Family Justice: Better Protections for Children
Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts(6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Baroness Levitt KC), has today made the following statement:
“I am pleased to announce today that the Government will repeal the presumption of parental involvement when Parliamentary time allows.
Section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 states that the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration when determining questions relating to the upbringing of a child. The presumption of parental involvement was brought into legislation by the Children and Families Act 2014, which amended section 1 of the Children Act 1989. It states that, in certain private law proceedings relating to a child, the court should presume that involvement of a parent will further a child’s welfare, unless there is evidence to the contrary. It does not apply in cases in which there is evidence that the involvement of a parent places the child at risk of suffering harm.
Although the legislation explicitly states that the presumption is rebuttable and that it does not apply in cases where a parent presents a risk of harm to the child, I recognise that it has faced criticism for appearing to reinforce a “pro-contact” culture that prioritises the involvement of both parents in a child’s life over the child’s individual welfare. The 2020 Ministry of Justice report assessing risk of harm to children and parents in private law cases—known as the harm panel report—includes substantial evidence demonstrating the existence of a “pro-contact” culture in the family court.
The harm panel also recommended that the Ministry of Justice undertake a review of the presumption of parental involvement. This review has now been completed and has been published today in full with its findings alongside this written ministerial statement. One of the key findings of the review is that unsupervised and face-to-face involvement is the most likely outcome for child arrangements applications, including in cases which involve allegations or findings of domestic abuse or harm. Such decisions can be detrimental to child welfare. The presumption of parental involvement, while not the main driving force, was identified as one of a number of factors contributing to the pro-contact culture that drove these decisions.
The repeal of the presumption will form part of a package of family court reforms designed to better protect children in private law cases in the family courts. We know that abuse during childhood can have a serious impact on the rest of a child’s life, and that children who experience abuse during childhood are more likely to drop out of education, enter the criminal justice system and suffer unemployment and poor health outcomes. We hope that this wider package of reforms— of which the repeal of the presumption will play a key part—will contribute to improved children’s education and employment outcomes as well as reducing costs to the health and justice systems.
When coupled with other ongoing work to reform the family courts, we believe that repealing the presumption of parental involvement reflects our commitment to ensuring that the welfare of children remains paramount.
I will ensure that a copy of the review and accompanying research reports are deposited in the House Library.”
[HCWS979]
Draft Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice (Alteration of Overall Compensation Limits) Order 2025
Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts(6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice (Alteration of Overall Compensation Limits) Order 2025.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I think we can all agree that miscarriages of justice have a devastating impact on all those who suffer them. Such individuals are victims of the state, so it is right that the state should support them by helping to rebuild their lives. Although miscarriages of justice are thankfully rare, they do occur, and when they do, it is vital that the criminal justice system learns lessons to minimise the risk of their happening again and that we support those whose lives have, sadly, been affected.
Justice for the wrongly convicted is vital to the Government’s ambition to restore confidence in the criminal justice system as part of our plan for change. With the introduction of this draft statutory instrument, we are taking action to ensure that victims of miscarriages of justice will continue to be appropriately compensated to support them to rebuild their lives, while keeping in mind the wider financial context.
Of the two compensation schemes, one relates to convictions in the civilian justice system and the other to convictions by the court martial. Both have caps on the maximum amount that can be paid for a qualifying miscarriage of justice. The purpose of the draft order, therefore, is to increase the maximum amount that can be paid under the two schemes by 30%, so that where an individual has spent at least 10 years in prison, the maximum amount they can receive will increase from £1 million to £1.3 million; in all other cases, the maximum amount will increase from £500,000 to £650,000. We consider that to be a substantial and appropriate increase at this time.
When the Government came to power, we inherited a justice system at breaking point. As part of our plan for change, we are fixing the foundations across the entire system, including with the introduction of this draft instrument, which reflects the increase in compensation caps for those who have suffered miscarriages of justice since they were introduced in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. We will continue to monitor the scheme and keep the caps under review.
It is, of course, important to keep in mind that the compensation schemes are only one route by which an individual can receive compensation following a wrongful conviction. Applicants may also be able to pursue civil claims against public bodies, if their fault has led to the miscarriage of justice.
I will now deal with the compensation schemes in a little more detail. For those who have suffered a qualifying miscarriage of justice in the civilian criminal justice system, the payment of compensation is governed by section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Applications for compensation under that scheme are determined, and compensation is payable by, the responsible devolved Government. In practice, that means that the Secretary of State for Justice is responsible for cases in England and Wales; Scottish Ministers for cases in Scotland; and the Northern Ireland Department of Justice for cases in Northern Ireland. That reflects the position that miscarriages of justice compensation are a transferred matter. For a very small number of cases in Northern Ireland involving sensitive national security information, however, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has responsibility. The caps apply to all cases for compensation, except cases in Scotland, which are not subject to any caps.
For those who have suffered a qualifying miscarriage of justice following a conviction by the court martial, section 276 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 provides that applications are determined, and compensation is payable, by the Secretary of State for Defence. The draft instrument will increase the caps that apply to cases of compensation payable by the respective Secretary of State—those being cases in England and Wales, Northern Ireland national security cases, and cases under the Armed Forces Act. The instrument will have no effect on the caps that apply to compensation payable by the Northern Ireland Department of Justice, as it has a separate power to amend its caps.
Hon. Members may also wish to be aware that the Law Commission is consulting on a wide range of changes to the laws relating to criminal appeals, including reviewing compensation for miscarriages of justice. We look forward to its final report, due next year, and we remain committed to ensuring that any changes we make will promote fairness and justice for all involved in criminal justice proceedings.
To conclude, this draft instrument is part of our mission to improve the Government’s response to miscarriages of justice. We believe it is crucial to ensure that victims of miscarriages of justice continue to be appropriately compensated, while remaining mindful of the wider financial context.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the shadow Minister for his comments. The draft order is an important part of the Government’s work to ensure that people are appropriately compensated. This is the first time that the caps have been increased since their introduction in 2008, and I am proud that it is a Labour Government who are doing so. Grave miscarriages of justice should be addressed by compensating those who have been wronged by the state. I hope that hon. Members will agree that this is a necessary instrument, and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is vital that victims feel supported at court. The Ministry of Justice funds the national witness service, which provides support on the day of trial, and independent sexual violence advocates can accompany victims while they are in the courtroom. Pre-trial, victims can receive support from victim liaison officers or from the MOJ-funded victim support services, and that is available throughout their criminal justice journey.
Kirith Entwistle
May I welcome our new Minister and Justice Secretary to their places? I have heard far too many stories from constituents who have endured sexual violence and rape. They tell me how isolating and intimidating the court system can feel and how difficult it can be to get the support they need. Will the Minister reassure me and those constituents that this Government are doing everything they can to ensure that victims and survivors of rape and sexual violence are supported in a timely manner?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. She is a tireless advocate for all victims of violence against women and girls. She will know that this Government are committed to supporting those victims in court through measures such as section 28, the witness service and our victim liaison officers. To further support victims, the Ministry of Justice also funds support services such as independent sexual violence advocates and independent domestic violence advocates. We are also committed to introducing free, independent legal advisers for victims of adult rape across England and Wales, and I hope to announce more on that measure soon.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
My constituent Louise reported her sexual assault to the police back in 2021. She has had court dates pushed back twice and the trial is now expected in December 2026, nearly six years after reporting it to the police. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of such delays on victim-survivors, who are also witnesses, and of the impact on the quality of the eventual court case?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for that really important question. All my thoughts are with Louise and, sadly, so many like her who are waiting for justice. We know that justice delayed is justice denied. That is why we asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct the once-in-a-generation reform of our criminal courts system: to ensure that we have a criminal justice system fit for the future, which breaks down the backlog on our court cases so that victims such as Louise are no longer waiting for justice.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Last week the Justice Committee heard evidence about the use of special measures to support vulnerable or intimidated witnesses to give their best evidence. That is obviously so important in rape and sexual assault cases. Will the Minister reaffirm her support for the continuing use of those measures, despite some debate about the evidence of their effectiveness?
Alex Davies-Jones
I was pleased to attend the Justice Committee to discuss how important section 28 is to vulnerable witnesses and victims, and the difference that it makes by allowing victims of rape and sexual offence crimes specifically to be maintained within the justice system, allowing them to give their evidence in a safe manner that is more accessible to them. In a justice system where currently 60% of rape victims are withdrawing from the process because of the backlog, the waits and how traumatic it is, anything that helps them to be maintained in the criminal justice system is worth championing.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
My constituent waited 18 months to face her abuser in court, only to be told the day before the trial was supposed to begin that it had been postponed until May 2026. How are victims of domestic abuse supposed to get redress and closure when they face such intolerable delays?
Alex Davies-Jones
It is unacceptable that this is being allowed to carry on in our courts, which is why we are taking that fundamental reform, because without victims we would not have a criminal justice system and it is important that we put them at the heart of this. We are funding independent domestic abuse advocates to support victims, to get them through the system quicker. We are also committed to rolling out more specialist domestic abuse courts. That was one of the clear recommendations of the Leveson review, and it is something that the Courts Minister, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), and I are working closely on to support victims, but I will happily discuss this further with the hon. Member to ensure that we get this right for victims of domestic abuse.
Alex Davies-Jones
Child sexual abuse is one of the most abhorrent crimes in our society. That is why it is this Government who are enacting the recommendations of the grooming gangs inquiry. That is why we have kicked off the review into ensuring that victims get the justice they so deserve. It is why we are today introducing a Hillsborough law—a groundbreaking law to ensure that victims and survivors never again have to wait decades for truth and justice.
Robert Jenrick
The Minister could not answer, because it is simply indefensible and she knows it. Everyone in this House knows it. Everyone knows it. On Sunday, the family of one of Epstein’s victims, Virginia Giuffre, said that Mandelson should never have been appointed. I agree; almost every person in this country agrees. Did the Justice Secretary not read the papers that detailed Mandelson’s extensive connections to Epstein after he had been convicted? Or did he read them and flippantly disregard the crimes and pain he caused so many? Will the Minister take this opportunity, in her role, to apologise on behalf of the Justice Secretary to Epstein’s victims?
Mr Speaker
I am well aware of that and certainly do not need to be told. We have a three-hour debate coming up on that subject, so hopefully the Minister can respond.
Alex Davies-Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The shadow Justice Secretary says from a seated position that this is about justice for victims. If this was really about justice for victims, in the 14 years of his Government he would have carried out reforms to ensure that victims got swift justice. Instead, he presided over a criminal justice system that is at breaking point, where victims are waiting years for their day in court, and where prisons are overflowing and we are unable to ensure that there is always a space available. It is this Government that are ensuring there will always be a prison place available. It is this Government that are getting on with carrying out the recommendations of the national grooming inquiry. It is this Government that take victims and justice seriously.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
On 15 July, the Fuller inquiry recommended introducing statutory regulation for funeral directors. The Government recognise the urgency of the concerns raised and we are carefully considering all the recommendations. The Government have committed to responding to the inquiry with an interim update on progress this year, and a final response will be given by summer 2026.
Mark Sewards
The Minister will be aware of the plight of Zoe Ward and Cody Townend, two mums from Leeds who tragically lost babies in different circumstances but who both went to the same funeral director, who did not treat their babies’ bodies with the dignity, care or respect that they deserved. Despite the shocking details of these cases, the police found nothing actionable because the funeral sector is not regulated in any way. Will the Minister commit to meeting Zoe, Cody and me to discuss these horrific cases, but also to talk about how quickly we can regulate the law in this area to ensure that what happened to them never happens to anyone ever again?
