Victims and Courts Bill (Third sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 19th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Mullan]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to open the first debate on the Bill in Committee as we begin line-by-line consideration. As you explained, Mr Stringer, I thought it might be useful to list the Bill’s measures to provide a wider context for the amendments as we consider them one by one.

First, the Bill will make provisions relating to victims’ experiences in the administration of justice. Secondly, it will create a statutory power for judges to order offenders to attend their sentencing hearings and, if they do not, to give out sanctions that take place in prison. Thirdly, it will restrict parental responsibility for child sex offenders who are sentenced for four years or more for an offence against a child for whom they hold parental responsibility. Fourthly, it will expand eligibility for the victim contact scheme, meaning more victims will be able to access it.

Fifthly, the Bill will strengthen the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers so that they can investigate individual cases in certain circumstances, request information from local authorities and social housing providers, and publish an annual report on compliance with the victims’ code. Sixthly, it will increase flexibility for the Director of Public Prosecutions in appointing Crown prosecutors, and set the rates at which prosecutor costs in private prosecutions can be recovered from central funds. Seventhly, it will amend the time limit within which the Attorney General can refer a sentence to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that it is unduly lenient. Finally, the Bill will amend magistrates court sentencing powers for six either-way offences, bringing them in line with other offences.

The Opposition have not sought to amend, and will not seek to oppose, a number of the Bill’s measures, and I am sure there will be cross-party support for many of them, but we wish to push the Government to go further in other areas.

The first group of amendments relates to the provisions that are meant to ensure that offenders attend their sentencing hearings. It is important to lay out the value of offenders attending such a hearing. Open and transparent justice is a cornerstone of our legal system. It is often said that it is important not just that justice should be done, but that it is seen to be done.

There is something tangible and direct about an offender being present in court to hear all the elements of the sentencing hearing at first hand, in front of victims and their friends and family, the offender’s own friends and family, and potentially the wider public and the press, who help to share what happens more widely. In particular, victims and their friends and family may want to see it happening. This will often be true of the sentence itself, and the remarks that reflect back some of the impact of a crime, but it will be particularly true for the parts of the sentencing hearing when we hear directly from those affected by a crime.

Victim personal statements, commonly known as victim impact statements, are a crucial reform of our justice system that tries to give a voice to victims and their friends and family. As we will consider later in proceedings, they might not be working as well as they could be, but they remain incredibly important. Many people want to see the offender hearing those statements, and want to know that the offender cannot escape the consequences of their actions or from hearing directly from the people they have impacted. The statements may be read out by the victim themselves or by their friends and family. The authors may or may not be present. We heard evidence from Paula Hudgell from Justice for Victims about the positive impact of victim personal statements in her experience of the judicial system.

I am sure we have all read and heard about recent examples of offenders having derailed the process, escaped accountability and robbed victims and their families of its healing power. In the evidence session the hon. Member for Knowsley spoke about the case of her constituent Olivia Pratt-Korbel, whose killer refused to attend the sentencing, and whose mother Cheryl has campaigned hard to right that wrong for others. I have met and spoken with Ayse Hussein, another member of Justice for Victims, who campaigned for something to be done in memory of her cousin Jan Mustafa. The Minister and I have met and spoken with other campaigners.

Kyle Clifford raped his former partner, Louise Hunt, who was 25, and used a crossbow to shoot both her and her sister Hannah, who was 28, having already fatally stabbed their mother, 61-year-old Carol, at the family home in Bushey. He was given a whole-life order—which I will return to—and refused to attend his sentencing.

As MPs, we know that behind every case reported in the media will be cases that are not. But the experiences of those people are no less important, which is why the previous Government committed to introducing powers to try to ensure that offenders attend their sentencing hearing. I am pleased that this Government have agreed with that in principle.

Although I welcome the aim, the shadow Justice team have looked afresh at how best to achieve the right outcome and tabled good-faith amendments to make it more likely that we achieve it. The shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and I are both committed to never being shackled by historical thinking and approaches when it comes to ensuring that we deliver for victims and their families, and we are doing that in two vital ways.

Amendments 13 and 14 would introduce a duty to consult the victim or their family as part of the enaction of the powers in clauses 1 and 2. I talked earlier about the different people and groups that derive a benefit from the offender attending the sentencing hearing, but of all those with an interest in seeing that happen, victims and their families can be considered the most important. Although the evidence we heard was clear that not every victim would want an offender to be there, and not every victim would want to see force used and risk the disruption of proceedings to make it happen, some would.

The representations we heard from victims groups almost universally supported the idea that the process should involve consultation with victims and their families. All agreed that it would be a welcome reform. Consultation is part and parcel of what the Government do day in, day out; I am sure the Minister has spent many hours reviewing and reading consultation results. The law often requires meaningful consultation before the Government or many arm’s length bodies make significant decisions. As MPs, we all undertake our own consultations, in which we give constituents the chance to let us know their views on something that affects them.

Surely a Bill about victims—named as it is—should reflect its commitment to delivering for victims and would want wherever possible to orientate its measures to victims. A measure on consultation would do just that. Specifically, the amendments would require consultation on occasions when a judge is minded to make a decision to deny victims and family members the opportunity to see the offender at the sentencing hearing. In that scenario, it is important that victims and family members can at least know for certain that the judge was not ignorant of how important it was to them and how they would feel should the judge decide not to compel the offender’s attendance. They would be able to explain their views to the judge directly. Victim personal statements were introduced to give a voice to victims when determining sentences; we are saying victims should also be given a voice on another important matter.

The proposed change is modest but important. Just like victim personal statements, it would not dictate the outcome—a right to be consulted does not constitute a right to decide—and it would not encroach on judicial independence, as the decision rests with the judge. The pain that can be caused when an offender refuses to attend sentencing is profound. Families can feel indirectly silenced, robbed of their moment to see justice done. We should at least ensure that victims are afforded the right to know that decisions about them are not taken without them. The amendments are about respect, participation and dignity. No decision that can have a profound impact on a victim should be taken without first simply speaking to them.

I ask Members of all parties to support our amendments, knowing that doing so will demonstrate a commitment to victims and their families, and ensure that their voices are heard as part of the process, as we seek to ensure that attendance at the sentencing hearing becomes as close to mandatory as we can possibly make it. I know that will be a commitment everybody shares.

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship today, Mr Stringer. I thank the shadow Justice Minister for introducing the amendments he tabled, and the Government appreciate his support of the Bill in principle. The amendments would place a statutory duty on judges to consult victims or their families before deciding whether to use their powers under the measures in clauses 1 and 2 to order an offender to attend their sentencing hearing.

I want to stress that victims and their families have been at the forefront of this legislation, and clause 1 will help to ensure that their voices and the impact of the crimes they have suffered are heard and understood by the perpetrators. We anticipate that, in making decisions, judges will take into consideration all the circumstances of the case, including the wishes and views of the victims and their families. However, mandating a duty to consult victims risks undermining judicial discretion and the ability of judges to make decisions based on the facts in front of them.

Judges will of course consider any representations put to them by the prosecution on behalf of victims and their families, but they must also take into account the safety of prison and court staff, the efficiency and fairness of proceedings and the risks that a disruptive or resistant offender may cause further distress to victims and delays to justice. Retaining judicial discretion in such cases is therefore crucial to ensure that courts can make decisions in the interests of justice, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, including those of victims and their families. I therefore urge the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Mullan]

I understand the Minister’s desire to ensure that all the things she listed remain the purview of the judge, which is why the amendment makes it clear that they will. Nothing about consultation removes the judge’s ability to decide the factors that they wish to consider, to hear representation from others and to take in mind the safety and wellbeing of court staff and other people in the court. A duty to consult is simply that: a duty to ensure that victims are taken into account.

I draw the Minister’s attention back to victim personal statements. Prior to them being a statutory requirement, people would have made the same arguments. Of course, the judge would have provided an opportunity to consider what victims had to say, but we were clear that such an opportunity was too important, and that we needed to ensure, on a statutory basis, that the victims and their families had the opportunity to say what they wanted about the impact of the crime. I do not think this is any different. A consultation provision would guarantee that victims have a voice as part of the process, while retaining judicial independence to make the ultimate decision whether someone attends a sentencing hearing.

The Opposition will not withdraw the amendment. We think this issue is important, and I cannot reasonably think that Members will be able to explain to their constituents why they did not want to guarantee that a judge would simply have a conversation with a victim or their family about whether someone should be compelled to attend a sentencing hearing.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Amendments 15 and 16 would change the circumstances in which force may be used to bring an offender to court. They would effectively extend those circumstances to situations in which disproportionate—but not grossly disproportionate—force is required to secure attendance.

Based on the debate we have had, it might be beneficial if I explain how the system currently works. The use of force by prison officers is currently justified, and therefore lawful, only if it is necessary, reasonable and proportionate. We are quite deliberately legislating to permit the use of lawful force, which is a test that is well understood and used throughout the criminal justice system. I remind hon. Members that the previous Government used the same test in their attempt to get this measure passed.

Prison and prisoner escort staff are trained to employ the lawful use of force and are experienced in making judgments about the circumstances in which the use of force is necessary, reasonable and proportionate. They are also trained in the use of existing approved techniques for moving reluctant or resistant prisoners safely around the prison and court estate. In recent cases, such as that of Nicholas Prosper, we have seen how they effectively employ the same techniques to restrain offenders and bring them to court to hear justice being done.

Clearly defined boundaries for the use of force, which are well understood by custody officers, ensure that escorting staff are not subject to unreasonable or unmitigated risks when bringing offenders to court. Where it is deemed unsafe or unreasonable to use force, prisons will discuss with courts how best to proceed. Where attendance is considered necessary, the court can consider making a direction for the offender to appear via live video link. That option is more manageable for the prison to enforce and minimises the potential for impactful disruption to proceedings, which can, as we have heard, lead to a spectacle in the court.

An offender who is deemed too violent or disruptive to attend court in person or by live link would, under these measures, be found in contempt of court and subject to a further prison sentence or other punishment. We are going further than the previous Government and ensuring that, where offenders do not take responsibility and face victims’ families, they are punished.

Offenders should not be forced to attend court if it would risk the safety of custody officers or court users, or disrupt proceedings, causing undue distress and further delay to victims and their families. Our measures strike the right balance in requiring that the use of force must be proportionate, reasonable and necessary, ensuring the safety of all court users and minimum disruption to court proceedings.

Amendment 23 would give judges the power to order a disruptive offender to be restrained and gagged in court during their sentencing hearing. It would also introduce a duty on the court to consult victims or their families before making a decision to have the offender removed from the hearing instead. The Government appreciate that an offender’s refusal to attend their sentencing hearing, or their disruptive behaviour during that hearing, can cause anger and upset for victims and their families, and we heard that during the evidence sessions. That is why the measures in the Bill reinforce the expectation that offenders should attend their sentencing hearings and behave appropriately in court. They give judges the powers they need to do what is right in each individual case.

Decisions on the use of restraints to manage offender behaviour are a matter for prison officers and prison escort staff. They will make decisions about the use of force depending on the circumstances of each individual case. The use of force must be reasonable, necessary and proportionate, and restrained prisoners must be brought to court using approved techniques in our prison system for moving individuals safely. Gagging prisoners is not an approved technique in our prison system and is unlikely to be considered a lawful use of force in these circumstances. Its use may in fact increase the risk of violence or disruption to the point where officers would have no choice but to remove the offender from court. Amendment 23 is therefore unlikely to achieve its intended outcomes.

We will not allow offenders to achieve the outcomes they intend of continuing to traumatise victims and families or disrupting proceedings, by not attending court or causing a circus or spectacle. Should a judge deem it necessary, the offender will be removed and the judge can add an additional sanction to punish them properly. Forcing disruptive prisoners to remain in court at any cost would jeopardise officer safety and delay proceedings and could cause unnecessary distress for victims and their families. Is that what the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle intends with his amendments? They are unlikely to achieve the intended objective of the Bill, which is to ensure that offenders face up to their crimes and hear the impact of their actions on victims and their families. A more productive and realistic approach would be to punish the offender for disobeying the order to attend their hearing and failing to show any respect for victims and their families or the court.

The measures in the Bill were produced in consultation with families; they asked for them and we listened. Our measures give judges the option to punish any adult offender who, following an attendance order, becomes disruptive in court and is removed from the hearing, by ordering up to two additional years in prison, an unlimited fine and/or the imposition of numerous potential prison sanctions. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle to withdraw his amendment because of the risk of unintended consequences and the prevention of justice for victims and their families.

[Dr Mullan]

I thank the Minister for her response. She says that judges will have the powers they need. As I think I clearly explained, those powers might be helpful in some circumstances, but for the very worst offenders—the kind that have been in the news and have caused us to think more clearly about this issue, in particular those on whole-life orders, for whom a sentence extension means nothing—

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I implore the hon. Gentleman, in his efforts to ensure that offenders face families and justice, to explain why none of the additional measures that he proposes were in the previous Government’s Bill.

