Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)]

8. What steps he is taking to help tackle AI-based violence against women and girls crime in online spaces.

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

We have proudly delivered a world-leading package of intimate image abuse offences, which criminalise taking or creating intimate images without consent, including AI-generated deepfakes. Through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, we have introduced new powers for courts to order the deletion of these images to better protect victims, but we are not stopping there, and we know that there is more to do.

[Sadik Al-Hassan]

In January I stopped using X as a communication channel because the platform facilitated the creation of illegal and deeply harmful images by its AI tool, Grok. This platform is, unfortunately, just one instance of AI-based violence against women and girls, an issue about which I know North Somerset residents care deeply. Can the Minister tell me whether the current law is keeping pace with AI-generated intimate image abuse, and what assessment she has made of whether sentencing powers are adequate to reflect the harm that such images cause to women and girls?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for asking that question, because it is important to recognise the abuse that this is causing. The law alone is not enough, but we are strengthening the criminal law through world-leading packages. We are also strengthening the sentencing response to intimate image abuse, and have introduced new court powers to order the deletion and destruction of such images. However, more action is needed. We need to ensure that there is a stronger understanding of, policing of and response to these crimes, and that includes a whole-of-society response. The Government are determined to tackle this through the violence against women strategy.

[Imogen Walker]

Violence against women and girls is hardly new, but perverts and abusers now have the ability to generate huge amounts of appalling content at lightning speed, and we are not able to respond quickly enough. What can the Government do to give Ofcom the power and ability to crack down on disgusting online content more quickly, so that we can keep women and girls safer?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend is right: perpetrators are able to generate and share harmful content at unprecedented speed and scale, and we need to be able to respond quickly. Ofcom does have robust enforcement powers under the Online Safety Act 2023, including the power to impose substantial fines and other sanctions. The new Crime and Policing Act 2026 also requires platforms to remove the images within 48 hours, and to prevent the re-uploading of new hash-matching technology. The Government recognise the impact of harmful pornography, and we are determined to initiate work on this imminently.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

As the Minister knows, technology is being used in many different forms to threaten women. A Gosport domestic abuse survivor, Harmony Hayman, is still living in fear of a former partner eight years after leaving the relationship, and he has used an illicit mobile phone from prison to contact her. She is now living in terror of the Government’s decision to release domestic abusers early from prison. Will the Minister look at Harmony’s petition, in which she calls on the Government to look into how domestic abusers are able to perpetuate their abusive behaviour from within prison, and also to review their eligibility for early release?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will, of course, look at Harmony’s petition to see what more we can do, and look into the issues that the hon. Lady has raised. I recently met a group of victims and survivors who discussed the impact that technological abuse is having on them. Let me put on record my thanks to Refuge, an incredible organisation with a dedicated tech abuse team who help victims and survivors who are in this position.

The Government know that more needs to be done. We are working directly with organisations such as Apple and Samsung on stalking technology and verification tools to ensure they cannot be used to harm victims further.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The surge in so-called nightlife videos, in which women are covertly filmed on a night out, is despicable. The videos are shared online and are accompanied by vile and misogynistic abuse, which drives engagement and generates profit for the creators. The Government have committed themselves to making misogyny an aggravated offence, but will the Minister go further and commit herself to making misogyny a hate crime?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Hopefully, last week the hon. Lady will have seen the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), outlining the Government’s response to tackling some of the covert filming that is causing such anxiety to women in particular, and to other vulnerable people. The material is being uploaded at speed. We know that misogynistic content online needs to be tackled, whether it is pornography or intimate image abuse, and the Government are determined to do that. We will be introducing measures in due course, and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and other Members to see what else we can do to tackle the problem holistically, as a society.

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to increase the speed of the delivery of the rapid deployment cells programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What steps his Department is taking with the coronial system to tackle delays in coroner decisions.

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

The Government recognise the huge impact that delays have on bereaved families. We are committed to supporting a swift inquest process that puts bereaved families at its heart. The Public Office (Accountability) Bill, the expansion of legal aid and the new duty of candour further strengthen the focus on bereaved families, while helping to ensure the timely establishment of the facts in each case.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very grateful to the Minister. The Government have been pushing for more use of medical examiners and CT scans where they are appropriate, but the reality is that many families are still experiencing delays and disruption at an extraordinarily traumatic time. It is even worse when they live far away from the court that is dealing with their beloved family member’s case. What more can the Minister do, working with the chief coroner, to try to get the delays down?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I have huge sympathy for anyone who is struggling with this issue, whether that is because they have to travel further owing to the nature of the case, or for religious reasons. This issue is deeply concerning. My right hon. Friend will know that coroners are independent judges. Every single case is different, and coroners make decisions about the release of the body on a case-by-case basis. For that reason, I am unable to comment on individual judicial decisions. However, the law requires coroners to release a body for burial or cremation as soon as is reasonably practicable, once it is no longer needed for their investigation.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

A constituent of mine died in state custody in July last year. His family was told to expect the prisons and probation ombudsman report within weeks, but it was quietly paused, pending the coroner’s post-mortem report, and the family were not told about that for several months. They have now passed the first anniversary of the death, with no answers at all, and with no post-mortem report. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this case and the plight of families who are caught between investigations that wait on one another?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the details of the case, I will of course look into it. Delays of that nature are rare, but they can happen because cases are looked at case by case. I will look into the specifics of that case. To reassure the House, we are aware of the issues with coronial delays. The problem has to do with access to pathology medical examiners, as has been said, but we are working across Government with the Department of Health and Social Care to look at what more we can do to establish a better service, to put bereaved families back at the heart of the system.

--- Later in debate ---

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

T2. The Government have promised to halve violence against women and girls. In the context of the charging and conviction of perpetrators falling sharply over the past decade, which has affected the confidence that victims have in the justice system, what measures are the Government taking to ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice?

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

My hon. Friend is a stalwart campaigner on tackling violence against women and girls, and he will know that pursuing and punishing perpetrators is a key pillar of our strategy to halve it. We have a 10-year plan to meet this ambitious goal, and we are carefully monitoring the progress and will publish our one year update in the coming months. I want to reassure him that rape charge volumes have more than doubled since 2019, and that 5,206 rape cases were brought before the courts in 2025, compared with just 1,684 in 2019.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

T6. Vulnerable victims and witnesses of crime deserve full and proactive support from the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. Yet one of my constituents struggled to get clarity about what protections would be put in place should they give evidence in court, and also whether their victim personal statement was even properly considered during the sentencing stage of the trial. Will the Minister outline what is being done to better support victims, particularly vulnerable witnesses, to ensure they get proper advocacy in the court system?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. He is correct that special measures help vulnerable witnesses and victims to give evidence and reduce the stress in attending court. These include the use of screens, live video links and pre-recorded evidence. He will know that the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which is due to come back to this place soon, includes reforms to special measures, including clarifying that vulnerable witnesses and victims may use them when delivering their personal statements. We have also revised the victims code to ensure that this is taken into account.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

Ministry of Justice contractors are acting in a deeply inconsiderate manner, affecting my constituents in Edgcott, Grendon Underwood and the Springhill Road estate in the construction of a new mega-prison adjacent to HMP Grendon. I asked the Minister in writing over the summer if she would come and see with her own eyes those problems. She wrote back to me yesterday to say no. Why will she not, and will she reconsider?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

There has long been a proven link between people deliberately harming animals and then committing domestic abuse. The Links Group has researched and highlighted that link for 25 years and is having a special conference later this year to mark this. Will the Minister agree to meet me and the Links Group so that we can draw on its 25 years of expertise to help prevent avoidable harm to women, children and even animals?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Absolutely, I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Despite the MOJ not collecting figures for the number of people in prison for joint enterprise, we know that there are hundreds, but the Law Commission has sadly confirmed that it will not look at that area of law under the homicide review. Does the Secretary of State intend to look at this most difficult area of law to reform it, and what will happen to those prisoners convicted of joint enterprise crimes under the early release scheme?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the nature of joint enterprise. She will know that the Government have been looking carefully at this, and I would be happy to meet her and others to discuss it in more detail.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

I previously put it to the Prisons Minister in one of these sessions that anyone who fails a drug test on arrival in an open prison like Kirkham does not belong there and should be sent back to a more secure prison. The Minister said they were concerned but could not agree to that. Has the Department had any more thoughts on at least consequences for failing a drug test on arrival at an open prison?

Standard of Proof for Unlawful Killing Consultation

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Written Statements

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

Today, the Ministry of Justice is launching a public consultation on the standard of proof to be applied to the short-form inquest conclusion of unlawful killing.

This consultation follows the publication on 23 October 2025 of the independent police accountability rapid review, as announced by the Home Secretary in her written ministerial statement which can be found on the UK Parliament website under the number UIN HCWS987.

Commissioned in October 2024 by the then Lord Chancellor and Home Secretary, the review was conducted by Tim Godwin OBE QPM and the right hon. Sir Adrian Fulford, and examined two issues: the threshold for police misconduct proceedings involving use of force, and the standard of proof for unlawful killing inquests.

The Home Secretary accepted the recommendation to revise the threshold for police misconduct proceedings involving the use of force, and amendments to the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 were laid on 9 June and came into force on 30 June.

On the issue of the standard of proof for unlawful killing inquest conclusions, the review found a strong case for a return to the criminal standard (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt) reversing the effect of the Supreme Court’s 2020 Maughan judgment, which applied the civil standard (i.e. balance of probabilities) to all short-form conclusions. However, the reviewers also recognised that this issue has broader implications beyond policing, including in healthcare, detention, and workplace settings and that its own engagement was necessarily limited. The review therefore recommended that the Government should undertake a full public consultation before deciding whether to legislate for a change. The Lord Chancellor has accepted this recommendation.

Accordingly, the consultation launched today seeks views from across sectors and communities on whether the current standard remains appropriate. It does not propose a change, nor does it assume that one will be made. The aim is to gather evidence and perspectives to inform future policy development, ensuring that any decision is grounded in transparency, fairness, and public confidence.

The consultation will run for twelve weeks, closing on 7 December 2026, and is available at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/standard-of-proof-for-the-short-form-inquest-concl/

I encourage all those with an interest in the coronial system, public accountability, and access to justice to engage with this important consultation.

For clarity, the issue considered in this consultation relates only to the short-form conclusion of unlawful killing in the coronial jurisdiction. It is not connected with the Government’s recent decision to exclude criminal offences related to unlawful killing such as manslaughter or death by dangerous driving from the Sentencing Act’s progression model.

[HCWS340]

Chief Coroner’s Annual Report to the Lord Chancellor

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2026 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to lay and publish the chief coroner’s 12th annual report to the Lord Chancellor on the operation of coroner services under section 36 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

The report provides a comprehensive overview of the work taken forward across the coroner service in England and Wales in the calendar year 2025, under the leadership of the chief coroner. It provides valuable insights into the service’s operations and future direction.

