in their legal duty to protect children. As I have said, it will not catch all children, but it would be a major step forward. Will the Minister say in her response how, if we are not going to do it this way, we are going to do it?

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

I wish to speak to my new clause 12. Each year hundreds of families get a knock on the door from the police who must deliver the worst news that a family can ever hear: the news that one of their closest relatives has been murdered. However, about 80 families each year receive the news that a family member has been murdered while abroad. That can be via a police officer, but the news often comes from a newspaper, or from a journalist who has found out and has reached out to the family directly. In many cases when British citizens are murdered abroad their families are left to deal with unimaginable grief for their loved one, all while facing the full weight of an unfamiliar, bureaucratic and different system, and they do that alone. They have to navigate foreign legal procedures, untranslated documents and distant court proceedings with patchy, inconsistent support from their Government, all at a time of trauma, vulnerability and mourning.

This is where new clause 12 come in. It seeks to add an appendix to the victims code so that this group of bereaved families, who currently fall through the cracks in our system, will no longer do so. The principle underpinning this Bill is clear: victims deserve to be at the heart of our criminal justice system. They deserve information, support and the opportunity to be heard. These are not privileges; they are fundamental rights. Yet there is a cruel anomaly: if a British citizen is murdered on British soil, their family receives structured statutory support through victim liaison officers, aid, court procedures and counselling services, but if the same British citizen is murdered abroad—while on holiday, working away or studying in another country—their family is so often left to navigate an overwhelming maze of foreign bureaucracy, often in a language they do not speak, with inconsistent and inadequate information from the Government, who should be standing behind them.

Ruth’s sister Faye was killed in 2019 while in Nigeria, where she was working for a non-governmental organisation. She was shot alongside her boyfriend in a double homicide. Ruth and her family were left to deal with an overwhelming number of agencies without proper support to understand who had responsibility for what, with limited communication and poor casework consistency from the British authorities. Vital information, such as the arrest and subsequent death of a suspect in custody, which the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office knew about, took years to reach Ruth and her family. They have still not obtained a full and accurate account of what occurred on the night of Faye’s murder.

Alison and Paul’s son Danny was murdered in Amsterdam in 2022, aged just 22. Alison and Paul have explained how navigating the lengthy and complex Dutch judicial procedures in a foreign language, while having to arrange matters such as repatriation without any support, was an immense challenge. They have described being in a state of turmoil and trauma, and are uncertain how they managed to endure the circumstances. They have outlined how the stress took a significant toll on both them and their daughter.

Theresa’s husband Stephen was killed in a violent attack by a gang while on holiday in Spain in 2009. His two teenage sons sustained permanent injuries in the attack. Stephen’s body was repatriated to the UK and was held by the coroner in a mortuary for eight years before the inquest was held. The inquest concluded with a verdict of unlawful killing, at which time the body was released to his wife and children—eight years after his death. Stephen’s family received no support from the UK for repatriation, travel and understanding the trial in a foreign country and in a foreign language. Stephen’s wife, Theresa, recounted how she and her family had been living through a nightmare—not only of having to navigate the complex judicial system in Spain, but of feeling retraumatised by the lack of support they received.

Andrew’s son was murdered abroad when he was 18 years old. He says that, despite the FCDO having a duty to care for UK citizens, the family received minimal support. The FCDO provided poor and inconsistent communication, leaving the family without clear updates at critical stages. The family was forced to navigate a foreign judicial system with no help in understanding procedures, local laws or rights, which added to their distress and confusion. They received no structured aftercare or follow-up support, despite the psychological impact of such cases.

These horrible incidents are not isolated. They show a broken system that fails British families at their most vulnerable moments. New clause 12 aims to address this by adding an appendix to the victims code setting out how the code applies to close relatives of British citizens murdered abroad. It states that the appendix must provide specific guidance explaining how families affected by murders abroad can access support, including clear information about foreign justice processes, which are often complex and distressing for bereaved families, in unfamiliar legal systems. This can include dedicated liaison officers, translation services and guidance on how to deal with foreign authorities. I have spoken to far too many families who were pointed to Google Translate for death certificates and descriptions of judicial processes in foreign languages. That is simply not good enough in our country. Under the new clause, families would also be entitled to emotional and practical support, including specialist bereavement counselling. Some police services across the country do this really well, but others do not do it at all.

Let me be clear about what this amendment does not do. It does not seek to interfere with foreign judicial systems, and it does not place unrealistic expectations on the FCDO. What it does is establish as a baseline a statutory framework that ensures bereaved families have access to the same quality of support and information here at home as any other victim of homicide would receive. The Murdered Abroad campaign is made up of bereaved families who have turned their grief into a really powerful call for change. They are not asking for any special treatment. They are asking for the same structured statutory support that families would receive if tragedy strikes on British soil. The families who suffer these specific horrors should not be forgotten because the crime goes beyond our shores; a British life lost is a British life no matter where in the world it happens. Compassion in the face of tragedy is not optional but a duty, and new clause 12 provides a way to fulfil that duty. I thank right hon. and hon. Members who have supported it, and I ask everybody to vote for it this evening.

[Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)]

I will speak to Government new clause 14. It means that rapists will no longer have access to children conceived by their crime. It puts the right of survivors above the rights of criminals. It protects mummies and their precious babies. It is not okay that it took so long for the law to change—to keep up with common sense—but to get this change the Government fought to get us on these Benches and into government, bringing with us our real-life experience and that of our community, supported by Ministers, right up to the Prime Minister, determined to tackle violence against women and girls.

18:35

Ten babies are born every day in the UK as a result of rape. For too long, we have told ourselves that rape only happens in faraway countries, that it is a recent crime that arrives on boats. Before that, rapes only happened when a woman was dragged down an alley by a stranger, or when a vulnerable girl was targeted by a gang. No, rape is happening here and now, just as much as it always has. It is in our communities. It is happening to our women, by our men.

If a quarter of women are raped or sexually assaulted most of the time by men they know, this means that women we know are being raped by men we know. Some of these rapes will result in pregnancy. Until we start to believe that and accept that, nothing will change. Women will continue to live in fear of not being believed, so scared that instead of being able to speak up they hide their trauma in plain sight. That has to stop now and we all have a role to play, but it starts with politicians no longer failing women by, at best, not using their power to protect them, or, at worst, seeking to weaponise their trauma.

Regardless of our class, age or background, rape has always been part of our story as women. It is a part the Government are hearing, not shying away from and not ignoring because it is too difficult. Instead, the Government are choosing to use the law to acknowledge that this is happening: protecting victims without retraumatising; automatically removing parental responsibility where there is a conviction of rape; and also saying that we believe you, even without conviction, giving a court the power to take action where it sees that this is a child probably conceived from rape.

Laws like this do not change without a fight. This law is changing because we have a Prime Minister who took time to sit with me and listen to the voices of victims, and vowed to do something about it. It is because of people like Baroness Harman, the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls, the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, and Members from all across the House listening and helping me navigate to find a solution, with the Minister for Victims leading the change.

As the 690th woman MP, statistically the 172nd to be raped and one of the few to use this Chamber to speak out, my message is to victims and survivors everywhere: I know that speaking out is tough. Until you find your voice I will keep telling your stories, because sharing our truth is the only way that we will ever see change like this and force shame to change sides. So,

“Courage calls to courage everywhere”.

If you are one of the women affected by this law change, I ask that you to tell somebody you love and trust. I want you to give them the opportunity to readily believe you and embrace their chance to support you.

I want to end with the words of a brave mummy, who remains anonymous to keep herself and her child safe. She said:

“They won’t do it. They will let me down. They won’t believe me. They’ll see that what happened was my fault, that I asked for it, that it was my behaviour that caused this. That the worst thing imaginable happened and I only have myself to blame. That the rape grew inside me until I had to part with it by giving birth, a birth I have repeated nightmares about. It’s been so tough raising my child as a loving mother, even though I struggle with the fact that that child exists. If you change the law today, that will be incredible. It means I can use the law to keep me and my baby safe. It might even mean I can finally report it.”

I will be thinking of her—her incredible bravery and her wonderful child—as I walk through the Lobby to vote for this Bill tonight.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

[Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)]

My new clauses 15 and 16 concern restorative justice. They are supported by the charities Why Me?, for whom I am an ambassador, and Calm Mediation, as well as the Restorative Justice Council and others who work every day with victims and offenders. I thank hon. Members from my own party and from the Labour and Conservative Benches, who asked me to add their names in support.

The need for these clauses could not be clearer. After years of Conservative failure, our justice system stands at breaking point, with unacceptable delays. Our courts are clogged, witnesses drift away or begin to forget, and our prisons are stretched beyond breaking point. The Tories have left us with a legacy of neglect, and the people who suffer most are the victims, whose voices are too frequently ignored. We must do more to put the victim at the heart of the criminal justice process, rather than simply as one of the pieces of evidence to be heard in court. Victims are more than just witnesses to the crime, but too often that is their only role in court proceedings.

Increasingly, when we talk about justice for victims, the debate collapses into retributive justice, as if all victims want is to lock the door and throw away the key. Even David Gauke, the most liberal Lord Chancellor in my political lifetime, in his recent and mostly excellent sentencing review falls into this error with a chapter on victims focusing keeping them better informed about their sometimes unrealistic expectations concerning the severity of punishment. His review, like today’s Bill, makes no mention of restorative justice, which should be at the heart of giving victims access to justice. Victims of crime do not want retribution but closure, and giving them the opportunity to enter into a process that allows them to share their feelings concerning the crime with others, often culminating in a meeting with the perpetrator, has repeatedly been shown to achieve just that.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Does the hon. Member accept that, actually, there are some victims of very, very serious crimes who do not want a meeting and a resolution, but want to see a very serious offender spend a long time in prison?

[Mr Kohler]

Well, of course, restorative justice is not right for every victim. I have said to the hon. Member that it is right for many victims, including myself. I do not begin to understand why he finds that a difficult point to understand.

As I know from personal experience, when my wife, eldest daughter and I met one of the attackers who subjected me to a murderous attack in my home and terrorised my family, restorative justice is not about forgiveness, although that often happens as a by-product, but in giving the victim time and space to move on from the crime. My daughter, who moved out of the family home following the attack, moved back in after the restorative justice meeting. It allowed her to demythologise the perpetrator: no longer a monster, but a deeply flawed human being who she could look straight in the eye and cast from her nightmares.