Alex Davies-Jones
The whole House will be utterly horrified at the cases of Zoe and Cody and what they have had to go through. Dignity for our deceased should be upheld by all as something of fundamental importance. My colleagues and I are committed to ensuring that we get funeral regulation right, and I am working on that with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Department for Business and Trade. I would be honoured to meet my hon. Friend, Zoe and Cody to discuss this further.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Supporting victims and witnesses is key to ensuring that offenders are brought to justice. Measures are in place to support victims. We have already discussed those measures, such as section 28 and the Ministry of Justice-funded victim and witness services. The witness service provides emotional and practical on-the-day support to help prosecution and defence witnesses in criminal courts across England and Wales, because we need them to be able to give the best evidence possible.
Caroline Voaden
I recently met a constituent who had served as a juror in a very distressing child sexual abuse case. She highlighted the profound impact that such trials can have not just on the witnesses themselves, but on the jurors, who may experience trauma and even post-traumatic stress disorder. Although the appointment of the new Victims’ Commissioner is welcome, could the Minister outline what support is available for jurors who have to cope with the impact of the evidence they see and hear in such distressing cases?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Member makes an important point. I would like to take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to everyone who does their civic duty by taking part in jury service. Juries are a cornerstone of our justice system and carry out an important function. There is support available for jurors, and I am so sorry to hear of her constituent’s situation. If the hon. Member wants to write to me, I will happily look into this more and work with her on what more we can do to support jurors, who do such a brilliant job.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
My constituent Billy Boyack saw his wife Angela and son Stephen killed in a head-on collision. The driver responsible initially showed no remorse and was already banned from the area under bail conditions. He received only a 13-year sentence. How does the Minister intend to redress the unfairness in our sentencing laws, with victims like Billy suffering such injustice?
Alex Davies-Jones
All my thoughts are with Billy and the family for the horrific tragedy they have suffered. My hon. Friend will know that we are debating the Sentencing Bill later today, looking at how we redress the balance here. The Law Commission is also doing a special piece of work looking at homicide law, and I would happily discuss that with her and Billy and discuss how best we can support them.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
Further to Ministers’ earlier answers about waiting lists in Crown and magistrates courts, coroners courts also have a large backlog. I have a constituent who has been waiting nearly three years for an inquest to be completed. What can be done to relieve the pressure on grieving families who have been bereaved and to speed up the process?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I have had several productive conversations with the chief coroner, looking at how we can make the inquest process as quick as possible to ensure that the bereaved are supported and not left traumatised waiting for their inquest. The Bill we are laying before Parliament today, the Hillsborough law, has many parts looking at how to improve the inquest process and it gives more powers to coroners. We are looking at what more we can do on the reform of inquests. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and others on how to improve the coronial process.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Victims of sexual crimes are understandably often traumatised. What steps are the Government taking to ensure the long-term sustainability of specialist support for those victims—such as the Calderdale WomenCentre, which provides supports for victims in Calder Valley—in particular given the long waits for justice and the high demand for trauma-informed support?
Alex Davies-Jones
May I put on the record my sincere gratitude to the WomenCentre for doing all it can to support the victims of these crimes? Support services are a vital element of ensuring that victims and witnesses engage with the criminal justice system, and are kept informed about the uptake of their trial. We have ringfenced funding to protect these special support services. We are currently going through the allocations process to ensure that we have support services at the front of our minds, and I will be happy to keep my hon. Friend updated as that comes forward.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
In July this year, alongside a cross-party group of parliamentarians and others, I wrote to the then Lord Chancellor seeking a meeting regarding improving gatekeeping and alternative dispute resolution in family court matters. I have not received a response. Can the Lord Chancellor give me the reassurance that such a meeting will take place?
Alex Davies-Jones
We will be consulting on a new victims code in due course to make sure that all these crimes are captured, so that we can support all victims. I would be happy to discuss this matter further with the right hon. Gentleman.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
For six years, Lancaster courthouse has been surrounded by temporary fencing as it awaits maintenance. How much longer will my constituents have to wait?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Voices—a domestic abuse charity in Bath—has created a guide to family court proceedings to support survivors to navigate the family courts without legal representation. The pilot was rolled out in the south-west and in Yorkshire. Will the Government work with Voices to roll it out nationally?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to meet Voices to discuss that guidance. We have been working with organisations like the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and CAFCASS Cymru to ensure that victims and survivors have the best support available when they are navigating the family court process.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Under current law, most instances of the sexual abuse of animals are not offences. Not only are those acts despicable in themselves, but given the proven link between animal abuse and child abuse, does the Minister agree that this dangerous gap is a missed opportunity to identify abusers before they go on to harm children?
Chief Coroner’s Annual Report to the Lord Chancellor
Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I am pleased to lay and publish the chief coroner’s 11th 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 2024, 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 resourcing of and practices in coroner offices across England and Wales;
The training and guidance that coroners and their officers have received and the engagement with a wide range of stake- holders; and
Recommendations to improve coroner services further.
I am very grateful to Her Honour Judge Alexia Durran for her work in preparing the report, which is her first as chief coroner, following her appointment in May 2024. I also extend my sincere thanks to His Honour Thomas Teague KC who, throughout his tenure as chief coroner from December 2020 to May 2024, demonstrated tireless commitment in his leadership role—particularly in completing his welfare tour of all coroner areas following the pandemic.
I am grateful too 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-2024
[HCWS918]
Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families
Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I pay tribute to my fellow Red, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). His tireless campaigning on behalf of victims and survivors—the 97, the Grenfell families, the MEN arena families and every family failed by the state, of which there are sadly so many more—has been remarkable and inspiring, and he has always ensured that they have had a voice in this place. I also thank colleagues from across the House for coming to this important debate and for all of their engagement, encouragement and support as we seek to make sure that this legislation is truly worthy of being called a Hillsborough law.
I have heard that the time for warm words is over, but I want to reaffirm this Government’s ironclad commitment that we will put the Hillsborough law on the statute book. We will deliver on our manifesto commitments to place a legal duty of candour on public servants and authorities, and we will provide legal aid for victims of disasters or state-related deaths. The Hillsborough disaster is one of the greatest stains on British history, and the families, survivors and those who lost loved ones have shown endless determination to get justice. As others have said, they should have been allowed to grieve, love and remember in peace. Instead, they have spent decades searching for truth and justice.
The Government are clear that what happened following the Hillsborough disaster must never happen again. As Members are aware, the Government committed to bringing forward a Bill ahead of the 36th anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster, on 15 April this year. We did not meet that deadline, and I regret that. Any further delay simply compounds and prolongs the families’ fight to ensure that nothing like Hillsborough can happen again.
The Government worked with campaigners on a draft Bill, and when it became evident that that Bill would not fulfil the aims of the campaign, or meet the expectations of the families, we decided to take more time and get this important piece of legislation right—to deliver a legacy, to deliver a Bill that is truly worthy of being called a Hillsborough law. We committed to working further with them, and we have done that. I pay tribute to everyone who has helped with the process.
We are working in collaboration with stakeholders, campaigners and families as we develop this policy. We are clear that our approach must be families first. Before we bring any legislation to either House on this important issue, or announce precisely how we intend to deliver the manifesto commitments, we must bring this to families first. That is the least they deserve.
Iqbal Mohamed
On timelines, will the Minister elaborate on how long the Government expect to need before they can present something to the House?
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful for that question. I have heard the frustration and anger, both in this place and outside it, in relation to the need to introduce this quickly and urgently, but we have also heard directly from families about the need to get this right. It is our opportunity to do this, once and for all, and we will not rest until we get that right. I therefore refuse to put a timeline on it, but I do know that we need to do this quickly, and I have heard that today. First and foremost, however, it has to be done with the families first, and we will not proceed with anything that does not have their blessing and backing.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
The passion that the Minister is showing today also underlines that the engagement over the summer has been really worthy of this Labour Minister. Inquiries will take place between now and when the Bill is given Royal Assent. Will she confirm that the duty of candour will apply to those inquiries that are live at the time that Royal Assent is provided by the King?
Alex Davies-Jones
I can confirm that. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, it will apply immediately and cover any inquiry that is taking place. That includes the Government statutory inquiry that we have announced on Orgreave, the Government inquiry on grooming gangs, and any inquiry or inquest that will be taking place.
Andy McDonald
The Minister mentioned getting this right, yet the Government were presented with a fully drafted Bill by a learned counsel. Can she give an indication of where the discrepancies and differentiations are between the Bill that was presented—properly drawn—and the current Government position?
Alex Davies-Jones
I will happily do that for my hon. Friend. I want to put on record our thanks to Pete Weatherby KC, Elkan Abrahamson, all those at Hillsborough Law Now, Andy Burnham and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby for the Bill that was drafted in 2017. That Bill has been our guiding north star as we seek to draft a workable, practical and actually deliverable piece of legislation.
We need to remember that we will be legislating on a duty of candour for more than 1.9 million public servants. We need to get that right, with no unintended consequences, and it needs to be worthy of the families. I will happily meet with anyone, but my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) will be aware that I cannot outline the details at this stage. However, I will in due course.
I want to place on record my thanks to Inquest, as other Members have. In February, it held a family listening day for the Government on this very important issue. We rightly refer to the Hillsborough families in this debate. However, as we have heard, the campaign is much bigger than that. It is for anyone who has ever had to fight for the truth in the face of state denial and institutional cover-ups. It will stop anyone else having to go through what they endured. It is for those affected by the infected blood scandal and for those who fought for the truth and to clear their names in the Post Office Horizon scandal. If is for those affected by the horrific fire in Grenfell Tower, for nuclear test veterans, for those affected by Primodos, the MEN arena victims and, sadly, many, many more.
Inquest brought together representatives from those areas as well as other campaign groups, including those who have had difficult experiences at inquests. The event asked the question: what would make a good Hillsborough law? Inquest’s report from that day, titled “All or Nothing”, which is available online, has been instrumental for the Government in understanding exactly what is needed to rebuild trust and help improve the experiences of those involved in inquests and inquiries.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Too often, bereaved families are left with no legal representation at the inquests of their loved ones. Does the Minister agree, as per our manifesto commitment, that the Government must provide state-funded legal aid to families at inquests and inquiries following state-related deaths and disasters to level the playing field between victims and the establishment?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend is right, and I thank her for that important point. Sadly, I have heard time and again that it is David versus Goliath at inquests and inquiries, with predominantly vulnerable, working-class families left without support, having to crowdfund for a barrister—it is the Mini versus Rolls-Royce example of which we heard previously. We are committed to ensuring a parity of arms so that no family will ever have to go through that again. That was in our manifesto, and we will deliver on that promise.
The Government are keen to meet that wider group again to thank them for their time and to explain how their experiences have shaped the Bill’s development once the policy is finalised. However, I cannot mention the Hillsborough law without mentioning Hillsborough Law Now and the families bereaved by Hillsborough, because without them there would be no Bill; that cannot be forgotten. Their bravery, strength and unwavering love for their loved ones is more than admirable. They have spent decades fighting for the truth while watching the names of their loved ones be tarnished and having had their reputations and actions called into question. Too often, they have felt that everything was stacked against them. Their determination is selfless and inspirational, and it has no doubt inspired others who have sought justice when it seemed all but impossible.
I met Hillsborough Law Now and family members several times over the summer, which was an honour and a privilege. I thank them again for giving up their time. Our engagement has been open and constructive, and their feedback crucial in helping to find solutions that achieve the campaign’s intentions without any unintended consequences for the public sector. We believe that we are close to finalising a Hillsborough law that families and campaigners will be proud of.