In particular, the chief coroner’s report sets out:

The continuing work to promote consistency in the in the coronial jurisdiction across England and Wales, including the publishing of the “chief coroner’ guidance for coroners on the bench” and

The reconstitution of the chief coroner’s national cadres, including the cadre of coroners for major incidents and the cadre of coroners for service deaths.

I am very grateful to her honour Judge Alexia Durran for her work in preparing the report. I am also grateful to all coroners and their officers and other staff for their continued dedication to improving services for bereaved people through their invaluable frontline work.

The report will be available online, at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/chief-coroners-annual-report-2025

[HCWS327]

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

Our security and intelligence agencies, as with soldiers and others such as those working in counter-terrorism policing and the National Crime Agency, all necessarily deal in secrets. They have to protect their sources, methods and capabilities. They have to protect information provided to them by agencies from allied countries, which are equally concerned with protecting their sources, methods, capabilities and, in some cases, live operations. But now this Bill takes decisions about which secrets should be shared over their heads, and gives that responsibility to those leading investigations and inquiries. These people may be non-experts, potentially lacking understanding of serious national security issues. That could lead to intelligence that should, for good reasons, remain secret being published, undermining the way in which the intelligence agencies and others work.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

The shadow Secretary of State will know, given his background working in the Home Office, that a duty of candour is not the same as the duty to disclose sensitive information. The two should not be conflated, and he should not be doing so on the Floor of the House.

[Nick Timothy]

I am confused by that intervention from the hon. Lady, who was the Minister in charge of this Bill. The argument I am making is consistent with the position she brought to the House in January, only to back down when it became controversial.

As I was saying, this could lead to intelligence that should, for good reasons, remain secret being published, which undermines the way the intelligence agencies and others work. We know this is a matter of grave concern for the agencies, the military and those in law enforcement because they have told us that. The Government know this, because the same people have told Ministers, and we know that the Government accepted this, because that was why they tabled the amendment in January, which they have since dropped.

Allied military and intelligence partners—most notably, the US and other Five Eyes partners—will look at what the Government are doing today and question what can be done to protect them and their methods. The Justice Secretary is once again not here today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Alex Davies-Jones.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It is more than a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and to speak in support of the Government amendments and in favour of the Bill as a whole. This law represents far more than legislation; it represents a promise—a promise that the suffering endured by the Hillsborough families, and all those who have been sadly failed by the state, will never be repeated. It is a promise that no bereaved family will ever again be forced to spend decades fighting and fundraising to challenge the very institutions that should have been helping them to uncover the truth.

For far too long, we have seen a devastating pattern emerge after major public tragedies. Families are left grieving the loss of those they love, only to find themselves caught in secondary trauma, battling against secrecy, defensiveness, delay and denial. Instead of compassion, they encounter obstruction; instead of openness, they face silence. Instead of truth they are met with half-truths—or worse, with lies, missing evidence and institutional self-protection. That is why the duty of candour matters.

A duty of candour is not about punishing honest mistakes. It is about ensuring that public authorities and officials understand that their first duty is not to protect reputations or institutions; it is to protect the truth. Because when institutions close ranks, ordinary families pay the price. When evidence is concealed, justice is delayed, and when facts are distorted, truth is destroyed. When those in positions of power fail to tell the truth, confidence in our public institutions is eroded for generations.

The Hillsborough families know that better than anyone. For 37 years they have carried a burden that should never have been theirs. They have fought not only for the memory of the 97 people who lost their lives, but for something much bigger: the principle that no institution is above accountability, and that no grieving family should ever have to fight the state simply to establish the truth about what happened to their loved one. Their courage has changed this country. They have exposed failures that many hoped would remain hidden. They challenged narratives that should never have been allowed to stand, and they refused to give up, even when the odds were stacked against them.

The Hillsborough families’ determination has become a beacon of hope for countless other families seeking justice. We owe them so much more than our admiration—we owe them action. We cannot stand here, praise their courage and thank them for their persistence, only to fail to deliver the very reforms that they have spent decades fighting for. If we do, what message does that send to every family still waiting for answers? What does it say to those affected by Grenfell, the infected blood scandal, the Post Office Horizon scandal, the Manchester Arena terror attack—and so on, sadly—and to every future family who may one day find themselves seeking truth after tragedy? It says that lessons are spoken about but not learned.

The duty of candour is the mechanism by which we begin to rebuild trust between the public and the institutions that serve them. It changes the culture from one of defensiveness to one of openness; from protecting organisations to protecting people; from asking families to prove the truth, to requiring public authorities to tell it from the very beginning. That is not, and should not be a radical principle or idea. It is the minimum standard that the public should expect from those who exercise public power. That is why I support the Government amendments, as they finally allow the Bill to have the worthy title of “the Hillsborough law”. The amendments stand as a testament to the families, victims and survivors who would never give up—the Manchester Arena attack victims, nuclear test veterans, the Chinook disaster families, and anyone who has had to fight for the truth against the army of the state, and then the intelligence services on top.

If we are to have a true principle and a true duty of candour, then that principle must be applied consistently. It cannot be the case that we champion transparency and accountability with one hand while creating an exemption with the other. A duty of candour that applies only when convenient is not a true duty at all.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

One of the things that has always struck me about this law is how we can change accountability. Just a couple of weeks ago, Donna Ockenden’s report about the Nottingham maternity scandal set out the fact that public officials did not come forward to tell the truth about those tragic incidents. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill addresses issues that go far wider than the Hillsborough disaster and that although the Hillsborough families have had to go through so much, many other families have suffered and endured as well?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. She is making a powerful point about the Nottingham maternity scandal, and I know that the Hillsborough families have been supporting those families in their fight for truth, justice and accountability. That is why this law is so important: it is so much more and has become so much more than just being about the Hillsborough families. It has encompassed everything that we know that we need regarding our public institutions and the duty of candour. That is why the Government amendments regarding the intelligence and defence services are so vital.

I recognise, of course, that the work of our security and intelligence services is unique. They perform an essential role in protecting national security, keeping our citizens safe and responding to some of the most complex threats that our country faces, some of which we will never and should never know about. I know from first-hand experience that this has not been an easy position for the Government to reach. It has been difficult to try and meet the necessary balance of maintaining and securing information that must remain confidential to protect ongoing operations, intelligence sources and national security.

I place on the record my sincere thanks to the whole army of amazing, dedicated public servants who have fought to bring the legislation to this place today, so that we are able to take forward this Bill with the Government amendments intact; and to the families who never gave up, even when the process of developing this legislation took an emotional, physical and mental toll on them. I say to the Hillsborough Law Now campaigners, and to all the campaigners and organisations who have become part of that wider family: you have been bonded by grief, trauma and the failure of the state to provide you with truth and justice, so thank you for adopting me into that family and for giving me support, friendship and inspiration to drive forward this meaningful change.

The principle at the heart of the legislation is that public authorities must act honestly, must not mislead, must not conceal wrongdoing and must co-operate fully with investigations and inquiries when, sadly, tragedy strikes. Those principles should not cease to exist simply because an institution operates in a field of national security. Indeed, where public power is exercised most extensively, the need for accountability is arguably at its greatest.

Public trust in our institutions is not strengthened by blanket exemptions. It is strengthened when the public can be confident that every institution, regardless of its status, influence or function, is subject to the same fundamental expectation of honesty and integrity. The Hillsborough families did not spend decades fighting for a culture of accountability only for Parliament to decide that accountability should have limits. They campaigned for a principle that no public body should ever be able to place institutional reputation above the truth. That principle must be universal, because once we begin carving out exceptions, we risk undermining the very foundation on which this legislation rests. We risk creating the perception that some institutions are accountable while others are not, and that candour is expected from some public servants but not from others. That cannot be right.

If the duty of candour is a moral obligation, as I believe it is, then it must be a moral obligation that applies across the whole public sector. Appropriate safeguards for national security can and should exist—and they do exist, as we have heard from the Minister. Sensitive information can and should be protected where necessary, but those safeguards must not become a shield behind which truth, accountability and justice can be denied.

All the families who have fought for this law have spent decades challenging the idea that powerful institutions should be allowed to mark their own homework. They have taught us that accountability is not a threat to public confidence; it is the foundation of it. We honour their legacy not by creating exemptions from candour, but by embedding candour as a universal principle—a principle that says no institution is above honesty, no authority is above accountability and no family should ever be denied the truth because of the organisation they happen to be seeking answers from.

If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will reflect on the words that have come to symbolise not only my beloved Liverpool football club, but the Hillsborough families’ extraordinary campaign for truth and justice—“you’ll never walk alone”. For millions, that is an anthem sung from the Kop before kick-off, but for the Hillsborough families it has become something far deeper. It has become a promise that, even in the darkest moments, they would not face their fight in isolation. It was a reminder that when institutions failed them, communities stood beside them. When others sought to rewrite the truth, it was ordinary people who refused to let their voices be silenced. When grief threatened to overwhelm them, they found strength in one another. That spirit has carried them through more than three decades of heartbreak, resilience and determination.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising such a moving case, and I pay tribute to his constituent, who is here today. Let us be absolutely clear: the Government’s position is that parental alienation has no evidential basis and is a totally discredited concept. We are working carefully with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to limit the instruction of unregulated experts, including those who hold that they are parental alienation experts. I hope that will ring the changes and prevent this sort of thing in future.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I welcome the announcement from the Deputy Prime Minister today about changing the disparity in sentences for domestic homicide. Carole, Julie and Elaine have campaigned tirelessly for this change, following the murder of their daughters, and it will make a huge difference to how violence against women and girls is treated in this country. The campaigners have met seven Lord Chancellors, and the Deputy Prime Minister is the first of them to commit to doing this. Can I implore him to do it as soon as possible? It is this Labour Government who are committed to tackling violence against women and girls.

[Mr Lammy]

I thank my hon. and dear Friend for her campaigning on this issue. We met the families and were hugely moved by their stories. There was a sense that they felt very let down by the previous Governments and Lord Chancellors whom they had met. For that reason, I think this move is the right thing to do, and I am very grateful to her and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) for continuing to press on this issue behind the scenes.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Carry-over)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Carry-over motion
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

10.4 pm

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

I beg to move,

That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.

This motion is purely procedural, to allow the Bill to be carried over to the next Session and for the remaining stages to take place following the King’s Speech. The Government remain absolutely committed to delivering this Bill. As the House will be aware, it was introduced into this place on 16 September 2025, with its Commons Committee stage taking place in November and December last year. I want to thank again all the Bill Committee members from across the House for their work on this fundamentally important Bill. This motion will allow the Commons remaining stages to take place at the start of the next Session before the Bill moves on to the other place.