[Dr Mullan]

As I have said very clearly, I am a shadow Justice Minister now, and the new shadow Secretary of State and I make justice policy. I am not afraid to go further than previous Governments, and I will not be restrained by what they did. I did not make those previous policies; it was not my decision how they were enacted. I am confident that the public will respond positively to our attempts to go even further on these measures.

As I was saying, the worst offenders, who are in our minds when we consider these offences—those on a whole-life order, for example—do not care about a custody extension because they cannot have one. They are never getting out of prison, so they are never paying a fine. The Minister listed examples of sanctions, which included not being able to watch TV or go to the gym. Do we really think those are the sorts of measures that will have hardened, violent criminals quaking in their boots? I do not think they are.

The Minister said the measures in the Bill were developed in consultation with victims. I have absolutely no doubt that victims will welcome them—the sanctions, prison time extensions and fines. They are all welcome sanctions and will be appropriate for a whole range of victims, but some of the very same victims that she consulted—I spoke to two of them—would also welcome a further strengthening of the measures. If all a criminal has to do to get out of being in court is make noise—that is literally the test we are putting before ourselves today—there will be very many of them who are happy to do that in order to ensure that they do not have to face the accountability of the system.

The Minister talked about what is legal now. We are legislating—we are making the law—so it is up to us what is legal. We can make the decision that something is legal. I have given a concrete example of another jurisdiction where the sort of restraint that we propose is used successfully—it has not been tried and found not to work; it is used successfully. There is absolutely no reason not to assume that we can make it a success in certain situations in this country.

Our amendment 23 would not compel the judge to act—there is no compulsion. The judge would remain able to decide, but they would be given the clear power to act in this way if they think it is appropriate in all the circumstances. I am confident in the validity of the amendment and the positive impact it would have on victims and family members who were willing to see it used and felt that the potential disruption to the court proceedings was a price worth paying.

As the HMPPS staff member and the police officer we heard evidence from attested to, such a change in policy would take training and resource. Of course, we would expect the Government to develop training in support of the enactment of the measure. A lack of such training right now is no reason not to make the power available to judges.

I am conscious of the time, and the fact that we might wish to push this measure to a vote at a further stage, so I will not seek a Division today. However, we remain convinced of the legitimacy of this measure and will ensure that it is voted on at a later stage so that the public can understand which side Government Members are on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I just want to say a few words about the provisions in this Bill on attending sentencing hearings and related prison sanctions, because this issue is incredibly personal to me. I do not think we would be sitting in this Committee today, with this Bill in our hands, without my constituents Cheryl Korbel and Antonia Elverson, who have fought hard to make this happen.

Many of us will know Cheryl’s story: just quickly, for the record, her nine-year-old daughter, Olivia Pratt-Korbel, was tragically shot and killed in their own home in 2022. As if that was not horrific enough, the man who killed her, Thomas Cashman, did not turn up to court and did not attend that sentencing hearing, which meant that Cheryl did not get to read her victim impact statement out to him. There was confusion at the court; she did not know what was happening, and it came very late in the day. This has been a source of pain, because she felt out of control and that she had a lack of agency.

In my first surgery, Antonia and Cheryl came in and told me about their case, and I have had the pleasure and the privilege of supporting them. I want to thank the Government and put on record today that I have been in every meeting with them, with the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and this Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd. That was not just consultation; it was Antonia and Cheryl’s suggestion about sanctions and attending the sentencing hearing that put this measure in the Bill. I thank the Government for listening to and acting for people. I know that there were other families on the frontline who were listened to as well.

This measure is because of those family members, and I pay tribute to them. This is what a Government can do when they really listen to people and act in that reality. That is why we have this Bill today.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful speech. I place on the record my thanks to her and her constituents for all of the brilliant work that they have done in ensuring this measure becomes law, and to ensure that no other families have to face what her constituents and, sadly, many other families have had to face.

I will speak to both clauses 1 and 2 at the same time, as they are very much linked. In recent years, as we have heard, several murderers—most recently Lucy Letby and Kyle Clifford—have refused to attend their sentencing hearings. That causes victims’ families significant further distress. It can be seen as a final insult, denying the families the opportunity to see the full administration of justice for their loved ones and allowing offenders to avoid having to hear and confront the consequences of their horrific crimes. The provisions in clause 1 and 2 recognise the impact that such behaviour has on victims and their families in compounding their trauma.

Clause 1 inserts proposed new sections 41A and 41B into a new chapter 2A within part 3 of the Sentencing Act 2020. Proposed new section 41A introduces an express statutory power for the Crown court to order an offender to attend their sentencing hearing. It makes clear that an offender who refuses to attend their hearing without reasonable excuse commits a contempt of court, meaning that adult offenders are liable for an additional two years’ custody and/or an unlimited fine, or, in the case of a child offender, a maximum penalty of £2,500. That also applies to offenders who, following an order to attend, commit contempt by misbehaving or disrupting the proceedings and are removed as a result.

Proposed new section 41A makes it clear that, for adult offenders, reasonable force, where necessary and proportionate, can be used to give effect to the court’s order to deliver them for their sentencing hearing. The final decision on whether to use reasonable force will remain with the prison and escorting staff. Children will not be subject to reasonable force for this purpose, in line with existing policy.

The second part of clause 1, proposed new section 41B, goes further than ever before by introducing a new power for Crown court judges also to impose prison sanctions on any adult offender who is subject to an attendance order and commits a contempt of court by refusing, without reasonable excuse, to attend their sentencing hearing, or who attends, but is removed from the hearing because of their conduct. That can be instead of or alongside any other punishment imposed by the court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

Does the Minister accept that, unamended, this measure will simply require an offender to make a lot of noise in order to get out of all the things that she is saying about them actually being at the hearing? Sanctions are there, but in terms of them actually being at the hearing, all they will have to do is make some noise.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome that intervention, but I disagree with the hon. Member. We have seen most recently cases in which offenders have been brought to court despite their reluctance. The prison officers and court staff have been able to get them there with the use of reasonable force. Then they have started to disrupt proceedings, but once the judge has explained to them some of the measures that are available currently—not these sanctions, because we have not yet made this law, but those measures that are currently available—that has resulted in the sentencing hearing being allowed to go ahead. What the hon. Member says is not always the case.

[Dr Mullan]

I absolutely accept that it will not always be the case, but does the Minister accept that some people will not be bothered by those measures and will be able simply to use noise to escape accountability?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

We need to be careful on what we deem as noise. If, as we have heard in the Committee’s evidence sessions, an offender is beginning to make the sentencing hearing a spectacle or a circus and that is causing more distress to the victims and their families and preventing the course of justice, the judge will have the power to remove the offender from the court. However, with our new measures, the judge will have the power to impose these sanctions on them in prison, issue the unlimited fine and impose more time in prison. That will still be a measure even if they attend, cause a spectacle and have to be removed. They will be punished, and that will be explained to them if they continue to carry on.

I go back to the Armed Forces Act and the effect that these new measures will also have on service courts, because that is important. We need to remember that justice is done in a number of courts in our country and not just in the Crown court. Offenders before service courts who commit a contempt are liable for a fine or 28 days’ service custody—or, alternatively, the offence may be considered by a civilian court for the purposes of contempt of court proceedings. Where an offender is ordered to attend a service court from prison, but fails to do so or—as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle said—attends, but is removed from the hearing because of their conduct, they may similarly receive a prison sanctions order.

I recognise that these provisions may not guarantee that every offender will attend their sentencing hearing when so ordered or that they will not create a spectacle during the sentencing hearing. However, these measures reinforce the expectation that offenders should attend their sentencing hearing and behave appropriately. We need to ensure that justice is seen to be done by victims, their families and the wider public, to create trust in our justice system. The measures will ensure that offenders are appropriately punished for failing to do that. Judges will retain the discretion to make decisions based on the facts of the case in front of them. I therefore urge that clauses 1 and 2 stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Power to compel attendance at sentencing hearing: armed forces

Amendment proposed: 14, in clause 2, page 4, line 11, at end insert—

“(3A) If the court is minded not to make an order under subsection (2), the court has a duty to consult the victim and their family if they are deceased.”—(Dr Mullan.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments: amendment 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato); amendments 17 and 18, tabled by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle; amendment 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde); and new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove.

Amendments 17 and 24 seek to remove the four-year custodial threshold for the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility. The restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility is a serious and far-reaching measure. It must be applied with care and in a manner that is a legally robust, while also protecting the most vulnerable. The requirement for a four-year custodial sentence provides a defined marker of seriousness.

This thresholds aligns with existing sentencing frameworks. Section 244ZA and schedule 15 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 specify a list of serious offences, including child sexual offences, that are considered serious enough to warrant that the offender must serve at least two thirds of their sentence in custody, rather than the standard half when they are sentenced. The amendment would lower this threshold and require the Crown court to make the prohibited steps order when the offender is sentenced for any period of imprisonment or detention.

I want to be clear that any offence against a child is unacceptable and one of the most heinous crimes in society. Restricting the exercise of parental responsibility is a serious step and not a decision to be taken lightly. That predetermined marker of seriousness ensures that any order made by the Crown court happens automatically only where the offender has committed serious and grave offences against a child who they are supposed to look after.

[Dr Mullan]

The Minister has a wealth of colleagues around her who are covering these issues, including—as I understand it—the Home Office Minister responsible for safeguarding, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). What does this Minister say to the Home Office Minister about her previous position that a provision of the kind that the Government have drafted was too narrow? Has this Minister spoken to her colleague about that, and does her colleague personally agree with the measure as currently drafted by the Government?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The hon. Gentleman will know, having been in Government before the election, how Government collective responsibility and consultation with other Government Departments work. The safeguarding Minister and I are responsible for the Government’s strategy on violence against women and girls, which commits to halving it within a decade. Of course, the family courts are playing an integral role in that, and we seek to build on it. I will talk more about that shortly. Where we need to go further, this Government will.

We have used the statutory framework because it reflects the Government’s view that the offences are exceptionally serious. It is therefore appropriate that the same threshold be used to determine when an automatic restriction on the exercise of parental responsibility should apply. I understand and appreciate the rationale but, because there are existing processes to seek the restriction of parental responsibility, it is essential that there is a threshold and a clear marker for it to happen automatically.

[Alex Brewer]

There are mechanisms in place, but they put undue onus on the non-offending parent. Does the Minister agree that the onus should be shifted to the offending parent?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I agree that the current situation in the family courts is difficult, and it can be traumatic for parents who are seeking to have a parental order removed. That is why we have taken the measure in the Bill. It is a new approach, through which we seek to remove parental responsibility on automatic conviction in the Crown court. As I said in oral evidence, this is not something we do lightly, but we feel that it is necessary in order to protect offenders’ and perpetrators’ own children from the most serious offences. I am happy to work with the hon. Member for North East Hampshire to consider what further work we can do to reform the family courts. The Department is working closely on that, and we know we need to get it right in order to protect all children from these crimes, whether or not restrictions to parental responsibility are sought via the family courts or automatically, with this measure, in the Crown court.

Amendments 18, 24 and 8 seek to expand the circumstances in which the Crown court should make a prohibited steps order to include cases in which the offences were committed against any child. Again, it is important to be clear that child sexual abuse is an abhorrent crime that leaves a lasting impact on victims and their families. Those affected have my deepest sympathies, and it is they who we must have in our minds when we debate the measure.

The current provision is carefully targeted. It ensures that automatic restrictions on the exercise of parental responsibility apply only when there is a direct and recognised relationship between the offender and the child victims. Our focus on offenders who have committed a serious child sexual abuse offence against a child for whom they hold parental responsibility is based on a desire to tackle the cases involving child sexual abuse with the highest direct harm to the perpetrator’s children. This is, as I have already said, a novel and untested change to the law, and the response from perpetrators is unpredictable. We know that perpetrators often seek to use the family courts, as we have already heard, to further traumatise victims, and they could therefore seek to appeal the removal of responsibility.

[Caroline Voaden]

Does the Minister agree that somebody who has been convicted of a serious child sexual offence against a child for whom they do not have parental responsibility still poses a danger to their own child?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I agree with that point. It is important that we recognise, as I have stated, that there are other measures to remove a person’s parental responsibility for their own child through the family courts. I stress that this is a novel approach. We need to look at the justice system as a whole; we cannot consider our various courts in isolation. The measure being carried out in the Crown court could make an impact on the delays that exist in the family courts, thanks to the backlog that we inherited from the previous Government. I do not wish to exacerbate that, or to traumatise any other children and families who are going through the family courts, by further increasing that backlog. For that reason, we wish to keep the measure quite small and novel, as it is untested at present; however, once we have seen how it works, there is the possibility perhaps to go further in the future.

[Dr Mullan]

We all recognise that this is a novel measure. I do not think that anyone is suggesting introducing a blanket measure. For example, we have used the custodial threshold as a narrowing measure and the Liberal Democrats have used a serious sexual offence as a narrowing measure. The Minister is talking about the balance that needs to be struck, but surely the balance is not being struck correctly when the decision is that only a child for whom someone has parental responsibility brings this measure into scope. Surely that is not the right balance, despite the weighing exercise that I appreciate the Minister has to undertake.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It is important to note that a line does need to be drawn, as the hon. Member has recognised; there does have to be a balance. In the previous Government’s version of the Bill, there was a different threshold, which was child rape of any child. We have changed that.; in this version, the measure is any child sexual offence where there is four years or more in custody, but only of the offender’s own child. As a Government, we have determined that as the necessary threshold. That is different from the previous Government’s threshold, which was only child rape. I think that recognises the difficulty in drawing a balance here.