Derek Twigg
I welcome much of what the Minister has said. She said in the early part of her speech that there would be a duty of candour and legal aid for people, so can she be clear about why there is a delay? If that is what will be in the Bill, why is there a problem?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that. It has taken some time to get this right, but we are committed to introducing the Hillsborough law with parity of arms and that statutory legal duty of candour, and we hope to bring that forward as soon as possible. We have worked in conjunction with the families and campaigners to make sure that we have got it right, and we feel that we are almost there.
The Bill will help to ensure that what happened following the Hillsborough disaster will never take place again, and it will undoubtedly change the culture in public authorities for the better. Until that moment, it is crucial that we are guided by the families-first principle. Engagement and conversations on this policy must take place with them before any update is given to the House or the media. Hon. Members will therefore appreciate that I am limited in what I can say today. However, I confirm that our Bill will include the pillars that are vital to the families: that legal duty of candour for public servants, with criminal sanctions for those who do not comply, and measures to rebalance the inquest and inquiry processes to tackle the disparity of power that can exist between the state and bereaved families. We will make good on our manifesto commitment to provide legal aid for victims of disasters or state-related deaths.
I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that the Government are absolutely committed to the Bill. Any absence of update has been not an absence of work but because we have had to put the families first. It is vital that we get this landmark legislation right for them, and that when the Bill finally becomes law, it achieves the change expected by those who have campaigned tirelessly for so long. After all, the Bill is for them.
When the legislation comes into force, it will stand as part of the legacy of Hillsborough and change the country for the better. It will be a law for everyone who has suffered when truth and justice has been concealed behind the closed ranks of the state.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered duty of candour for public authorities and legal representation for bereaved families.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
We are funding police support services such as independent sexual advisers and domestic abuse advisers. We have launched domestic abuse protection orders in selected areas, and, as recommended by the sentencing review, we are exploring the possibility of expanding the use of domestic abuse specialist courts. We have asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct a review of our criminal courts with the ambition of reducing the time for which victims wait for justice.
Dr Chambers
A woman from Winchester wrote to me saying:
“It feels as though every department that should have protected us has instead failed us”.
After years of high-risk domestic abuse, she went through a CID investigation to prove that she needed financial separation, but the police missed the Crown Prosecution Service investigation deadline and no charges were brought. She is now unable to secure child maintenance. Her abuser remains in financial control, which is effectively enabled by Government systems. What discussions is the Minister having with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure that perpetrators of domestic abuse can no longer use financial systems to maintain power and control over their victims?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Member has made the important point that this is not just a criminal justice problem to be solved, but a problem for every single Department. That is why we have a cross-Government strategy on tackling violence against women and girls, which includes economic abuse. Along with the Safeguarding Minister, I regularly meet Treasury and DWP colleagues in order to get to grips with the problem, and we will publish our strategy in the coming months.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I welcome all the work that the Secretary of State and her team are doing in this important area, for instance through the Women’s Justice Board. At least 57% of women in prison and on probation are victim-survivors of domestic abuse, and in many cases their alleged offending is directly linked with their experiences of that abuse. What consideration has the Minister given to the introduction of an effective defence for domestic abuse victims who use force against their abusers, and for those who are coerced into offending?
Alex Davies-Jones
I know that my hon. Friend cares deeply about this issue. She will be aware of the work that the Women’s Justice Board is doing with the Department, some of the reviews by David Gauke including, specifically, the sentencing review, and Baroness Casey’s recent rapid review of grooming gangs; all that work is connected with defences for victims. We are actively considering this matter, and I will happily work with my hon. Friend and the Centre for Women’s Justice to develop further policies.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The whole House will remember the murder of Sarah Everard and the national debate about violence against women and girls that it provoked. Sarah’s parents, Susan and Jeremy, had many positive experiences of the criminal justice system, but they were deeply upset by the restrictions that were placed on what they could say in their victim impact statements. I think that is wrong, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner thinks it is wrong, and the Victims’ Commissioner thinks it is wrong. Does the Minister think it is wrong?
Alex Davies-Jones
I have been proud and privileged to meet the Everards, as well as other families who are members of Justice for Victims, to discuss how we can improve the criminal justice system for victims by putting them back at the heart of the system. As the shadow Minister will know, we debated this issue heavily in Committee during the Victims and Courts Bill, and the Department is considering it actively to ensure that the voices of victims are represented in court and at sentencing. I will happily update him on our discussions about how exactly we can do that and what is the best way of doing it.
Dr Mullan
I welcome that commitment, but the Minister failed to mention that we tabled an amendment in Committee which she voted against, along with a number of other Labour Members. Given what she has just said, will she commit herself now to ensuring that an amendment is tabled during future stages of the Bill to prevent restrictions on what victims and their relatives can say in their impact statements?
Alex Davies-Jones
Let me say yet again that, as the shadow Minister will know, we voted against that amendment because victim impact statements are currently classed as evidence in a court of law, and they have to be quite specific. We are aware of the concerns of victims; what we need to do is put forward workable, realistic possibilities for how we can best represent their voice in the courtroom. We are getting on with action, whereas the Conservatives dithered and delayed for 14 years. We are making sure that victims are represented in our criminal justice system.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I have a constituent who is a survivor of violent economic abuse, which has involved her abuser occupying one of her properties without consent and vandalising it with mounds of human excrement, rendering it unrentable at huge financial costs. The photographs are disgusting. Delays in civil court proceedings have forced my constituent to live with this for nearly three years. What steps can the Government take both to support survivors who are living in this kind of hell and to speed up the legal proceedings that are currently preventing my constituent from being free once again?
Alex Davies-Jones
Will the hon. Gentleman please pass on my sincere thoughts to his constituent? That is a horrific situation that no one should have to face. The hon. Member will be aware of our manifesto commitment to look at co-habiting couples’ rights to ensure that victims, survivors and every party have equal access to these rights. We are currently developing that policy work, as well as working across Government with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Treasury and DWP to look at how we can tackle all elements of violence against women and girls, including economic abuse, and I will happily update him on those discussions in due course.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
My hon. Friend outlines exactly why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct a review into the criminal courts; the ambition is to reduce the length of time victims have to wait for justice. We are expecting the recommendations of that review shortly. We are supporting victims by funding key support services to make sure that victims continue to be engaged with our criminal justice system, and we are expanding the use of specialist domestic abuse courts, where trained staff can support victims directly.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Derbyshire Victim Services does really important work supporting victims, including those who have experienced sexual assault and domestic violence, but given the court backlog inherited from the Conservative Government, the service has told me that many of the victims are in need of support for longer, with many having complex needs that public services can struggle to meet. What steps is the Department taking to help support services to provide support to victims with complex needs that are exacerbated when justice is delayed?
Alex Davies-Jones
I place on record my thanks to all the brilliant victim support services that do tremendous work in incredibly difficult circumstances to ensure that victims get the support they need to stay engaged with the criminal justice system. We have protected dedicated Ministry of Justice spending on victims of violence against women and girls by maintaining the 2024-25 funding levels, ringfenced sexual violence and domestic abuse support for this year, and commissioned a 24/7 rape and sexual abuse support line, providing victims and survivors with access to vital help and information whenever they need it. We are carefully considering how best to allocate the current budget from the spending review to look specifically at VAWG alongside other departmental priorities.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Survive is a York-based charity providing specialist services and trauma-specific interventions to survivors of sexual violence and abuse. However, it has had to close its waiting list because it does not have the capacity to meet the demand. Will the Minister look at providing additional funding, so that we can get those vital services to survivors and victims now and they do not have to wait?
Alex Davies-Jones
My hon. Friend has contacted me and written to me on this issue. She will know that we in the Department are looking at the spending allocations following the spending review. However, we have protected and ringfenced special support for sexual violence victims, because we know that there is huge demand coming through the system and we need to keep those victims engaged in the criminal justice system to ensure they get their day in court and justice is served.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I read a recent BBC article about an asylum seeker who had violently raped a teenage girl. He has been convicted and given a sentence of nine years in prison, followed by three years on licence, after which he will need to be deported. I am concerned that such individuals, during their period on licence, pose a risk to British women and girls. Does the Lord Chancellor agree, and will she ensure that people go straight from prison to deportation where appropriate?
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
In the light of the tragic loss of young mother Sarah Montgomery, who was seven months pregnant, due to violence, which has left two young girls without a mother and impacted the entire community of Donaghadee in my constituency, do the Government agree that early interventions, particularly through early education, are essential? Furthermore, can we look at intensifying our efforts to prevent domestic violence against women and young girls and at increasing sentences to deter that type of crime?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for raising this case, which will have hit all of us incredibly hard. It is horrific and just goes to show that violence against women and girls is at epidemic levels in every corner of the United Kingdom, not just in England and Wales. I am due to meet my counterparts across the devolved nations shortly to figure out exactly how we can best join up to tackle this issue as a whole, because it will take a societal response. If the hon. Member wants to meet me to discuss this further, I would be happy to do so.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that the recent pathfinder family court pilots have been seen as largely successful. This is an opportunity to put children at the centre of these cases and to end the presumption of contact which puts partners and children of abusers at risk. Will she please advise me as to the next steps in this process?
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The backlog of cases in the Isle of Wight coroner service is the worst in the country, causing pain and distress to too many families, some of whom are waiting 800 days to find out what is happening to their loved ones. Will the Minister offer any comment or support to those families, and will she agree to meet me to discuss how we deal with the problem of the Isle of Wight coroner?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his engagement on this issue. He has written to me and we have had quite productive conversations about it. I recently met the chief coroner to discuss the specific issue on the Isle of Wight, because we know that the delays are causing untold turmoil to families in an already awful, traumatic process. I will happily meet the hon. Member to discuss a way forward, but I am reassured by the action being taken by the chief coroner to address the issue in the Isle of Wight directly.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
A constituent of mine who recently fled France because of domestic violence and abuse, after being a habitual resident for just 21 days, has been ordered to return to France next week under protective measures. What more can the Government do to protect women fleeing domestic violence in relation to the Hague convention and the Child Abduction Act 1984?
Alex Davies-Jones
The hon. Member will know that I cannot comment on specific cases, but if he wants to write to me, I will happily look at that. I recently had productive conversations about the Hague convention and others, and we will happily develop those conversations further.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
May I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, at the outset of these proceedings about the passing of Lord Tebbit? Lord Tebbit was a great friend of Northern Ireland, particularly of the many fellow victims of IRA terrorism.
May I return the Lord Chancellor to the subject of the backlogs in our Crown courts? In Northern Ireland, we have the worst of all records; it takes an average of 551 days to conclude a Crown court case. Murder trials have been stalled since last September with no new start date. We have a Minister of Justice locally who talks the talk but never walks the walk, and particularly does not walk the walk in settling the ongoing remuneration issue that is holding things up. Would the Lord Chancellor bring some pressure to bear on the local Justice Minister to sort this matter out?
Hague 2019 Judgments Convention
Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) has today made the following statement:
“Today, 1 July 2025, the Hague convention of 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters—hereafter: ‘Hague 2019’; ‘the Convention’ —enters into force for the UK.
The convention will provide greater certainty and predictability for citizens and businesses dealing in cross-border civil and commercial disputes, allowing for easier recognition and enforcement of judgments between the UK and other contracting parties. This will reduce the costs for litigants of determining whether a judgment obtained in one contracting state is enforceable in another. The convention will help increase confidence in the UK legal system, support international trade, investment and cross-border mobility, and enhance access to justice. It is also a significant step in improving recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments between UK and EU businesses, as this is the first new agreement in this area of law to apply between the UK and the EU since EU exit.