That meeting transformed our family and her life. Yet for far too many victims, restorative justice remains out of reach. Sadly, only one in 20 adult victims with a known offender are routinely told about it. That is why new clause 15 is so crucial: it would create a statutory right to a meaningful referral to restorative justice services; not a token leaflet or tick-box exercise, but a proper referral made as soon as reasonably practicable once the offender is identified, and offered subsequently at appropriate times during the criminal justice process. I emphasise again that participation would always be voluntary, but every victim would have the right to be informed and supported to decide for themselves—what is wrong with that?

The Government may argue that they are considering strengthening the victims code; indeed, clause 8 enhances the Victims’ Commissioner’s reporting. That is welcome, but not enough. The commissioner can report only on what exists. New clause 15 would ensure that there is something meaningful to measure: a statutory right to referral. Without it, access to restorative justice will remain inconsistent and uncertain.

While new clause 15 would establish a meaningful statutory right, new clause 16 would ensure a meaningful review process by requiring the Secretary of State to report on the uptake of restorative justice and to make recommendations to improve access. If the Government truly value restorative justice, let them prove it with evidence—let Parliament see the data and the plan to expand its use. The reporting duty would complement the commissioner’s powers while they review compliance with the code. The new clause goes further, reporting on usage, barriers and ways to increase participation. Together, they create both the right and the oversight that victims deserve.

These new clauses carry no cost implications. It is about co-ordination, not cash. The infrastructure already exists; what it is missing is the statutory backbone to ensure that every victim, wherever they live, has equal access to restorative justice.

Let us not forget that while restorative justice is all about putting the victims at the heart of the criminal justice process, it also has the proven added advantage of cutting rates of recidivism. The Government often speak about tackling the causes of reoffending—employment, housing, addiction—but restorative justice tackles the psychology of criminality. It changes behaviour by confronting offenders with the human consequences of their actions—not every offender, of course, but a significant number.

If the Government truly stand with victims and want to cut reoffending, they must not simply make meek promises to review the code or commission another pilot; they must make access to restorative justice meaningful and real. They must support new clauses 15 and 16—if not today, then in the other place—and allow restorative justice to do what punishment alone cannot: heal the victim, reform the offender and mend the system on which we all depend.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Before I begin, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for her bravery and for the remarkable work she has done in her short time in this place, including on this Bill with new clause 14. I am so proud to be on these Benches with her.

I am going to speak to a measure at the heart of the Bill today. Attendance at sentencing hearings will compel convicted criminals to attend those hearings and provide the strongest of consequences when they refuse. This law is for Olivia Pratt-Korbel and other victims.

In August 2024, two of the most remarkable women I have ever met walked into my first MP surgery. They were my constituents Cheryl Korbel and Antonia Elverson, who are with us in the Gallery today. Cheryl is Olivia’s mum, and Antonia is Cheryl’s cousin. On 22 August 2022, Olivia, a little girl—just nine years old—was murdered by a stranger in her own home. The murderer, Thomas Cashman, fired a bullet through the door of Olivia’s home, which passed through the wrist of her mum, Cheryl, before hitting Olivia in the chest and ending her life. Cheryl fought with her heart and soul to save her baby.

No mother should have to go through such unimaginable pain. While nothing in this world can bring Olivia back and nothing can hold back a grief so great, looking the person responsible in the eye and telling them to their face the cost of their crime, and the effect it has had on the lives of their loved ones, can give victims just a small semblance of justice and closure. But Cheryl never had that chance. Under our current justice system, the ball is in the criminal’s court—criminals can choose to opt out of attending their sentencing, which is exactly what Olivia’s murderer did. Cashman chose to remain in his cell, refusing to face the court to hear Cheryl’s words or look her in the eye. It was the act of a coward.

However, instead of collapsing under this weight, Cheryl fought back. She and her family have campaigned with their all so that no other family will suffer what they have suffered. That is why I read out Cheryl’s victim impact statement in full on Second Reading. They were the words that the murderer and coward Thomas Cashman refused to hear. I wanted the words of Cheryl Korbel committed to this House so that they would be on the record in this place forever. I wanted her words to ring out in this Chamber for all the world to hear, as they should have done in Cashman’s ears that day.

18:40

Cashman’s refusal to turn up shone a spotlight on what is wrong with this system, and I want to thank the Government, the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), the former Justice Secretary, and the Prime Minister for listening and acting on Cheryl and Antonia’s wishes. They have put victims where they belong: in the driving seat of our justice system. This injustice has gone on for far too long, and that stops now. That is down to them.

This is a law for Olivia; it is her legacy. It is Cheryl’s legacy, too. It is a law and a legacy for all the families who have campaigned. I am delighted that these provisions have united support across this House, and I am confident that they will do so in the other place. Let us back this Bill, pass it and make it law at speed so that no victim’s voice is ever shut out of justice again.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

What a privilege it is to follow those powerful speeches from the hon. Members for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). They are clearly two very formidable parliamentarians, and it is a privilege to be in the same debate as them.

I stand today to speak on behalf of my constituent Bethan and her parents, who are in the Gallery today. I am going to do that rare thing on the Opposition Benches of thanking the Government for making changes to restrict the parental responsibility of convicted sexual offenders. It is hugely important and clearly the right thing to do. When Bethan, whose story was covered by the BBC, learned that her ex-husband had been convicted of some of the most serious child sex offences imaginable, she also learned that he retained access to her child. I am sure it is not lost on parliamentarians across this House that in those instances, for those paedophiles and sexual offenders, that access is the last bit of coercive and toxic control that they retain.

In the previous Parliament, when Baroness Harman and the Minister for Violence Against Women and Girls, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), pushed for a new clause on this matter in the Criminal Justice Bill, I had the privilege of watching with my constituents from up in the Gallery. Sadly, that Bill did not make it through the parliamentary wash-up, so the work was not completed at that time.

Bethan’s family had to spend £30,000—not a resource accessible to all—of their own money to get their case through the family courts. They have gone on this journey so that more victims—parents and mothers—can take advantage of this legislation and be protected even if they do not have that resource. I speak to be the voice of Bethan and her family. Although I will not take up much of the House’s time, they wanted me to place on the record their gratitude to Baroness Harman and to Alex Chalk, the former Secretary of State for Justice, who stayed in touch with them while there was work to be done. I am pleased we have got to Report stage. They also wanted me to place on the record their thanks to Laura Farris, to both Ministers present, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley, and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and to the Justice Secretary, because they really have protected vulnerable mothers and innocent children and spared them from excruciating distress.

While I do place on record my gratitude, it would be remiss of me not to ask a couple of questions on behalf of Bethan and her parents. They have queried the restriction to four-year sentences and the sexual harm prevention orders, which kick in with a two-and-a-half-year sentence. Could the Minister provide clarity on that? The measure refers to the children of sex offenders and the restriction of parental rights, but I do not think it refers to future children. [Interruption.] I see the Minister nodding her head. Perhaps she will state that on record for clarity.

Today I have the very easy task of being the voice of Bethan and her parents in saying thank you. This Bill is a really important measure to pass.

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

I really welcome this Bill, which delivers long-overdue reforms to protect victims and goes a long way to rebuilding confidence in our judicial system. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for their powerful contributions to the debate.

I also thank the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) for tabling new clause 12, relating to UK citizens who are murdered abroad. The previous Conservative Government failed to address this issue in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, so I thank him for raising this important issue once again. As he has explained, the lack of any statutory support for the families of British nationals murdered abroad is a glaring gap in our legal system. Families who find themselves in this deeply distressing circumstance must deal not only with their immense grief but with difficult practical issues, such as navigating a foreign legal system—often with language barriers—and unfamiliar police forces and judiciaries.

New clause 12 would address that anomaly by creating an appendix to the victims code that sets out how it applies to close relatives of British nationals resident in England and Wales who are the victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide committed abroad. The hon. Member for Maidenhead is right that families in those awful circumstances need more support and are being failed by the current system. At the very minimum, they deserve the same recognition and support under the law as those whose tragedies occur within the UK. Currently they are only able to access discretionary support that may be given by local chief constables, Government Departments and national services, such as the National Homicide Service and the victim contact scheme.

That is not good enough. We need statutory rights for families in these circumstances to be treated and supported as victims themselves. Rather than just an appendix to the victims code, we need a framework that is more bespoke, offering tailored help to families who need to navigate a particularly difficult set of circumstances. That could include help with the repatriation of their loved one or keeping them informed about the police investigation or court process that may be happening on the other side of the world, often in a different language.

Although I wholeheartedly agree with the principle behind new clause 12, I cannot support it. I think we need to go further, with both Justice Ministers and Foreign Office Ministers working together on a specific framework to support UK families who have lost loved ones while abroad. I am afraid I also cannot support the new clause because, by my reading, subsection (1) to proposed new section 2A is too narrowly drawn. I am currently supporting the family of a constituent from Strood who has died in suspicious circumstances abroad in India. They have struggled to get the right support from the Foreign Office and came to me in desperation as they did not know where else to go for help. Kent police has been helping them through its missing persons unit, as distressingly the first they knew of anything having happened to their father was when they were sent a video of his cremation, received at 3 am UK time. However, there are obvious limits to what Kent police can do in this situation.

As there is currently not even a murder or manslaughter investigation, since it is unclear what happened, the family would not be covered under subsection (1) to proposed new section 2A, despite needing the same support as families in those situations who the hon. Member for Maidenhead is nobly trying to help. Rather than pushing new clause 12 to a vote, I urge the hon. Member to join me in welcoming the Minister’s opening comments about action in this space and calling for her to commit to working with her Foreign Office equivalent to design a specific framework that will give statutory rights not only to the families of UK residents who are the victim of murder, manslaughter or infanticide but to the families of those who have died in suspicious circumstances. That way, everyone who is facing this difficult set of circumstances can get the support that they need.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this raft of very important changes. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards). I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) to address the points raised—I am not qualified—but I imagine that the purpose of new clause 12 is to make technical changes so that the measures are even more effective, which, clearly, we would all support. In any case, my understanding is that it would require the Secretary of State to bring forward such changes rather than stipulating what those changes are in detail.