We need to take a more limited approach for the time being, especially initially, to ensure that, as I have already said, the family court is not overwhelmed by endless appeals from perpetrators causing even more traumatisation to victims, and especially children. This is essential so that other victims and families with cases in the family court are not detrimentally impacted.

Our intention with clause 3 is to tackle the cases with the highest direct harm to the perpetrator’s children. That is why we have chosen to focus the measure in the way that we have. It is important that we properly understand the impact any additional family court proceedings will have on the children and families involved. The cohort in scope of this measure is at the highest risk of immediate harm from the perpetrator, which is why we have chosen to focus on that cohort. This does not prevent an application being made to the family court for parental responsibility to be restricted in other circumstances, as is already available.

Amendment 8 suggests using the Crown court to gather evidence on the best interests of the child and the level of risk the offender poses to the child. Doing so would place a significant new burden on the criminal court, meaning less capacity to hear criminal cases and even longer waiting times for those seeking justice. The proper forum for that consideration to happen is the family court, where the judge can hear from all relevant professionals and have access to any necessary reports before making a decision that will always be based on the best interests of the children involved.

We are already going further than the previous Government did with their Criminal Justice Bill. Those proposals were limited to child rape; our measure includes not only child rape, but a broader range of child sexual offences. Most important of all, the previous Government talked of change, but failed to deliver. We will deliver this change to protect children. We all have a huge amount of sympathy for families in these circumstances, and I want to do all we can to support them in getting the right outcome for their children.

New clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, seeks to expand the instances where the Crown court will be under a duty to restrict the exercise of a perpetrator’s parental responsibility at the point they are sentenced to 10 years or more for a serious sexual offence or violent offence committed against someone with whom they share parental responsibility for the child.

I reassure the hon. Member that there are already clear powers in the family court to restrict parental responsibility where it would be in the best interests of the children involved. If a parent or other interested party wishes to make an application, they can do so. Where relevant, the family court is able to and will remove parental responsibility or restrict it to the point that it cannot be exercised in any meaningful way.

The existing law is clear that in every case, the court’s paramount consideration must be what will be in the best interests of the child. We cannot rule out that sometimes it may not be in the child’s best interests for parental responsibility to be removed or restricted, particularly where the child is not the direct victim of the offence. However, as the Lord Chancellor and I have said, we look forward to working constructively across the House on this measure. While we cannot support new clause 13, we remain committed to ensuring that the law robustly protects children. I reassure hon. Members that the Government will continue to work to strike the right balance on this issue.

For the reasons I have outlined, I urge hon. Members to withdraw their amendments so that we can continue to develop this important legislation in a way that is principled and practical and gets the balance right for children.

[Alex Brewer]

I thank the Minister for her comments. While I understand that this is a novel approach and I welcome the measures in the Bill as a first step, we believe that they do not go far enough and still leave children at risk.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Brewer]

I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 3, page 6, line 19, after “justice” insert—

“or of a child and the non-offending parent”.

This amendment would mean that a judge could have discretion to decide not to make a prohibited steps order when it was not deemed in the interest of a child and the non-offending parent.

This is a small amendment that would continue to put children at the heart of this Bill. There are times when a court should not make a prohibited steps order in relation to a child. In the evidence session, we heard from many charities that children are not sufficiently heard as victims of crimes, and that their voices are not carried forward. We would like to include a small amendment that would put children and the non-offending parent at the heart of that decision making in the courts.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Amendment 25 was tabled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, for whom I have much respect, and seeks to amend clause 3 to allow the Crown court discretion not to make a prohibited steps order in cases where it considers such an order not to be in the best interests of the child or the non-offending parent. Let me begin by acknowledging the intent behind this amendment. It is of course right that we consider the welfare of children and the rights of non-offending parents in all decisions made by the court. However, the Government cannot support this amendment for several reasons.

The clause as drafted already strikes a careful and considered balance between protecting children and respecting judicial oversight. We have included a narrowly defined exemption to allow the Crown court the flexibility not to make a prohibited steps order, which is a section 8 order under the Children Act 1989, where it would not be in the interests of justice to do so. That provision is intended to cover exceptional circumstances where the Crown court does not consider it to be in the interests of justice, which may arise from unusual facts or a case that is particularly complex. It ensures a degree of flexibility without undermining the core safeguarding purpose of the provision in the Bill.

The family court is the appropriate forum for determining what would be in the best interests of children and navigating the complexities of individual family circumstances. It is uniquely equipped to consider the full facts of each individual case, drawing on the expertise of all relevant professionals and supported by any necessary reports. That enables the judge to make a fully informed decision, one that is always guided by the paramount principle of the child’s best interests. The Crown court simply is not equipped to carry out that detailed consideration.

Legislation already provides a route for family members to bring an application to the family court, so it can consider whether the order should be varied or discharged and whether a more tailored order or other family court orders are required, and ensure that any order is consistent with the best interests of the child or children involved in the individual circumstances. This avenue is still open for families where the Crown court has made an order under the provisions of clause 4.

Alongside that existing route into the family court, we are also providing a clear new route in certain circumstances. If the offender is acquitted of the relevant offence, or their sentence is reduced to less than four years—I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify this point, because it was raised when I gave evidence to the Committee—the local authority is under a duty to bring the matter back before the family court. This ensures that decisions remain responsive to the best interests of the child, without compromising the initial safeguarding intent of the judge. The Government are committed to ensuring that the justice system protects children from further harm from such offenders. The provisions in clause 3 are a vital part of that commitment.

I also place on record the Government’s commitment to consulting on a new victims’ code, specifically with the intention of addressing concerns, raised by the hon. Member for North East Hampshire, regarding how we can ensure that child victims are at the centre of the justice system. As she has said, for the first time ever, children are considered victims in their own right for crimes such as domestic abuse, in law; but, as we know, in practice that sadly is not the reality for many child victims. Therefore this Government are determined to go further. Under our new consultation on the victims’ code, which we are hoping to launch later this year, we will make it a key focus to ensure that the code works for all victims, with a particular focus on children in mind.

I understand the reasons why the hon. Member for Eastbourne has tabled this amendment, but I hope that he and the hon. Member for North East Hampshire are reassured that there are already strong provisions in place to ensure that the family court can consider the interests of the children involved in these types of cases, and their families. As such, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw amendment 25.

[Alex Brewer]

I thank the Minister for her assurances. As with our previous amendment, I look forward to working with her on improving the family court. However, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, women’s and children’s charities, and victims strongly urged us all to ensure that children and non-offending parents are at the heart of the criminal justice system, so I believe that this is an important amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 3, page 6, line 20, leave out from “not” to end of line 25 and insert

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

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

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

I will keep my remarks brief. As we have said, these measures require balance and consideration for all parties concerned. We were surprised that the Government’s proposed measure would not cause a prohibited steps orders to automatically fall away if someone is acquitted of an offence. It might seem obvious to say this, but if someone is acquitted of an offence, they are innocent. They have not done anything in the eyes of the law, so I struggle to see why we would continue to insist that, if they are subject to a prohibited steps order, the onus is on them to get it removed.

On the other side of things, if a prohibited steps order is in place and has not been challenged, and someone remains guilty but is on a lesser sentence, the balance falls in the other direction and it should remain in place. Although she may tell me that this was our position in government too, I am interested in hearing from the Minister why the Government do not feel that it is appropriate for such an order to be removed if someone is acquitted.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The amendment seeks to amend the process in clause 3 if an offender has been acquitted or had their sentence reduced on appeal. The Bill provides a clear route for considering a prohibited steps order following an appeal that has resulted in an acquittal or a reduction in the offender’s sentence. In such cases, the relevant local authority will be under a duty to bring an application to the family court to consider whether the original order should be upheld, varied or discharged.

The drafting of the amendment is deficient and risks creating confusion. It would provide that any prohibited steps order made under proposed new section 10C of the Children Act 1989 would cease to have effect where a person is acquitted, effectively discharging the order. In practice, there would be no order in place to discharge the original prohibited steps order, and therefore no documentary evidence that the order had been discharged. Compounding that, the amendment would retain an obligation for the relevant local authority to make an application to the family court to consider the prohibited steps order, under proposed new section 10D(2), and yet there would be no order for the family court to consider, because it would have ceased to have effect.

In short, the amendment would not make sense in practice and would risk creating confusion in a context where clarity is particularly important.

[Dr Mullan]

I thank the Minister for that feedback. Perhaps we need to consider how the amendment is drafted, but does she accept the principle? There is no other example I can think of where someone is acquitted of an offence, because they are innocent, but they remain subject to any provisions whatever that were related to the conviction. Perhaps the amendment needs to be redrafted, but surely the Minister agrees in principle that someone should not be subjected to a consequence of a conviction that has been overturned.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

We need to remember that for a criminal case to have been brought, the child or another party will have made an allegation of serious sexual abuse committed against that child, and that will have been followed by criminal proceedings and an initial guilty verdict. The relationship between the child and the accused parent may have completely broken down during that process. When the family court reviews the case, the judge will undertake a holistic review of all the circumstances, including the acquittal, before deciding what is in the best interests of the child.

We must also remember that the prohibited steps order does not form part of the sentence when it is made by the Crown court. The order is not part of the punishment, or an additional punishment, for an offender; it is a tool to protect children who have been the victims of a dreadful crime, and their families. Even where the individual is acquitted—I have huge sympathy for those who are found innocent and acquitted—it is likely that the case will have gone through lengthy proceedings, and complex family dynamics will be involved. We must keep in mind the overarching aim of protecting children and doing what is best for them. That is why the order will not be automatically discharged following a successful appeal.

I think it is important that if there is a successful appeal, there is a clearly defined process during which the best interests of the children involved are considered, which is why we have put that measure in place. We understand that following a successful appeal, it is important that decisions about a prohibited steps order are made quickly. That is why the process already included in clause 3 requires the local authority to make the application within 30 days of the acquittal. By placing the duty to make the application on the local authority, we are reducing the burden on the families involved, at what will already be a difficult and potentially traumatic time. Moving the proceedings to the family court centres deliberations in the correct forum. The family court will consider whether varying, discharging or, indeed, upholding the order will be in the best interests of the children involved, which I am sure we can agree is what we all want.

[Mike Wood]

I am struggling to understand either the legal or the ethical distinction that says that someone who is acquitted at trial should be in a fundamentally different position from someone who is acquitted following an appeal and has their conviction overturned. Surely the practical results should be the same. In every other part of the criminal justice process that I have encountered, they are.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

That goes to the heart of why we have kept these measures as niche and tight as possible—because they are quite novel. We are restricting parental responsibility where an offender has been found guilty in a Crown court, with a jury and a judge, of any sexual offence against their own child for which they will be sentenced to four years or more in prison. That is incredibly traumatic for the child and family involved. The person will have already been found guilty. This is not similar to cases in which someone is acquitted and a prohibited steps order can be removed immediately. We have to consider the impact on the child. These are offences that the perpetrator will have been found guilty of, in a court of law, against their own child.

[Mike Wood]

As the Minister will be aware, where the Court of Appeal overturns a criminal conviction for a serious offence such as this, it will generally be because there was a serious flaw in the original trial that has left it invalid. Even in those circumstances, the Court of Appeal may grant a retrial rather than overturning the conviction. I understand the point the Minister is making about the trauma to the family and child, but would that not apply equally to someone who is acquitted at the original trial, in which case should the court not also be considering it in the event of a not guilty verdict? I really am struggling to understand why a conviction being overturned on appeal is substantively different from a not guilty verdict.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will happily answer that point. We are not saying that we would not remove the prohibited steps order; of course there will be a route to remove it. If the offender or alleged perpetrator is then acquitted through the Court of Appeal, there should always be a route to do that, and there will be within 30 days. However, the correct route for doing that is the family court, which will have all the reports available to determine the best interests of that child’s welfare, given everything they have been through, rather than the Crown court, which is not equipped to make that assessment.

[Dr Mullan]

Can the Minister give me any other example in our legal system where someone who has suffered a consequence directly as a result of a conviction that is then overturned is required to take further steps to unpick a consequence that flows from that overturned conviction? I cannot think of any. If someone is exonerated, everything falls away. This measure is specifically linked to someone being found guilty; if they are then essentially found not guilty, they will have to take further steps. Nobody else who is essentially found innocent has to do other things to get things removed from them.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The shadow Minister cannot think of any and, off the top of my head, stood here right now, I cannot think of any either, but that goes to the heart of the reason why we need to keep these novel measures quite tight—it is because of their potential impact. Primarily, my interest, and the interest of the Government, is to protect children and child victims, and I put my faith in the family court system to do what is in the best interest of the child following an acquittal, given everything that that child—that victim—has been through. We must remember that if the perpetrator is acquitted in the Court of Appeal, there is still a child victim and a crime that has been committed against that child.