The UK signed the convention on 12 January 2024 following an overwhelmingly positive public consultation and ratified on 27 June 2024. In accordance with its provisions, the convention enters into force for the UK on 1 July 2025. This is a significant step in strengthening the UK’s co-operation with our international partners, enhancing our position as a global hub for dispute resolution, reaffirming the UK’s position as a leader in private international law and boosting our legal services sector. It will apply to judgments given in proceedings that commence on or after 1 July 2025 across the whole of the UK or in other participating countries.
While the decision to join Hague 2019 is a reserved matter, the implementation of the convention is devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Officials in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland ensured the swift implementation of court rule amendments necessary to bring Hague 2019 into force simultaneously across the UK.
Concluded under the Hague conference on private international law, the convention has a potentially global reach. There are currently 30 contracting parties to Hague 2019 —the 27 EU member states, the EU, Ukraine, Uruguay and now of course the UK. The convention is also set to enter into force for both Albania and Montenegro on 1 March 2026 and for Andorra on 1 June 2026. There are also six signatories—Costa Rica, Kosovo, Israel, North Macedonia, the Russian Federation, the USA—who have not yet ratified. The UK can decide by way of declaration not to operate the convention with any country that joins in the future. Such declarations may be subsequently modified or withdrawn at any time.
A copy of the UK Government’s implementing legislation for Hague 2019, the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2024, is available online.” https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2024/9780348260960
[HCWS765]
Victims and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)
Alex Davies-Jones ExcerptsTuesday 24th June 2025
(10 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Victims and Courts Bill 2024-26 View all Victims and Courts Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Amendments as at 24 June 2025 - (24 Jun 2025)
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
We welcome the provisions in clause 11, which relate to extending the time period in which the unduly lenient sentence scheme may be applied for. However, as the official Opposition, we still have concerns that the window of opportunity for victims to raise an appeal remains the same. The scheme can only be referred to for some of the most serious crimes—crimes that are likely to leave victims and their families with a degree of trauma or grief. How can we possibly expect that, within just a month of a sentence being issued, gathering together a clear, strong case for a sentence’s being unduly lenient would be on the minds of victims?
We also know that many victims do not know about the scheme, or the opportunity to appeal. Baroness Newlove said that victims “really do not know” about it. She said:
“Once they leave the courtroom, it can take a long time, but the clock is ticking.”—[Official Report, Victims and Courts Public Bill Committee, 17 June 2025; c. 8, Q15.]
During the oral evidence session, many notable sources raised issues with the current timeframe. Dame Nicole Jacobs, Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales, described the current system as “disorienting” and said that
“we need to do so much more to put in place solid advice and support for victims. Those 28 days seem to fly in the face of that.”––[Official Report, Victims and Courts Public Bill Committee, 17 June 2025; c. 9, Q15.]
Extending the window of opportunity will also surely allow a greater base of evidence from previous cases to be compiled, to bolster a referral under the scheme. It is only right that we allow victims, and the organisations supporting them, the time and space to make their case as strong as possible, ensuring that everything is laid on the table for the Attorney General to consider. Let us place victims and families at the heart of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, where they should be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I place on the record our well wishes to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, and welcome the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, in his place today.
On amendments 9 and 11, let me start by thanking the Justice for Victims campaign and, in particular, Katie Brett, whom I met again recently and whom I commend for her tireless campaigning for reform of the unduly lenient sentence scheme in honour of her sister Sasha.
As the Opposition Whip mentioned, the Law Commission is undertaking a review of criminal appeals, and it has launched a public consultation inviting views on a range of reforms to the ULS scheme, including extending the time limit. The consultation is open to all and has been extended to 27 June. I urge him and anyone else with an interest to submit their views, if they have not already done so. The Government will review the recommendations by the Law Commission and act if necessary. Parliament intended the ULS scheme to be an exceptional power, and any expansion of the scheme must be carefully considered. Therefore, we will holistically consider the review’s final recommendations following publication of the report.
On amendments 10 and 12, we recognise the exceptionally difficult circumstances for victims and their families in making a referral within 28 days. We heard about the impact that that is having on them directly in our evidence sessions last week. That is why anyone can ask the Attorney General or the Solicitor General to consider referring a sentence to the Court of Appeal. That is open to not just victims or relatives of a victim, but members of the public, the Crown Prosecution Service and parliamentarians—I myself referred cases to the Attorney General and Solicitor General when I was a Back-Bench Opposition MP—thereby taking the burden off victims and their loved ones.
The Court of Appeal is less likely to increase a sentence after more time has passed, because of the double jeopardy risks of sentencing an offender twice. Particularly if enough time has passed that the offender has already completed their sentence, the Court may actually reduce an extra sentence in order to reflect that. That means that an extended time limit would have a more limited impact and, worse, it would create false hope for victims, leading them to delay requests to review and then retraumatising them, with uncertainty hanging over them for up to a year after the trial, when they are trying to move on with their lives. For that reason, it is important that sentences are certain and not subject to change for too long a period.
Let me be clear: it is imperative that we provide better and clearer communication with victims by criminal justice agencies, including in relation to how and when information is given to victims and their families about the unduly lenient sentence scheme after sentencing. We heard loud and clear from victims last week about how the lack of communication and of awareness about the scheme was one of the issues. Under the victims code, the police-run witness care units are required to tell victims about the unduly lenient sentence scheme when they provide a victim or family with information about the sentence. We have already commenced the obligation in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 on those who provide victims code services to comply with the code unless there is a good reason not to do so. That ensures that agencies, including the police, are held to account for providing victims and their families with the service that they should expect. Once the new victims code is in force, we will also implement the code awareness duty, placing a legal responsibility on criminal justice agencies, including the police and the CPS, to promote the victims code to the public and victims of crime and ensure that every victim and their family are aware of their rights.
Alex Davies-Jones
I do not wish to prolong proceedings unnecessarily. We welcome the Opposition’s support for the clause.
The Chair
Wonderfully brief—thank you.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Terms of imprisonment for certain offences on summary conviction
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 12 is a technical measure. It would bring the maximum penalty for six triable either way offences, when dealt with summarily in a magistrates court, in line with other triable either way offences. For those six offences, the maximum penalty that a magistrates court can issue is currently specified as six months. The clause specifies that the magistrates court maximum penalty for those offences is
“the general limit in a magistrates’ court”,
which since November has been 12 months for a single either way offence. That will mean that if magistrates courts’ sentencing powers are changed again in the future, the six offences will also be subject to that change. Correcting that inconsistency will ultimately help to avoid confusion and error in sentencing relating to those six offences.
Mike Wood
The clause is a sensible measure updating the sentencing provision for certain offences on summary conviction. It will replace the fixed six-month maximum term with the general limit in a magistrates court. The change affects a number of serious offences, including breaches of sexual harm prevention orders, criminal behaviour orders and restraining orders. Those are not technical breaches; they often represent a continuation of harmful, coercive or threatening conduct, and it is right that magistrates should have the greatest possible flexibility to impose sentences that reflect the seriousness and risk involved. The clause brings consistency to how the offences are treated and allows magistrates to use the full extent of the sentencing powers available to them. Although we will be watching closely to ensure that the expanded powers are used proportionately and in ways that genuinely improve public protection and victim confidence in the system, we agree that the clause is a sensible provision, and we will support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 4
Court transcripts of sentencing remarks
“(1) All sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court must be published within two sitting days of being delivered.
(2) All publications must be freely available to all members of the public.”—(Mike Wood.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 12. We agree in principle that victims should have access to the court transcripts—indeed, it has been a long-standing campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). That is very important for victims, especially if they have been subject to coercive control, gaslighting or sexual abuse; victims at the end of the court process may be left questioning, “Was this my fault?” or, “Did this really happen to me?” We have heard from victims that having the transcripts gives them the peace of mind and validation that they need.
We disagree with the Opposition, however, on two fundamental points. The first is the requirement that the court transcripts be provided within two days. We think that is completely impractical, and that two weeks is much more reasonable. Secondly, we do not believe they should be made public. Many people commit crimes who have been coerced into them, or there may be retaliatory crimes; we think making court transcripts public presents an unnecessary public shaming of a criminal, whereas providing them to the victim provides closure and clarity.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire for new clause 4, which would require transcripts of Crown court sentencing remarks to be published and made freely available to the public within two sitting days of being delivered. Introducing that provision would place a significant financial burden on the criminal justice system in a challenging fiscal context, diverting valuable resources away from the wider system, potentially including other victims services. The release of any Crown court transcript requires judicial oversight to ensure that the reporting restrictions have been adhered to and that other public interest factors have been considered. For transcripts of all sentencing remarks to be published and made freely available within two sitting days would have significant operational and resource implications.
Alex Davies-Jones
With respect, it is very different. These are court documents that can be used in a court of appeal. What we say here is clarified. We email our speaking notes to Hansard. Our comments are checked. The resources are far vaster than for a Crown court in England and Wales, sadly. Therefore, it is not a fair comparison.
Those court transcripts need to be as accurate as possible and legally sound, because people’s lives hang on the line—for want of a better phrase—in terms of whether they are free to go or sentenced, and therefore it is important that they are accurate documents. This new clause would overburden a court system that is already in difficulties, thanks to what we inherited from the previous Government.
However, as I will come to in my remarks, we are looking to make progress in this area. We have extended the pilot for transcripts, and we have made that permanent for RASSO—rape and serious sexual offences—victims, because we recognise how important it is for victims to have them. We are looking at a way of doing it, but the timeframe given by this new clause is just not possible or workable under the restrictions that we currently have within our court system.
Similarly, new clause 12 would introduce a statutory entitlement to all victims of crime to request certain specified court transcripts: transcripts of sentencing remarks, judicial summings-up, bail decisions and conditions relevant to the case. As with new clause 4, providing those free of charge within 14 days of making that request would have significant cost implications and place a significant burden on the courts and the judiciary.
However, as I have said, I want to reassure members of the Committee that the Government are working to improve access on court transcripts and ensure that free provision is focused on victims who need it the most. Bereaved families of victims of murder, manslaughter and fatal road offences can request a judge’s sentencing remarks for free, and between May 2024 and 2025 the Ministry of Justice ran a one-year pilot that enabled victims of rape and sexual offences whose cases were heard at the Crown court to request a free transcript of the judge’s sentencing remarks in their case.
Victims of these offences were chosen because of the particular trauma that attending court can cause for them, resulting in a particular benefit in receiving a copy of the remarks—delivered in a sentencing hearing that they might find it difficult to attend for very understandable reasons—given the impact that those remarks can have on their recovery and in helping them to move on with their lives. Following that pilot, we are pleased to announce that victims of those offences will be able to request free transcripts on an ongoing basis. We are also exploring opportunities for the use of artificial intelligence in reducing the future cost of transcripts, and there is no doubt that the Government are taking action on this important issue.
I hope I have reassured hon. Members. I am happy to work with them, as we have with Members across the House, to ensure that we get this right, but it is important that we get this accurate, and get it right, because there is a lot at stake in providing these court transcripts. Therefore, it is important that we do it holistically, rather than just immediately, because of the impact that that could have.
Mike Wood
I thank the Minister for her remarks, but it does seem that, particularly with the use of AI, as she has said, releasing an initial transcript need not be overly onerous. Obviously, after having got that initial release, the measure would allow for a definitive recording to be produced at a later time if an appeal was to be based on that. I do think that making these transcripts available is in the public interest, so we would like to press new clause 4 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time
Mike Wood
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 7 calls for a review of court delays and their impact on victims to be conducted within six months of the Bill becoming law. Clearly, the impact of covid on our Crown courts in particular is still being felt within the system. Prior to covid, the Crown court backlog was actually lower than it had been under parts of the previous Labour Administration.