Like others, I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) on a very impressive and powerful speech. I know that the Minister congratulated her in advance on the campaign she has run. Equally, the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) made a very powerful speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead made strong cases as well.

I repeat the reminder of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) that the primary purpose—this is certainly what I have always said—of custodial sentences must be public protection. It is on that issue that I wish to concentrate. My remarks are entirely informed by a case I have been pursuing on behalf of my constituent Tina Nash. The Minister is aware of this, because I have corresponded with her on the subject. Tina was horrifically attacked by her former partner in 2012 for a 12-hour period until she managed to escape. In that time she was battered and had her eyes gouged out and her jaw and nose broken. It was an appalling beating that she was lucky to survive—and a survivor she is.

The following year her former partner was jailed for life with a minimum term of six years. However, earlier this year he was moved to a category D prison, with open conditions. My constituent was not consulted about this and was only informed about it after the decision had been taken. Bearing in mind that she is blind, it is understandable that she fears that, if she went out shopping, he could be in her company without her knowledge. She is incredibly scared as a result of the decision. She had no say in it, and nor was she consulted.

I tabled new clause 17 to urge the Government to accept that victims have a right to a veto in reasonable circumstances for their own protection—not in all circumstances and not in every condition, but we should certainly ensure that they are properly consulted. As a result of this experience, I think there are a number of other failings in the system that require the Government to ensure belt-and-braces support for victims throughout the process.

Tina wanted to pursue this matter with the Parole Board, but it did not respond to her until my intervention, and then there was an offer of a meeting. That is not good enough. It should not be down to a Member of Parliament to force a response. She was given the support of the victim contact scheme, which I will come to in a moment.

My constituent was given the opportunity to complain—the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman provided her with a complaint form—but months after she had completed the complaint, she was informed that the ombudsman had assumed she was the prisoner, not the victim. Can that level of incompetence or her treatment throughout the process be believed? She was treated appallingly, while the process wasted her time and stressed her out. Her complaint was rejected as outside the PPO’s remit—that fact was not initially communicated to her—which caused her enormous distress and confusion. Despite circumstances in which she was blinded by her perpetrator, she still somehow has to navigate and overcome all these processes and problems. Of course, the PPO apologised for its error, but with a lack of empathy for my constituent in an officious response that directed her to the Victims’ Commissioner.

19:00

I turn to Tina’s interfacing with the victim liaison officer and the victim contact scheme. This week, I received further communication from her in which she said that she has been attempting to seek support from the service and made inquiries about the restorative options that might be available, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. I thought it was incredibly brave of her even to consider that in such circumstances, but she was prepared at least to explore what that would mean, how she would go about it and so on.

Tina got a response from her victim contact officer. In her message to me, she said:

“He shouted at me that the perpetrator is scared of me. So they are now trying to make me feel like I am the perpetrator and the perpetrator is the victim…and they have to protect him.”

That is from the victim contact scheme, which is there to support the victim, not to defend the perpetrator—what is going on? She continued:

“So I have removed myself from the victim contact scheme. I do not trust them…I am not being supported.”

That simply is not good enough. What is happening to the system to allow such circumstances to arise?

Hon. Members might think that my new clause, which would entitle victims to a veto, is an unreasonable request, but something has to be done. Tina has been appallingly let down by the system. If a victim who has gone through all that is treated in such a manner, we really do need to strengthen the system and not allow it to continue as it is. She has been told that her perpetrator is now remorseful and contrite about the whole thing, but I wonder whether psychopathy of people of that nature is fully understood. They can be as violent as that, and they can also act up and persuade professionals that they are remorseful. I think it is theatrical contrition and insincere repentance, and I worry that the system is vulnerable to such people. I urge the Minister to look again at this area and ensure that victims and survivors are properly supported.

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

When I served in the police force, my work often ended when we put perpetrators behind bars, or sometimes when I stood in court to give evidence, but the victims’ ordeals do not end there. Many reached out to me long after my role was done to tell me they still felt unheard and unprotected, and that justice for them was never truly served.

Too many survivors live in fear, with victims checking over their shoulders and altering their routines, wondering when the person who hurt them might walk free and attack them again. That is no way for anybody to live in society, and that is precisely why I welcome provisions in the Bill such as expanding the victim contact scheme, which will give victims vital reassurances, protecting them from being blindsided by their offender’s release and helping them reclaim a sense of safety.

I am particularly pleased about Government new clause 14—many hon. Members have spoken about it passionately—which would see the presumption of parental access suspended for parents who commit crimes against children, because one child lost due to a criminal parent being granted unsupervised contact is one child too many. No one should ever have to risk their child’s safety because of a system that puts rights before reason.

Ordering offenders to attend their sentences is another critical step in that process and the next process as part of the Bill. Victims deserve the chance to look those responsible in the eye, to be heard and to begin their healing. Perpetrators must face the full weight and impact of their crimes. There must be no more hiding from the consequences of what they have done.

On that point, I must highlight the work of the Justice for Victims group: an organisation of families who have turned their pain into purpose. I have had the privilege of meeting them on several occasions. Sasha Marsden was 16 when she was raped and stabbed more than 100 times by her killer. Tony Hudgell lost his lower legs as a result of child cruelty by his own parents. Sarah Everard was abducted by a serving police officer while walking home, raped and murdered, and her body was disposed of. At just four years old, Violet-Grace Youens was killed by a dangerous driver in a stolen car driving at 80 mph in a 30 mph zone. The perpetrator spent barely more time in prison than Violet was alive. Last, but not least, of this group, Jan Mustafa was killed by a serial sex offender who stored her body in a freezer alongside another murder victim, Henriett.

The families of those victims are just a few of many who have been let down by the justice system’s treatment of victims in one way or another over time. One victim told me that their victim impact statement was so heavily edited by defence lawyers that they barely recognised their own words. How can anyone find closure when their voice is silenced in that way? It is not right. That is why I have spoken about this in depth several times to my hon. Friend the Minister, and why I welcome the outcomes that she has brought forward.

It is also why I have campaigned so much to see real reform of victim personal statements. No family should ever have to water down their grief or pain just to spare the feelings of the person who caused it. Victims deserve to be heard in their own words honestly and fully. Offenders must also be made to hear every word to confront the true devastation they have caused. That principle ties in directly with the provisions of the Bill. Yes, offenders should be compelled to attend their sentencing, but they should also be compelled to listen to how their crimes have impacted victims and their families. There should be no place to hide for perpetrators and no reason for victims to edit or soften their voices to fit the comfort of those who harmed them.

Justice for Victims is also calling for clarity on terminology. Life sentences do not mean life, so we should stop pretending that they do. Justice for Victims is also right to call for clarity in life sentences, with life meaning behind bars for life. Yes, we have whole-life sentences, but it does no favours when life sentences—not whole-life sentences—can be equivalent to, I think, 12 years. The public deserve honesty and victims deserve truth.

Additionally, there must be changes to the time limit for victims’ families to appeal offenders’ sentences. Katie Brett, who is Sasha’s sister, said that victims and families currently have only “28 days to appeal” unduly lenient sentences, normally at a time when they are

“grieving and traumatised. But criminals are allowed to appeal after this in ‘exceptional circumstances.’ Why don’t victims and their families get this right?”

That question cuts to the heart of this debate. Victims and families deserve fairness and they deserve to be heard.

These are not radical reforms. They are small, practical, compassionate steps that will make a profound difference to people’s lives. I wholeheartedly support the Bill and the progress it represents, but I urge the Government to go even further to deliver real justice for victims and survivors, and to ensure that no one who has already suffered once is ever failed by this system ever again.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

I want to start by thanking the Minister for accepting the principle behind amendment 9, which I have now withdrawn, and for introducing a new amendment to restrict parental responsibility for serious child sexual abusers who offend against children who are not their own, building on the Government’s welcome step of restricting it for those who do. This represents a real step forward for child safety, and I pay tribute to the collaborative spirit of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and to the many Members across the House who supported the amendment, alongside Fair Hearing and the many victims who have fought so hard for this change. I also want to put on the record my support for new clauses 1, 2 and 18, and to give my heartfelt love to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and her eloquent bravery.

I would like to speak to new clauses 10 and 11, which stand in my name, although I will not be pushing them to a vote. These twin new clauses seek to place statutory duties on the relevant authorities to commission specialist services for victims of abuse and exploitation and those who care for them. The Government have already committed, in their tackling child sexual abuse progress update earlier this year, to increase access to support for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, and the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which reported three years ago last week, recommended a national guarantee of support for victims of sexual abuse.

New clause 10, which is supported by Women’s Aid, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardo’s, Action for Children, Catch 22, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, SafeLives, Respect and the Independent Domestic Abuse Services, as well as 49 of my colleagues across the parties, seeks to make this a reality by ending the postcode lottery that victims face and ensuring that we have adequately funded specialist services for whoever might need them.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that community-based services supporting the victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, such as Next Chapter, the Centre of Action on Rape and Abuse—CARA—and Restitute in Essex, do vital work that should be backed by multi-year settlements and enhanced commissioning arrangements in the east of England and beyond?

[Jess Asato]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and pay tribute to the services in her local area. We all have many such specialist services, and I am sure that we will want to pay tribute to them this evening.

The Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse estimates that there are 55,000 adults and children in England and Wales on waiting lists for support following child sexual abuse, and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner has found that over a quarter of domestic abuse services are having to turn away children who are victims of abuse. It is a stain on this country that fewer than half of domestic abuse victims are able to access the community-based support that they deserve. I expect that the public would be astonished to know that there is no automatic right to specialist support after a terrible, traumatic crime such as rape or domestic abuse. Even though the victims code specifies that people have a right as a victim to be referred to specialist services, this is not an actionable right. Victims cannot sue anyone if it is not upheld.

The sad reality is that specialist services are on their knees. Twenty-three child sexual abuse support services have closed in the past 18 months due to financial pressures. Just the week before last, Jewish Sexual Abuse Support was forced to close due to cuts, which have had a particular impact on small by-and-for organisations. Its chief executive, Erica Marks, gave the stark warning that we could

“expect to see more community sexual violence organisations fail”.