[Dr Mullan]

With respect, there is not a victim. The person has been acquitted, and there is not a child that has suffered anything, any more than if the person was found not guilty in the first place. I respect the Minister’s comments on how the amendment might be better drafted, but the Government have to accept that they are introducing an extremely unusual interpretation of what happens to someone when they are found not guilty, compared with every other bit of the justice system that I am aware of. Someone who is found not guilty is innocent; the court has decided that the accusation made did not transpire.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

That is exactly why we have included a route to remove the prohibited steps order, and we feel the appropriate route for that is the family court. That is the measure in the Bill, and it still stands that that is the safest route to protect the welfare of the child in the circumstances, given what—I was going to say, “I can only imagine”, but I cannot even imagine it—will be an immensely traumatising and awful experience for everyone involved. For that reason, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Mullan]

The Minister made heroic efforts to explain the logic and context of how we ordinarily deal with these matters. We think the prohibited steps orders are an important enhancement for the safeguarding of children, but I cannot imagine a scenario, even in circumstances in which the offence has not been found proven, in which the children the Minister talks about will not have had the involvement of social services and other steps taken to ensure their wellbeing more generally.

This measure is specifically about parental responsibility, and I find it difficult to understand why the Government are setting a precedent that an innocent party should be required to take further steps to unpick a consequence that flows specifically from their conviction. I appreciate the feedback on the drafting of the amendment, and I will not press it to a vote, but the Government need to think very carefully about the precedent they are setting in relation to what happens to innocent people. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Samantha Dixon.)

Marriage between First Cousins

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) for securing this important debate and commend him for all his brilliant work to support women, in the previous Parliament and going forward. I know that he feels strongly about this issue and, as he said, has introduced a private Member’s Bill on the subject. It goes without saying that it is a sensitive and complex issue, which requires nuance and respect. I thank him for the way he presented his arguments today.

It is important first to understand the current law around marriage. In England and Wales, marriage law is governed primarily by the Marriage Act 1949, which outlines the conditions under which a marriage is considered void, meaning not legally valid. That includes situations where one party is under 18 or where one party is serving a whole-life order in prison. Under the Act, marriages between individuals who are considered too closely related are also considered void. Those relationships fall within so-called prohibited degrees of relationship, which include close blood relations, such as siblings, and certain step relations, such as someone marrying the child of a former spouse.

As we all know, the prohibited degrees of relationship in the 1949 Act do not include first cousins. To understand why that exception exists, it is helpful to consider the context. As the right hon. Member mentioned when he introduced his Bill and in his speech today, marriage between first cousins has been permitted since Henry VIII changed the law in order to marry Anne Boleyn’s cousin, Catherine Howard.

The list of relationships that are legally too close for marriage—prohibited degrees—has been around for centuries. It was first officially written into law in the Marriage Act 1835. It was updated by various laws passed between 1907 and 1931, and was eventually brought together into the 1949 Act. The law has continued to evolve since then; for example, the Children Act 1975 added a prohibition on marriages between adoptive parents and their adopted children.

There have been studies that seem to reinforce our anecdotal understanding that individuals from communities are increasingly moving away from traditional practices and opting for relationships outside their extended families. This shift reflects a broader trend of integration into wider society, alongside awareness of certain health and societal implications that are associated, as the right hon. Member mentioned, with cousin marriage.

Let me address the right hon. Member’s concerns about those health risks, and specifically the risk of congenital disease in children. There is a continued debate about the genetic risks involved in first cousin marriages. As my noble Friend Baroness Merron highlighted in the other place earlier this year, the NHS offers support for families who may be at higher risk of genetic abnormalities. The Government also understand the importance of having better data in this area, which is why the National Congenital Anomaly and Rare Disease Registration Service collects and analyses data to support doctors, charities and policymakers to improve treatments and care in England. NHS England has also recently published guidance to improve recording of national data on closely related couples.

I listened carefully to the right hon. Member’s argument that banning first cousin marriage could promote community integration. We recognise that the practice is permitted in some faith communities, while it is not permitted in others. As I have said, this is a complex and sensitive area of law, and I am happy to continue to engage with him on it as the Government consider the issue more broadly.

The right hon. Member also suggested that banning first cousin marriage could help to reduce forced marriages. Let me be absolutely clear: forced marriage is a serious human rights violation. It is illegal and carries a maximum prison sentence of up to seven years. It is a complex form of honour or culture-based abuse, and our response must be comprehensive, with a focus on preventing such crimes, on supporting and protecting survivors and those at risk, and on bringing perpetrators to justice.

Tackling forced marriage is a key part of the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. The forced marriage unit, which is a joint effort between the Home Office and the Foreign Office, works tirelessly to combat forced marriage, both at home and abroad. The unit provides a vital range of materials, including free e-learning. Last year alone, over 5,800 professionals, such as registrars, completed that training. A new forced marriage resource pack has also been launched to help raise awareness of forced marriage among professionals.

I recognise that there is a lot of interest across the House in bringing forward a number of changes to weddings law more generally. I know that many Members are keen to see changes brought forward quickly, but it is important that any such changes are made in the round. Just last week, during a debate on humanist marriage, I explained to a packed Westminster Hall that it is not possible for the Government simply to ignore the Law Commission’s 2022 report. We cannot ignore the fact that that report identified a number of complex and significant issues within the current legal framework.

[Mr Holden]

May I take the Minister back to a point she made about forced marriage? I understand her commitment, and that of the Government, on this issue, but surely she must recognise that when we are looking at a rate of first cousin marriages of between one in 200 and one in 500 in normal society, but a rate of one in two in certain communities, real questions must be asked. How can anybody in those communities really speak out about that issue and the concerns around forced marriage? It is so clear that the family ties are so strong, generation after generation, that they make it almost impossible for people to come forward.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I totally agree with the right hon. Member. He makes a very powerful point, which speaks to why we need to look at this issue very carefully. With certain groups engaging in this practice, we cannot just have a knee-jerk reaction; he mentioned that in his speech. Others are calling for me to have a knee-jerk reaction on humanist weddings, for example, and to just quickly lay a statutory instrument to make that change possible. I am not about creating piecemeal legislation in an area that is very complex.

I want to reassure the right hon. Member that the Government are not ignoring this issue. We are considering it deeply and in the round, but it is responsible of us to consider it carefully and with the appropriate communities, which he mentioned, so that we get a full picture of the situation.

That brings me to the central proposal in this debate, which is to ban first cousin marriage. It is worth noting that during the past 14 years, when the prevalence of first cousin marriage was higher than it is now, the previous Government, in which the right hon. Member was a Minister, took no steps to introduce a ban. As I have said, first cousin marriage is complex and sensitive, and this Government are considering it with the seriousness that it rightly deserves.

The right hon. Member will also be aware that in 2022, when the Law Commission published its comprehensive review of weddings law, the previous Government had ample opportunity to raise the issue of first cousin marriage in response to that report, but they chose not to respond at all. In the report, the Law Commission set out a number of issues with marriage law, including inconsistency and unfairness across different groups and faith communities. We are considering the report and the wider issues of weddings law, including first cousin marriage, and I want to put that on record today.

My officials are working hard on weddings law reform, as am I, and an update from the Government on our position will come very soon. I am happy to continue to engage with the right hon. Member and any other Members or those outside this place who want to discuss this matter further as we prepare our plan for weddings reform.

Question put and agreed to.

Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Mullan]

Q Finally, one welcome measure in the Bill flips around the concept of where offenders can go and where victims are protected from seeing them, because it should be the offenders that we restrict. We should restrict their mobility so that victims can know that as long as they are not in certain places they will not run into offenders. Your organisations have probably called for that in the past. I am interested in your perspective on how important that will be for victims. Suky, would you like to start?

Suky Bhaker: It is paramount that victims themselves should not feel that they are the ones being restricted by restraining orders. Often our service users tell us that exactly that happens and that the exclusion zones are not broad enough. Without knowing where the perpetrator is or making the zones wide enough, the victims themselves end up being the ones who feel imprisoned and restricted: they do not know where it is safe to go, because they do not know where the offender will be. Those exclusion zones definitely need to be made wider.

Andrea Simon: We also need to think about the practicalities and who will actually ensure that the exclusion zones are adhered to and monitored, and that actions are taken if there are breaches. That is in the broader scope of how we resource probation and policing to make sure that victims can feel reassured that these measures will result in their safety. That is absolutely vital.

Farah Nazeer: We often see orders that just do not make any sense—for example, where a perpetrator and a victim work in quite close proximity and that has not been taken into account, and where children go to school and so on. There needs to be a victim-centred approach when it comes to thinking about the exclusions and where a perpetrator can be. It is a really important principle and a good principle to have, but what we need is the training, the thought and the care that sits behind that, and also the enforcement.

Even the orders issued currently are broken on a regular basis and there are not the resources to address that. It is one thing to set this in motion and put it in place, but how it works on the ground is something that the Committee should really consider when it comes to statutory services’ ability to deliver to the aspirations and ambitions of the Bill, and equally the ability of services on the ground to support victims through varying processes.

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

Q Thank you for giving evidence today. Can I take you back to the restriction of parental responsibility? Farah, you mentioned the impact that issues around parental responsibility are having, particularly on domestic abuse victims and children. Our measure in the Bill is quite tight. We have kept it tight because this is a novel approach, so it is restricted to the criminal court element, rather than the family court element.

You said that you welcome the provision and that you want it to be extended further. Can you talk about how the family courts are used in this way at the moment? Obviously, perpetrators and offenders will be able to appeal from the criminal court to the family court. What impact will it have if large swathes of them choose to appeal? That is why we have chosen to keep it quite tight.

Farah Nazeer: From our perspective, the victims we work with—women going through the family courts—see the family courts as a place of further perpetration and trauma, and an instrument of post-separation abuse. They are cross-examined, not believed and made to justify every single aspect of their lives. Although children should be recognised as victims of domestic abuse in their own right, they are often not, and the perpetrator’s rights are put above those of the children, which leads to dire consequences.

It is an astonishing omission that this Bill does not consider the family courts, because they need to be absolutely central. We feel that the Bill currently prioritises justice through a societal lens, but not healing and moving on for the actual victims through the family court, which is the court that the vast majority of victims engage with and causes them the most harm.

It is incredibly important that the Committee considers the implications in the context of the family court setting. No policy area that Women’s Aid works on is a picnic, but this is the worst of all policy areas because we see the instruments of justice being weaponised to harm survivors. We see children harmed all the time, and dying as a result of unsafe contact. If anybody who has been involved in the process were to read the transcript, they would think, “Why on earth would this happen? Why on earth would anyone do this?” It is absolutely astonishing, but it happens day in, day out. This would be a completely lost opportunity if this issue were not considered really carefully as part of this Bill.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Thank you. That is really important.

I want to take you on to the victim helpline and the victim contact scheme. Suky, the Bill will for the first time ever bring victims of stalking and harassment into the victim contact scheme, regardless of sentence. What difference will that make to victims and survivors? Could you outline the importance to victims of being able to access timely communication?

Suky Bhaker: For victims of stalking, the crime is about fixation and obsession, so we are often looking at repeat offences and breaches. Receiving timely information about what is happening to the offender through the helpline and the victim contact scheme is essential, because it is a safety mechanism—it is a risk-assessing tool that lets the victim know how they can keep themselves safe—so it is really pivotal that the scope is increased.

Perpetrators of stalking get sentences of about 14 months on average, and many fall under one year, so it is really important that the scheme covers them. Of course, that does not address the systemic issue of whether that is the right sentencing, but it is at least a mechanism whereby victims can receive that information so that they can carry out safety planning and risk management.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Do any of you want to comment on the importance of the victim notification scheme?

Andrea Simon: Although we think it is a step in the right direction—we recognise that the Government have good intentions to extend the victim contact scheme—we think, on the eligibility and scope, that not all victims and survivors of violence against women and girls will be covered. We are not entirely reassured by how viable the helpline will be for many victims. With the helpline, in particular, the onus is on the victim to get in touch and make contact. The responsibility is not on, say, the probation system to inform victims of what is happening. We believe the correct reading of article 56b of the Istanbul convention, which talks about measures of protection, is that the state should actively inform victims when a perpetrator is to be released. People should not have to proactively reach out in order to get that information through a helpline, which we know will be utilised by some, but not in every case.

We also have concerns when it comes to survivor participation and licence conditions for perpetrators, because some survivors only have access to the helpline and potentially do not have the same level of entitlement as those under the victim contact scheme. We would like some clarity about how, when incorrect information is held or there are changes in circumstances, victim-survivors will be able to provide that information and how it can be fed through into the management of perpetrators. There is a slight lack of clarity about who will be informed and where that information will go, and I just think we have to be really clear in the public communications about the helpline, and about the victim contact scheme in general, to make sure that the public understand it, are aware of it and know how to take it up.