The Bill is a product of the decades of campaigning from families affected by state-related deaths and tragedies. We have heard from a range of campaigns, from families and from those affected, on the desperate need for change to ensure that when things go wrong, public authorities will act with candour and transparency, and in the public interest.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this forward. There is much in the Bill to be recognised and welcomed, but does she agree that this is not just about the Hillsborough tragedy, which was awful, but about my constituents in Strangford, who, when they seek the truth from public bodies, are met with a wall of silence or, worse, a culture of circling the wagons? Does she further agree that the legal duty of candour is not just about paperwork and that it must be about restoring the fundamental bond of trust between the Government and those who govern?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. He is fundamentally correct that the Bill is about much more than just the duty of candour. This is about rebuilding the trust between the public and the state. It is about ensuring that there is accountability, transparency, openness and parity, and that the state remembers who it is that we are meant to serve. This is not just about the Hillsborough law, although this legislation will hopefully bear that name; it is about all those campaigns that have suffered as a result of state cover-ups and tragedies. It is really important that we recognise all those campaigning under the umbrella of the Hillsborough Law Now campaign.

At inquiries, inquests and investigations, public authorities and officials will be put under powerful obligations to help investigations to find the truth. They will all be legally required to provide information and evidence with candour, proactively and without favour to any of their own positions. Public servants will also be placed under a new professional duty of candour, which will be set out in each organisation’s mandatory code of ethics. This will ensure that individuals act with integrity and honesty at all times in their day-to-day work. The families made it clear to us that when it becomes apparent that someone has sought to evade accountability or prevent the truth from being uncovered—whether through dishonesty and deliberately withholding information, or through the perpetuation of false narratives—there must be clear accountability and appropriate sanctions.

The Bill will provide this through a new criminal offence of breaching the duty of candour and a new criminal offence of misleading the public. It will also provide non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved families at inquests where a public authority is an interested person, and place a duty on all public authorities to ensure that their use of lawyers is proportionate. It represents an important milestone in rebalancing the system, ensuring that the bereaved, grieving families are supported to participate in the inquest process where the state is represented, introducing the parity of arms that we have heard so much about. It also helps to ensure proper standards of conduct by public authorities at an inquest or inquiry.

Drawing on experiences shared with us by the families, the Bill will introduce measures placing a duty on all public authorities, and those that represent them, to act in line with statutory guidance and to support families’ participation in the process. Where there are concerns regarding the conduct of public authorities or their legal teams, the Bill grants the power to the coroner or the inquiry chair to raise those concerns with the appropriate senior individual level of public authority.

The Bill also abolishes the current common law offences of misconduct in public office following the Law Commission recommendations in its 2020 report. In its place will be two new statutory offences: the breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury, and seriously improper acts. By putting these offences on the statute book, we are making it clear what types of behaviour are covered by this offence and who exactly it applies to.

This is a landmark Bill. It will transform the way that public authorities and officials interact with official investigations and will act as a catalyst for the radical change in culture across the public sector that we so desperately need. It will deliver the largest expansion of civil legal aid in a generation and a move away from that culture of cover up and distrust in the state.

The Bill was due to return to the Commons for remaining stages in January. However, as many in this House will be aware, concerns were raised on how the duty of candour and assistance would apply to the intelligence and security services. The Government brought forward several amendments to strengthen the Bill in this area. However, it became clear from our conversations with families and stakeholders that they had concerns about how the accompanying safeguards we proposed might work in practice. We have always been clear that this is a Bill for and by the families, and where they have concerns, we will always listen.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Can the Minister give hope tonight through this Bill to the families of those who lost loved ones on 2 June 1994 on the Mull of Kintyre? Currently, documents pertaining to the tragedy of the Chinook disaster are under lock and key for 100 years. Indeed, the documents and evidence that are currently available should give this House serious concern as to what went on before that tragedy. Can she give hope today?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue regarding the Chinook disaster. I recently had the privilege of meeting the bereaved families of the Chinook disaster, and I want to pay tribute to them and their tenacious campaigning to uncover the truth of what happened to their loved ones. I am deeply pleased that the Prime Minister agreed to meet those families last week at Prime Minister’s questions, and we look forward to working with them and all the other campaigners as the Bill progresses through the House to ensure that anyone affected by a state cover-up or a tragedy where the state is represented should have the truth available to them. That is a fundamental feature of this Bill and one we wholeheartedly believe in.

It is because of those families and their lived experience that the Government took the decision to delay the Bill to allow more time to get it right—to address the issues that were raised directly with us by the families while not compromising our ability to protect national security and safeguard the national interest. In the past few months, we have been working intensively with the security services, Hillsborough Law Now and the Intelligence and Security Committee to find a way forward on this issue. But that has meant, sadly, that there was not sufficient time to complete the Bill’s passage in this Session. The Government have therefore tabled this motion to allow the Bill to continue parliamentary passage in the next Session.

I am aware that this Bill is of high interest and importance to many Members of this House, the public and, indeed, members of the other place, and many are very eager to see this Bill on the statute books. I want to stress that I share that eagerness. I want to make it clear that the Government remain resolutely committed to delivering this vital legislation. We are determined to get this right. We are continuing to work closely with campaigners and families, and if this motion is agreed this evening, we will bring the Bill back to complete Commons remaining stages, with new Government amendments, at the start of the next Session.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate for their continued support for what is, as they have said, a fundamentally important landmark Bill. It is for the 97, but also for all of victims of all the tragedies who have had to suffer and endure continued pain and trauma as a result of state cover-ups and the preventing of the truth from being sought. I can answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders): the Bill will come back as soon as possible. It is a Bill for the families, and we continue to work with them daily to ensure that we get this right. The Government’s first priority is national security, and we will not compromise on that, but we are determined to get this right.

We are also committed to ensuring that there are no carve-outs, and there will be no carve-out for the security services—I make that commitment again at this Dispatch Box. They will be covered by the legally binding duty of candour and the new criminal offences in the Bill, and it is important for us to continue to work together to find the way through. As I have said, we are continuing to work with the campaigners, with the security services, with other Departments and with the Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure that we find a way forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) spoke powerfully the words of Charlotte Hennessy and Margaret Aspinall, and I want to put it on record that I love working with her too. As I have said, this is a Bill for the families, and earlier today I had the privilege of meeting Jenni Hicks again. I will meet her on Thursday as well, along with Debbie Matthews, and I speak regularly with Charlotte Hennessy, Margaret Aspinall and many of the other families to ensure that we are consulting them and keeping them informed and updated on the Bill’s progress. I will continue to endeavour to do that, to the best of my abilities.

I also want to place on record the Government’s disgust at the briefings, the leaking, and the way in which some of this is playing out in the media. The Government do not condone that. The Government are determined and committed to get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible. Whatever is being briefed to the media is not the Government’s position, and we remain resolute in working collegiately with the campaigners to find a way forward.

My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker)—those tenacious campaigners—have stated very clearly this evening that there should and will be no carve-out, and that the Bill should serve as a legacy to the 97. It is far too important for us not to keep our promise, and I can say to my hon. Friends again that I commit myself to working with them and everyone else in the House to get the Bill right. We will bring it back as soon as possible, but we will do so only once we have full agreement with the families that this is the Hillsborough law, so that it can be on the statute book, it can be that legacy, and it can be that fundamental reframing of the relationship between the state and families. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Victims and Courts Bill

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 4B and 4C.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 4B and 4C.

Lords amendments 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E and 5F.

Lords amendments 6B and 6C.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful once again to have the opportunity to speak on the Victims and Courts Bill. As I have said previously in this House, this is fundamentally a Bill for victims. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have heard the experiences and views of victims and bereaved families and we have listened. I know for that fact that the Bill is now stronger because of this.

I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to some of the victims’ campaigners who have been so instrumental in this Bill, some of whom are joining us in the Gallery today. First, I say to the families of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Jan Mustafa, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa: I know that nothing will ever lessen the pain of such an immense loss, followed by the indescribable trauma of an offender who would not face you and would not face justice. We owe you a debt of thanks for your courage and fortitude in campaigning to ensure that offenders will always be forced to attend their sentencing hearings, and that offenders that refuse to attend are quite rightly punished appropriately. Thanks to you, criminals will never be allowed to hide away from justice, and you have ensured that others should never have to face what you have had to endure. This measure in the Bill is brought forward in the memories of Olivia, Zara, Sabina and Jan.

Secondly, I would like to pay tribute to Tracey Hanson and Katie Brett, who have worked tirelessly to ensure that no other family should experience the injustices that they faced due to not being informed about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Tracey Hanson’s son Josh was tragically murdered in an unprovoked knife attack in 2015. Since that devastating loss, Tracey has shown extraordinary strength and compassion, continuing to advocate for and support other victims through her charity, the Josh Hanson Trust. In relation to the ULS scheme in particular, Tracey has campaigned for more than a decade, working closely with academics and fellow bereaved families to bring forward this change in the law. She held a strong and unwavering belief that it could not be right for her request to the Attorney General to be dismissed so abruptly, with nothing more than a “case closed” response.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The Minister might remember that, in a debate on these amendments on 25 March, she and I had an exchange in which I described the very long explanation that she had given as a “load of waffle”, and she replied:

“We have listened directly to the families about what they want. We could have brought forward an amendment that simply extended the time limit, but the families told us directly that that was not what they wanted.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 332.]

The amendment to extend the period to 180 days is very welcome, but when the Minister said on 25 March that that was not what the families wanted, was she inadvertently misleading the House?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I was not inadvertently misleading the House; if he looks at the details of Lords amendment 5C, he will see that that is not what it does. The amendment does not simply extend the time limit—it does much more—and it does not extend the time limit for everyone. As I will explain in my comments, this amendment is for the families and for the victims directly. It is not for everyone, as was proposed by the Opposition. This amendment does not just do what the Opposition’s amendment would have done, as Tracey Hanson said in her own words; it does much more with respect to its application, and it is for the bereaved families and victims directly. There is also a statutory duty in this group of amendments to directly inform victims and their families about the ULS scheme, so that they are aware of it in the first place.

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

There will be some back and forth about who wants what elements of this scheme and in what ways, but I think the Minister was wrong to say that our focus was on it being for everybody. I have been clear from the start that our focus was also on extending the provision for victims and their families, and not for everybody.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I appreciate that clarification. The hon. Gentleman is correct, but Lords amendment 5C does much more than that, through listening to victims campaigners such as Tracey Hanson and Katie Brett directly. The measure is a direct tribute to them, because for them the status quo was neither fair nor acceptable.

I would also like to extend my sincere thanks and gratitude to Katie Brett. Katie, your commitment and courage in campaigning in memory of your sister Sasha has been truly remarkable. I do not need to remind the House that Sasha was brutally murdered at the age of just 16, and since that devastating loss, Katie has worked tirelessly to ensure that the families of victims have the right to be informed about the ULS scheme and that, where they are not told, they are given a fair opportunity to make a request to the Attorney General beyond the 28 day limit. I have felt privileged to get to know you all over the course of this Bill.