Due to significant investment in recovery efforts to try to address the backlog since the pandemic, including a provision for Nightingale courts and uncapped sitting days, the previous Lord Chancellor was clear that our last provisionally agreed sitting days were to be seen as a floor, not a cap. We support the calls from the Lady Chief Justice for more sitting days, and regret that the Government have only gone part of the way towards meeting the capacity that the Lady Chief Justice said was available within the court system.
Moving forward, it is important that we keep up the scrutiny to ensure that the court system is operating effectively and in the interests of victims. Delays in the court system are not just administrative; they retraumatise victims, reduce conviction rates and push people out of the justice process altogether. This review is urgent and overdue. If we are truly to put victims first, we must understand and act on the toll that these delays take. The Opposition believe that this review will help to focus efforts on reducing those delays to a minimum.
Alex Davies-Jones
New clause 7 would require the Secretary of State to assess within six months of Royal Assent the impact of court delays on victims. As the hon. Member will be aware, thanks to his previous Government, this Government inherited a record and rising court backlog. Between 2010 and 2019, the Conservative Government permanently closed more than 260 court buildings as part of a wider estate consolidation. Additionally, historical underfunding has resulted in challenges across the estate, with an estimated £1.3 billion maintenance backlog.
As of December 2024, the Crown court outstanding caseload was over 74,000 cases. Sitting levels have never been higher, but even that is not enough to keep up with the increasing backlog of cases. I recognise the human impact that this can have on victims as they navigate those delays. The recent report by the Victims’ Commissioner truly brought to life the impact of the outstanding Crown court caseload on victims, victims services and the wider criminal justice system. It is clear that more must be done, and that fundamental reform is necessary to address the court backlog.
That is why the Lord Chancellor asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose a once-in-a-generation reform. The review is aimed at achieving a more efficient criminal court system and improved timeliness and swifter justice for victims, witnesses and defendants, without jeopardising the requirement for a fair trial for all involved. The review will also consider the most appropriate and proportionate ways of dealing with cases before the courts, as well as how processes through charge to conviction or acquittal could be improved to maximise efficiency. We expect the review of the report on options for long-term reform in the coming weeks and findings on court efficiency in autumn 2025.
Mike Wood
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause addresses the rules on victim personal statements, about which we heard much in the evidence sessions. There is clearly a desperate need for reform to allow victims to properly and accurately communicate the impact that crimes have had on them. Our new clause introduces a right to be heard for those victims and for families making victim personal statements. We heard appalling stories of traumatised family members, such as Becky and Glenn Youens and Jeremy and Susan Everard, who were told that, no, they could not say what they wanted—they could not say anything derogatory about the guilty offender.
Victim personal statements are not appropriate platforms for gratuitous abuse, but the focus needs to be on allowing the voice of victims, rather than worrying too much about the hurt feelings of the convicted offender. The new clause would ensure that victims can speak freely with the most minimal restrictions possible. We can fairly ask the judge to consider what can and cannot be taken into account for sentencing rather than removing or censoring everything in advance. It is time that we uphold the voices of victims and provide them with the platform and the dignity that they deserve.
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for new clause 8, which would require the Secretary of State to issue revised guidance on victim personal statements to change the legal position on what they can include. First, let me say that I recognise that victim personal statements are a powerful tool for victims and their families to have their voices heard, and give them the opportunity to tell the court about the impact that a crime has had on them.
The victim personal statement is also important for the court’s sentencing decision. It provides evidence to assist the court in determining the seriousness of the offending as part of a sentencing process. It is right that victims have the opportunity to be part of that. However, it is also right that that be done fairly, which means that the usual rules of evidence must apply.
The hon. Member should be assured that I have heard from victims and their families on their concerns about their experience of the personal statement process. I have already committed to those families that I will look into the matter further. However, his drive to bolster the victim’s voice risks weakening the role that it can play in a sentencing process.
On a practical point, I do not believe the new clause will achieve the desired effect. The criminal practice directions provide the legal basis for a victim personal statement in the context of sentencing. Criminal practice directions are issued by judges, not Ministers. The legal position is then reflected in publicly available guidance. The Secretary of State for Justice is not responsible for any of that guidance, nor have they previously issued any such guidance.
Changing this guidance or issuing new guidance will not change the legal position as set out in the criminal practice directions. That is why I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause, and to work with me to better understand victims’ experience of victim personal statements and how these issues might actually be addressed in a courtroom, while ensuring that the criminal justice system operates safely and fairly for all.
Mike Wood
I thank the Minister for her response. This is an extremely important matter that needs to be dealt with in this legislation. I think she said that she wishes to proceed with something that broadly achieves our aims, but which addresses her concerns about the drafting. If she will undertake to work with the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, before Report to find a form of drafting that satisfies the new clause’s objectives without what she clearly sees as defects in its proposed wording, we would obviously be happy to work with her and not press the new clause for now. Hopefully, we will have something that we can agree to on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 10
Sentencing guidelines on court fines
“Within 18 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Sentencing Council must revise relevant sentencing guidelines so that the court must award compensation to a victim to the value of items stolen when imposing compensation for the offence of theft, burglary, fraud, or any other crime that has resulted in a financial loss to the victim.”—(Mike Wood.)
This new clause would require the Sentencing Council to revise sentencing guidelines so that a court must impose compensation commensurate to the value of stolen items when issuing fines.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mike Wood
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause seeks to correct a long-standing imbalance in the way in which financial justice is delivered to victims of theft, fraud, burglary and similar offences. It does so by requiring the Sentencing Council to revise its guidelines within 18 months of Royal Assent so that courts must impose compensation that reflects the actual financial loss suffered by the victim. Right now, victims of crime are far too often left bearing the financial burden of the offence, while the offender, even when convicted, is handed a compensation order that does not even begin to redress the damage that has been done, either directly or indirectly.
The result is an insult added to injury. Offenders walk away with a light financial consequence, while victims are left out of pocket and out of luck due to the crimes committed by others. The new clause would shift that balance, not punitively but justly. It would make it a duty, not a possibility, for sentencing to account for what was actually taken or lost. This is not an unfamiliar concept. Courts already have the power to impose compensation orders, but the inconsistency and infrequency with which they do so undermines public confidence in the system. Let us be clear: all the ordinary processes remain in place for pursuing outstanding payments, but why should we not recognise what is actually owed? If someone has a change of circumstance, it may well be that they could quite readily pay what they owe.
Most importantly, this is about victims. It is about restoring faith in the idea that when someone suffers a loss through crime, the justice system stands behind them—not just symbolically but materially by seeking, as far as possible, to provide restitution. The new clause proposes the straightforward but meaningful step of revising the sentencing guidelines so that, where there is a proven loss, it must be reflected in compensation. That is not just fair; it is the very least that victims should be able to expect. I urge the Committee to support the new clause.
Alex Davies-Jones
New clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, would require the Sentencing Council to revise its sentencing guidelines so that courts must award compensation to victims to the value of the items stolen when imposing compensation for the offences of theft, burglary, fraud or any other crime that has resulted in a loss to the victim. I have considered the proposed new clause, but I do not consider it helpful in view of the current legislative position, which I will briefly explain.
Courts can impose a compensation order to require an offender to make financial reparations to the victim for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence. This includes any financial loss sustained as a result of items stolen in cases of theft, burglary, fraud or any other crime resulting in financial loss. Compensation may be ordered for such amount as the court considers appropriate, having regard to any evidence and representations made by the offender or prosecutor. There is no limit on the value of the single compensation order handed down to an adult offender.
The court must also consider the financial circumstances of the offender, in so far as they are known, to ensure they have sufficient means to pay. To do otherwise would create a pointless system of chasing down money that people are unable to pay, causing a cycle of unnecessary harm and emotional distress to victims.
The Sentencing Council has already issued explanatory information on compensation, which outlines these matters to aid sentencers when considering or issuing compensation orders. The proposed new clause, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, would limit the flexibility of sentences by mandating through sentencing guidelines that compensation must be awarded to the value of the items stolen. The Government are satisfied that the current process allows courts to strike an appropriate balance between seeking reparation for the harm caused to victims and knowing that it is actually enforceable so that victims are not left waiting for unrealistic debts to be paid to them. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire to withdraw the proposed new clause.
Mike Wood
I thank the Minister for her comments, but there is an imbalance in the system. Whereas convicted offenders may appeal against a sentence, victims do not have a similar ability to appeal against a failure to award full compensation. The new clause ought to be the presumptive starting point for compensation. Full compensation should usually be awarded, so we will press this matter to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Alex Davies-Jones
The new clause implies that there is a time limit on the Government’s ability to enforce unpaid fines imposed by the Crown court, and seeks to remove it. I reassure all hon. Members that this is not the case. There is no such limitation on the ability of the criminal courts or His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to enforce unpaid fines.
We take the recovery and enforcement of fines very seriously, and we are fully committed to ensuring that financial penalties are paid. HMCTS has robust methods in place for doing so, including taking money from a defendant’s benefits and salary, and seizing and selling goods. Courts also have powers to send offenders to prison for non-payment of fines and other monetary orders. The new clause also seeks to empower the Secretary of State to initiate proceedings to recover unpaid fines. However, civil enforcement mechanisms such as charging orders and bankruptcy are already available, and other well-established enforcement options, including deduction from earnings and benefits, are already in place.
Some offenders will do everything in their power to evade payment. They will move home or provide a false address, and there are processes in place to track them down using tracing tools and any legal routes for securing information gathered by other Government Departments and agencies. Bailiffs can be instructed to collect unpaid sums, and we have just launched a consultation on bailiff regulation, including a 5% uplift in fees to support early-stage recovery. We are also investing in the replacement of outdated IT systems to further improve the efficiency of enforcement arrangements.
I support the intention behind the new clause. It is, of course, essential that fines imposed by the Crown court are collected and enforced. There is no time limit on our ability to enforce fines that remain unpaid, and for good reason. Prolific offenders can rack up substantial fines, which they may pay back through deduction orders or other enforcement orders over many months or years. Offenders may be serving time in prison for other offences, which means that any fines that remain payable during that period will not be enforced until they are released.
We carefully monitor performance on the enforcement of fines. In 2023-24, HMCTS collected over £671 million in financial penalties, of which £10 million was for offences committed before 2017. We rigorously pursue money owed, no matter how old the debt. On average, by the time a financial penalty is five years old, 80% of the total imposition will have been collected. The actions we are taking will further improve performance in this area. For those reasons, we urge the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire to withdraw the new clause.
Mike Wood
Given the Minister’s comments, we are content not to press the new clause to a Division at this time. Again, we may return to it at a future stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 15
Duty to collect and publish data upon sentencing
“(1) At the time of passing a sentence by a judge or magistrate the relevant court must provide to HM Courts and Tribunals Service (‘HMCTS’) the following information regarding the sentence passed—
(a) offence type,
(b) sentence length,
(c) such information about the sentenced individual as the Secretary of State sees fit, which must include—
(i) nationality,
(ii) method of entry to the United Kingdom,
(iii) visa route,
(iv) visa status,
(v) asylum status, and
(vi) country of birth.
(2) HMCTS must collect and collate the information on the basis set out in subsection (1) on sentences passed in the courts.