We are also keen to see these measures interact with the sentencing review recommendations and what is forthcoming. Of course, one review recommendation that the Government have taken up is to have the domestic abuse flag as an identifier, which is very welcome, but we would like to see the victim contact scheme essentially extended to everybody, because we know that domestic abuse offences are quite often not flagged up. The flag will help in the future, but not every index offence involves coercive control—for example, it might be criminal damage or some other kind of assault. We are worried about people who will not be able to access the information or access the scheme, so we think it should be extended more widely so that there are not gaps that people can fall through.

Farah Nazeer: I agree with what my colleagues have said. However, I think the helpline is a really strong idea. It is a move in the right direction, but nobody is supported by a helpline when their perpetrator is coming out, so you are having that conversation with the helpline and assuming that the helpline will meet the needs of the expanded victim cohort. Then a victim needs to go to a service. They need regular, routine casework support to support them through the trauma of having somebody come out or maybe come out earlier than expected—all kinds of things. Without the services to support the intentions of the helpline, we will not see that ambition of true victim support realised, so those two things have to work in tandem.

Andrea Simon: We would also recommend that advocates have access to the helpline as well. It is very important that, particularly for those supporting some of the most marginalised survivors, they can access information via the helpline. We would like clarity about their inclusion in the scheme.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

Q Coming back to parental consent—at the risk of labouring the point—you have all said that you would like that to be extended. Do you think that removing the minimum requirement of a four-year sentence would help to protect more children?

Farah Nazeer: Yes, absolutely. I think part of the challenge is the enduring pro-contact culture within the court setting. While that might have started as a good aspiration, in the context of domestic abuse cases— 60% of family cases are domestic abuse cases—you have a very dangerous equation there, given that the dominant culture is very pro-contact. It is also a system that permeates across the rest of the services that are there to support children. Even when supervised arrangements are put in place, there is not the infrastructure, the monitoring or the accountability framework to ensure that that actually does happen, so the amount of unsafe contact that happens—in spite of unsafe court orders—when it comes to parent contact is significantly larger than the evidence would suggest.

Andrea Simon: I would add that, when we think about the systemic barriers to child sexual abuse convictions, we know that one of those is the enhanced issues around shame, grooming and fear that young children have. The family court itself has got a poor record on this—it often finds children to be poor historians of the abuse. The points that Farah is making about how we look at the family court and the fact that it is not part of the remit of the Bill are important. It is urgent that we review the response to child sexual abuse in the family courts, following the IISCA review and the National Child Safeguarding Practice review. We are disappointed that we are not going to have an opportunity to look further at that within the scope of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Glenn, thank you very much. We are going to have to move on.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Thank you both for coming today. I have had the privilege of meeting and speaking to you both previously a few times, so in the interests of time I will allow other Committee members to ask questions.

[The Chair]

I am grateful to you, Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

Q Lastly, the victim contact scheme and the helpline will be made available to a wider group of victims. Do you welcome that? What difference do you think it will make?

Mark Brooks: I absolutely do. The key thing is to make sure that all victims are aware of it. We should make sure that domestic abuse victims, female or male, are far more aware of it, especially where the criminal sanctions have not been large. As you heard from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the impact of abuse post-separation or post-sentence—when the criminal sanctions have ended—can often be as traumatic as the crime itself, because it potentially leaves the victim on eggshells for the rest of their life. If they have access to the helpline and know what is happening with the person who committed the crime against them, they can better manage that. As previous witnesses have said, we obviously need more funding for people to go to local support services when their offender is released from prison.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Thank you for coming today, Mark, and thank you for all the work you do to support men and boys who are victims of domestic abuse. As the shadow Minister said, it is really important.

In these evidence sessions, we have heard a lot about the importance of communicating with victims, not just to give them information relating to their perpetrator but to help them understand their rights. Can you tell us about your interaction with the victims code? How will the measures in the Bill relating to compliance, the scrutiny of agencies and the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers help with that?

Mark Brooks: We are continually promoting the victims code, not only through our helpline and our website but through our interaction with practitioners across the domestic abuse sector. The victims code is really important, and it has helped a number of men who have gone through that.

Part of the problem is that male victims, in particular, are often not in the system in the first place, so they do not come forward to the police and to community-based services. Only one in 20 clients of community-based domestic abuse services or independent domestic violence advisers is male. The victims code is really important in supporting men when they are in the system, but the challenge on communication is getting them into the system in the first place.

Anything that better promotes the victims code—I really welcome the new powers for the Victims’ Commissioner to audit the code—is really important. From my wider business experience, I know that if you do not measure it, it does not get done. That is a really important new power for the Victims’ Commissioner.

[Alex Brewer]

Q Do you think the Bill should do more to recognise children as victims?

Mark Brooks: I think the two measures that have been put forward to recognise children as victims of domestic abuse are really important. The previous witnesses talked about the family courts, which are as vexatious a place for men, male victims and dads as they are for mothers. It is really important, when we talk about the family courts and the impact on parents and children, that we have a balanced and nuanced debate, especially because we constantly have men calling us who have had problems with the family courts relating to allegations, as well as protecting their own children.

On the Bill’s measures to protect children in relation to the family courts, some organisations have asked the Government to think about shared parenting or the presumption of contact issue. We think that must remain, primarily because if you start unravelling that, you start unravelling the family unit as the core basis of what is good for children. There need to be more safeguards around protecting children, especially in the family courts, but the presumption of contact, as set out in the Children Act 1989, should remain.

Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting)

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

Q Thank you, Sarah, for coming to give evidence to us today. How do you think the measures currently in the Bill will help with the prosecutorial capacity issue that we have at the moment?

Sarah Hammond: We welcome the focus in the Bill on broadening the pool of professionals who are eligible to become crown prosecutors. Recruitment can be challenging. It is a competitive market out there, so I think measures that broaden the pool of people from which we can recruit will be really helpful. We have other measures in place that will assist with the recruitment of crown prosecutors. We have just launched a scheme called Go Prosecute for senior crown prosecutors, aimed at professionals who have perhaps stepped out of criminal law practice for a while for various reasons. We would offer them a 12-month contract, with a view to extension, to come back into the field of criminal law practice and would support them to do so.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q What do you see as being the future benefits of having extra capacity within the CPS as a result of the measures in the Bill?

Sarah Hammond: It will allow us to recruit. We were very pleased with the settlement that we received in the spending review, which gives us the capacity to take the legal workforce to the levels that we really need to be able to prosecute cases effectively. The measures in the Bill will also allow for a more diverse workforce. It will allow people who have perhaps had different experiences and backgrounds in the profession to become Crown prosecutors.

As a whole, I do not think it can solve all the problems with backlogs and delays, and there is a duty on everybody in the justice system to ensure that we are maximising productivity and efficiency as well within the systems. We have just started a programme of continuous improvement, and I know that it is a priority for the Director of Public Prosecutions personally. We are looking at all our systems and processes to make sure that we are stripping out any inefficiencies and waste.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q You mentioned the Law Commission review of the unduly lenient sentence scheme. How important do you feel it is that we let the Law Commission complete that before we make any changes to the ULS?

Sarah Hammond: It is important to get a wide range of evidence. I have been working in the CPS for 27 years, so I have seen only one side of it, and there will obviously be lots of different aspects. As I said, if there is that wide body of evidence that suggests that people are being disadvantaged by that timescale, it is important to get all the information around that before any decisions are made.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Q Which areas of the Bill, if any, do you think will pose challenges for the Crown Prosecution Service?

Sarah Hammond: As always, there is a collective challenge when a Bill becomes law just to work out how things will work in practice and how implementation will work. Take the restriction on parental responsibility. It will be important for the CPS to work with the Government, police and local authorities to obtain the relevant information about evidence of parental responsibility and put that before a judge to make the decision without causing any further delays in the system. Once the Bill becomes law, it is a case of working through some of the processes to make sure that the implementation is smooth and we have those clear processes in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

Q A final question from me. I am conscious of time, so I will direct this question to Dame Nicole because of your particular expertise in domestic abuse.

You will be aware that the Bill introduces a duty on the court to make an order to remove parental responsibility in respect of any children for whom an offender has parental responsibility, if they have been sentenced to four or more years. We have laid an amendment to suggest that provision should apply if an offender is convicted of an offence against any child, not just a child for whom they have parental responsibility, and to any offender who has a custodial sentence. Which do you think is the preferable approach, or, more generally, what are your views on removing parental responsibility for those convicted of child sex abuse?

Dame Nicole Jacobs: I am very aware of dysfunctions within how domestic abuse is understood in the family court. It is positive to clarify to the court that, with certain offences, allowing parental responsibility should be considered inappropriate. Even saying that, though, I am a bit cautious about a completely black-and-white approach. I agree with the provisions in the Bill, but you would have to think very carefully about the range of other offences—for equivalent convictions against other children, absolutely, but I do not know enough about what is being proposed in terms of the range of other offences.

While we are on the subject of family court, one of the long-standing clarifications needed from Government is about a presumption of parental involvement. The Government were looking into that literally years ago, when I was first appointed as a designate, and it has not been resolved. That should be either clarified through this legislation or just clarified full stop. In the family court, the welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989, which is adequate in considering the safety of a child, is often confused with a presumption of parental involvement. I believe that the safety of children, who are recognised as victims in their own right in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, should be paramount.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Thank you all for coming to give evidence to us today.

Going back to non-attendance at sentencing hearings, what impact will compelling perpetrators to attend their sentencing hearings have on victims and their families, and will giving the judge—for the first time ever—the ability to issue sanctions on them once they are in prison make a difference in terms of helping victims and families feel that they getting justice?

Dame Nicole Jacobs: As Baroness Newlove said, it depends on the victim and the family, and the context of the situation. For many people, it would be heartening to feel that there is an ability to compel someone to come to court to hear their sentence and the consequences of their actions, which have devastated the lives of those people. But I could also imagine, especially in the context of domestic abuse, situations in which the victim, or their family if they have been murdered, would find some of that difficult. You would have to understand those dynamics.

In the context of domestic abuse, for example, there could be a very clear notion that that would be the just thing to do. There could be another example where, because of the nature of the family—keep in mind that for domestic abuse, I am looking through the lens of the fact that the victim and perpetrator are very well known to each other; that is not the case for all sorts of other crimes—there could be dynamics that are more complex. That is why what both Katie and Baroness Newlove have said, about understanding that the victim and families will feel confident and engaged and able to speak, is really important.

We must also keep in mind, especially with domestic abuse, that there could be family members and people involved as victims who have radically different views. Again, there is a complexity to this that does not necessarily always come through in a very black-and-white provision.

Baroness Newlove: Again, I want to support the family. The decisions we are making here are for the professionals to make the courtroom run seamlessly, but it could happen instantly—if the defendant just does not come down, how are we going to manage the emotions on the day, as well as the emotions they have gone through on the journey? I really want to make sure that they are supported.

I see that there is going to be a penal order in prison. I could go on a bit about that myself, but I will not—that is out of scope. I welcome that provision, but am also concerned about how it is managed. If the governor of the prison sees that that is going to be detrimental to their health and wellbeing, it might not happen, and so then where is the transparency about that being delivered for the victim? I think we need to do further work and look at that, because there is very little communication to victims. Nobody knows what they do in prison. Victims are told what they are doing, but they get very little information. For me this is a step forward, but what happens at the end of the day is far more important.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q I will come back to you, Baroness Newlove, and then I would like to bring you in on this, Katie. In the Bill, we are introducing a victim contact scheme with, for the first time ever, a dedicated helpline for victims and survivors to get that information. In relation to your report, Dame Nicole, we know that many offenders for domestic abuse get less than 12 months of custodial sentence, which makes them ineligible for the contact scheme. For the first time ever they will have a helpline that they will be able to call. What difference will that form of communication that we are bringing in with this Bill make to victims and survivors?

Dame Nicole Jacobs: I cannot underscore enough how important it is for this gap to be filled. It is exactly as you say; there are so many victims who, if they do not meet the criteria of the victim contact scheme, are literally not in the frame for any advice or support. Yet there are all these changes, whether that is an early release or just any information at all, such as the conditions of release. I get these calls at my office—I am sure we all do. They are very hard to problem-solve through; you have to find the right person within probation who may be able to tell you, and it is a huge gap.

I am really pleased about the provision adding offences to the full victim contact scheme, such as coercive and controlling behaviour, stalking and harassment. That is really welcome. More people will be eligible for the victim contact scheme. I remind you of what I am told by probation—that victims who are eligible for the scheme do not always have contact because some of the contact details are lost or the fact that they are eligible for that scheme is maybe not known to them. That brings us back to the same theme: where is the end-to-end support for victims?

I think a helpline will really fill a gap. My question about the helpline is whether the resource is adequate. That is a question that needs to be answered, or at least there needs to be an iterative process, where we can see that and build on it. My guess is that the helpline will start feeling very much like casework. It will not be as simple as victims calling and saying, “Can you tell me some information?” or an advocate calling on their behalf. They will want to then say, “I do not think these conditions are adequate”, and they will have a lot of questions. There is a lot of logistics behind the scenes that I worry about, and whether they will have the access to the information they need.