Before I turn to the motions that we will debate today, I would also like to thank those who have contributed to recent debates on amendments related to homicides abroad and court transcripts. I thank Members across this House and in the other place for the thoughtful way in which they have engaged with those issues. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), who has campaigned to ensure that support is available for families bereaved by homicide abroad as they navigate such tragic events. In the other place, the Government committed to working jointly with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and the Home Office, to undertake a review of how support is provided to those families and to assess how current arrangements are operating.

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

I apologise to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), because I have just beat him to an intervention. Can I put on the record my thanks to the Minister for her work on this Bill? Whether we agree on different parts of the Bill, nobody in this Chamber or the other place could fail to recognise her personal commitment to ensuring that victims are at its heart. Could I ask her to mention the victims code and what she has done to make it easier to navigate for victims of crime?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. This Bill goes beyond party politics; this is a Bill, as I have said, for victims. It has been a sincere pleasure to work across political divides to get this right for victims, who are rightly at the heart of the Bill. I have always stated that I will work with anyone from any party if they have any measure that could make the criminal justice system a better place for victims, so that we start to put victims at its heart. The Bill does exactly that: it takes a step towards putting victims back at the heart of the criminal justice system, where they fundamentally belong.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

No one doubts the Minister’s commitment, honesty and integrity. But can I gently remind her that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) outlined the issue of the glorification of terrorism in relation to this Bill? He raised the issue of children wearing IRA slogans. Just last Saturday, I met a lady whose husband was murdered by the IRA on 9 April 1990. She reminded me that, in Northern Ireland, when she went to visit the memorial for her dead husband who was murdered 36 years ago, she faced slogans against her, like “Up the ’RA”, when she was trying to think of her husband. We need things in this legislation to protect against that. We cannot let people take advantage of others’ sorrow and not recognise that they are grieving, by bringing up the past and trying to glorify terrorism, which murders people and destroys lives.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He will know that my family have also faced tragedy and bereavement at the hands of the IRA. My cousin was killed on Horse Guards Parade serving this country by a serving member of the IRA, and that issue has plagued my family for decades and still hurts to this very day. I have spoken about that tragedy and bereavement in the Chamber before. He will know that the victims code is still open for consultation until the end of this month, and I urge anyone who has such feelings of pain to feed into that to enable us to make the code better for victims. The Policing Minister will have heard his views and the views of other victims on how we can support victims of terrorism. I have met families bereaved by terrorism to work with them on what more we can do, and they will be feeding into the victims code.

That brings me on to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) about the victims code. I have spoken before about ensuring that those bereaved by homicide abroad have rights under the code; although it is not necessarily the right place, we have listened to them and ensured that there is a specific measure for them in the draft consultation. We are working with the FCDO and the Home Office to ensure that that can be strengthened so that support is available for them. The review will be published in 2027. It will be robust and comprehensive, and will put families at the centre, so that we can improve the support available to them where it is needed.

On court transcripts, I thank Liberal Democrat and Labour Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for all the work they have done on ensuring that victims have access to court transcripts that relate to their cases. As the Minister set out in the other place last week, the Government are acutely aware of the need to consider what further action we can take to support victims to access information on court proceedings relating to their case, particularly in cases that do not result in a conviction. The Government are also fully committed to strengthening transparency. That is why I am pleased to restate that the Government are commencing a study on AI transcription in the criminal courts. That will look at how AI transcription could lead to producing court transcripts more quickly and at a lower cost for victims. The findings of that study have the potential to reduce fees and improve access to court transcripts. This will mean that further reform will be underpinned by confidence in accuracy, as well as appropriate safeguards, and that it will deliver for victims.

I will now move on to the remaining topics for discussion. The Government have agreed with the sentiment of the amendments to the unduly lenient sentence scheme but, as I have said previously, we needed to return to those to ensure that they were workable and effective and would bring the change necessary, following direct engagement with victims and bereaved families. That is what we have done, and I am pleased to confirm that we have now tabled two amendments to the ULS scheme that will deliver what victims have been calling for.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I begin by thanking Members from across both Chambers for their work in getting this legislation to where it is today. I especially thank the Government for their engagement with me and my colleagues in the Lords, in particular the Minister, who I have met multiple times to discuss various issues in the Bill.

A key cornerstone of our justice system must 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 will happen only by putting their voices at the heart of the justice system, ensuring that justice is served quickly, with properly funded support, protection from perpetrators and rehabilitation of offenders to reduce reoffending. There are countless examples of that failing to happen, which is why the Liberal Democrats have welcomed the intention of and many of the measures in the Bill.

We are pleased with the Government’s commitment to undertake a study into the use of AI transcription in criminal courts in order to explore whether that can reduce both the costs and time involved in the provision of transcripts to victims. My colleague Baroness Brinton in the other place and I have both tabled amendments to the Bill aimed at expanding the provision of transcripts for victims at various stages, in part inspired by the tireless work of my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who I thank once again.

It should never be the case that victims, many of whom might not have even been in the court room to hear the sentence handed down, are asked to pay thousands of pounds to access their transcript. The opposing argument to our amendments is about the costs of redaction in producing the transcripts, but it is clear that there are technological solutions in today’s age and we therefore welcome the Government’s recognition that more action is needed. We will continue to push for greater provision of free transcripts in the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which is currently in Committee.

I thank the Government for their commitment to review the provision of service to families whose relatives have been murdered abroad. That follows an exemplary amendment first tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) due to issues faced by one of his constituents. The provision of supporting information for families going through those horrific circumstances clearly has some issues, but the commitment in the other place to a joint review into those provisions between the Ministry of Justice and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is welcome. We look forward to the result of that review, at which point we will consult with victims’ groups in ensuring that the provisions work satisfactorily.

I will take the opportunity to mention to the Minister again that, as she will be aware, the Murdered Abroad annual conference is on 13 June and I know that the organisers—

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will be attending.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I am pleased to hear that the Minister will be attending because I know that the organisers were keen to engage with her so that they can continue to see progress.

I turn now to Lords amendments 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, 5F, 6B and 6C, all of which impact the unduly lenient scheme. Again, I thank Baroness Brinton in the other place for her tireless work on these amendments with the Government, and the late Helen Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner, and the Victims’ Commissioner for London. I also want to specifically pay tribute to the bravery of Tracey Hanson and Katie Brett, whose campaigns on these issues, in the light of their own families’ experiences, have no doubt played a pivotal part in the Government’s commitment to these amendments.

Tracey going through the trial of the murder of her own son, Josh, with no knowledge of the unduly lenient scheme, is exactly the example that I hope these amendments will address and are testament to her tireless efforts and the memory of her son. As the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) so eloquently expressed, Katie’s tireless campaigning for her sister, Sasha, is an extraordinary example of someone fighting an injustice not for themselves, but for others in the future who may suffer a similar loss. In particular, amendments 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E and 5F allow out-of-time applications to be made up to six months after sentencing. That is vital for families who are unaware of the scheme who did not submit an application prior to the 28-day limit and will benefit many who experience the same heartache and pain as Tracey.

The Government’s provision in amendments 6B and 6C of a statutory duty for victims to be informed of the unduly lenient scheme is vital, and should provide victims with a clearer picture of the options that they are entitled to following sentencing. The Minister was right to say that many of the campaigners have not just asked for an extension; it is about victims knowing what is available to them and ensuring that there is a mandatory commitment that they are told that the scheme is an option available to them after sentencing. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me recently and then coming forward with these amendments, and we are pleased to support them.

Finally, I turn to Lords amendments 4B and 4C regarding private prosecutions. I am sure many across the House will agree that the ability for criminal prosecutions to be brought forward outside of the regular processes of the authorities, providing an alternative method for charities and commercial organisations, is essential in delivering justice for many victims whose cases have not been taken on by the state. That is especially pertinent against the backdrop of stretched resources facing the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I will speak to Lords amendments 5C and 6B. Before I do so, may I thank the Minister for working in a collaborative and cross-party way on this issue? I congratulate hon. Members who spoke before me so passionately on behalf of their constituents.

I pay tribute to my constituent Tracey Hanson, who is watching this debate from the Gallery. Tracey’s son, Josh Hanson, was tragically murdered in an unprovoked knife attack in October 2015 at the age of just 21. Tracey has been on an 11-year journey of immense pain, and she has channelled that pain into trying to improve the rights and experiences of victims who must deal with the criminal justice system.

Tracey has campaigned tirelessly to reform the unduly lenient sentence scheme. The campaign is driven by a simple demand: victims and bereaved families should be properly informed of their rights, and those rights should have parity with offenders’ rights under the scheme—something that hon. Members have spoken about this afternoon. Tracey’s campaign was born from personal injustice. She was never informed of her right to challenge the sentence imposed on Josh’s killer. When she discovered the scheme and submitted an appeal on the final day, it was rejected, because it arrived outside of office hours. That is totally unacceptable.

I therefore welcome the introduction of Lords amendment 6B, which will place a clear duty on authorities to notify victims and bereaved families of their right to appeal a sentence under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. That change is a direct result of Tracey’s work with academics, campaigners and legislators, and her determination to improve the legislation through the introduction of Josh’s law. Other families who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in such tragic situations will benefit from Tracey’s work, and the work of all campaigners. It is because of that work that I and many others in this House have been educated about the problems with the ULS scheme.

I welcome Lords amendment 5C, which will extend the period within which an appeal can be considered from 28 days from the date of sentence to six months from the date of the sentence, where that is in the interests of justice. That is a significant step forward for victims’ rights, but, while I welcome it, true justice requires absolute parity between the rights of offenders and the rights of victims to appeal sentences. Hon. Members from across the House have made that point today, and I hope that the Government have heard it.

Despite the positive step forward in this Bill, I know that Tracey will continue her fight for full equality for victims in the eyes of the law. On that note, may I thank Ministers for agreeing to meet Tracey later this year to discuss the Law Commission’s review of criminal appeals? In the Minister’s summing-up speech, I would appreciate it if she could confirm that Tracey would be welcome at that meeting.

I also mention my constituents’ disappointment that the Government have decided not to give these legislative changes the name “Josh’s law”. I have already spoken of the undeniable role that Tracey’s campaign has played in bringing about these changes. That sentiment is reflected in the fact that many Members across this House already recognise it as Josh’s law, noting Tracey’s years of campaigning for these changes in Josh’s memory. Baroness Levitt KC, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, said in the other place last week that this Government listen and want to get things right. I truly welcome the fact that Ministers have listened to Tracey, and have introduced amendments for which she has campaigned for more than seven years, but they have not got this completely right. In the eyes of my constituents, to truly honour Tracey’s work—not only her determination to deliver meaningful legislative reform, but the tireless support that she has provided to victims through her charity—this change in legislation should be called Josh’s law.