(3) Once every three months, the Secretary of State must publish statistics based on the information collected by HMCTS under subsection (2).”—(Mike Wood.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mike Wood
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause was tabled in the name of the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). It would introduce a new statutory duty for courts to provide structured data on sentencing outcomes, including key information about individuals’ immigration status.
Transparency on crime is critical not only for building public trust in our justice system but for ensuring that we have the right tools in place to understand and respond to the realities of criminal offending. The new clause would create a clear, accountable framework for collecting and publishing sentencing data that sits at the intersection of the criminal justice and immigration systems. By requiring His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to gather and publish that data quarterly, we would enable policymakers to detect patterns, assess outcomes and develop evidence-based responses. Crucially, it would also strengthen the ability of immigration enforcement to make fair, informed decisions on removals, deportations or protections—decisions that must balance public safety with legal and humanitarian obligations.
Ultimately, the public have a right to this level of transparency. For too long, assumptions have filled the void left by incomplete data. The new clause would replace speculation with facts, and in doing so it would promote more informed policy, more effective enforcement and greater public confidence. I commend it to the Committee.
Alex Davies-Jones
I recognise the importance of transparency when publishing data on foreign national offenders. The hon. Member will know that we inherited our current data collection and publication system from the previous Government. It is interesting that the Conservatives are now keen to make changes, after 14 years in office in which they could have done it themselves.
The Lord Chancellor has been clear. This is important to her and we are reviewing what we collect and publish, and should we decide it needs to change, we will of course enact that. More broadly, we are working to strengthen data collection at court, and we are exploring how we can improve the sharing of immigration status data across the criminal justice system.
We are committed to continually developing the data we publish. We already publish data on the number of self-declared foreign nationals in prison and under probation supervision, and we publish detailed ethnicity data of those prosecuted in court. Recording such data for everyone convicted and sentenced in court, including those for lower-level convictions—those that result in a fine, for example—would represent an additional burden on an already stretched system, but it would also inevitably give rise to a substantial data quality risk.
Courts have no mechanism to verify or validate information provided, nor do they have any mechanism to compel such provision in the first place. The new clause would impose an obligation without any consideration of the infrastructure necessary to deliver it. For those reasons, we are unable to accept the new clause, but we will continue to look at what more we can do to improve the accessibility of information relating to foreign national offenders.
Foreign nationals who commit crime should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced, and that we will work with the Home Office to pursue their deportation. It is worth noting that, since 5 July 2024, more foreign offenders have been returned than in the same period 12 months before under the previous Government. For all the Conservatives’ rhetoric, it is this Government who are getting on with the job.
Mike Wood
Given the Minister’s disappointing response, we will wish to have a fuller debate on Report. I do not intend to press the new clause to a vote now, but we will almost certainly do so at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13
Power to make consequential provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clauses 13 to 16 contain standard provisions that confer powers to make consequential amendments, to set out the Bill’s territorial extent, to make arrangements for commencement of the Bill’s measures, and to set out the Bill’s short title.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 14 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is customary at this stage in proceedings to say a few words to mark the end of our deliberations in Committee. I welcome that the measures in this Bill command a substantial degree of cross-party support, and I am pleased that the Bill has had the benefit of rigorous scrutiny by members on both sides of the Committee.
I thank the Opposition Front-Bench team, including the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle—I wish him well in his recovery—for their careful consideration. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have served so diligently on the Committee and made such thoughtful, valuable and powerful contributions.
I thank you, Dr Murrison, and your co-Chair, Mr Stringer, for keeping us in very good order. I also thank the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston. I thank the Clerks and the MOJ officials, particularly Rachel Bennion, Zara Bernard and Hayley Newell, for all of their work. I thank the Hansard Reporters and the Doorkeepers, and I look forward to the debate on Report, which I am sure we will come to soon.
Mike Wood
On behalf of the Opposition, I thank all the Clerks, officials, Doorkeepers and Hansard Reporters. I also thank you, Dr Murrison, and Mr Stringer for your work on this Committee.
There is much that is very positive in this Bill, which is why His Majesty’s official Opposition are pleased to support it. Obviously, there are various points on which we think the Government could and should go further, and we will seek to make the Bill even better on Report. For now, I thank all members of the Committee for their contributions over the past week. I look forward to returning to this debate on Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Victim Impact Statements
Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts(10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
I am pleased to announce that the Government have commenced another victim-related measure in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.
Tomorrow, we will commence Section 21 of the Act, which will bring arrangements for victims of certain offenders detained under the Mental Health Act more closely in line with those for victims of offenders detained in prison whose release conditions are determined by the Parole Board. This has been called for by the Victims’ Commissioner, Baroness Newlove, for some time and will make a real difference to the experience of victims and their families in these processes.
Previously, victims engaging with the victim contact scheme were able to provide their views on discharge conditions for offenders to the mental health tribunal, but were not able to make a statement explaining to the decision makers the impact that the crime had on them—a victim impact statement. Victims are able to give such explanations to the Parole Board through a victim personal statement. Through the commencement of this measure, victims will be able to make a victim impact statement to the first-tier tribunal (mental health) in England, and the mental health review tribunal for Wales, where they are considering discharge of an offender. The tribunal can consider the victim impact statement as part of its decision on what discharge conditions to impose on the offender, but must not consider it for any other purpose.
This measure also requires that, where a tribunal hearing is due to take place and a victim applies to attend that hearing to read their statement, the tribunal should grant the application unless there are good reasons not to. Under the victim contact scheme, victims will have a victim liaison officer, who will inform them of the entitlement, and support them in making a victim impact statement, if they wish to do so. The victim liaison officer will support the victim to consider if they want to read it aloud to the tribunal or have their victim liaison officer do so on their behalf. They will also attend the hearing with them to provide support on the day.
This measure brings victims’ entitlements more in line with those of victims whose offenders are in the prison system, and it is an important way for victims and their families to have a voice in the process, regardless of where the offender is detained.
[HCWS733]
Victims and Courts Bill (Fourth sitting)
Alex Davies-Jones ExcerptsThursday 19th June 2025
(10 months, 1 week ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Victims and Courts Bill 2024-26 View all Victims and Courts Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Amendments as at 19 June 2025 - (19 Jun 2025)
Dr Mullan
We return to consider the measures on parental responsibility. There was significant debate in our earlier sitting on the need to balance the measures, and the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats both moved amendments to widen the Bill’s scope in ways that I think would have been proportionate and necessary to secure the maximum possible benefit from a novel measure to protect children from people who would not ordinarily be able to exercise their parental responsibility.
The debate was about the need for balance, which is why, at the same time as seeking to widen the scope of the measure, we want to secure balance by making amendments to ensure that the family court has a bigger role to play where we introduce automatic powers for taking this through the family court.
Under the Bill as drafted, a review by the family court is required only if an offender is acquitted or if their sentence is reduced to below a life sentence or a term of four years or more. The amendment deletes those conditions by removing proposed new section 10D(1)(b), which limits review to the specific appellant outcomes I have described.
We believe that automaticity, while preferable to the risk of inaction in relation to children, should be enhanced with a considered approach—when time allows—to taking the necessary protective steps. The amendment would ultimately require such orders to be reviewed on their own merit, in a family court, with children’s welfare as the guiding principle. Our amendments would ensure that the safeguarding lens of the family court is engaged in all cases, not just in those that meet certain technical thresholds. This morning, the Minister was keen to emphasise the novelty of these measures, as well as the importance of the family court in considering these issues more widely.
Our amendment would help to ensure that those correctly put points are enacted more consistently than they currently will be. An automatic power, while important, will inevitably have limitations in understanding the specific circumstances of each case. I have spoken to experts in this area, and they highlighted the rare but compelling cases where, despite one parent being convicted of a very serious offence, there may be similar safeguarding concerns about the other parent. Where parental responsibility is removed in one case, it might be left to a single person whom the family court might also consider inappropriate, in isolation, to be exercising parental responsibility.
As unusual as they might sound, I understand that those scenarios sometimes occur. That is why family court practitioners are concerned about the automatic suspension of parental responsibility. Our amendments are designed to counterbalance those concerns and give greater strength to the desire of both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats in broadening the scope of automaticity with a stronger safeguard for those exceptional circumstances where, at times, it might not be considered the best approach.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
The amendment seeks to insert a requirement for the family court to consider every prohibited steps order made under clause 3. The shadow Minister’s intention in moving the amendment is noble. However, the Government must ensure that we are acting in the best interests of all children, and there are several reasons why this amendment cannot be accepted.
First, we must protect the children and families in these horrific circumstances from unnecessary procedural burdens, particularly when there is no challenge to an order by the parties involved. Under clause 3, the prohibited steps order will have been made because an offender has been convicted of serious child sexual abuse offences against a child for whom they hold parental responsibility. For the child, that means that the very person who was supposed to protect them has committed some of the most heinous acts of abuse against them.
In such cases, we believe it is right that a prohibited steps order is made automatically, and that it would not be in the best interests of the child or their siblings for their abuser to continue exercising parental responsibility. However, we have provided flexibility for cases to be considered by the family court, where there is an application to do so.
This amendment would require the victim and their family to go through another set of potentially traumatic legal proceedings after the criminal case has concluded. This would prevent them from moving on with their lives, and we do not want to put that burden on victims and their families at what will already be an incredibly difficult time. We think it is right that, instead of mandating further consideration in the family court, the offender and others should apply to the family court to vary or discharge an order.
Furthermore, we must consider the impact this amendment would have on other, unconnected children already involved in family court proceedings. The family court makes difficult decisions about some of the most vulnerable children in our society every single day. This amendment would increase the caseload in the family court and would undoubtedly impact on the time it takes to resolve cases. Every member of this Committee will have constituency casework involving the family court, and we do not wish to add to its caseload. It is important that the family court can resolve cases as quickly as possible, and the Government do not want to add to the volume of cases in the system, unless it is absolutely necessary.
Finally, the amendment has inconsistencies that would create difficulties in its application. It maintains the definition of “local authority” as the relevant local authority at the time the verdict of acquittal is entered or the sentence is reduced. As drafted, the amendment leaves open questions as to who the relevant local authority is in cases where no appeal has been made. This would place an additional burden on the Crown court to ascertain who the relevant local authority is and would risk the measure being applied inconsistently.
The good intentions behind this amendment are clear. We all want to ensure that children and their welfare are protected. However, this amendment is not the way to do that. For the reasons I have outlined, we do not think that mandating a family court review is the right approach in these cases, and I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Mullan
I would like to make two points. First, on the drafting, I appreciate that the Government are ultimately responsible for the wording of legislation, but I gently say that perhaps the Minister might review this with her officials. The wording of the amendment was taken from the previously approved drafting of a similar measure in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which was introduced by the last Government, so there must have been a change of heart in the official advice to the Minister.
On the issue of substance, perhaps the Minister will elaborate on a compromise outside the Committee. These are new and novel measures, and undoubtedly there will be guidance for local authorities when they come into force. The Opposition would be reassured if the Minister committed to ensuring that the guidance highlights to local authorities the importance of carefully considering their role in seeking further review of a case, outside the limited scope of the legislation, in circumstances where parental responsibility is removed through an order. Local authorities will perhaps be in a better position to judge whether leaving someone with sole parental responsibility might not be the ideal scenario.
The Minister will not have a chance to respond, but I would be grateful if she could assure me, perhaps outside in the Committee corridor, that the guidance will be absolutely clear on the burden that will be placed on local authorities, as well as on the importance of local authorities acting swiftly. An automatic order is not necessarily in the best interests of children in all circumstances, when considering the wider factors.
I will not press the amendment to a vote, as I take it in good faith that the Minister will at least have a further discussion with me. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 1.