I am sure I should hand over to Katie and Baroness Newlove, who see a lot of this happening too. The answer is yes; it is great to have the helpline, but there is a question mark in my mind about the resourcing and whether we will quickly learn that there is much more need for a caseworking approach.

Certainly, the biggest gap remaining for me is victims whose offender is in prison for something that is not a domestic abuse-related crime. That is the biggest difficulty in all this. Very often—say if it is a drug-related crime—it has “nothing” to do with domestic abuse, but they are a known perpetrator, and those victims need to be able to access the line.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Before you come in on that point, Katie, obviously you will be aware of the new domestic abuse flag that we are bringing in as part of the sentencing review, so that will be possible in future.

Dame Nicole Jacobs: I am very pleased about that. It is a big step forward.

Katie Kempen: I agree with Nicole. We support the extension of the victim contact scheme, and we think it is hugely valuable to have that access to information—victims tell us that all the time. As has been said, in the last year or so, it would have been an invaluable resource for victims to be able to access.

On Nicole’s concerns about resourcing, as an organisation that runs a helpline, I would say that up to £200,000 for the helpline feels quite optimistic. The operational challenges that we bump into include that people are often in mental health distress when they access these contact lines, so the calls take longer and you need your staff to be trained in safeguarding, data protection, referrals and so on, which all takes time and investment.

The other element from our perspective is the knock-on impact this will have on victim services. It is estimated that the phone call will last about 28 minutes, and we will then need to pick it up and explain to the victim what their rights are, where they can go from here and where they can get further information. Undoubtedly, we will need to give additional emotional support—the phone call is likely to be quite traumatic for them. We need to see additional investment in the victim services that will be picking up the additional demand that comes from the scheme, although I would say it is a hugely welcome step forward.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

Q What do you think will be the impact of the new definition of “victim” for the purposes of the victim contact scheme?

Katie Kempen: We think it is clear and makes it quite accessible. From our perspective, if possible, we would like to see the eligibility for the victim contact scheme to go to all victims of domestic abuse. As Nicole mentioned, a person might not be convicted of a DA-related offence, but there is none the less an impact on the victim. You have referred to flagging as part of the sentencing review, and we think that could help. Where possible, we would like to see it extended. However, it seems as though the reforms will make it easier and clearer for victims to access support information.

Baroness Newlove: I agree.

Dame Nicole Jacobs: I would just underscore for the Committee that the inclusion of children is very important. I recently published a report on children, “Victims in their own right?”—that question mark was on purpose. One aspect of the report was mapping 700 services for children in England and Wales, and the fact that one in five say that they do not have adequate funding, which had led to curtailment.

If I had to name one of the largest gaps we have in victim services—I would say there are gaps across the board—it is the huge gap in relation to children. That goes back to this continual theme. Under the Victims and Prisoners Act, we have the duty to collaborate. I was a huge champion for that, and I am now very involved in its enactment, but it does not create any new funds for services for victims; it says to local areas, “You have a duty to collaborate on the funding streams that currently exist”.

I would say that a huge gap in this Bill is a duty to fund community-based services. Without wishing to embarrass Katie by talking about the incredible work that is done by Victim Support, there is a range of services that are the foundation of support for victims. They do not sit in core budgets like other kinds of public services do. That is one thing we have to fundamentally address for victims to have that kind of end-to-end support. I will not labour it any more, but I have to point out the biggest gap. It is great to have children defined, but what does that mean?

Katie Kempen: The reality for us is that the budgets for commissioning services are being cut, so the services that we can provide are being cut. The increase in national insurance contributions has obviously hit the sector really hard as well. We support all this work to improve the victim experience, but it needs to go hand in hand with a well-resourced victim sector that can take victims from the point of the crime occurring—even pre-charge and pre-contacting the police—right to the end of the criminal justice process.

Baroness Newlove: Can I bring it back to the information for victims? The one thing I am really concerned about is the importance of what information is given to victims, because it is very patchy. They are being told, “We cannot tell you whether the offender has been released”, and they cannot be told where the offender lives or what the offender knows about their exclusion zones. I truly welcome the fact that we will hopefully turn it into a restriction zone, because I have mapped my life out, and I have three offenders who know exactly where I am.

More importantly, the information takes too long and is very clunky. The victim liaison officer tries to do as much as they can, but I think this is an ideal opportunity—I am looking at the Minister—to let the victim know that, if the offender has been released, he does not live in the area; he lives 300 miles away. That gives comfort. I have met a victim who is petrified that the offender lives near her, because nobody will tell her where the offender is. We are not saying police must pinpoint where he is, but, if that offender lives 300 miles away, she can at least go out the door and go to the shops without feeling that he will be around the corner. That is really important. Why are we nervous about sharing information about offenders when offenders can know a lot about victims?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

Q I appreciate that some of what you deal with would not end up involving a magistrate passing a sentence, but sometimes that will be the case. Would it benefit transparency for victims, even at a magistrates level, to have a record of the remarks that were made in relation to why the sentence was passed?

Rebecca Bryant: Absolutely, yes, I do. What is taken into account around sentencing is often rather opaque, as is whether someone actually has to attend the sentencing. Victims need to be able to see justice done, because they have had a traumatic experience and have perhaps gone through the process of giving evidence live and having to face the person who has perpetrated the antisocial behaviour, crime or community safety issue. Having access to the sentencing report and the sentencing itself, and understanding that their victim impact statement is being read out and taken into account, would be significantly beneficial.

Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: I agree. We have to look at everything on a case-by-case basis, and in some situations it would not be appropriate—a victim would not feel comfortable with it. The problem with antisocial behaviour is, again, that grey area between ASB and crime. Impact is the biggest factor, and a victim needs to have that voice and explain how they have been impacted, but we certainly do not want the secondary traumatisation of coming face to face with someone who potentially does not acknowledge what they have done. You would have to look at the complexities of each case.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q What are the benefits of the Bill having the first ever duty to co-operate among housing providers, the Victims’ Commissioner and other relevant authorities? What will that do for victims of ASB?

Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: It is a really great step. We need more accountability, and oversight of all agencies involved in managing antisocial behaviour, and the duty to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner, is a really great start to that. There is a huge postcode lottery and disparity across England and Wales in the way that victims of antisocial behaviour are supported, the way their cases are managed and what action is taken on different behaviours. Anything we can do to bring a nationalised approach would be really beneficial to victims.

Rebecca Bryant: I think there is a balance. We welcome the Victims’ Commissioner having the authority, and the co-operation element, but the arena of social housing, local authorities and antisocial behaviour is very crowded at the moment. You have the social housing regulator, which is currently looking at housing providers in relation to the consumer standard, which includes antisocial behaviour—their approach to it, the number of cases per 1,000 and the respondents’ satisfaction with how they respond to it. That is not just for housing providers; it includes local authorities with housing stock. That is one side.

You also have the local government ombudsman and the housing ombudsman, which both deal with individual people who are not satisfied with the response they have received from the agency we are talking about. We are very supportive of antisocial behaviour victims and approaches being at the forefront of the Victims’ Commissioner’s mind, and her or him being able to pull together responses, require people to respond and perhaps look at themes and areas where we can strengthen our support and guidance for agencies that work in this arena, but what will that actually look like? We are currently working on that with the current Victims’ Commissioner. At the moment it is quite vague. There would have to be a tightening up of what element she is going to look at, bearing in mind that the ASB case review, the housing ombudsman, the local authority ombudsman and the social housing regulator are all looking at the same thing.

[Caroline Voaden]

Q What measures to improve the situation around antisocial behaviour would you have liked to see in the Bill that are not in it?

Rebecca Bryant: Funded universal support for victims of antisocial behaviour. It has been made clear by not only us but the previous panel that antisocial behaviour is a very broad church and often includes criminal activity, but it is not recorded as a crime. We use antisocial behaviour legislation, as it is under the current regime and as it will be in future with the Crime and Policing Bill, as that stands, for the use or threat of violence, for example. We all know that using or threatening violence is a crime, yet we use antisocial behaviour legislation to respond to it. It can involve drug dealing, cuckooing properties, criminal damage—all those things are crimes.

If you are a victim of crime and you report it as a crime to the police, you will get an automatic offer of victim support. When you are dealing with an antisocial behaviour case, you might report it to the local authority or to a housing provider, and you do not get immediate access to victim support. We know from our own research and research from the Victims’ Commissioner, various different reports and colleagues like ASB Help that what supports a victim is having a named person who can support them through the process. That person can guide them through often very complex and difficult situations in relation to taking legal action, or if the perpetrator is vulnerable and has multiple issues around mental health, drugs and alcohol, and the significant delays in the civil justice system mean that the case may go on for a long time.

We need specialist victim support that is universal and independent. I should stress the independence because, often, when a complainant makes a complaint to a housing provider and a local authority, they will be part of a caseload of many. They will be given some support and guidance, and some people have specialist training to do that, but we would seriously support having an independent specialist to provide that kind of support—for example, Victim Support, which is commissioned and funded. It is very much a postcode lottery at the moment. There are some police and crime commissioners in the country who fund specialist ASB victim support, but they are few and far between. It really is a postcode lottery as to what you get where you live. That is what I think is missing.

Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: I absolutely agree with that. We can talk about victims of a single instance of minor crime, which I do not say easily; it is the criminal version of “low level”. If, for example, someone smashed your plant pots on your front doorstep, that is a crime and you are entitled to support for it. But if you have been suffering sleepless nights for 12 months because a neighbour has kept you awake constantly, you are losing your job because you are falling asleep at work, and you have experienced a constant campaign, there is no one there. If there was a statutory agency to provide support, that could be life-altering for some people. It is a very important thing that we continue to campaign for.

With the best will in the world, a lot of the measures are a great step forward for victims of antisocial behaviour, but if we do not allocate the resources and ensure that the training and experience is there for frontline practitioners, then we are only as good as our weakest link. We need to ensure that we support our frontline practitioners who work in the field of antisocial behaviour to get the job right. If they do not have the resources to do the job properly, they are not going to be able to. If they have not got the training and the knowledge to understand the vulnerabilities and the different caveats of antisocial behaviour, they are not going to be able to do the job properly. That is immediately where we fall down. Unfortunately, the buck will stop with them, so we are dutybound to make sure they have adequate support to do it right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

Do you want to add anything, Clare?

Clare Moody: In terms of the involvement of the victim in that decision making, as Genna said, there are complications around getting the perpetrator into the courtroom, but who would not want them to see the justice that is being meted out and for the victims to have that opportunity? But yes, the consultation would make sense.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q On that point specifically, the non-attendance of sentencing hearings, we feel that we have gone as far as we can in the Bill in terms of introducing prison sanctions and other sanctions that can be given to the perpetrators to enable their attendance at their sentencing hearings. It is the first time ever that judges will have these powers at their discretion. You mentioned concerns around “reasonable force” in getting them to the courtroom. That is one thing that is available under the Bill. The Opposition have also tabled an amendment about the ability to gag and restrain perpetrators who attend. Do you have any thoughts on that and on how workable it would be?

Genna Telfer: As I said, moving anyone who does not want to be moved is very difficult. We do it all the time in policing; we have to move people when they do not want to. It is difficult, it takes a lot of people and it takes a lot of resource. There is a risk of injury to the prison staff who are moving them. What we are trying to achieve, versus the impact of trying to do that, might be the balance that is needed. I think that while it is good to have it in there, prison entitlements and the potential extension of the sentence are probably more the tools to do this than the actual physical restraint of people.

Clare Moody: I would say exactly that. An accidental outcome of this should not be the greater traumatisation of victims. The process might wind up with some kind of scene that involves centring the perpetrator, rather than what the victims have been through. I think there needs to be care around that in ensuring that victims are still at the heart of the process.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Bringing it back to victims, which is exactly what the Bill is meant to be about, one of the new measures in the Bill concerns the victim contact scheme and a dedicated helpline for victims, so that they can have and request information about their perpetrators—for example, about conditions placed on them—and their cases. As frontline officers, dealing with this every day, what difference do you think will that make to victims and survivors?

Genna Telfer: I think it will simplify it. At the moment we have two schemes—the contact scheme and the notification scheme—with different eligibility, so it will make it slightly easier. The helpline is a great idea, but it needs to be resourced properly, as with anything. If it is not, then we are setting an expectation for victims that might not be met, which might frustrate them further. A concern for us in policing is whether, if it is not resourced properly within probation, it falls back to policing to address, when we might not have the information or resource to do it. But in principle, absolutely, I think it is a great idea.

Clare Moody: Again, I agree with that. It is about simplification, clarity, support for victims, and the value that that adds. Of course, there will not be straightforward calls. Victims will be calling in and asking, “But what about this?” or “Can you tell me this?” to get more information. There will be complexity in the calls that come in and the response to them. There needs to be resourcing for that, and there may be a knock-on to wider victim services, because there will be questions that fall out of that and through to the victim services support sector.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q How do you see the new powers that the Bill gives the Victims’ Commissioner affecting work with police and PCCs, particularly on victims of antisocial behaviour?