I understand the Government’s position is that

“this decision reflects a wider shift away from the Government naming legislation or amendments after individuals”.

However, that is inconsistent with other recently passed legislation. I will refer to just one example. Last week, a Minister referred to “Benedict’s law” at the Dispatch Box. That legislation was passed only last month. That highlights that the move away from naming legislation after individuals is not being applied consistently. I ask the Minister to reflect on that at the Dispatch Box.

Together, Lords amendments 5C and 6B represent a positive shift in the way that the criminal justice system in England and Wales approaches victims. I hope that Tracey is incredibly proud of the fact that, by channelling the immense pain of her loss into concrete action, she has helped to shift more focus back to the impact on, and rights of, victims. For that reason, and in Josh Hanson’s memory, I encourage colleagues from across the House to support Lords amendments 5C and 6B.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

With the leave of the House, I will close this really important and special debate. It moves us another step closer to this Bill becoming a much-needed law for all victims, and I sincerely thank all hon. Members who have spoken, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers), and for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan).

This is a really important Bill. It shows the best of Parliament when we all come together on an issue that is beyond party politics to do what we were elected to this place to do—to speak for the people we represent, make life better for those who come after us, and create a legacy for those who have sadly had to endure hardship and pain that we will hopefully never have to feel. I thank the Minister in the other place for guiding this Bill through its stages, and for undertaking such extensive engagement with all hon. Members, here and in the other place, throughout its passage.

Let me answer some of the questions put forward today. Discussions are ongoing about who will have the statutory duty to notify victims and bereaved families about the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and I will ensure that I update the House on how we progress those discussions. We do not need to put that into law, but we will engage fully with the Crown Prosecution Service, the Home Office, the Victims’ Commissioner and the bereaved families to ensure that we get this right, that full accountability is there, and that there will be scrutiny of the application of the duty under the victims code. I am working with the Victims’ Commissioner to ensure that that is robust. I assure the shadow Minister that that will be followed robustly, and I will ensure that we engage with him on that duty as it develops.

I assure the shadow Minister that the consultation on rates will be followed in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines, and we will consult with the appropriate stakeholders. This will not be a tick-box exercise—it will be thoroughly responded to—and the House will be informed of that consultation. As the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood stated, this is just part of the commitment that the Government are making to victims about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. We still await the findings of the Law Commission, and I again make the commitment at this Dispatch Box that I made to Tracey Hanson and Katie Brett: I will meet them, once the Law Commission completes its work, to discuss the findings and what more we can do as a Government going forward to ensure that we get parity for victims in the criminal justice system. This is just one step forward, and we will continue to work with all stakeholders on the Bill.

I have been crystal clear that this is the Victims and Courts Bill, and soon it will be the Victims and Courts law. It will become an Act for all victims. It will be a law for Josh, for Sasha, for Olivia, for Jan, for Sabina, for Zara and for all the victims who have been failed by the criminal justice system. This Bill will become an Act for all of them, and their legacy. I will ensure that the importance of having a consistent approach regarding the law’s name is fed back to all Government Departments, because this is a law for all the victims and campaigners who have engaged with the Government and it is important that they are all recognised.

Victims and Courts Bill

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 7 and the Government motions to disagree.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful for the opportunity to once again be speaking on the Victims and Courts Bill as it returns to this House. This is fundamentally a Bill for victims. At its core, the measures seek to ensure that victims are treated with dignity, compassion and respect throughout the entire justice process. The Bill will ensure that offenders are held to account by giving judges the power to impose prison sanctions on offenders who refuse to attend their own sentencing hearings—something that the families of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Jan Mustafa, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa have campaigned tirelessly for. It places the welfare of children firmly at the centre by restricting the parental responsibility of the most serious offenders, including child sex offenders and those who have conceived a child through rape. The Bill also strengthens the power of the Victims’ Commissioner by giving them greater authority to act in individual cases that raise systemic issues and by requiring an independent assessment of compliance with the victims code.

I am grateful for the scrutiny of the Bill in the other place. The Lords amendments we are considering reflect a shared determination across both Houses to improve outcomes for victims. However, while the Government share that objective, we must ensure that the reforms are workable, proportionate and capable of being delivered effectively.

I turn to the seven non-Government amendments made in the other place. First, Lords amendments 1 and 3 relate to court transcripts. Through the Sentencing Act 2026, the Government have already introduced a major expansion to transcript provision, which will, for the first time ever, give all victims the ability to request free transcripts of Crown Court sentencing remarks directly relevant to their case from Spring 2027. That is a significant step forward for victims, improving access to clear information about how decisions are made and strengthening their ability to navigate the justice process. This is a significant operational undertaking. We must ensure that this major expansion for victims is delivered effectively and in a way that is operationally sustainable. We are working at pace to deliver this, and it is essential that we get it right so that victims receive this important information in a timely way. It will help them understand the sentence that has been passed and will support their recovery.

However, we recognise the strength of feeling around transcripts, particularly from victims, and I want to reference that strength of feeling in this House towards the subject, too. I want to be clear that the Government are approaching this with care and ambition to go further. Access to what was said in court matters deeply for victims’ understanding, confidence and sense of justice, and the steps that we are taking to expand the free provision of sentencing remarks represent real progress.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I welcome this Bill and this Government’s laser focus on supporting victims and survivors, which has been lacking in our courts system for a very long time. I hear what the Minister says about court transcripts. It is incredibly important for the victims and survivors I know to have a physical copy of sentencing remarks so that they can process them in their own time, so I am confused about why she is not accepting Lords amendments 1 and 3 at this point.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome that comment, and I agree with my hon. Friend. The countless victims and survivors who I have spoken to talk about the need to have those remarks in writing and how valuable a court transcript would be in helping them to recover and process. Let me say at the Dispatch Box that the Government share the ambition to go further and to provide transcripts, but we need to do that in a workable, sustainable and effective way, so that no victim is let down by a process that is not ready or is not capable of meeting the challenge that this issue presents. We are willing to go further, and we will look to see what more we can do in the Lords.

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

I thank the Minister for going further in making these transcripts available. Will she let us know what the next steps in that process will be? How quickly will we see real movement to allow people to have access to their sentencing remarks?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome that question from my hon. Friend, and he is right. We need incremental progress on our shared ambition to go further on court transcripts. I am clear that this is not the end point, but part of the broader effort to improve access, transparency and support for victims.

I have been working with my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), who is a tireless campaigner on this issue, as are many other campaign groups, such as Open Justice. I pay tribute to them for all the work that they have done on getting free sentencing transcripts for everyone in the Crown court. We want to go further, with the experiences of victims at the heart of what we do. It is important that we consult with others in this place and outside it on what would be the most beneficial next step, particularly for court transcripts and cases that end in acquittal.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I was slightly concerned when I heard the Minister say that she was “working at pace”—that is the phrase that Ministers in the Ministry of Defence have used about the defence investment plan, which has been repeatedly postponed and still is not with us—so can she give a more precise timescale? Does that mean sometime in the next 12 months?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I cannot speak for the Ministry of Defence, but I can speak for my own record here as the Minister and my own actions in government when it comes to delivering for victims. I am happy to put on record that we are working at pace to deliver this. The hon. Gentleman will see what measures come back in the Lords and what commitments we can make once we look at what is possible, practical, workable and effective.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Minister gives the fact that she needs to consult as a reason for turning down the Lords amendments. Is the usual approach not to consult before bringing the legislation, not to bring the legislation then consult afterwards?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Perhaps I was not very clear. This is not about consulting with victims on what is required—we know what victims want, and I have spoken to many of them regarding court transcripts—but looking at what is possible right now. We are prioritising delivering sentencing remarks for free for all victims, and working with the judiciary to ensure that we get this right and accurate. That is the priority for the Government. As I have said, we are willing to go further on court transcripts; this is not the end. For example, we are looking at what would be the best next step for victims. Is acquittal the best thing to focus on right now? We need to get that right before we go further, and I will happily come back to this House with the Courts Minister on the next steps.

Lords amendment 1 would create a new entitlement for all victims of crime to receive transcripts of routes to verdict and of bail conditions and decisions relevant to their case, free of charge and within 14 days of a request—let us not forget that that is what is in the amendment. I will explain in more detail why that proposal would not provide significant benefits over the systems already in place. First, under the victims code, victims already have the right to be informed of bail outcomes and release conditions within five working days—a shorter timeframe than that proposed in the Lords amendment. We recognise the importance of this right and the benefits for victims in being able to access information in a timely or consistent way. We are exploring how responsibilities under the victims code are being met by the relevant service providers and how to better support them in the delivery of the code.

We are seeking views through the ongoing victims code consultation, which ends at the end of April, on whether the processes for providing bail information are working as intended. To strengthen them further, the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 will, once commenced, introduce a compliance framework requiring all criminal justice bodies to keep their delivery of the code under review. Taken together, these operational and legislative measures address the core concern around timely and sufficient provision of bail information far more effectively than introducing a statutory duty to provide transcripts of bail hearings.

Secondly, providing victims with routes to verdict would be unlikely to add significant value, which is why we need to discuss with victims what would be of most value to them. A route to verdict is typically a very short document—sometimes it is not even a document at all. Its purpose is not to explain the outcome of a case, but to guide members of the jury through a series of legal questions that they must consider privately when applying the law to the facts. Crucially, juries do not provide their answers to those questions or even give reasons for their verdict. Victims would therefore see only the questions that the jury was asked, not how they were answered, and they would gain no additional insight into the decision.

Lords amendment 3 would require the Crown court to publish sentencing remarks transcripts online and in public within 14 days of a request being made and to inform relevant victims of their right to request anonymity before publication. While the Government are fully committed to strengthening transparency—I make that commitment—the Lords amendment would create significant operational and financial pressures for victims at a very difficult time. Public release demands a higher standard of anonymisation to remove both direct and indirect identifiers of victims and witnesses. That is detailed, skilled work. Current AI-based tools cannot reliably carry out anonymisation for the complex and sensitive material heard in the criminal courts, and trained staff are still required to manually review each and every transcript. That means that even modest increases in publication would create disproportionate pressures on operational capacity.

Furthermore, requiring the court to make victims aware of their right to request anonymity, make appropriate redactions and publish the transcript online—all within 14 days of a sentencing remarks transcript request being made—would not be operationally viable at this time. As I have said, our immediate priority must be delivering the sentencing remarks expansion for victims properly and at pace. Adding substantial new duties at this stage would divert the very resources needed to deliver these important commitments for victims, which victims have asked us directly to provide.

Lords amendment 2 proposes the creation of an appendix to the victims code, setting out how the code applies to close relatives of British national victims of murder, manslaughter and infanticide outside the UK, where the victim was resident in England and Wales. The Government cannot support this Lords amendment, as it risks placing obligations on agencies to provide services to bereaved families that are impossible to deliver in practice and that in some places would go beyond what is in the victims code. It also risks confusing the existing legislative framework and therefore the workability of the code, and it could raise the expectations of victims.