Clause 4 stand part.
Alex Davies-Jones
We have already debated these clauses at length. I do not wish to labour the Committee or subject it to my voice any longer than necessary. The spirit of the clauses has been debated on the record.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Victims’ rights to make representations and receive information etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Schedule 2.
New clause 11—Extension of Victim Contact Scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that the Victim Contact Scheme is made available to—
(a) victims of offenders sentenced to less than 12 months for violent and sexual offences,
(b) victims in cases involving coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking, or harassment, and
(c) bereaved families in manslaughter or death by dangerous driving cases.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that information under the Victim Contact Scheme is communicated in a timely and trauma-informed manner.
(3) The Secretary of State must publish data each year on uptake and accessibility of the Victim Contact Scheme.”
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) for tabling new clause 11, which would expand eligibility for the victim contact scheme, ensure timely and sensitive communication under the scheme, and require the Secretary of State to publish a report covering key data on the scheme. I am pleased to reassure him that victims of coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking and harassment will already be eligible for the new victim contact scheme, regardless of sentence length. I am also pleased to say that bereaved families whose loved ones have died as a result of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving will also be eligible for the scheme where the offender has received a sentence of 12 months or more.
I wholeheartedly agree that victims of violent, sexual and dangerous driving offences that have resulted in a sentence of less than 12 months should also have a clear route to request and receive information about their offender. That is why the Bill guarantees that these cohorts can request information through a new dedicated victim helpline, and where appropriate, they will receive the information. We think this is the right approach. It targets resources and delivers proactive contact through the victim contact scheme to those who need the information most, while still providing a new dedicated helpline for all victims to request information.
Turning to the second part of the new clause, the hon. Member for Eastbourne is right that victims deserve timely communication that is sensitive to their needs, but this is properly a matter of guidance and practice, not primary legislation. The upcoming consultation on the victims code offers an opportunity to consider how we can improve the delivery of the victim contact scheme, and I would welcome all Members’ engagement with that consultation once it launches.
Dr Mullan
As the Minister outlined, we are discussing changes primarily to the victim contact scheme and victim helpline. We supported the operation of those services in Government, and it is perfectly in order for the Government to seek to expand them further. But, during the Committee evidence sessions, the Minister will have noted the questions about the resources available to individuals for accessing those services. I note that the witnesses from HM Prison and Probation Service and others felt that there were the necessary resources, or at least that the impact of the expansion on the resource requirements would not be particularly significant, but I would welcome the Minister assuring the Committee that she has done the due diligence necessary to ensure that we do not raise expectations in those expansions and additions to victim support services that are not realised.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to reassure the hon. Member on that point. These provisions have been drafted in consultation with colleagues, including from HMPPS, to ensure that we have the necessary resources. He will know that we have provided additional funding for the new helpline, and for the additional resources required to expand the victim contact scheme. That is all laid out in the economic impact assessment of the legislation. We will, of course, keep it under review to ensure that adequate resources are available to support victims, and give them the communication that they require.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 11 would give access to the victim contact scheme for victims of violent and sexual offences where the offender is sentenced to less than 12 months. I think the Minister said that such access is included under the provisions of the Bill.
The new clause also mentions access for
“victims in cases involving coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking, or harassment and…death by dangerous driving”.
Caroline Voaden
I thank the Minister for clarifying that. New clause 11 would also require the Government to produce annual reports on the uptake and accessibility of the scheme, increasing transparency and accountability. We believe that it is important to know who is using the scheme so that we can know who is not accessing it. That will help us to improve the scheme, and to widen access to those victims who, for whatever reason, have not heard about the scheme or managed to access it.
On the training for the people managing and running the helpline, could the Minister give me some reassurance that there is funding and capacity available to give adequate training in gender-based violence and the effects of stalking and sexual violence on people, and particularly women, who may be quite scared about the potential release of an offender and what that means?
Alex Davies-Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for those questions. I can happily and wholeheartedly reassure her on the last point. She will have heard the evidence given the Committee by colleagues in the Probation Service, who were quite forthright about the trauma-informed training provided to call handlers, which is so vital in such cases. They are well used to that, and we have provided additional funding and resources to enable training to continue so that they are well equipped to deal with the increased caseload that the expansion of the scheme and the new helpline will provide. On the annual report, the hon. Lady will have heard me say that there is a duty under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 to provide an annual report on victims code compliance. The victims code includes the right to information—the right to be notified—so that will be included in the compliance report.
However, I take on board the hon. Lady’s comments about the need to make sure that victims are aware of the scheme, and that they are able to apply to it. All that will be brought into the victims code consultation that we will take forward later this year, to ensure that we bring more victims up to speed on what their rights are and what they are entitled to under the criminal justice system. We have a long way to go to ensure that victims are aware of their rights on the whole—not just rights to communication and contact.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 6
Commissioner’s power to act in individual cases relevant to public policy
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
The next three clauses of the Bill, clauses 6 to 8, pertain to increasing the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. In 2024, the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act strengthened the role of the Victims’ Commissioner. Among other measures, it placed a duty on relevant bodies to co-operate with the Commissioner’s requests and respond to their recommendations. The Government’s manifesto committed to build on those powers, providing the Victims’ Commissioner with the full suite of tools to drive systemic change. These clauses deliver on that manifesto commitment.
I take this opportunity to thank the Victims’ Commissioner, Baroness Newlove, for her engagement on these clauses and on the vital work she does every single day to support victims and witnesses. The Victims’ Commissioner’s role is fundamental to appropriate scrutiny of, and accountability for, the systems that support victims and of the criminal justice system. The clauses on the Victims’ Commissioner empower the commissioner better to hold the system to account. They are an important step towards building victims’ confidence in the system and rebuilding their trust. They will ensure that victims’ voices are heard and that the system that supports victims of crime and of antisocial behaviour are held to the same standards, and are effectively and thoroughly scrutinised.
Clause 6 bolsters the Victims’ Commissioner’s ability to promote the interests of victims and witnesses by giving them a legislative foundation to act on individual cases, which expose systemic failure. Individuals’ lived experiences offer invaluable insights into how the system delivers for victims. Existing legislation lacks clarity on the extent to which the commissioner can act explicitly within the parameters of her existing functions in those individual cases.
The clause makes it clear that the Victims’ Commissioner can choose to act on individual cases and where such cases raise public policy issues. That will promote the interests of other victims and witnesses who may face similar systemic problems. In practical terms, therefore, if the commissioner identifies an issue or a failure—such as a policy not being followed, or the absence of a relevant policy—that may have wider implications for other victims, she may request information from the relevant agencies. That could include an explanation of what went wrong and the steps being taken to address that, and recommendations on how improvements can be made across the system.
To achieve that, the element of the legislative bar preventing the commissioner’s involvement in individual cases will be amended. Other elements of the bar will remain the same, including the preservation of the existing restrictions on the commissioner interfering with certain proceedings and with prosecutorial or judicial functions. The clause will enable the Victims’ Commissioner better to promote the interests of victims and witnesses on the issues that impact on them directly.
Dr Mullan
Again, the role and importance of the Victims’ Commissioner was something that we supported, reformed and strengthened during our time in Government, as the Minister highlighted. I too pay tribute to Baroness Newlove, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting on a number of occasions to discuss a whole variety of issues related to victims. She brings her incredible experience—and that of her wider family, who have their own perspectives —to so many different issues. I welcome measures that seek to strengthen her role.
I only have one question for the Minister. The new power will sit within a number of bodies—the ombudsman and others—who have roles to play. I am sure that Baroness Newlove and her successor will be forceful and proactive in helping to understand how the powers sit within those remits. Nevertheless, the Government and the Ministry of Justice have a convening and overarching role to ensure that, with all the different parties, the new power and the new individual approach do not confuse victims and that it is clear to everyone what the new Victims’ Commissioner role will or will not involve. Co-operation with others will be necessary to pick up cases that might need that. I will be grateful to the Minister for assurance that the MOJ is sighted of that issue, of ensuring that there is not confusion across the patch.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am happy to clarify that the powers in the Bill that we are extending to the Victims’ Commissioner to allow that measure to take place will bring them in line with other commissioners, such as the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the Children’s Commissioner, which do those functions and operate well across different agencies. Therefore, it is just a matter of replicating the powers of the Children’s and the Domestic Abuse Commissioners, and how they work in those other jurisdictions. I take that on board.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Duty to co-operate with Commissioner: anti-social behaviour
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
The clause places a duty on local authorities and social housing providers, where they are engaged with victims of antisocial behaviour, to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. Antisocial behaviour is more than merely a nuisance. It can erode personal freedom, harm mental wellbeing and, ultimately, shatter the feeling of safety and belonging that defines a home.
Antisocial behaviour is not, however, always a criminal justice issue. Local authorities and social housing providers often play a key role in supporting victims and in finding a resolution. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 introduced a duty for certain criminal justice agencies responsible for providing those victims code services to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. That duty does not apply to local authorities or social housing providers, so there is a gap in terms of ensuring that the commissioner has the tools to do their job effectively for victims of antisocial behaviour. This duty will close that gap and ensure that the commissioner is able to access the right information to identify the systemic issues, make more informed recommendations and scrutinise how the system as a whole responds to antisocial behaviour from a victim’s perspective.
Dr Mullan
Everybody in the Committee today will be familiar with the importance of engaging with local authorities and social housing providers in relation to antisocial behaviour. We will all have seen examples of good work and proactive local authorities and social housing providers, but we have almost certainly also seen examples of where they do not do the basics that we might expect for our constituents as residents of their housing. We therefore welcome the expansion of the role of the Victims’ Commissioner into this area.
My question is about understanding the different roles that agencies will have. First, what discussions did the Minister have with her colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government about ensuring that local authorities are minded and sighted to these changes, as well as on how they will operate and play their convening role when it comes to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the regulators of social housing.
I am sure the Victims’ Commissioner will do their own work and engagement, but the MHCLG and the MOJ will have an important role ensuring that all stakeholders understand and co-operate to make the most of these new powers, for the benefit of all our constituents who experience antisocial behaviour in local authority and social housing.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s questions. He will know that MHCLG already has a legal duty to respond to recommendations in the commissioner’s reports when relating to some of these measures, so it will feed into that more systemically as a result of these new powers. This Government are not legislating in a vacuum; the new powers in this Bill sit alongside and complement the new measures in the Crime and Policing Bill currently before the House, particularly the duty to create the new antisocial behaviour case reviews.
It is really important that we do not legislate in a vacuum. That is something that has been done previously, but this Government are taking a different approach, looking at how we can tackle issues across Government. We have made these Bills complementary because, in order to solve these problems, we have to do things together across Government and across different agencies. That is why colleagues across Government and from different Departments, including MHCLG and the Home Office, have been carefully involved in the creation of these new powers.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Duty of Commissioner to report on compliance with victims code
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
Clause 8 requires the Victims’ Commissioner to produce an annual report to Ministers that will provide an independent assessment of compliance with the victims code. The code sets out the minimum level of service that victims should receive from the criminal justice system in England and Wales. It is part of the Victims’ Commissioner’s role and core functions to keep the code’s operation under review.
The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 contained a new code compliance framework that will require criminal justice bodies to provide Ministers with data demonstrating how they are complying with the code, but that measure lacked independent oversight and scrutiny. In recognition of the role of the Victims’ Commissioner in keeping the operation of the code under review, this measure will place a duty on them to produce their own independent assessment of code compliance. The measure will strengthen their role within the code compliance framework and enhance independent and victim-focused scrutiny of code compliance, with the aim of improving the service that victims receive from criminal justice bodies.