Clare Moody: Those powers are welcome. One of the points about the new powers is the reporting. It is about aligning what is going on with those powers. Where police and crime commissioners have a responsibility for antisocial behaviour reviews, how does that align with the work of the Victims’ Commissioner? With all of this, it is about making sure that there is simplicity in the system for victims and that there is not duplication, and aligning things. For example, as police and crime commissioners, we do local reporting through the local criminal justice boards, and we report into the Ministry of Justice through that. How does that sit alongside the work of the Victims’ Commissioner, so that there is not a multiplicity of reports and we are pointing in the same direction of benefits and changes that we need to see for victims?

Genna Telfer: Yes, it has to complement what PCCs are doing through the local criminal justice boards. Any additional support we can get to work with partners is welcome. As was described earlier, ASB is definitely not just an enforcement issue; it is the whole partnership piece. We welcome the additional powers around housing. As Clare said, it has to complement what is going on locally.

Humanist Marriage

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I start by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), and the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo), for securing this important—and, may I say, really lovely —debate.

I should stress that the strength of feeling and frustration around legally recognising humanist weddings is very clear to me from this debate. It is important for me to acknowledge at the outset that the Government fully understand and recognise the significance of the issue to hon. Members and to humanists more widely. I am aware that a number of hon. Member from both Houses are campaigning on the issue, including those Members who secured the debate. I thank all hon. Members for taking part and expressing their deeply personal experiences and views. It has really contributed to this positive debate.

Andrew Copson, chief executive of Humanists UK, has been at the forefront of this campaign. He has met officials from my Department on a number of occasions, and it has been very helpful to understand his views on the issue as we take forward any potential reform. It is also only right that I acknowledge the frustrations that humanists have felt while campaigning for a change to the law. I appreciate that this change has been ongoing on for a long time. For many humanists, the inclusion of the order-making power within the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was hard fought for, and I know that it has been disappointing to them that this power has not been used to date.

I also do not think it would be right to have this debate without recognising the important contribution that humanists make to society. Humanists have often been at the forefront of the fight for social justice, campaigning for fairness, respect and equality for all. I join in celebrating the celebrants mentioned today for all the work they do to conduct weddings, funerals and important life events. The Government hugely acknowledge the tireless work of humanists, whether that is campaigning to abolish blasphemy laws, or Humanists UK raising the profile of illegal independent schools within Government.

I know that my noble Friend Lord Khan was very pleased to attend the World Humanists Day reception last year as the Minister for Faith, Communities and Resettlement. When the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, he spoke in 2021 to mark Humanists UK’s 125th anniversary, saying:

“Ever since its foundation as an ethical movement, humanists have contributed enormously to our party’s and our nation’s achievements…Humanists and Humanists UK have been at the forefront of the fight for social change: to decriminalise homosexuality, to end corporal punishment in schools, and to introduce free school meals.”

I could not have put it better myself. That quote captures the profound and lasting impact of Humanists UK.

We are having this debate because marriage is one of our most important institutions. At its best, it is a celebration of love, a symbol of enduring partnership and a deeply personal commitment. Marriage can provide many benefits, including emotional support, financial stability and legal protections. For those who choose to marry, it is a significant and meaningful decision—one that this Government are proud to promote and protect. Although the state rightly has a responsibility to ensure that marriage laws provide clarity and certainty around the legal status of marriage, we believe the conversation can and should go further. Our weddings law should always reflect the importance and meaning of marriage as an institution.

It is important to acknowledge the shape of our current law around weddings and explain how we have got to where we are, so let me begin by reflecting on the history of marriage law in England and Wales—unlike some wedding speeches, I promise to keep it brief and free of groan-inducing jokes.

Our weddings law has evolved gradually over centuries, with its core structure rooted in the 18th and 19th centuries. The foundations of weddings law were laid by the Clandestine Marriages Act 1753. The Act was designed to prevent secret or hasty marriages by requiring weddings to be undertaken by Anglican clergy in a parish church or public chapel. While the Act permitted Anglican weddings only, it explicitly exempted Jewish and Quaker marriage ceremonies. The Marriage Act 1836 marked a significant turning point, introducing civil marriage for the first time and allowing weddings to take place in registry offices and non-Anglican places of worship. It also brought in civil preliminaries, acknowledging the state’s interest in there being legal certainty about who is married.

The fundamental structure established in 1836 remains largely in place today, consolidated within the Marriage Act 1949. The model on which our law is based is broadly a buildings-based model, which means that most marriages are regulated according to the building in which they take place. There are exceptions to the system, because Jews and Quakers are not bound by this restriction and may marry in any location.

There is discrepancy in the law, because couples must choose between a civil or a religious wedding. If they opt for a religious wedding, the rules that apply will vary depending which religion the ceremony is conducted according to. Civil weddings, by contrast, must be held at a register office or at premises that have been officially approved for that purpose. Therefore, it is for historical reasons that humanists are currently unable to conduct legally binding weddings. There is no provision in our legislative framework for non-religious belief ceremonies to be legally binding, as a wedding must either be religious or civil.

As others have said, the Law Commission published a report in 2022 reviewing weddings law and concluded that it is

“inconsistent and complicated, inefficient, unfair, and needlessly restrictive”.

It found that the law does not work for couples of many different religions and beliefs, including humanists. The report was the result of extensive research and stakeholder engagement; the Law Commission received more than 1,500 responses to its consultation and engaging with more than 50 key stakeholders. It provided a number of instances where the law does not work for many couples, and one prominent example is that humanist couples are unable to have legally recognised humanist weddings in England and Wales.

The Law Commission also highlighted discrepancies affecting different religious groups. For instance, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and Hindus are required to marry in a registered place of worship, regardless of whether that place of worship is meaningful in a marriage context, and must use a prescribed form of words. In contrast, Jew and Quaker couples are permitted to marry in any location and without any prescribed wording. Another example identified was the challenges faced by mixed-faith couples, who are currently unable to have ceremonies that might reflect two different faiths.

To address the wide range of problems identified with the current law, the Law Commission made 57 recommendations for reform, underpinned by the proposal that current weddings law should be overhauled and a new legislative framework should be put in place. The Law Commission proposed a new framework to ensure that all groups are treated with fairness and consistency on how they get married.

I am keenly aware that humanists have expressed the view that the Law Commission’s recommendations do not provide the solution they are seeking. One of the main reasons for that is their preference for the Government to act quickly and use the order-making power, as several hon. Members have mentioned, which would allow for humanist weddings to take place within the current legislative framework.

[Andrew Cooper]

I understand the Minister’s point, but that does not accurately characterise my position. I am very happy for the Government to do a broader set of reforms, but I and others are arguing that we do not necessarily need to wait for that before acting on humanist marriage. The two things could happen in parallel. Would the Minister agree with that?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It is important to ensure we do this properly. I am against any piecemeal reform here. If we are to do this, we need to do it properly and together, so that it is succinct. There are ways that that can be done, as I am about to come on to.

I acknowledge the calls made during this debate for the Government to take that step, and to take it quickly, and I will address them directly. Although it is true that using the order-making power would allow non-religious belief organisations to marry within the current framework of weddings law, it is important for us to take into account what the Law Commission has said about doing that. The Law Commission highlighted the complexities of the law in this area and concluded that exercising the order-making power is not, in its view, a viable option. As a responsible Government, we must take that view into account when considering the issue of weddings reform.

[Cat Eccles]

Does the Minister agree that those measures already exist for Quakers? Humanists are not asking for a huge change in the law.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I totally agree, and I recognise that point, which I have addressed in terms of Jews and Quakers; this is about equality before the law, but we need to recognise the concerns raised by the Law Commission about what making that change on its own could entail. We need to look at this in the round, which is exactly what the Government are doing.

I know that the hon. Members who secured this debate will be disappointed when I say that it would not be responsible for the Government to ignore the Law Commission’s report, but we cannot ignore the fact that the report identified a number of complex and significant recommendations. It is absolutely essential that those are considered carefully and in full, and that is exactly what we are doing. I stress that that does not mean the issue of humanist marriage is being overlooked. On the contrary, the Government are actively considering the matter of humanist weddings as part of their broader review of the Law Commission’s report.

As I have said, we are considering the issues very carefully. Although I know hon. Members will be disappointed that the Government have not yet made commitments in relation to the issue, I hope the debate today has at least provided some assurance that the Government understands and hear the strength of feeling on the issues, including the key importance not just of weddings, but of marriage itself, and that we are looking into them with the utmost care and attention. I hope that assures hon. Members that I very much sympathise with humanists’ wish for legally binding weddings. I am happy to confirm—and say “I do”—that my officials are working on this at pace, and that an update on the Government’s position on weddings law reform will come soon. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, we may not yet be able to set the date, but we can certainly start planning.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

14. What discussions she has had with victims groups on the early release of violent offenders.

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

A victims’ representative was on the panel that conducted the independent sentencing review, which gathered views from victims and survivors. I personally met a number of victims and victim groups and fed their views directly back to David Gauke. Those serving sentences for more serious sexual and violent offences will spend at least 50% of their sentence in custody.

[Joy Morrissey]

The Victims’ Commissioner says that the early release of prisoners risks victim safety, so will the Lord Chancellor explain why she is putting violent offenders ahead of victims?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

That is not the case. What would be failing victims is if our criminal justice system got to the point of collapse and we did not have prison places for violent offenders. This Government are getting on with reforming our criminal justice system. We are putting victims at the heart of it to protect them, and are making sure that we never run out of prison places again.

[Esther McVey]

The Prisoners (Disclosure of Information about Victims) Act 2020, otherwise known as Helen’s law, should prevent the early release of murderers who do not disclose the location of their victims’ remains. However, there are loopholes in the law in cases where the murderer makes a disclosure but no remains are found, as happened in the case of Jean Taylor’s daughter, Chantel. Will the Minister meet me and Jean Taylor, who founded the charity Families Fighting for Justice, to close those loopholes?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the right hon. Member for her question. All my sympathies go to her constituent. If she wants to write to me with the details, I will definitely look into the case and come back to her.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

The previous Government released prisoners in an indiscriminate way. This Government have developed a more organised approach, but the progression model of sentencing, recommended by the independent sentencing review and welcomed by the Government, could mean less clarity for victims about when perpetrators leave prison. Given the concern expressed by victims’ groups, what safeguards and resources will the Minister put in place to prepare victims and assure them of their safety?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee for that important question. It is vital that victims be notified. That is why we are boosting probation and ensuring that victim liaison officers have that vital information. He will be aware that in our Victims and Courts Bill, which has been presented to this House, we are introducing a new victim notification scheme, and a dedicated helpline to ensure that victims get the vital information that they so desperately need.

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

In March, I met people from the Justice for Victims campaign group. One family told me that their young daughter was killed by an unlicensed, uninsured driver. They were asked to alter their victim impact statement several times to avoid offending the defendant and were denied the chance to fully express their grief. That experience is shared by many others. Will the Justice Secretary take steps to ensure that victims’ families have full autonomy over their statements, so that they can express their experiences freely in court?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I also had the privilege of meeting those families in March, and I heard their concerns. I know personally how important victim personal statements are to ensuring that victims’ and families’ voices are heard. I do not want there to be any circumstances in which they feel unable to make a statement. However, these statements are considered evidence, and the rules of admissibility apply, as they do to all witness statements. That is a matter for the courts, but we will keep looking at the issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Can I first say how sorry I was to hear that the Minister was the subject of intimidation and an attack on her office? I think all of us across the House would like to wish her and her staff well, and to say how pleased we are that the vile individuals behind this have been caught and punished.

In September, the Justice Secretary designed an early release scheme for prisoners. She let out Lawson Natty, who supplied the machete used to kill a 14-year-old, and Adam Andrews, who shook a baby so violently that he was left blind and paralysed. She is now halving prison sentences for killers and rapists, while Lucy Connolly remains behind bars for a reprehensible but swiftly deleted tweet. Does the Justice Secretary really believe that her choices are making the public safer?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

This Government are making choices to keep this country safer, and are cleaning up the mess left after the previous Government led our criminal justice system to rack and ruin. They left this Government to make the difficult decisions, when we came into office, that were necessary to prevent the total collapse of our criminal justice system. It is worth reminding the House again, because the Conservatives seem to have very short memories, that they only built an additional 500 prison places. This Government are rolling up our sleeves and getting on with the difficult job of building the prison places necessary to keep violent offenders in prison, while putting victims back at the heart of our criminal justice system.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Between October 2023 and June 2024, the last Conservative Government released 10,083 offenders under their early release scheme, and refused to exempt domestic abusers from early release, to the horror of survivors and victims charities. The Government have made no such exclusion from their early release scheme so far, but they have the chance to put that right via the new domestic abuse identifier that they are introducing after lots of campaigning by the Liberal Democrats and others. Will the Minister today give survivors and victims charities a commitment that as soon as the identifier comes into force, it will be used to exempt domestic abusers from early release, in the way that the last Government failed to?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for pointing out the failures of the previous Government, and their refusal to exempt domestic abusers and offenders who have committed violence against women and girls from their early release scheme; this Government ensured that measures were in place to ensure that victims were kept safe. He will know the importance of the new domestic abuse identifying tool that we are bringing forward. It is a vital for identifying and tracking data through the criminal justice system, and it will be important as we go forward with the reviews that we are putting in place.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

8. If her Department will take steps to increase sentences for high street crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to help support victims of sexual abuse.