The victims code already applies to some families bereaved by homicide abroad, namely where the offence is murder or manslaughter and the perpetrator is a British national or British resident. That is because, in those circumstances, the case can be prosecuted in England and Wales. Where offences cannot be prosecuted in the UK—for example, where the crime is committed overseas by a foreign national—most entitlements under the victims code do not apply. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), who is in his place, for all his work with the brilliant organisation Murdered Abroad and for representing the views of all the families here.

While I appreciate that the code does not capture the whole of the cohort covered by the Lords amendment, I give the hon. Member for Maidenhead and the House my absolute assurance that the Government recognise the particular challenges faced by all families bereaved by homicide abroad, including those navigating very complicated overseas criminal justice processes, often in different languages. We are committed to working with agencies to improve the support available to them in England and Wales.

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

I join the Minister in thanking the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) for his work on this issue. I also take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for her work on the part of this Bill that ensures there are no parental rights for child sex offenders or those who conceived a child by committing rape, which is absolutely abhorrent. I thank the Minister for taking those things forward and for her work in ensuring that victims are at the centre of this Bill.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. This is called the Victims and Courts Bill because it is a Bill for victims, built by victims and, sadly, by their experiences of how the criminal justice system has not supported them and has failed them. It is important for us to build on the Bill and ensure that we get it right and that it is workable, effective and delivers for victims in their everyday lives, as well as for future victims who will sadly be created by crime committed here or overseas.

Let me return to the victims of homicide abroad. In January this year, the Government published guidance that brings together clear and accessible information for families about the services that can support them. We have clarified the roles and responsibilities in further documentation online, which sets out exactly how the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Ministry of Justice and the chief coroner and the coroner service will work together when a British national is a victim of murder or manslaughter abroad. While every case is considered on its individual circumstances, this document seeks to ensure a consistent level of service for bereaved families.

Throughout the debates on this topic, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised and we are committed to addressing them. To improve the consistency of support offered by consular services, the FCDO has committed itself to reviewing and refreshing its training provision for all consular staff. We need to improve access to translated documents, and the Ministry of Justice will review how translation is provided in the course of delivering the new homicide service contract in 2027. To ensure there is an independent view of the approach taken by agencies that support this cohort, the FCDO’s senior official for global consular services will meet either the Victims’ Commissioner or a representative when particular issues arise that merit further discussion. I thank the Victims’ Commissioner, and her predecessor, for continuing to engage with the FCDO and other agencies to advocate for families.

While we remain committed to strengthening support for families bereaved by homicide abroad, Lords amendment 2 confuses the purpose of the code in terms of its intended application to crimes capable of prosecution in England and Wales. It also risks creating obligations on agencies that are impossible to deliver, given that many of these cases will be handled overseas and therefore be entirely outside their control. Instead, we are determined to address directly the concerns faced by bereaved families.

Lords amendments 4 and 7 would remove clause 12 from the Bill, which means that the Lord Chancellor would not have the power to set the rates of private prosecution costs recoverable from central funds. The Government therefore cannot support those amendments. Retaining the current arrangements for private prosecutions would preserve a system that is inconsistent and places an unnecessary burden on the courts. Currently, when private prosecutors apply for their costs to be paid from central funds, there is no prescribed rate. The court, or the Legal Aid Agency acting on its behalf, must work out in each individual case what level of reimbursement is “reasonably sufficient”. That lack of clarity leads to unnecessary disputes, appeals and delays in an already delayed court process. By introducing transparent, consistent rates, we will give prosecutors clarity and certainty about what they will be paid, thereby reducing the need for cost appeals. Valuable court time is taken up by the determination of costs because of the lack of prescribed rates, which imposes an unnecessary burden on the courts.

It is important to stress again that the majority of private prosecutions never result in a claim from central funds, and will be entirely unaffected by this measure. Most private prosecutors act responsibly, apply the code tests properly and pursue cases in the public interest. However, we cannot ignore the evidence that, in a small number of cases, the near certainty of recovering large costs from central funds may cause the pursuit of private prosecutions that are disproportionate or an unsuitable remedy to the presenting legal issues. We have seen examples in which the costs claimed bear little resemblance to the scale or seriousness of the case, such as a £90,000 claim in a fraud prosecution when the loss was only £5,000. That is not what the system was intended for.

Let me make it clear that clause 12 does not set any rates, and does not alter the long-established right to bring a private prosecution. That right remains protected under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and will not be affected. Before any rates are set, there will be extensive engagement with stakeholders and a full public consultation. The Government remain open-minded about where the rates should ultimately be set, but the rates will reflect the complexity and seriousness of cases and will be shaped by the evidence that we gather.

A number of respected charities bring private prosecutions to protect the public and pursue wrongdoing, but it is important to note that charities represent only about 10% to 15% of private prosecutions that result in claims on central funds, and that they will continue to be able to bring private prosecutions. Nothing in the clause alters the fundamental right to bring a private prosecution: that right is long-standing and preserved in statute, and the Government have no intention of changing it.

Clause 12 is a measured and necessary first step towards reform. It will bring clarity to an unclear system, improve efficiency, reduce unnecessary burdens on the courts, and help to ensure that taxpayers’ money is used responsibly. It will do all that while safeguarding access to justice and maintaining, fully and unequivocally, the fundamental right to bring a private prosecution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The Minister will forgive me if I describe what she has announced as a whole load of waffle. The problem is that the 28-day period is too short, and she should consider some mechanism to allow it to be extended. Providing for training, notices and stuff on websites will not help many victims, who just need more time to consider their legal position. At this late stage, will she consider extending the 28-day period?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am afraid that the hon. Member must not have heard what I said before I came to non-legislative changes. The Government are committed to bringing forward legislative changes on that time limit and to consider out-of-time applications by families. We have listened directly to the families about what they want. We could have brought forward an amendment that simply extended the time limit, but the families told us directly that that was not what they wanted. I listened to victims, the Government listened to victims, and in this victims Bill we will do as the victims have asked.

We will continue to test on getting this right, because it is important that we get it right first time. We are confident that we will soon be able to update the House on a workable legislative solution. For those reasons, the Government cannot accept Lords amendments 5 and 6.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

In a week when the Government have been reprimanded for letting foreign criminals out of prison without proper checks or safeguards, have been found to have done absolutely nothing as a firm that was due to build thousands of prison places went bust 18 months ago, and ended short-term sentences, allowing prolific shoplifters and other criminals to escape prison, it is beyond disappointing that they seek today to overturn perfectly sensible Lords amendments. The amendments would make the criminal justice system more transparent and give victims stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences.

We must ask: why are this Government so afraid of the public? Why do Ministers not trust the people? Why do they want to keep injustice—from rape gangs, to serious criminals getting away with a few brief years in prison—out of the spotlight? [Interruption.] Labour Members sigh and moan when I raise the rape gangs. That is exactly the mentality that the country is sick of, and it lies behind the failure to prosecute those cases.

We support Lords amendment 2 on expanding the victims code for murder, manslaughter and infanticide abroad. We support Lords amendment 4 to remove clause 12 from the Bill, because that clause will deliver few savings while undermining access to justice. We support Lords amendments 5 and 6, which strengthen the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Amendment 5 introduces an exceptional circumstances clause that allows the deadline to be extended beyond 28 days, and amendment 6 requires the Justice Secretary to ensure that victims and their families are aware of their rights under the scheme. Those are welcome suggestions. I pay tribute to Katie Brett and the rest of Justice for Victims, and to Tracey Hanson, for their campaigning on this front. They have been consistent in making clear that they want meaningful change, not half measures.

Just last week, I wrote to the Attorney General about the case of Mohammed Abdulraziq, who dragged a five-year-old girl off the street so that he could sexually assault her. He was sentenced to only 11 years in prison, and in all probability, he will be out in just seven. Monsters like him need to be kept away from children. The Government’s opposition to these amendments weakens justice and reduces public protection. I heard what the Minister said about looking at legislation in future, and we will hold her to those words.

The failure to trust the people goes not just for the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but for wider transparency in the criminal justice system, and it is on that point that I will focus the rest of my remarks. We Conservatives do trust the people, so we support Lords amendment 1, which entitles victims to free transcripts of route-to-verdict and bail decisions, and Lords amendment 3, which requires the publication of Crown court transcripts of judges’ sentencing remarks, online and for free, within 14 days of a request made by any member of the public.

The Minister explained the Government’s position on those amendments, and amid the verbiage I could discern only excuses. She sounded like the driver of a broken-down train, who, with passengers stranded miles from the nearest station, was doing her best to assure everyone that the train was indeed moving. Of course everyone knows that there is no movement; the train that we are on is entirely stationary. This is an important lesson for the Minister and other members of the Government: the repetition of fiction does not make something fact. We can all see exactly what is and is not happening.

I want to explain why this is so important. Of course, we want to see how the provisions of the Sentencing Act are implemented, but it is simply not acceptable for victims to be charged as much as £7,000 for a transcript. It is vital that we allow transparency, to make it easier for victims, journalists and the wider public to see what is going on in our courts and detect patterns. We know from too many tragedies, and too many cover-ups, that sunlight is always the best disinfectant.

Let us consider the Courtsdesk scandal. When the Justice Secretary tried to shut down that vital, searchable archive of court hearings, he caused an outcry. Before Courtsdesk, official court listings matched reality just 4.2% of the time. Two thirds of courts routinely heard cases that the media never knew about. From crimes committed by illegal immigrants in asylum hotels and weak sentences for paedophiles, to people dragged through the courts for breaking lockdown rules years after the pandemic and offending by convicted criminals who should have been tagged but were not, Courtsdesk helped journalists to join the dots, securing justice for victims and exposing failures in policy. I still want to know why the Justice Secretary wanted to delete that archive, and why Ministers blamed Courtsdesk for a serious data breach, when documents released since show that the Ministry of Justice considered the breach low risk and not worthy of a referral to the Information Commissioner. I will give way if the Minister wishes to explain. [Interruption.]

[Alex Davies-Jones]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The normal protocol is that a Member wishes to intervene, but I appreciate the encouragement—and the Minister has risen to it, so well done, Mr Timothy.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The shadow Secretary of State will know that Courtsdesk is a private company that provides a subscription-based specialist data platform aggregating magistrates court data and offering specialist services to journalists. The proposal did not stop data sharing with Courtsdesk at all, and it was not about reducing transparency. It was merely a commercial sensitivity proposal to take the archive offline temporarily while we determined new contracts. It was not about transparency.