The report will also form a key part of the evidence that informs the ministerial annual report on code compliance. Once the code compliance framework is in force, Ministers will be under a statutory duty to have regard to the new report from the Victims’ Commissioner when preparing their own. As a result, we are removing the existing duty on Ministers to consult the commissioner during the preparation of their annual report, as previously set out in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The Victims’ Commissioner will also be able to use this report to make recommendations to authorities within their remit, to which those authorities will be required to respond, helping to drive up compliance with the code. As a result, I urge that clause 8 stand part of the Bill.
Dr Mullan
As we have come to the conclusion of the clauses relating to these powers, I thought I might bring Baroness Newlove into the room and quote her view overall on the measures that we are passing. She says:
“These important and welcome reforms give the Victims’ Commissioner the statutory powers needed to deliver on the role’s promise: championing victims’ rights, scrutinising compliance with the Victims code, holding agencies to account, and spotlighting the true victim experience to drive meaningful change. This marks a step towards a more accountable system that puts victims first.”
The measures have also been welcomed by SafeLives, Green & Burton ASB Associates and Victim Support, which we heard from during evidence sessions earlier in the week. Therefore we do not intend to oppose this final measure of the three; as I say, they all reflect our long-standing commitment over 14 years in government to the role of the Victims’ Commissioner, which we sought to enhance over time. Of course, as I said, it is right for this Government to think further about other changes that can be made for the benefit of victims.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Appointment of Crown Prosecutors
Alex Davies-Jones
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 9, page 11, line 4, leave out “persons” and insert “a person”.
This amendment and Amendments 2 to 7 ensure that exemptions conferred by sections 1 and 5 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 remain available to persons with rights of audience in relation to certain proceedings in the Senior Courts and all proceedings in the county court and magistrates’ court.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 2 to 7.
Clause stand part.
Alex Davies-Jones
It is vital to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service can recruit and retain sufficient qualified Crown prosecutors. Clause 9 supports that aim by increasing CPS recruitment flexibility through the removal of an unnecessary legislative barrier. In turn, this will help to increase the pool of eligible candidates for appointment as Crown prosecutors.
Currently, the CPS is restricted as to whom it can appoint as Crown prosecutors, because of an unnecessary legal requirement. That legislative barrier, set out in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, provides that Crown prosecutors and those who prosecute cases on behalf of the CPS must hold a general qualification. That definition excludes certain legal professionals, including most Chartered Institute of Legal Executives—CILEX—criminal practitioners. Those legal professionals hold the right skills and the specialist qualifications required to perform the Crown prosecutor role, including rights of audience, but they do not meet the “general qualification” criterion. That restriction limits the Director of Public Prosecutions’ ability to consider a wider pool of legal talent. It also reduces the CPS’s flexibility in managing existing and future recruitment challenges.
The purpose of clause 9 is to remove the requirement for a general qualification under sections 1(3) and 5(1) of the 1985 Act. In so doing, it gives the Director of Public Prosecutions the discretion to appoint appropriately qualified legal professionals, such as CILEX practitioners, as Crown prosecutors for the CPS. It is important to stress that the removal of the “general qualification” criterion does not change the reality that prospective applicants must hold the necessary practice rights and meet the required competency standards in order to become Crown prosecutors. Rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation also remain protected as reserved legal activities under the Legal Services Act 2007.
This change reflects the modern legal services landscape. Alternative routes to qualification are increasingly common and professionals from non-traditional backgrounds play a growing role in the justice system. By removing the unnecessary legislative barrier, the clause also supports the recruitment of a more diverse and representative cohort of Crown prosecutors. The measure does not require the CPS to appoint any specific type of legal professional; however, it gives it the flexibility to do so where appropriate and ensures that recruitment decisions remain firmly within the Director of Public Prosecutions’ control.
Government amendments 1 to 7 are technical amendments to address an unintended consequence arising from the previous drafting of the removal of the statutory exemptions in the 1985 Act—it happens to the best of us, Mr Stringer. Although the policy aim was to ensure that only suitably qualified individuals could act as Crown prosecutors, we have since identified that many existing CPS barristers currently rely on the statutory exemption in section 1(6) of the Act to conduct litigation without separate authorisation from the Bar Standards Board. That exemption is appropriate, because those barristers act under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions when conducting litigation. The amendments ensure that the exemption remains in place, preserving the status quo for those who already rely on it, while removing it for other legal professionals, who do not meet the relevant qualification requirement but are now eligible to be designated as Crown prosecutors. This approach avoids unintended barriers for those barristers, supports the CPS’s operational needs and maintains the policy intent of enabling a broader, properly qualified pool of Crown prosecutors.
The amendments will ensure that the clause operates as intended, broadening access to the CP roles while maintaining appropriate safeguards and supporting the CPS to meet its recruitment needs effectively. I commend the provisions to the Committee.
Dr Mullan
The Opposition recognise that flexibility in how we decide which professionals can perform important functions in our criminal justice system is important, and we do not object to the widening of the scope, for example by including CILEX members. However, the Minister will know that it has not been universally welcomed. In particular, former Director of Public Prosecutions Lord Macdonald described it as a
“cost cutting measure rather than a measure designed to improve the quality of justice”.
We will not oppose the measure, but given the significant expansion of the professionals involved, what plans do the Government have to review the impact of the change to ensure that there have not been any unintended consequences? It would reassure not just the Opposition but wider stakeholders if the Government kept a close eye on the measure and formally reviewed its implementation.
Alex Davies-Jones
I will happily reassure the Committee that the measures will not reduce professional standards in any way. As I have said, they will simply remove unnecessary barriers that prevent qualified individuals from becoming Crown prosecutors. We are all aware, sadly, of the issues with backlogs in our Crown courts and cases waiting a long time to get to trial. Part of the reason for that is recruitment challenges in the CPS.
I respectfully challenge the comments from the previous DPP. The measures are not a cost-cutting exercise. They are about ensuring that we have the broadest level of talent while maintaining the highest professional standards, so that more victims see justice and more perpetrators are held to account for their crimes.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendments made: 2, in clause 9, page 11, line 5, after “subsection (3)” insert
“who does not have a general qualification (within the meaning given by section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 3, in clause 9, page 11, line 11, leave out
“persons designated for the purposes of subsection (3)”
and insert “such a person”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 4, in clause 9, page 11, line 19, after “omit ’” insert “but”.
This amendment updates the text to be omitted from section 5(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 so that the provision reads correctly in light of the amendment to that provision currently included in the Bill.
Amendment 5, in clause 9, page 11, line 22, leave out “persons” and insert “a person”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 6, in clause 9, page 11, line 23, after “subsection (1)” insert
“who does not have a general qualification (within the meaning given by section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 7, in clause 9, page 11, line 29, leave out
“persons appointed under subsection (1)”
and insert “such a person”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Private prosecutions: regulations about costs payable out of central funds
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones
In 2020, the Justice Committee carried out an inquiry into the private prosecution sector, resulting in the publication of a report, “Private prosecutions: safeguards”, on 2 October that year. I thank it for its diligent work and carefully considered recommendations. It made a number of recommendations to address the systemic issues highlighted by the Post Office Horizon scandal, and the Ministry of Justice has recently concluded a separate public consultation on the regulation and oversight of private prosecutors more generally. We are carefully considering the responses to that consultation, and will in due course publish a Government response on the steps we are taking to improve practice in the private prosecutorial landscape, including legislation if necessary.
Separately, the Justice Committee made a recommendation about the costs recoverable from central funds by private prosecutors. It found that there is a disparity between the compensation available to a private prosecutor seeking to recover their expenses from public funds and a defence practitioner whose client is in receipt of legal aid. A private prosecutor can apply to the court for an order of payment from central funds of an amount that offers reasonably sufficient compensation for their expenses. However, there is little clarity about what constitutes reasonable sufficiency and, as a result, cost orders for private prosecutors tend to be at least five times higher than the rates available to legal aid lawyers, often for acting in the same cases.
The Select Committee referred to evidence that the current cost regime for private prosecutions may give rise to perverse financial incentives, which are unlikely to lead to a just system. The Committee therefore recommended that the Government should review the funding arrangements for private prosecutions to reduce the disparity between payment rates for claims made by private prosecutors and defendants from central funds.
Dr Mullan
I am pleased to say that I was a member of the Select Committee, and I sat on that inquiry and signed off its recommendations. The issue of costs was particularly pertinent to me at the time. I welcome the commitment to extensive consultation, because while the Select Committee absolutely recognised the growing disparity between costs restrictions in non-private prosecutions and private prosecutions, we heard that that was still an important route to justice for some people and we would not want to overly restrict it, so the rate at which costs restrictions are set and the process for that will be important.
The rest of my remarks relate to what the Government are not doing. I note the Minister’s commitment to considering further changes, but she will know that opportunities to legislate do not always come along when we might want them to. Of course, the Government have committed to legislating later in the year on sentencing, and they will almost certainly be legislating on court reform, following Brian Leveson’s review. That is a hefty timetable of legislation in the increasingly short time available in this Parliament, so it may well be that there are not future opportunities to legislate in this important area.
I am sure that all hon. Members are familiar with just how badly private prosecutions can go wrong for some people, particularly in relation to the Post Office Horizon scandal. While there was some CPS involvement in some of those prosecutions, the majority of them were private prosecutions, and we all know the devastating consequences of some of them. We are yet to see whether criminal proceedings might flow from the inquiry, and the extent to which misconduct may have taken place. That is why, as part of our report, the Committee called for regulation of private prosecutions to bring them in line with the ordinary expectations we have of the good practice of the CPS—they really should not be any different.
I would like to hear from the Minister a clear commitment, rather than a generic assurance, and a timetable, during this Parliament, for when the Government expect to develop and publish proposals for the regulation of private prosecutors and when they hope to legislate to bring them into force. It is all well and good for the previous Government and this Government to speak powerfully about the Post Office and the impact that the scandal has had on people, but I think the public want to see steps taken to ensure that it cannot happen again. I am sure the inquiry will have recommendations about that, but the regulation of the private prosecutions sector will be important in ensuring that we do not see a repeat. I would welcome comments from the Minister in that regard.
Alex Davies-Jones
On the wider concerns about private prosecutions, the shadow Minister will have heard me say that we will shortly be publishing our response to the consultation that this Government carried out. We recognise that there is more to do in this area, and we will act if the recommendations suggest that we should do so. He will also know that, sadly, this Government inherited a justice system in absolute chaos, which has resulted in us having to bring forward a number of urgent reviews, including into sentencing and court backlogs, and a number of legislative vehicles. I guarantee that there will be ample opportunity for us to legislate on these issues during this parliamentary Session should that be deemed appropriate given their nature.
Dr Mullan
The point I was trying to make is that regulation of the private prosecutions sector will not necessarily be in the scope of legislation on sentencing or court reform. The MOJ will already be bidding for parliamentary time to bring through two potentially big Bills. I ask again whether the Minister might want to reconsider whether this Bill, in which we are literally legislating on private prosecutions, is the right vehicle to address the sector’s regulation, because we may not get another opportunity in this Parliament.
Alex Davies-Jones
I am confident that there will certainly be more opportunities, given, as I have said, the nature of the issues facing the Ministry of Justice and the need for the Government to act to correct some of the difficulties and problems that we inherited. This Government are getting on with action to clean up the mess in our prisons, to reduce the criminal cases backlog and, through this Bill, to ensure that victims’ rights are heard. We are not sitting on our hands and waiting for appropriate vehicles; we are getting on with the job, and that is exactly what we are doing today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Samantha Dixon.)