That is unacceptable if we want to halve violence against women and girls. By-and-for services such as hers are the backbone of our response to victims of abuse. They help to reach some of the most excluded in our society. Losing the vital, lifesaving support provided by organisations such as JSAS and others will not make victims safer.

19:14

We know that there are many pressures on the public purse, but there is a financial case to be made for investing in these support services. A 2021 report for the Home Office estimated that the economic and social cost of contact child sexual abuse alone was £10.1 billion. That is money that we lose in economic output and in huge costs to the NHS, the police and the criminal justice system. The cost of domestic abuse, which affects 2.4 million adults a year and accounts for one in five homicides, is estimated by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner to cost £85 billion per year. That is £47 billion more than the budgets of the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice combined. To do nothing will not save us money. It will only ensure that costs spiral, loading pressure on all our public services and reducing our economic productivity.

We know that, without support, victims are less likely to stay the course of a criminal justice process, less likely to recover from the trauma of their experience, less likely to be able to go back into work, and more likely to remain vulnerable to future exploitation and abuse. Specialist services are those that employ dedicated workers who are trained to understand, for example, the dynamics of coercive and controlling behaviour. They are those that recognise that rape and domestic abuse are largely gendered crimes. They recognise that children are not just an adjunct to adults and that, just as they have paediatricians, children need their own child-centred response. By-and-for services also go further. They are experts in honour-based abuse and the weaponisation of immigration status, the needs of disabled or older victims and the dynamics of same-sex relationships. Crucially, they are independent from the statutory sector. They champion the victim first and advocate for the support they need without fear or favour.

In the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, a statutory duty was placed on commissioners to secure accommodation-based support, such as refuges for domestic abuse victims. While the roll-out has not been perfect in practice, it has at least placed a duty on local authorities to maintain provision at local level. No such duty exists for community-based support for domestic abuse victims, despite the community being where nearly 70% of victims access support. In a concession at the end of consideration of the Domestic Abuse Bill, the previous Government promised a consultation on a statutory duty for community-based provision. That never happened. It was a casualty of the changing list of Justice Secretaries who did not keep their promises. It falls to this Labour Government to resurrect that promise.

We must also recognise those who pick up the pieces after the unimaginable happens to their loved ones, such as someone discovering that their partner has abused their child, or grandparents stepping in to care for children after perpetrators of domestic abuse drive their partner to destitution. One in 20 adults are closely related to a victim of serious assault. According to analysis from researchers at the Violence and Society Centre, people related to victims of violence are four times more likely to feel unsafe in their neighbourhood and twice as likely to have depression or an anxiety disorder than people not related to victims of violence. They themselves face unique challenges, including stress, guilt, trauma and depression. These are all things that parents and carers must balance while dealing with the practical, everyday challenges they face while navigating the legal system, co-ordinating with agencies, understanding safeguarding procedures and trying to access therapy for those they care for.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for her fantastic speech. I recently met some kinship carers who with very little support often take on family members who have suffered terrible trauma and abuse. They do not understand the child’s trauma and they do not understand how best to support them. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to get the best results for child victims, we need to think about how we extend support to kinship carers, so that they can support those children who have been through the worst of times?

[Jess Asato]

I absolutely agree that kinship carers, parents and partners are different from those of the primary victim, and they need support in their own right. When we fail those third-party victims, we fail the primary victim, too. We allow them to disengage from the legal process, and we deprive them of the wraparound support they need when they are at their most vulnerable.

New clause 11 is supported by the organisations Restitute, We Stand, Acts Fast and Ivison Trust, and a version of it was first laid by Baroness Sal Brinton in the other place in a Bill last year. It would place a statutory duty on commissioners to ensure that appropriate independent services are available for the parent, guardian or person responsible for the care of a victim who is under 18 at the time of the offence, or who is an adult at risk of harm. Once again, that should already be happening—it is supposedly a right in the victims code. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse recommended that support for non-abusing parents and carers should be statutory. New clause 11 would bring that crucial recommendation to fruition. Families should not have to wait years; they want action now. As with victim services, severe funding shortages fail to make the ambition set out in the code a reality.

Together, new clauses 10 and 11 would ensure that if any one of us here, or someone we cared for, were abused or exploited, we or they would be supported. It is an ambition long supported that must now be met with action. I look forward to working with the Minister and colleagues across the House on saving our specialist services and saving victims and their families, and I will be pleased to vote for the Bill tonight.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 1 in my name. It would ensure the implementation of recommendation 18 from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. Survivors of child sexual abuse have been let down for years by a national compensation scheme. Too often their applications are delayed or denied, not because the legitimacy of their abuse is in any question, but because of loopholes set by the very organisation that was established to support them: the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

The many limitations of the scheme were considered during IICSA, which resulted in a clear recommendation to remove the unfair barriers set by CICA, but in April Ministers rejected that recommendation. My new clause 1 would overturn that decision. It has commanded the support of 27 Members from across the House and the backing of 29 charities and experts. They include the Marie Collins Foundation and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, which have campaigned passionately on this issue. In opening, the Minister said that she wants a universal scheme without hierarchy, but unfortunately that is not the case at the moment.

My amendment would widen the eligibility of the scheme to include those who have been victims of online-facilitated child sexual abuse. The recent Casey audit found that 40% of the 100,000 recorded child sexual abuse offences last year took place online, so that is around 40,000 children who will struggle to access compensation because their abuse is not considered by CICA “violent” enough to qualify. As IICSA rightly concluded, that rule

“does not take account of the extent of the harm and damage”

of online abuse, such as the ongoing fear that images of sexual abuse will remain available online indefinitely. By continuing to leave online abuse out of scope, CICA reinforces the risk that online sexual abuse is perceived somehow as less serious or less deserving of redress, but nothing could be further from the truth.

New clause 1 also seeks to increase the time limit for applications so that survivors have seven years from the date the offence was reported to the police, or from the age of 18 if the offence was reported while they were a child. The scheme currently has just a two-year time limit, but the average time it takes for a survivor of child abuse to come forward is 24 years to 27 years. There are many reasons for that, and we have heard some in the Chamber today: trauma, fear and shame, not to mention the length of time to go through the court process. The Minister knows this, which is why she and the other Justice Ministers rightly abolished the three-year time limit for civil claims by survivors of child sexual abuse, in line with IICSA recommendation 15.

However, the decision means that survivors face a strange paradox: no time limit for them to take legal action against their abusers, but tight restrictions if they wish to seek compensation for that same abuse. The Government have argued that there is discretion in the scheme to allow applications after the time limit has expired. That is indeed true. However, the proportion of resolved cases accepted after the time limit has fallen each year between 2020 and 2024. In 2020, 87.3% of applications received outside the time limit were resolved. By 2024, that was down to 66.9%. By contrast, the compensation model in Quebec allows seven years for all types of crime except for domestic abuse, child sexual abuse and sexual violence, which have no time limit at all. Surely that is the model we should be following.

Finally, new clause 1 would prevent survivors of child abuse from being affected by a rule that blocks or reduces compensation for victims with unspent convictions. APIL shared with me the case of a woman who was sexually abused by her father. She had suffered with her mental health as a consequence and was hospitalised. While in hospital, she threatened to kill herself with a letter opener. The hospital called the police, and she was convicted of possessing a knife. Because of that conviction, she was then refused the compensation by CICA that had been originally offered to her. That is why new clause 1 would ensure applicants with unspent convictions are not automatically excluded where offences are linked to circumstances of their sexual abuse as a child.

Anti-slavery charities have also been in touch to explain how this particular rule impacts on victims of trafficking who try to access the compensation scheme. It is not unusual for victims of slavery or, indeed, child or criminal exploitation to be forced into criminality by their exploiters. Those convictions, however, commonly lead to immense difficulty for those victims to then access compensation—something that victims of modern slavery, for example, ought to be entitled to under article 15 of the European convention on action against trafficking.

The criminal injuries compensation scheme is supposed to be a support scheme of last resort. Sadly, for many survivors, it is not even that. In the long term, CICA needs a complete overhaul. In the short term, however, survivors are keen to see the swift implementation of recommendation 18, because in doing so this House and this Government can send a powerful message that their abuse is recognised, that their future is prioritised and that meaningful change is under way.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I want to speak in support of new clauses 10 and 11, which would place a duty on authorities to guarantee support for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and child criminal exploitation, as well as their care-givers. I am proud to support a Government who are committed to halving violence against women and girls and who just last week announced some of the most significant steps towards supporting victims of abuse, including denying rapists access to children born of rape and an end to the presumption of contact in the family courts—not just words but action. I support calls for meaningful action today.

Victims are not only dealing with the trauma of what has happened to them. For many, the thought of the court case risks retraumatizing them. Given the backlog in our courts—a backlog left by previous Governments—victims are waiting months and sometimes years before cases are heard. That wait takes a huge emotional toll. We have to address the fear of the process if we are to meet our target of halving violence against women and girls. We have to support victims throughout the process. I urge the Government to build a system that gives victims the confidence to come forward knowing that they will not be left to cope alone.

19:30

Children who experience abuse face unique and lasting harms. Without the right specialist support, the devastating impact of childhood trauma can echo through a lifetime. Additionally, caregivers are often also traumatised. Without further support, they not only do not get the support they need but are not as able to provide the love and stability that the child they are helping needs.

I am proud of the Government’s work so far to strengthen the victims code and improve how the victims of these horrendous crimes are treated. But we can build on that by making sure that, wherever someone lives, they can rely on the right specialist services to help them to cope with the trauma, manage the emotional strain of the trial and rebuild their lives after it. Together, the measures in the Bill recognise that victims and their families need wraparound support, not piecemeal provision.

Calder Valley is fortunate to have deputy mayor for policing Alison Lowe, who puts violence against women and girls at the centre of her work. Organisations such as Staying Safe and Victim Support West Yorkshire provide lifelines to victims of domestic abuse and crime, and Calderdale WomenCentre offers holistic support. But too often these services are stretched and reliant on short-term grants and support, wounded by a decade of austerity, and without the statutory footing that guarantees their future.