[Nick Timothy]

I think the Minister has been taking lessons from the Prime Minister. She may as well have been reading the phonebook in answering the question. [Interruption.] Well, the answer that she just gave was completely unsatisfactory. There was an attempt to delete the archive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate today. I will answer the questions of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) first, as he spoke last, and they are fresh in my mind. I will endeavour to get him the information that he asks for. He may not have seen or be aware of the new draft victims code that is out for consultation at the moment, but on page 8, in black and white, are the provisions that will now apply to those who are bereaved due to homicide or manslaughter abroad. We are building on the victims code through the consultation, which is open until 30 April, and I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s views. As I said, we are determined to do more on translation as well, once the contract ends on the homicide service in 2027, so that we can support victims and bereaved family members so that they never have to go through something like the horrific examples cited by the hon. Gentleman.

I place on the record my sincere gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for her unwavering campaigning on behalf of her constituent Katie Brett. I was very grateful to Katie for coming to the recent meeting on the unduly lenient sentence scheme that the Ministry of Justice convened with victims so that we could hear directly from her, as well as Tracey Hanson and others, on what would be most beneficial in terms of legislative changes—not just the statutory duty to be notified and specifying who would notify them, but on the time limit and how best it can be applied in circumstances like Katie’s, so that Sasha’s law can be properly looked at.

I turn to the points made by the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay). I understand that it might be difficult for him, given that when he was in government, the legislation that was passed was clearly not workable, sound or efficient on the ground. This Government take a different approach. Although we agree with the sentiment of a number of these amendments, we have to ensure that they are legally workable, sound, responsible and effective. That is what a responsible Government do, and that is what I am determined to do as the Minister responsible.

[Steve Barclay]

The point I was highlighting was the inherent contradictions in the Minister’s remarks. Even now, in her summing up, she has said that the Government are going to go further in 2027, but in her opening remarks she said that they cannot go further because there are technical impediments. The point is that there are inherent contradictions in the Government’s narrative.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will try to break it down more simply for the right hon. Gentleman, as he is clearly not listening—

[Steve Barclay]

That’s patronising.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Patronising, but truthful, given that what I am saying is that the Government are determined to go further in the right way. We agree with the sentiment of the Lords amendments, but they are not workable and will not work in this legislation. Where practically possible, we will be bringing forward legislative changes and we will work with right hon. and hon. Members across the House to ensure that this happens, but that will not be in a way that would be a dereliction of duty and disrespectful to the victims whom this Government represent. The victims are at the forefront of this legislation, and we need to ensure that the Bill works in practice. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was part of a Government who clearly did not do that.

I am also incredibly grateful to those who have supported the measures in the Bill, particularly the victims, who have waited far too long for change. They want a justice system that treats with them dignity, keeps them informed and ensures that offenders are properly held to account. The Bill delivers tangible improvements that can be implemented while sitting alongside wider reforms that will modernise our court process and put victims at the heart of the system.

Today, the House has the opportunity to support and protect victims and restore confidence in our justice system. I urge the House to support this Bill and to reject the Lords amendments.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Reproductive Coercion

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for bringing forward this really important debate. To echo the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), she always uses her voice in this place to amplify the voices of those who have been silenced. I am truly in awe of her; I find her an inspiration.

This is an important debate. It matters because controlling or coercive behaviour is one of the most harmful, least visible and most misunderstood forms of domestic abuse. It causes deep and lasting harm, yet is so often difficult to recognise, disclose and even evidence, both for victims and the professionals who are meant to support them. Before turning to the substance, I acknowledge the lived experience that has helped bring the issue into sharper focus. I understand that the survivors and campaigners Olivia and Mim Nervo have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and other parliamentarians in the Chamber to raise awareness of reproductive coercion and post-separation abuse. I am so grateful that lived experiences have helped prompt this debate.

I also put on record my personal thanks to Olivia and Mim for meeting me today. Olivia’s story is so moving. What she has been through is horrific beyond measure, and I sincerely thank her for speaking out, because undoubtedly she will have helped many other women who are sadly in the same position. It takes courage to speak out in that way and campaign for change. However, I must be clear about one boundary: I cannot comment on individual cases, court decisions, or any ongoing investigations. That is not for lack of concern—quite the opposite—but about respecting the independence and integrity of our justice system. I can, however, speak directly to the system issues that the debate raises.

As we have heard, reproductive coercion is a form of controlling or coercive behaviour. It involves using power and control to interfere with a person’s reproductive autonomy—something that should belong to the individual alone. The statutory guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour already recognises reproductive coercion, and includes behaviour such as restricting access to contraception, refusing to use contraception, forcing pregnancy, deception about contraception, or forcing or denying access to abortion, IVF or any other reproductive procedure.

Reproductive choice is a basic human right. We understand the long-term emotional, psychological and sometimes physical harm that this abuse, or the denial of this right, can cause. We also recognise how difficult it can be for victims to identify and disclose this type of abuse, particularly when it occurs within an intimate relationship or alongside any other form of control. This is not about isolated incidents. Reproductive coercion is often part of a wider pattern of coercive control, which could also include emotional, economic, sexual or physical abuse.

To understand reproductive coercion, we must first understand how coercive control-type abuse operates. It is about domination, fear, and the gradual erosion of someone’s autonomy. It includes isolating someone from friends and family, depriving them of basic needs, and enforcing degrading rules monitoring movements, controlling finances or taking control over everyday decisions. Sadly, that is not an exhaustive list, because abuse adapts to the victim’s circumstances. Victims may not recognise what is happening to them as abuse until the pattern becomes clear, sometimes years later. That complexity places a responsibility on us all to ensure that our systems are equipped to recognise patterns, not just incidents.

Controlling or coercive behaviour has been a criminal offence since 2015, under the Serious Crime Act 2015. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 strengthened the framework by explicitly recognising controlling or coercive behaviour as domestic abuse, and by extending the offence to ex-partners and family members who do not live together.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her positive response to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). The Minister obviously understands the issue very clearly. In my earlier intervention, I gave the example of Northern Ireland, where the sentence for coercive behaviour is 14 years. Over here on the mainland, in England and Wales, the sentence is only five years. Would the Minister and the Government consider strengthening the sentence to make it similar to that in Northern Ireland, ensuring that the time fits the crime?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the distinction in the sentencing for this crime in Northern Ireland. In England and Wales, the sentence is a maximum of five years, but as I have said, the crime normally comes alongside other forms of abuse, for which the CPS will look to charge and seek the highest sentence. Sentencing is an independent judicial matter—it is for the judge to determine—but as I have said, coercive behaviour is part of a pattern, and we need to get the framework right for agencies so that they can support victims and survivors.

The changes that were made were vital. They recognise the reality of post-separation abuse, and abuse by family members outside the household. They offer protection to victims who continue to experience coercive control long after a relationship has ended. Although I cannot comment on any individual case, it is right to reflect on the system-level issues that have been raised by campaigners here today. The concerns shared with the Department by many survivors include the impact of prolonged family court proceedings, post-separation abuse continuing through legal processes, and the distress caused by long delays and uncertainty in criminal investigations into coercive control.

There are also serious questions about how mechanisms that are intended to support confidence in the justice system, such as transparency and privacy provisions, can in some circumstances be experienced as silencing or controlling. Those concerns underline a central point: our justice system must never become a tool through which victims are abused even further. It must be there to protect victims and not compound harm. To echo the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), I totally agree that this is something that Baroness Levitt, the Minister in the other place, will look at in relation to family court reform.

This debate sits squarely within the Government’s wider mission to tackle violence against women and girls. The scale of violence against women and girls in this country is intolerable. The Government are treating it as a national emergency, with a clear ambition to halve the levels within a decade. Our “Freedom from violence and abuse: a cross-government strategy”, published in December, sets out how we will prevent abuse, pursue perpetrators and support victims. Addressing controlling or coercive behaviour, including reproductive coercion, is central to delivering that ambition.

Since controlling or coercive behaviour became a criminal offence in 2015, the police and the CPS have been working hard to improve how they recognise and respond to it. Those trends are improving year on year: last year, police recorded more than 54,000 offences and CPS prosecutions have gone up by 38% compared with the previous year, to more than 1,500 defendants prosecuted. However, we recognise that more needs to be done about understanding controlling or coercive behaviour, which has evolved significantly since the statutory guidance was last published in 2023. That is why the Government have committed to updating the guidance on controlling or coercive behaviour by the end of this year.

The updated guidance will reflect the latest policy and practice, including clearer recognition of reproductive coercion. This is about supporting frontline professionals—police, prosecutors, health professionals and others—to identify abuse early, gather evidence more effectively and support victims through the criminal justice process.

More than anything, education must be central to prevention. Through relationships, sex and health education, we will help children and young people understand healthy relationships, consent and controlling behaviour from an early age. We are backing that with practical support for schools and parents. We are investing in teacher training, bringing in external expertise when needed and tackling harmful behaviours, such as teenage relationship abuse.

In health settings, women are rightly routinely asked about domestic abuse in private, during antenatal care, for example. If abuse is disclosed, women should be offered support, help with safety planning and access to specialist services. Abortion providers are required to be trained to spot signs of coercion or abuse and respond appropriately. We are also strengthening how health professionals respond, through the violence against women and girls strategy, through improved safeguarding training, and with the steps to safety programme in general practice.

Supporting victims to recover and rebuild their lives from abuse is a core priority. More than £1 billion is being invested over the next three years to support victims of violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse survivors. That includes funding for safe accommodation, advocacy, counselling and specialist services. In particular, my Department is increasing funding for victim support services year on year from 2026 to 2029, recognising the need to meet the rising cost pressures of delivery. In total, the Ministry of Justice will invest £550 million in victim support services over the next three years of the spending review period.

This debate highlights why controlling or coercive behaviour, and reproductive coercion in particular, must be taken seriously at every level. Reproductive coercion is coercive control and domestic abuse. Addressing it is essential if we are to deliver our ambition to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.

I again acknowledge and place on record my sincere and incredible gratitude to the survivors and campaigners whose experience has brought urgency and clarity to this issue. We will continue to work across Government, and with all of you and with our partners, on this guidance and our practice to ensure that our system accurately reflects the reality of this abuse, so that we can deliver justice and safety for victims.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

2. What steps his Department is taking through the criminal justice system to help tackle violence against women and girls.

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

Our violence against women and girls strategy, which the Government published before Christmas, sets out exactly how we will achieve our mission to halve the number of these terrible crimes. The Ministry of Justice is investing more than half a billion pounds in victim support services over the next three years, alongside rolling out free independent legal advisers for all adult victims of rape.