There is a postcode lottery. We must deliver change by placing a duty on authorities to commission specialist services everywhere, so that victims and their caregivers can rely on consistent support across the board. The victims of these crimes deserve more than just words and sympathy: they deserve a system that stands with them and provides the support they need. I hope this Government will deliver practical steps that will deliver the changes we need.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Being a parent is a privilege, not a right. I rise to speak to Government new clause 14, on the restriction of parental responsibility for a child conceived as a result of rape. It will appear on the face of this Bill because of the fierce campaigning force of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet)—my friend and my hero. Her law change, to be engraved in the Government’s Bill, puts the needs of survivors above the needs of rapists, casting in law a shield for women who have had a child as a result of rape, and for their babies. Those rapists will no longer be able to retraumatise the mothers, nor to demand access to or endanger the children.

If anyone says politics does not make a difference, I say, “Look at my hon. Friend, who shared her own experience of being groomed and abused and having a child as a result.” Her extraordinary strength raised that beautiful baby girl. That strength meant that she did so alongside becoming a Member of this House and, within her first year as a parliamentarian, will today change the law to protect a generation of women, girls and children. This is the difference that politics in the hands of Members like my hon. Friend makes for our communities and our country: protecting women and children from vile sex offenders. It is a non-negotiable priority, central to our Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade.

This matters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, 10 babies a day are currently born as a result of rape. Yet we still do not know the true scale of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of known domestically abusive parents. We do know that 60% of cases in the family courts involve domestic abuse, and that 40,000 children will have experienced domestic abuse in the private law Children Act cases that were received by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service in the nine months from April 2024.

My formidable constituent, Claire Throssell MBE, lost her two beautiful boys 11 years ago, at the hands of her known domestically abusive ex-husband, while they were on a five-hour court-permitted contact visit. He lured them into the attic of their home with the promise of a train set, and set fires around their house. Claire promised her boys that she would ensure their voices were heard by campaigning to repeal the presumption of contact, the legal principle brought about by the Children and Families Act 2014, amending the Children Act 1989. The principle means that the courts always prioritise having both parents in a child’s life over the child’s safety, including when there is a known history of domestic abuse.

There have been 67 deaths at the hands of known domestic abusers since Women’s Aid started to report on this issue just 30 years ago. Five previous Conservative Governments—look at the empty Benches opposite—did nothing, despite the Conservative Government in 2020 leading the harm panel report, an expert review of domestic abuse and the family courts; despite that report recommending that the presumption of contact should be urgently reviewed; and despite Women’s Aid research finding there have been 19 more child deaths at the hands of known domestic abusers since Jack and Paul died. No response was published for four years under those Conservative Governments. Where are Conservative Members today?

I first met Claire at a remembrance event at my old school—the same school that her eldest son Jack went to. I knew of the tragic deaths of her sons, but hearing from her what happened was heartbreaking. I promised her that if I was elected as her Member of Parliament, I would help to fulfil her promise to her boys. Last week, I took Claire to No. 10 Downing Street to meet the Prime Minister—the sixth Prime Minister since her beautiful boys died, but the first to promise Claire that he will deliver Jack and Paul’s law. Last week, on the 11th anniversary of the boys’ deaths, he announced in this Chamber that our Government will repeal the presumption of contact.

The Prime Minister’s promise made it clear that the repeal of the presumption of contact will form part of a broader package of family court reforms aimed at better protecting children involved in private law proceedings. That is truly decisive action by our Government to change the law to protect generations of children where the Conservatives failed to do so. The reforms will ensure that decisions about child arrangements put the child at the centre of decision making and are based on a robust assessment of the potential risks, particularly when domestic abuse is present.

Our message is clear: the safety of children is paramount. We will stop at nothing to make sure that they are protected in our courts, prioritising children’s safety and wellbeing and their right to grow up free from harm. The changes will reinforce new clause 14 and the exceptional work set out in the Bill by putting children at the centre of the family courts.

I am proud that our Labour Government is packed full of brilliant women who stood behind Claire Throssell, Natalie Fleet and I to ensure that our Government fulfil her promise to her boys. Those women include the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services, the Minister for Victims, the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, and my hon. Friends the Members for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) and for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle). I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for his work and allyship.

Repealing the presumption of contact is urgent. Will the Minister confirm that it will be repealed as soon as the parliamentary time allows, thereby fulfilling the promise that the Prime Minister made to Claire Throssell last week? Expediting the repeal of the provision in the statute book will ensure that no more towns like mine will grieve, and it will ensure that Jack and Paul’s law is at the heart of our family justice system, where it belongs. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I am very conscious that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) made an impassioned and moving speech, but I remind Members that we must refer to her as the hon. Member for Bolsover.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

I will speak in favour of new clauses 13 and 14 and the expansion to clause 3. I served with some colleagues in Committee, but may I begin by thanking all Members who have contributed tonight? We have had a series of impassioned speeches from across the House, and I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for their powerful contributions.

The amendments we are discussing this evening are a significant step forward in protecting victims of serious violence and they will help thousands of people. They will help to ensure the safety of victims of serious sexual abuse and victims of crime who have signed a non-disclosure agreement, and, crucially, these amendments will also protect children.

New clause 14 will ensure the protection of children born of rape. On Second Reading, I spoke of a constituent who had had a child as a result of an abusive relationship. She told me of the extreme difficulties she had been facing as she had passed through a long and complex custody battle. She asked me if we, as politicians, could look again at parental rights in the context of abusive relationships. I am very pleased that new clause 14 will protect children born in such circumstances. No longer will children born of rape, or their mothers, be forced to have a relationship with a rapist. Currently, mothers in some cases must co-parent with a rapist. Women should not be forced to include their rapist in decisions on their child’s healthcare, schooling, or any other aspects of a child’s life. Children should not have to be raised by rapists.

Mothers who have a child born of rape should be safe in the knowledge that having a child will not tie them to their rapist. Automatic restriction of parental responsibility will ensure that mothers and children are safer. Rapists should not have the automatic right to interfere with their victims’ lives. This clause frees families from the stress and pain of applying to court by ensuring that this restriction is immediate.

The expansion to clause 3 similarly ensures that any person convicted of serious sex offences against any child has their parental rights removed. The safety of children is the utmost priority, and expanding this measure from those who have abused their own child to those who have seriously abused any child will ensure the safety of the children the perpetrator is closest to. Paedophiles should have no right to look after any child.

I am also pleased to see that new clause 13 will allow us to clamp down on the misuse of non-disclosure agreements, which are used to hide instances where a crime has occurred. Victims of crime should not have to worry about who they speak to regarding the crime of which they are a victim, and non-disclosure agreements should not be used to silence victims of crimes, nor should they stop witnesses coming forward. This change will mean that victims and direct witnesses of crime can speak to their friends, their family and their support system, but they can also speak to their employers and, if necessary, to journalists. I very much welcome the closing of this loophole, which allows criminals to scare victims into not sharing their experiences. The law must not protect those who seek to silence victims.

These amendments will allow us to take significant steps towards the Government’s aim of halving violence towards women and girls. But more than that, these amendments serve to give victims of serious violent crime justice.

[Dr Mullan]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 4 and the other amendments in my name and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and other members of the His Majesty’s Opposition.

I know the Minister will join me in beginning by thanking all the witnesses who came and gave evidence to us in Committee on the behalf of victims, including Dame Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner; Baroness Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner; Katie Kempen from Victim Support; Rebecca Bryant from Resolve; Suky Baker from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust; Andrea Simon from the End Violence Against Women coalition; Farah Nazeer from Women’s Aid; Glenn Youens and Paula Hudgell from Justice for Victims; and Mark Brooks OBE from the ManKind Initiative. We all benefited greatly from their evidence and the victims’ perspective they gave.

19:45

It was clear that many of the witnesses and Members from both sides of the House were of one view about many of the positive aspects of this Bill. For example, the improved powers for the Victims’ Commissioner are welcome and they will give new strength to their arm in raising issues and securing change on behalf of victims. The streamlining and expansion of the victim contact scheme will help victims be better informed about key information about their offender post-conviction. Other important measures were considered in Committee, and I am pleased to say that, while at the time the Government were committed to their approach, they have since shifted to some degree, which I will go on to cover.

We welcome the Government’s new clause 14 on parental responsibility for a child conceived of rape, creating a duty on the court to make a prohibited steps order restricting the parental responsibility of a person convicted of rape where a child has been conceived as a result of that offence. This is an important measure that strengthens the protection available to victims and ensures that offenders cannot continue to wield control over their victims through their children. I join Members on both sides of the House in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), who spoke very powerfully in relation to that and has been a committed campaigner, and other Members have been mentioned who have supported her in securing that change. For too long, victims of rape have faced the unthinkable prospect of having to engage with their attacker over matters concerning their child’s wellbeing.

On the changing Government position on clause 3 on parental responsibility, witnesses and others in Committee made it clear that the initial proposal fell far short of what was required, so we welcome Government amendment 10 widening the duty on the Crown court to make an order restricting parental responsibility where a person is sentenced to four years or more for a serious sexual offence against a child—in relation to all children rather than just a child of their own. Several Members have worked towards this amendment, but I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), along with the previous Justice Secretary the right hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and—I do not expect they are still in the Gallery—the constituents of my hon. Friend who raised this case in such a high-profile way.

The Minister will know there have been different clauses: one that was first put forward by the Conservatives in government; the initial clause from the current Government; and this further clause. The Minister will also know that our further clause would remove the four-year requirement and have it apply more widely to any sexual offence. My hon. Friend put forward yet another way that we might better prescribe those subject to these measures beyond those convicted of offences with a sentence of four years or more. Although I appreciate that this is a novel measure, if it proves effective in practice we would welcome the opportunity to revisit it in future and see how we might better frame it to protect children.

On amendments 4 to 7 in relation to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, the current scheme allows certain sentences to be referred to the Attorney General’s Office if they are thought to be too lenient. That is an important safeguard in our justice system. I have made use of it, as have other Members and members of the public as well, but too many victims and families simply do not know the scheme exists, and even when they do, the time limits are far too tight for it to work in practice. Currently, people only have 28 days from the date of a sentence to ask for review; that is four short weeks at what is often one of the most traumatic and confusing times in their lives. For families who have just been through a difficult and emotional trial, 28 days is no time at all to understand the process, get advice and decide whether to ask for a review.

Our amendments would make a number of reasonable and practical changes to help fix that. They would extend the deadline from 28 to 56 days, giving the wider public the same time limit that the Government are giving themselves in this Bill; the Government are extending the length of appeal for themselves, but not for victims. We would also allow up to one year for the next of kin or a victim to apply in cases where they are affected or they have lost a loved one. It would also place a duty on the CPS to write to victims or their families after sentencing to tell them about the scheme and how it works. Far too often, families never hear about the scheme or hear about it after the deadline has passed.

In recent weeks, I met with Karen Garland from the Marie Collins Foundation, who has been supporting a lady called Lauren who lodged an application in time to the Government for the scheme, only to be barred from making use of it because the CPS made a mistake about the time she had to further appeal it. So on a purely technical basis, she was prevented from lodging a valid appeal and there was no way for her to get that looked at. There was an attempt to ask the sentencing judge to look at it again but, with respect to that sentencing judge, asking the same judge who had passed the sentence to look at that sentence again is not what the ULS is intended to achieve.

Campaigners have done incredible work to highlight the issue. They include Katie Brett, who others have mentioned, who launched a petition in memory of her sister, Sasha—I will not repeat the awful circumstances of her sister’s death, which the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) powerfully highlighted—and Ayse Hussein, who campaigns on behalf of her cousin Jan Mustafa. They are both part of Justice for Victims, and I also recently met Tracey Hanson, who founded the Josh Hanson Trust after the murder of her son. They have all shown courage and determination in calling for change, and they speak for many families who feel let down by the system.

The Government have said that they will wait for the outcome of a wider review of criminal appeals before taking action. However, I want Members to be clear that the provisional view of that review is that the ULS should not be changed and that it is fine as it is. We have no timetable for when that review will be published or when the Government will respond to it, but we have a Bill in front of us that would allow us to make such changes, so now is the time to do that.

The Minister talked about certainty in sentencing, but victims have to sit and wait knowing that the criminal can appeal at any time—in exceptional circumstances, criminals can appeal years later—so there is no certainty in the existing system. We want to even that out for the public. We should not forget that behind every case is a family who have been through unimaginable pain. The Minister must be sympathetic to our measured and proportionate proposals, and we should vote them through tonight.

Turning to new clause 4, victim impact statements, which are made by victims and sometimes their family members in court, allow victims and their families to explain in their own words how a crime has affected their lives. They are an important part of the justice process and one of the few chances that victims have to be heard directly by the court. However, there are real concerns about the restrictions placed on what victims are allowed to say in these statements. Many victims and their family members have said that they were told to remove parts of their statements or to avoid expressing their true feelings. That is deeply unfair and undermines the purpose of the statement. I understand the formality of the proceedings, but the current approach often strips away the honesty and the points that victims would like to make.

We have heard about families who have been through this. As others have mentioned, Sarah Everard’s parents, Susan and Jeremy, talked about their difficulties. While they understand the advice that they were given and thought that they were well supported in the court and by the court process, they think that the system did not allow them to say what they would have liked. Glenn and Becky Youens, who I have spoken to frequently, wanted to talk about the death of their daughter, Violet-Grace, at the hands of appalling criminals, but again they were restricted.

There will be things that the judge cannot take into consideration. However, we need to allow the judge to make clear what points of law will or will not be considered, and what things the victims may wish to say, in order to have their hearing and to get their say, that the judge will not technically take into account in sentencing, without putting it back on victims and saying that we cannot change the system because of the law. For example, if the victim wants to say what sentence the perpetrator should get, what is wrong with that? In these sorts of circumstance, it is perfectly reasonable that any person in court would want to be able to say that. Are we really saying that the judge cannot hear that and then set it aside?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The shadow Minister is right that there are certain things that victims should be able to say in their victim impact statement—we agree on that—but there are things that are clearly not in the remit of what should be openly discussed in a sentencing hearing. They include information pertaining to the offender’s family, for example. Victims may want to reference that in their victim impact statements, but for the safety of those other family members, they should not be mentioned. It is right that we have strict guidance, and I am willing to work with him and other hon. Members to ensure that the victims have a voice in this.

[Dr Mullan]

We have been clear that victims do not have carte blanche—they cannot say literally whatever they like—but our proposed new clause allows the Government to set what those things will or will not be more clearly in law. That puts the onus back on the judge to disregard things that will not be of relevance to the sentencing. I think that is a perfectly reasonable way to organise things.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The shadow Minister has just outlined exactly why it would be wrong to put this into statute. The issue of victim impact statements is not black and white—there is a large grey area—which is why having a specific list of what can and cannot be put in place is not the right approach. We do not need legislation on this, but we do need proper guidance and training to support victims and families so they can have their say in a sentencing hearing.

[Dr Mullan]

With non-exhaustive lists, parts of which are in legislation and parts of which are not, we can agree the things that are vital for people to be able to say, while other things could be determined through guidance. However, legislation is needed because, as the Minister pointed out, there are fundamental things about the definition of a victim personal statement that we think are wrong. That will need to be changed in legislation to give people freedom to comment on those issues. We can go on to decide how the judge might handle that.

I commend my friend the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) for his work on new clause 4. I met Eve Henderson, from the charity Murdered Abroad, who has long campaigned for better recognition and support for the families of British nationals who have lost loved ones to murder, manslaughter and infanticide overseas. Far too often, those families find themselves in a position of deep grief, while also having to navigate complex and unfamiliar foreign legal systems with little or no support from home. They can be left without clear information, a voice in proceedings or access to the services that victims of crime in this country are entitled to expect. To correct that injustice, the new clause would set out explicitly how the victims code applies in such circumstances, guaranteeing access to practical and emotional support, clear information about processes and the ability to challenge decisions.

The contribution by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) was unusual. As the consistent Government message against the measure has been that the original proposals were too broad, the hon. Lady has thought carefully and brought forward proposals that are narrow, so disagreeing with the Government objection. I will assume that is her sincere reason for objecting to the measure, and that it is nothing to do with the fact that the Whips have told Labour Members they cannot vote for it.

To conclude, there are a range of measures that we support. We welcome their progress in the House, even when they are imperfect. However, the amendments we have proposed about the unduly lenient sentence scheme and victim impact statements are the right measures at the right time. I trust the Minister’s sincerity when she says that she wants to work on those issues, but I do not trust her Government and their ability to deliver on what they say that they will. MPs have been asked by their constituents to back the amendments and I hope that they do—there is no reason not to. I ask all MPs to support our amendments tonight.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I rise to close what has been an excellent debate on the Victims and Courts Bill. As I said in my opening remarks, this House is at its best when we come together and rise above party politics, to put the interests of our constituents first, and that is exactly what we have done. I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for the collaborative way in which they have engaged in the debate, as has been seen throughout the passage of the Bill. The Bill is about people: victims and survivors. The Bill has been created and drafted with them at its heart. It is about putting them back at the forefront of the justice system, where they belong, because without them we would have no justice system.

Turning to the amendments that have been proposed, I join the shadow Minister in thanking all the witnesses who gave evidence to the Bill Committee. They really helped to shape the Bill. It is because of their contribution and the strength of feeling of victims, as well as of right hon. and hon. Members in this place and the other place, that we have gone further in extending the measures in the Bill. When I and the Government hear the strength of feeling in the House, we are afraid to act. That is why I have committed at this Dispatch Box to going further again, looking at the unduly lenient sentence scheme and victim impact statements. It is right that the Law Commission is currently looking at the unduly lenient sentence scheme but, as I said in my opening remarks, I will be monitoring that closely as the Bill progresses in the other place. We are looking at how we can best support victims, so that they have representation when they feel that justice has not been fully served.

The shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti)—I had the pleasure of meeting with his constituent—raised the four-year time limit. This is a novel measure, and I am grateful to Opposition Front Benchers for their support and for recognising that this is just the beginning. We will not fail to go further, following how this is implemented and the potential consequences for the family courts. This is just the start and if it works, the Government will act and go further, but we need to test this properly.

The hon. Member also asked whether the Bill will capture future children. I can confirm from the Dispatch Box that it will cover all children who exist at the time of sentencing for whom the perpetrator has parental responsibility. We cannot bind future children or children yet to be born. However, necessary safeguards will be in place through the family courts. Should that perpetrator come out of prison and go on to have other children, and should they be at risk, the normal route to strip parental responsibility in the family courts will still exist. Unfortunately, we are unable to bind future, hypothetical children, but this Bill will cover any children who exist at the point of sentencing for whom the perpetrator has parental responsibility.

20:00

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I really welcome this Government’s move to restrict the access of abusers to their children, in order to protect them. All too often, however, victims who are members of tightly knit, small religious groups are pressured to interact with their abuser when they get out of prison. Some religious leaders and organisations that I am aware of commonly tell victims that God has forgiven their abusers and they therefore need to do so as well. In some cases, I have seen those victims be ostracised or shunned if they refuse to engage. Does the Minister agree that the Government need to think about how we can seek to resolve that cultural problem in small religious groups?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that thoughtful intervention, and he is right. We need to get this right for all victims of all crimes—that includes intersectionality and vulnerable victims.

That point speaks to the heart of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) in relation to by-and-for services and specialist support services. She mentioned Jewish support charities, and I am meeting Jewish Women’s Aid tomorrow to talk about how we can better support them. She is right that this has to be holistic and comprehensive, because one size does not fit all when it comes to victims of these crimes.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I place on record once again my gratitude to the Minister for the time that she gave to meet with Bethan and her parents on this serious issue. The change that came about really does restore many people’s faith in what we do.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his time and for his support in providing help to Bethan and her parents. Meeting them and hearing their story was a privilege, and it is in their name that we have gone further today in this Bill. It is for them and for all victims and survivors that we stand here to do more. As other Members have said this evening, the difference that being in government makes is that we can actually do those changes.

Let me come to some of the other amendments tabled. I welcome the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), to her place—this is the first time in the Chamber that we have had the opportunity to discuss issues of justice. I had a fantastic, collaborative relationship with her predecessor, and I look forward to continuing that as we work on these issues. She mentioned specifically the resource available for the helpline that will be set up to allow victims a direct route to provide information about their case, which is essential. We, too, are conscious of resources, and we will continue to monitor and refine the resource required for the helpline. Where possible, we will of course act if there is demand. We feel that currently resource there is needed, as is set out in the impact statement, but we will keep that under review and will not hesitate to act in the fiscal environment given.