[Charlie Maynard]

I welcome the new legal adviser service as a first step towards levelling the horribly unequal access to legal services available to victims as compared with suspects. However, only £3 million has been provided a year for the next two years to fund that service. Given the record highs of more than 12,500 sexual offence cases awaiting trial in the Crown courts, including Oxfordshire’s Crown court that serves my Witney constituency, does the Minister believe that funding to be anywhere near enough?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The funding of £6 million over two years will enable us to introduce independent legal advisers for all adult rape victims, and that is alongside the support package we are introducing in our courts system. We are expanding on Operation Soteria to ensure that rape victims get the support they need. The investment in support services is only one part of a much bigger package to ensure that victims are put back at the heart of the justice system.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

I know that Members from all parts of the House support the Government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls. The metric on which that is based, the crime survey for England, deals with those aged 16 and over, but girls under 16 are also substantially at risk. How will they be included in the recording and monitoring process to ensure that their needs are also addressed?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the scrutiny from my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee. We have been resolutely clear that the violence against women and girls strategy covers everyone, including children, those under the age of 16 and men and boys. We will be ensuring that the data captures a broad spectrum so that we are able to account for things. I recently met stakeholders who are concerned about the rise in domestic crimes committed against children and pre-teens, including in relationships they are getting into, and how we can best support them. I am working with colleagues across Government on that to ensure that we capture these things correctly, so that young people are not excluded from the data.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Violence against women and girls comes in many forms. I have discovered that, incredibly, while current legislation provides some protection for women and girls against revenge porn, it offers no such protection where images are clothed but accompanied by offensive material. Will the Minister take a long, hard look at that to see how the law can be strengthened so that those protections are afforded?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome that question. Just last week I was in the United States discussing the fact that the UK is a world leader in tackling non-consensual online intimate image abuse, and the proliferation of such abuse on social media platforms. We have been tackling it when individuals are clothed but there is offensive material on top of those images—for example, semen imagery. That is a vile, degrading crime that affects many people, and we are determined to tackle this degrading form of abuse wherever it occurs, including when individuals are clothed. If they are being degraded, and if it is non-consensual, this Government will come for those responsible.

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

Given the recent high-profile case involving the hotel chain Travelodge, which I know the Minister has been involved in, does she agree that tackling violence against women and girls must include clearer legal duties for companies to co-operate fully with the safeguarding expectations of customers?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane), for all their work in shining a light on this horrific issue. I was proud to meet the chief executive of Travelodge yesterday to discuss it in detail, and the Government are looking into what more we can do. We are convening a roundtable with the relevant Ministers in the Departments for Business and Trade and for Culture, Media and Sport to discuss the tourism aspect, and what better regulation and support we can provide to keep people safe wherever they are—in hotels, in the street or online. We will ensure that women and girls are kept safe.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Right now there are potentially thousands of rapists, paedophiles and perverts, who are responsible for some of the worst offences against women and girls, who this Government are going to let out of prison earlier. That is a disgrace, and at the very least the Government should be transparent about it. When I asked them to tell us what their estimates and modelling were on the number of people who were due to be let out, at first they denied they had any of that information; then they admitted that they did, but refused to publish it. Does the Minister not think that they should be transparent about the consequences of their own policies?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will take no lectures from the hon. Member about transparency when it comes to early release schemes. It was this Government who had to pick up the mess left by the last Government when we came to office, because our prisons were full. Instead of dealing with the issue, they ran away and called a general election. It was this Government who introduced risk assessments to prevent violent perpetrators of crimes against women and girls from being released early in our early release scheme, whereas the Conservatives’ early release scheme included no such protections. I will take no lectures from the hon. Member about how we protect women and girls.

[Dr Mullan]

I wish that the Minister got as angry about the fact that her Government are releasing thousands of rapists, paedophiles and perverts from prison early. If the Government will not tell us about the reality of the consequences, surely they should at least tell the victims. One of the worst aspects of this policy is the fact that many of those victims will have been given an estimated date for when the perpetrators would be released. That date will now be brought forward, and the perpetrators will get out of prison earlier than the victims were led to believe. Does the Minister think that, at the very least, the Government should write to the victims in advance to let them know that they are letting the perpetrators of those horrendous crimes out of prison earlier?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will tell you what makes me angry, Mr Speaker: it is the fact that the last Government presided over an increase in the number of crimes of violence against women and girls of 37% in just five years. That was not a Government who tackled violence against women and girls. That was not a Government who took it seriously. As for communication and notification, it is this Government who are introducing the victim contact scheme in our Victims and Courts Bill to ensure that victims are notified, which the last Government refused to do. It is this Government who are writing to victims to ensure that they are given information. I will take no lectures about how the last Government tackled these crimes; it is this Government who are getting on with the job.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

3. What discussions he has had with his counterparts in countries to which foreign national prisoners will be returned on ensuring that prisoners serve the full term of a sentence handed down by the UK courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

8. What steps he is taking to support victims’ rights.

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

The victims code sets out exactly the rights that victims can expect to receive. We have now launched a consultation on a new victims code to ensure that it is fit for purpose for 2026 and that we get the foundations right for victims. We are also raising awareness of the victims code through an “Understand Your Rights” campaign, as we want everyone to be aware of their rights.

[Munira Wilson]

The Minister will recall that last month I raised with her the case of Roksana Lecka, who was convicted of child cruelty at a nursery in Twickenham. Her victims’ parents were given only six days’ notice that she was being deported just a few months into her eight-year sentence, so although the victims code currently says that “all reasonable steps” should be taken to inform victims of an offender’s immigration status and likelihood of deportation, it does not say when. Does the Minister agree that an updated victims code should say that information about an offender’s immigration and likely deportation status should be shared as early as possible in the process?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I want all victims to have as much information as possible in a timely and appropriate fashion. That is exactly the type of information that we need to include in a new victims code. This is why we are consulting. I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady and her constituents to hear about their experiences and how we can best shape this new code. All victims are entitled to information about their offender. We are expanding the victim contact scheme to include that and to ensure that victims know their rights. As I have said, I would be happy to work with the hon. Lady and any other hon. Member to ensure that victims know their rights and that they are up to date.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The family courts urgently need reforming so that victims, especially those of domestic violence, are not experiencing a system that is being used by perpetrators to continue to control and abuse. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner reported that 73% of hearings in the family courts involved evidence of domestic abuse, but it is frequently not recognised in determinations. In the Courts and Tribunals Bill, the Government have included a clause to remove the presumption of parental responsibility, so will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to increase the scope of the Bill by including the family courts as a whole within it, and restore some faith for victims in our family court system?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome that question. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson will know of my commitment to ensuring that the family court is safe for all involved, including children and domestic abuse victims. That is why we are repealing in the Courts and Tribunals Bill the presumption of parental involvement in contact in these cases. Just today, the Justice Secretary has announced a national roll-out of our child-focused model, formerly known as pathfinder, over the next three years. We are doing all we can to ensure that our family courts are safe and effective for all involved.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

9. What assessment he has made of the potential merits of allowing greater use of evidence from automated enforcement technology in trials.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

12. What plans he has to help improve victim confidence in the justice system.

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

We are putting victims first with a record £550 million investment in victim support services over the next three years. Our measures in the Courts and Tribunals Bill aim to deliver faster, fairer justice to improve victim confidence across the whole system. We are also consulting, as I have previously said, on a new victims code, so that victims know exactly what they can expect from the justice system.

[Jas Athwal]

I welcome the Government’s recent efforts to improve victims’ experiences in the courtroom, including the expansion of the Operation Soteria principles and the introduction of a national independent legal adviser service to provide dedicated legal support throughout the criminal justice process. However, many victims still lack confidence in the prosecution system, and some withdraw from proceedings after experiencing further trauma during the process. What further steps are the Government taking to ensure that victims are treated with dignity and respect so that they feel supported to see their cases through to conclusion and that justice is fully delivered?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. I hope that I can also respond to the comments made by the Father of the House in the previous question; I, too, want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for her brave testimony in the debate last week. It is exactly those experiences that this Government are improving by introducing Operation Soteria in our courtrooms, expanding the use of specialist measures, introducing independent legal advisers and consulting on a new victims code. When we came into office we said that we would reform the criminal justice system to put victims back at the heart of it, and that is exactly what this Government are doing.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Can I wish you a happy St Patrick’s day, Mr Speaker? St Patrick is sometimes somewhat disparagingly referred to as a “west Brit”, which is very unfortunate given where he was born.

Will the Minister have discussions with the Department of Justice and the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that victims are not experiencing delays and prevarications in the court system, which lead to justice being denied as well as delayed?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

May I take the opportunity to wish the hon. Member a happy St Patrick’s day today? I recently had the pleasure of visiting the island of Ireland and met the Irish Justice Minister, but we have regular conversations with our Northern Ireland counterparts as well to discuss how we can improve the system for victims as a whole. Violence against women and girls has no borders and does not discriminate in the targeting of victims. That is why we need to do all we can to keep victims safe, wherever they are.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

14. What steps he is taking to help support children involved in knife crime through the criminal justice system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

T5.   My constituent Simon came to see me about his concerns following his family’s journey through family court arrangement proceedings. He mentioned a Both Parents Matter statistic that has stayed with me: 40% of separated fathers experience suicidal thoughts. What more can the Government do to support parents, and everybody, who goes through family court proceedings?

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

I am so sorry to hear of the experience that Simon has endured. Sadly, so many others like him, fathers in particular, have similar experiences while going through the family court. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister has announced today the national roll-out of a child-focused model—formerly known as pathfinder courts—for the next three years. It will provide early risk assessments, specialist domestic abuse support for all involved, and non-adversarial problem-solving processes, and it will reduce stress and anxiety for all families, better supporting their mental health. This will not come as a comfort to Simon, but we hope that it will help many other fathers and families going through this process.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

T9. Only a couple of weeks ago, I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill—the Police (Declaration) Bill—on a requirement for the police to declare their membership of societies or organisations such as the Freemasons. Given the huge and controversial reduction in jury trials, what reassurances can the Secretary of State give the House that judges will not be unduly influenced by their membership of such organisations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

While it would be inappropriate to speak of a live case, I am mindful of the McNally family from my constituency, who are currently sitting through the trial of a man accused of murdering their daughter—truly heartbreaking. There was another murder in County Fermanagh recently. This demonstrates how unsafe society is for women, particularly with social media and online abuse. Will the Minister outline what efforts she is making with online platforms to do more?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing that horrific case to the attention of the House. She is right to draw attention to the impact of social media and online abuse on violence against women and girls. It is why we are working across jurisdictions to try to tackle some of these crimes. We are bringing in the strongest protections against non-consensual intimate imagery, and we are working through the Online Safety Act 2023 and with our regulator, Ofcom, to hold social media accounts accountable. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology recently held a roundtable with the platforms to discuss what more we can do to tackle this heinous abuse. The Government have been clear: where the platforms refuse to act, the Government will.

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

I have noticed there is a lot of debate on the role of juries at the moment—nothing gets past me. It might be a better informed debate if the researchers and jurors could talk about what happens in the jury room. The Law Commission recommends decriminalising that so it cannot be a criminal offence. Will the Government do that in the Courts and Tribunals Bill?