The hon. Member for Chichester also mentioned new clause 7, about extending eligibility for the victim contact scheme. She will know that we have extended that eligibility in the Bill. Again, we will keep that under review if there is a need to expand it further and look at how we can best support victims.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) mentioned the right to know in relation the victim contact scheme and the victims code. We will launch a consultation later this year on victim rights and the victims code, looking at exactly what should be in there and how best we can support victims. I encourage all victims, survivors and Members to feed into that. He knows that the door remains open for me to meet his constituent Tina Nash to discuss her issues at first hand and see how I can better support her and other vulnerable victims who are disabled throughout the process.

[Andrew George]

I have discussed this issue with the Minister, and she knows about it because we have also corresponded on it. I know that my constituent would be enormously grateful to have an opportunity to meet her, and I am very grateful for her response.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman and his constituent in due course to discuss the failings in the criminal justice system that led to her experience. No victim should go through what she did, and I stand ready to support her and improve the situation.

Let me turn to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), which I touched on in my opening remarks. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), the Opposition Front Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and others in this Chamber spoke to that amendment. I know that many Members will have had horrifying casework in which families are stuck trying to differentiate between a language barrier and a different jurisdiction or legal system, all while trying to get answers on what has happened to their loved one. That is unacceptable.

I remain of the view that the victims code is not the right place for these victims to have that framework, because the victims code is based on the justice system in England and Wales. It does not apply, and it is not right. However, I am committed, and I have already met with the Minister in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), to discuss the FCDO and the MOJ working together on how best we can support victims, and working with the Victims’ Commissioner and the charity Murdered Abroad on creating the dedicated framework and guidance on what victims in this country can expect.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way in a crucial part of her speech. In the work that she is doing, I implore her to remember my constituent, whose sister Rita Roberts was brutally murdered in 1992 and not formally identified until 2023. Rita has still not had justice, as she was murdered abroad, and her family are desperate for any support that the Minister can give.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case. It is a horrific case that I know all too well, because the previous Member for Cardiff West, who is now in the other place, raised it previously and sought to support Rita’s family. I will seek to support them in any way I can and will work with the FCDO, because justice delayed is justice denied for anyone, regardless of where they are. I make the commitment to the hon. Member for Maidenhead that we will find the right way forward to support these families, but I do not believe that his amendment is the right one, so I implore him to withdraw it.

I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who is right: these are invisible children and we must do more to protect them. This is not just about identifying them and their parents, who are the perpetrators; it is about supporting those children and better identifying them, and I make that commitment to her. She asked me directly about how we are going to do this. The Minister responsible for sentencing and the Children’s Minister have met to discuss this issue and held a roundtable with organisations to look at the best way of doing this, and I will impress on them my hon. Friend’s desire for them to move quickly and involve her in how best to bring this forward.

I will discuss the amendments on restorative justice tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). I encourage all Members of this place to go and see the play “Punch”, which is outstanding—it is probably the best example of restorative justice that anyone can see. Restorative justice is not right for every victim and will not work for everyone; it needs consent from both the victim and the perpetrator. It will not be right for every crime, but in certain crimes it is appropriate and can provide better victim outcomes and lower reoffending rates. The Prisons Minister and the new Secretary of State are passionate believers in that. We are looking closely at this issue as a Department and will continue to work with the hon. Gentleman to see how best we can bring out restorative justice programmes across the Ministry of Justice.

I come to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop). I think we have already discussed his commitment to these victims and families for justice, and I pay tribute to him. I am committed to working further on the unduly lenient sentencing scheme to ensure that victims have the right to redress and to complain in an appropriate time, and that the victim impact statements are fit for purpose and represent that victim’s voice. For Katie Brett, the Youens family and all those who feel that they have been silenced, I make that commitment today. We also need that clarity in sentencing and transparency on what a sentence actually is, and I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friends the Members for Lowestoft and for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) talked about the need for vital support services, and they are right. Without the vital support services that support victims and survivors, we do not have victims and survivors engaged in a criminal justice system. There needs to be a multi-year settlement—my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft mentioned that as well—to ensure that they are sustainable, effective and there to support victims.

Those organisations know that we are currently going through the financial allocations process in the Ministry of Justice. We are due to complete that process very soon, because I know that these vital organisations need certainty as to the sustainability of their future, and I have committed to them that I will provide it soon. I also hear their calls for more support for child victims. Again, that is something I will be looking at as part of the consultation on the victims code later this year, because although we have identified that children can be victims in their own right, there is little to support them, and they deserve support too. I am committed to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft and other hon. Members to get this right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and I have spoken many times about the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Change in this area cannot be piecemeal; we need proper change if victims are to be supported, if they are to have redress, and if they are to have the recognition that they so vitally need—that something has happened to them, and that they are a victim. As my hon. Friend mentioned, there is discretion in the scheme. There are many reasons for that, but she is right that the scheme does not work. We have heard that time and again, and I am committed to working with her to determine what scheme should be in place to support victims and survivors. I want to hear from them directly, and I am also keen to hear from Quebec—which my hon. Friend mentioned—about how the scheme there operates. If we can learn about best practice internationally, we should do so. But most importantly, we need an effective and sustainable redress scheme for victims of violent crime.

Finally, I wish to pay tribute, as others have done, to my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Lowestoft, and to every single Member in this place who has stood up and discussed the need for change through this Bill. They have spoken from their hearts. They have spoken with bravery and with lived experience about what is needed to support victims and survivors. Never let anyone tell you that having a Labour Government does not make a difference. What is the difference? It is delivering for victims—deeds, not words. That is what we are doing in this Chamber this evening. We are making that difference, delivering for Claire Throssell, Jan Mustafa, Sabina Nessa, Olivia Pratt-Korbel, and the countless other victims who have been failed by the criminal justice system. That is the difference a Labour Government makes. I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 13 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 14

Restriction of parental responsibility for child conceived as a result of rape

“After section 10D of the Children Act 1989 (review of orders made under section 10C) (inserted by section 3) insert—

“10E Duty to make prohibited steps order following rape

(1) This section applies where the Crown Court—

(a) sentences a person (‘the offender’) for an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape), and

(b) is satisfied that a child (‘the child’) for whom the offender has parental responsibility was conceived as a result of the rape.

(2) The Crown Court must make a prohibited steps order when sentencing the offender.

(3) The order must—

(a) specify that no step of any kind which could be taken by a parent in meeting their parental responsibility for a child may be taken by the offender with respect to the child without the consent of the High Court or the family court, and

(b) be made to have effect until the order is varied or discharged by the High Court or the family court.

(4) But the Crown Court must not make a prohibited steps order under this section if—

(a) making the order is prohibited by section 29(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002,

(b) a prohibited steps order is already in force that meets the requirements in subsection (3), or

(c) it appears to the Crown Court that it would not be in the interests of justice to do so.

(5) A prohibited steps order made under this section does not cease to have effect if the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal, but see section 10G.

(6) Sections 1, 7 and 11 do not apply where the Crown Court proceeds under this section.

(7) A prohibited steps order made under this section is to be treated for the purposes of section 31F(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (proceedings and decisions) as if it were made by the family court.

(8) The Crown Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings in connection with the enforcement of a prohibited steps order made under this section.

(9) A reference in this Act to an order under this section includes, so far as the context permits, an order varying or discharging it.

10F Duty to apply to court where child may have been conceived as a result of rape

(1) This section applies where—

(a) the Crown Court sentences a person (‘the offender’) for an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape),

(b) the Crown Court is satisfied that there is a child (‘the child’) for whom the offender has parental responsibility,

(c) the Crown Court considers that the child may have been conceived as a result of the rape, and

(d) section 10E does not apply.

(2) The Crown Court must notify the local authority that is the relevant local authority at the time the offender is sentenced (if any) of the matters set out in subsection (1).

(3) The notification under subsection (2) must be given before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day after the day on which the offender is sentenced.

(4) Before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on which the Crown Court notifies the local authority under subsection (2), the local authority must make enquiries into whether—

(a) the victim of the rape, or

(b) if the victim is deceased, any person with parental responsibility for the child other than the offender,

consents to an application being made to the court (see section 92(7)) for the court to determine whether to make a section 8 order.

(5) If consent is given, the local authority must make that application as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any event before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day after the day on which the consent is given.

(6) Subsections (4) and (5) do not apply if the local authority is satisfied that the court would not have jurisdiction to make a section 8 order (see sections 2 and 3 of the Family Law Act 1986).

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the periods specified in subsections (3), (4) and (5).

(8) In this section, ‘relevant local authority’ means—

(a) where the child is ordinarily resident within the area of a local authority in England or Wales, that local authority;

(b) where the child does not fall within paragraph (a) but is present within the area of a local authority in England or Wales, that local authority.

10G Review of orders made under section 10E or following an application under section 10F

(1) This section applies where—

(a) either—

(i) a prohibited steps order has been made under section 10E, or

(ii) an order under Part II has been made following an application under section 10F, and

(b) the offender is acquitted of the offence following an appeal.

(2) The local authority that is the relevant local authority at the time the verdict of acquittal is entered (if any) must make an application to the court (see section 92(7)) to review the order.

(3) An application under this section must be made as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any event before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day after the day on which the verdict of acquittal was entered.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the period specified in subsection (3).

(5) In this section, ‘relevant local authority’ means—

(a) where the child with respect to whom the order was made is ordinarily resident within the area of a local authority in England or Wales, that local authority;

(b) where the child with respect to whom the order was made does not fall within paragraph (a) but is present within the area of a local authority in England or Wales, that local authority.””—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

This new clause, to be inserted after clause 3, requires the Crown Court to restrict the parental responsibility of a person convicted of rape where a child was conceived as a result. If it is unclear whether the child was so conceived, the local authority must apply to the family court.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

Victim personal statements

“(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue revised guidance on the content of victim personal statements.

(2) The revised guidance issued under subsection (1) must stipulate that when making a victim personal statement, a victim shall be able to say anything they wish about the defendant, provided it is not contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech, makes allegations of untried criminal conduct or is disorderly language.

(3) The court must disregard any prejudicial comments made during a victim personal statement.”—(Dr Mullan.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how to make victim personal statements less restrictive and clarify what can be included.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

20:12

Division 325

Ayes: 152

Noes: 337

New Clause 7

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.”—(Jess Brown-Fuller.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to extend the Victim Contact Scheme to certain categories of victim. It would also ensure information is provided in a timely, trauma-informed way and require annual reporting on the Scheme’s uptake and accessibility.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

20:27

Division 326

Ayes: 165

Noes: 323

New Clause 12

Application of the Victims’ Code in respect of victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad

“(1) The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 2, insert—

‘2A Application of the victims’ code in respect of victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad

(1) This section applies in respect of victims as defined under section 1(2)(c) who are a close relative of a British National resident in England and Wales, who was the victim of—

(a) murder;

(b) manslaughter; or

(c) infanticide,

committed outside the UK.

(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations issue an appendix to the victims’ code, setting out how the code applies to victims in the circumstances set out in subsection (1).

(3) The appendix must set out the services to be provided to victims as defined under subsection (1) by those persons based in England and Wales appearing to the Secretary of State to have functions of a public nature relating to—

(a) victims, or

(b) any aspect of the criminal justice system.

(4) The appendix must make provision for services based in England and Wales which reflect the principles that victims require—

(a) information to help them understand the criminal justice process;

(b) access to services within England and Wales which provide them with emotional and practical support (including, where appropriate, specialist services);

(c) in circumstances where the criminal justice process is engaged in England and Wales, the opportunity to make their views heard in the criminal justice process; and

(d) the ability to challenge decisions which have a direct impact on them.

(5) In setting out the services to be provided to victims under this section, the Secretary of State must specify the following:

(a) how such services will be provided with accessible information;

(b) how they access emotional and practical support.’” —(Mr Joshua Reynolds.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to create an appendix to the Victims’ Code which outlines how the code applies to victims whose close relative was the victim of murder, manslaughter or infanticide outside the UK.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

20:39

Division 327

Ayes: 166

Noes: 322

Clause 3

Restricting parental responsibility of certain sex offenders

Amendments made: 10, page 6, line 2, leave out “for whom the offender has parental responsibility” and insert

“, and

(b) the offender has parental responsibility for at least one child.””

This would require the court to make an order restricting parental responsibility in all cases where an offender is sentenced to a relevant sentence for a serious sexual offence against a child. The duty would no longer be limited to cases where the offender had parental responsibility for the victim.

Amendment 11, page 7, line 11, after “reduced” insert “(if any)”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

This amendment clarifies that the obligation to apply for a review of a prohibited steps order under section 10D of the Children Act 1989 (inserted by clause 3) does not apply if there is no relevant local authority.

Clause 4

Section 3: consequential amendments

Amendments made: 12, page 7, line 33, leave out “(2)” and insert “(1A)”.

This amendment is consequential on NC14 and Amendment 13.

Amendment 13, page 7, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) In section 8(3), after “10A” insert “, 10C or 10E”.”

This amendment provides that proceedings in the Crown Court under sections 10C (inserted by clause 3) or 10E (inserted by amendment NC14) of the Children Act 1989 will not constitute “family proceedings” for the purposes of that Act.

Amendment 14, page 7, line 35, leave out “or 10C” and insert “, 10C or 10E”.

This amendment is consequential on NC14.

Amendment 15, page 8, line 4, at end insert—

“(3A) In section 10B, in subsection (2), after “made” insert “(if any)”.”

This amendment clarifies that the obligation to apply for a review of a prohibited steps order under section 10B of the Children Act 1989 does not apply if there is no relevant local authority.

Amendment 16, page 8, line 7, leave out “or 10C” and insert “, 10C or 10E”.

This amendment is consequential on NC14.

Amendment 17, page 8, line 10, leave out “or 10C” and insert “, 10C or 10E”.

This amendment is consequential on NC14.

Amendment 18, page 8, line 10, at end insert—

“(b) after subsection (14) insert—

“(14A) The reference in subsection (14) and section 91A(5)(a)(iii) to the disposal of an application includes an application under the following provisions—

section 10B,

section 10D,

section 10F, or

section 10G.””

This amendment confirms that the family court has the power to make an order under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 restraining the making of further applications pursuant to an application under the listed provisions.

Amendment 19, page 8, line 12, leave out “after “10B(6)” insert “10C(11) or 10D(4)”” and insert “for “section 10B(6)” substitute “—

section 10B(6),

section 10C(11),

section 10D(4),

section 10F(7), or

section 10G(4).””

This amendment is consequential on NC14.

Amendment 20, page 8, line 14, leave out “or 10C” and insert “, 10C or 10E”.

This amendment is consequential on NC14.

Amendment 21, Clause 4, page 8, line 17, leave out “and 10C” and insert “, 10C and 10E”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

This amendment is consequential on NC14.

Clause 11

Reviews of Sentencing: time limits

Amendment proposed: 5, page 12, line 23, after “(2)” insert

“unless an application is made by a victim, or their deceased victim’s next of kin, in which case notice of an application shall be given within one year.”—(Dr Mullan.)

This amendment increases the window for applying to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme to one year for a victim of a crime or a deceased victim’s next of kin.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

20:51

Division 328

Ayes: 153

Noes: 332

Third Reading

21:00

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I begin by placing on the record my thanks to the Whips, the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee and all the brilliant, dedicated officials at the Ministry of Justice who have worked so hard to bring this legislation forward. Particular thanks go to Rachel Bennion, Hayley Newell and Cassie Blower. I also pay tribute to London Victims Commissioner Claire Waxman and Victims Commissioner Baroness Newlove in the other place, as well as Domestic Abuse Commissioner Dame Nicole Jacobs. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their thoughtful contributions so far. They have all helped to shape this Bill, which will strengthen our justice system and make it one that is more responsive to victims, tackles delays in our criminal courts and delivers swifter and fairer justice.

When the Government took office in July last year, we inherited a justice system in utter crisis, with record and rising backlogs in the criminal courts delaying justice for too many people and victims more likely to be an afterthought than an important, integral part of the process. Reform of the system is essential, and this legislation will mark that significant step forward, but I have been clear that this is just the beginning.

The Bill at its core is about transforming the experience of victims throughout the criminal justice system. It will introduce measures to ensure that victims are heard, supported and treated with the dignity they deserve, and it will improve the efficiency and fairness of our courts.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on piloting the Bill through the House? It is an excellent piece of legislation that will make a real difference to victims. But, as she said, it is just a start. Will she and the Department rededicate themselves to bringing down that Crown court backlog? Speedy justice is what victims want.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee for holding our feet to the fire as a Government to ensure that we bear down on that backlog. The Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), is ensuring that we deliver for victims by bringing down that backlog, with record investment in our court system, record sitting days and looking at the reforms brought forward and the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson in his once-in-a-generation review. It is only when we get on top of that court backlog that justice can be delivered and victims will feel it has been done.

The Bill is a key part of the Government’s plan for change. It will deliver on many of our manifesto commitments to support and protect victims, restore confidence in our justice system and implement that swifter and fairer justice. I urge all hon. Members on both sides of the House to support its passage into law. I proudly commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

21:06

[Dr Mullan]

It is my pleasure to speak on Third Reading of the Victims and Courts Bill. Victims and their families should be at the heart of our justice system. The main goal of the justice system—as well as keeping the public safe—should be to deliver exactly that: justice for victims and their families. All too often, for many years, it has not done that as often as it could. The Bill has presented us with a number of ways in which we can at least improve how the system works by doing more to make life easier for victims and their families, helping to respond to their needs and doing more to give them a voice.

The Bill has brought forward measures to support families and children by restricting the responsibility of parents who are not fit to have a presumption of parental responsibility. It will also see an expanded role and powers for the Victims’ Commissioner. I have seen at first hand the effectiveness of that office under Baroness Newlove and I am sure that her successor will make great use of those new tools. The new measures around the victim contact scheme will also help victims feel like they know what is happening with the criminals who have harmed them, with access to information they have a right to.

I am disappointed, however, that the Government and Labour MPs have refused to accept two clear routes forward to further weight the justice system towards victims and their families. The Opposition’s proposed changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme and the victim personal statement had widespread support from across victims’ advocates, including Justice for Victims, the Victims’ Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and Victim Support. Hon. Members will know that had such a wide coalition come forward with proposals for sensible reform when Labour Members were in opposition, they would not have hesitated to back them. There is simply no good excuse for their having voted against them tonight.

The Bill is important and brings forward a range of important measures, so, as I am sure the Minister would expect, we will not oppose it. I pay tribute again to the victims and victims’ organisations. Most of the measures in the Bill started with them. I hope that Labour MPs will reflect on the measures they are still resisting and, in future stages, reconsider their decisions to vote against them. Those measures would improve the Bill, improve our justice system and help future victims avoid some of the experiences that have forced victims and their families into being campaigners. They do not want to be campaigners; they feel that they have to be. The measures that the Opposition proposed with their support were aimed at stopping other people in future from having to be campaigners.

But let us be clear: these measures and the Bill do not sit in isolation. I said at the outset that victims want justice. For the worst offenders, that means being properly punished by being sent to prison for a long time. I suggest to the Minister and Labour MPs that all the victims these measures are aimed to help, and all the people and campaign groups they speak to in support of these measures, will be appalled that at the same time that the Government are giving this, they are taking away with the other hand in a truly appalling way. Many of the campaigns and measures relate to violence and sexual offences, yet this week the Government will ask MPs to vote through clauses that will allow thousands of violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier—[Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that that is not true, but more than 60% of rapists sent to prison will get out of prison earlier. Today, we had a discussion of the appalling, mistaken release of Hadush Kebatu. He was convicted of sexual assault. More than 85% of offenders sent to prison—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Mullan, we have to make sure that your speech is in scope of this Bill. I assume that you are coming to a sharp conclusion.

[Dr Mullan]

It is in scope, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we are talking about measures that apply—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. If I have confirmed that it is not in scope for Third Reading, then it is not in scope. Conclude swiftly!

[Dr Mullan]

As I have said, many of the measures in the Bill are welcome, but we have to be extremely mindful that what we are doing in other proceedings in this House do not fatally undermine them and end up leaving victims feeling worse off after the positive measures that the Bill has brought forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.