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

We fund key support services, such as independent sexual violence and domestic abuse advisers. The Crown Prosecution Service has introduced victim liaison officers to ensure that victims of rape and serious sexual offences have a consistent point of contact throughout the criminal justice system. We will also provide free transcripts of sentencing remarks for victims of rape and serious sexual offences, and we will introduce independent legal advisers for all adult rape victims.

[Tim Roca]

On the last Government’s watch, the backlog of Crown court cases rose to record levels, leaving too many victims, including those in Macclesfield, to wait years for their day in court. That backlog included victims of sexual abuse, unable to begin properly processing their trauma until their trial is over and stuck in a horrifying limbo. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that victims of sexual abuse are not left waiting for years to see justice done?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. As the House knows, justice delayed is justice denied. That is why this Government have doubled magistrate sentencing powers and funded a record number of sitting days. However, the scale of the challenge is beyond what increased sitting days can achieve alone. That is why we have asked Sir Brian Leveson to propose bold and ambitious reforms to deliver swifter justice for victims as part of the Government’s plan for change.

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

In recent weeks, Daniel Clarke, a vile sexual offender, was sentenced to seven years in prison for horrific acts of sexual abuse against six vulnerable children, many with special needs and many of whom are my constituents; indeed, there are 81 suspected cases. I have been contacted by the families of those innocent victims, who have expressed outrage at the shockingly lenient sentence. I wrote to the Attorney General on 20 May asking for the case and the sentence to be reviewed. I did not receive a response and had to find out through the BBC that the review was happening. Nevertheless, I am pleased that the sentence is being reviewed. Will the Minister give assurances to my constituents, the House and the British public that such vile sexual predators will have the book thrown at them and that protecting our children is the only thing that matters?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that case. I am pleased that the review is taking place. Victims of child sexual abuse are victims of some of the most heinous crimes in our society. That is why it is important that we get on with addressing the recommendations of the Alexis Jay review. We are putting measures in our Crime and Policing Bill and strengthening the Victims and Courts Bill to ensure that victims of such crimes are put at the heart of the criminal justice system and that the perpetrators feel the full force of the law.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

10. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of reviewing sentencing for peaceful protesters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

11. If she will take steps to allow humanist celebrants to conduct legally binding weddings.

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

Humanists have long campaigned to conduct legally binding weddings, and we are grateful for the contribution they make to our society. Marriage is an important institution and we have to consider any changes carefully. The Government will set out our position on weddings reform in due course.

[Siân Berry]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I understand that Ministers are focused on wider marriage reform, but there is a much quicker and simpler process by which to enable humanist marriages, which is to act on the High Court ruling of 2020 that the current law is discriminatory. Will Ministers therefore lay an order so that humanist couples and celebrants can have legal recognition for their ceremonies in line with their beliefs, the same as their religious counterparts?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

No one will be more excited to don a hat for the first legally binding humanist wedding than me. However, we must consider whether legislating to provide for humanist marriage would introduce further differential treatment in this complex area of law. That is why we need to make sure that we take the time to get this right. It would also not address other issues in marriage law that affect all groups. As a responsible Government, we have to consider this before we set out our position. I appreciate that means that the hon. Lady will have to wait just a little bit longer.

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

12. What steps her Department is taking to support the operation of HMP Lewes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

T8. I am sure that hon. Members from all parties will be looking forward to Olivia’s law, in memory of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, coming into force, thanks to a huge amount of support from my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), Olivia’s family and other families. What else can be done to ensure that murderers, rapists and other violent criminals are forced to answer in court for their crimes?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for that vital question. We are giving judges the statutory power to order offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. We are also making it clear that reasonable force can be used, where it is necessary and proportionate to do so, to ensure that any adult offender attends when ordered to do so. I pay tribute to the families of Jan Mustafa, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa, as well as to the family of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, who have all fought tirelessly to bring about this law. This is a law for all of the victims and it is in their memory that we bring it forward.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

T2. Across my constituency I hear the same thing from parents, school staff and youth workers: early signs of offending behaviour are often missed or not acted on until it is too late; and in rural areas, stretched services and limited access to youth provision make the problem worse. Given the success of the Haslemere youth hub, will the Lord Chancellor consider expanding community-based justice schemes to ensure young people are not drawn into the criminal justice system when they do not need to be?

[Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

A constituent who came to see me recently was significantly impacted by finding out about the release of somebody who had perpetrated a non-violent but heinous crime against him. What more can we do to ensure that all victims are notified when the perpetrator is released?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My sympathies are with my hon. Friend’s constituent. It is vital that victims are notified. Those victims who are currently eligible for the victim notification scheme should be given a victim liaison officer to find out about their cases, but we know that there is more to do. We are bringing forward a new victim notification scheme in our Victims and Courts Bill, which will for the first time provide a dedicated helpline to get such information to victims and survivors.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

T3. The Secretary of State recently announced that paedophiles will be castrated ahead of early release from prison, which turns out to be nothing more than taking some pills that may—I repeat “may”—reduce their libido. Will the Secretary of State confirm here and now that no paedophile prisoner will be released from prison early until it has been proven that the medication has effectively castrated them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

My constituent Claire Ball was sexually abused as a child. As an adult, she faced her abuser in court. He was allowed to provide character references. Her good character was called into question, yet she was not allowed character references. Will my hon. Friend take steps to rectify this unfairness for victims such as Claire?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that vital point. This Government are looking at character references carefully, and we will bring forward information on that in due course.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

T9. My constituent’s child was the victim of a serious sexual offence several years ago. By the time the case comes to trial next year, it will have been nearly half a decade since the assault took place. Does the Lord Chancellor think that that is an appropriate length of time for a child to have to wait to seek justice? What words of comfort can she give to my constituent?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Lord Ponsonby told the Justice Committee in February that the Government will set out a public position on reform of wedding laws, including humanist marriage, in the next few months. The Minister has said much the same today, but when will it happen, and will it include reform of current cohabitation laws, which disadvantage millions of couples?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee for that important question. He will know that our manifesto committed to reforming cohabitation law, and we will be bringing forward that reform shortly. The Law Commission’s report made 57 recommendations for reform of wedding law, including enabling non-religious groups such as humanists to conduct legally binding weddings, and we will be bringing forward information on our package of reforms shortly.

Decriminalising Abortion

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening this debate. I echo the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), on the tone of the debate on this topic, as we move forward into the coming weeks. I thank all those who signed and supported the petition, and the petitioner, Gemma Clark, for raising this vital issue.

The petition calls on the UK Government to

“remove abortion from criminal law so that no pregnant person”—

woman—

“can be criminalised for procuring their own abortion.”

I recognise and respect that there are strongly held views on this highly sensitive issue not only in Parliament but across the country. I thank the more than 200 people in my constituency of Pontypridd who signed this petition.

I will make it clear at the outset that the Government maintain a neutral stance on changing the criminal law on abortion in England and Wales. I recognise that the Government’s position of strict neutrality on this issue can be frustrating for all involved, and for none more so than me. If I were speaking in this debate as the Member for Pontypridd, my contribution would be very different, but thankfully my views on abortion are well known, and already proudly on the record. It is for Parliament to decide the circumstances under which abortion should take place, allowing Members to vote according to their moral, ethical or religious beliefs.

I emphasise that the Government are wholly committed to ensuring access to safe, regulated abortions. All women in England and Wales can have access to safe, regulated abortions on the NHS under our current laws. In England and Wales, that access is provided through legislation set by Parliament: the Abortion Act 1967. Hon. Members have already stated the facts of the criminal law on abortion in England and Wales, but it might be helpful if I also do so, and set out the three main offences that apply. When I refer to matters concerning the law on abortion, any reference is to its application in England and Wales. The law on abortion in Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved Administrations.

The Offences against the Person Act 1861 provides two criminal offences that apply specifically to cases of abortion. Section 58 makes it a criminal offence for a pregnant woman to intentionally

“procure her own miscarriage”

by unlawfully taking drugs or using instruments. It is also an offence for another person to unlawfully administer drugs or use instruments with the intention

“to procure the miscarriage of any woman”,

whether or not she is in fact pregnant. Section 59 makes it an offence for a person to supply or procure a drug, poison or instrument with the intention for it to be used to procure a miscarriage.

The Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 deals with late-term abortions in England and Wales. Under section 1 of that Act, it is an offence for any person to intentionally

“destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive”

before it is born, unless it can be proven that the act was done in good faith and only to preserve the life of the woman. Decisions to bring a prosecution under those provisions are for the independent Crown Prosecution Service. In deciding whether to bring a prosecution, the CPS will apply the two-stage test in the code for Crown prosecutors. The first stage asks whether

“there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction”;

the second asks whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest.

The criminal provisions should be read in conjunction with the Abortion Act 1967, which provides exemptions to the criminal offences. Under the 1967 Act and accompanying regulations, women in England and Wales have access to safe, legal and regulated abortion services, which can be provided in an NHS facility or a place provided by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, such as an independent sector or clinic. In effect, lawful abortions can be provided in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, where two doctors agree that the continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk of

“injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family”.

Abortions beyond 24 weeks are permitted, if necessary, to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, where there is risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or if there is a substantial risk that the child would be seriously handicapped due to physical or mental abnormalities.

To reiterate, the Government maintain a neutral stance on changing the law on decriminalising abortion. It is for Parliament to decide the circumstances under which abortions should take place, allowing Members to vote according to their moral, ethical or religious beliefs. Hon. Members are aware that new clauses tabled to the Crime and Policing Bill would decriminalise abortion. Should they be selected, those new clauses will provide the House with a further opportunity for a full debate on this issue.

In answer to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), I cannot and will not comment on the policy behind the proposed new clauses, but I may draw to the attention of the House any practical or legal issues with them. New clause 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend, seeks to disapply criminal offences related to an abortion from a woman in relation to her own pregnancy at any stage of gestation. That would mean that it would never be a criminal offence for a pregnant woman to terminate her own pregnancy at any stage.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has tabled a separate new clause that would introduce a human rights framework for future regulations related to abortion and protect existing abortion rights. New clause 20 would repeal several criminal offences in their entirety, meaning that it would never be a criminal offence for a pregnant woman or anyone else to terminate a pregnancy. While the stated intention is clear, the practical effect of the new clause is more limited and the powers are unclear, which could give rise to unintended consequences. Should these new clauses be selected, the House will have a further opportunity for a full debate on this issue, and if the will of Parliament is that the law in England and Wales should change, then the Government would not stand in the way of such change but would seek to ensure that the law is workable and enforced in the way that Parliament intended.

[Ms Creasy]

New clause 20 would introduce in England and Wales what we have done in Northern Ireland, and I know from the Minister’s previous comments on the record that she has been very supportive of that legal and moral duty to act. For the avoidance of doubt, can she clarify whether her officials have met the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to understand how this operates in practice in Northern Ireland?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will come back to my hon. Friend with that information once I have spoken to officials to find out the exact details. The Government remain neutral on the policy, but we are looking at the workability and practicality of the new clauses. I will discuss that with her at a later date.

Wherever one stands on the issue of legislative change, I commend colleagues for engaging in this debate. While the Government are neutral on this issue, I want to close by thanking all hon. Members for their careful consideration of these issues and thanking the campaigners who share different perspectives, as well as by recognising the many people who have written to their MPs to share their personal experiences.

Victims and Courts Bill

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It is a true privilege to deliver the closing speech on Second Reading of the Victims and Courts Bill. I would like to start by paying tribute to the families of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Jan Mustafa, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa, most of whom have been in the Gallery and whom I have had the privilege of getting to know over the past few months. As today’s debate has shown, the House agrees that justice is not optional. Criminals should never be allowed to hide away from it. I am grateful to all of the families for their tireless campaigning to bring forward measures on sentencing hearings. The changes are an important step forward for victims and a testament to their courage.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for her very powerful words today. They were not just her words but the words of Cheryl Korbel, whose words will stay with me forever and whose words should have been heard by her daughter’s killer. This Bill is a legacy for Olivia and for all those who have been failed by the justice system.

As the Lord Chancellor has already outlined, this Bill has victims’ experience at its core. As the Victims Minister, it is an honour to meet victims and survivors every single day in this role. This Bill has been created with them at its heart. I echo the tribute from the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) to the Justice for Victims campaigners, who I have also had the privilege of meeting. Becky and Glenn Youens, Susan and Jeremy Everard, Katie Brett—whose story we have also powerfully heard from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan)—Paula Hudgell and Ayse Hussein, who is with us today, have all helped to change the law, and we owe them all a huge debt of thanks for that.

This Bill will make the justice system more efficient—it is a system, and it all needs to work for it to operate effectively—so that victims can begin to move on with their lives faster. I sincerely thank Members from all parties for the thoughtful, powerful, sometimes emotional, but mostly constructive way in which they have contributed to the debate today. Support and justice for victims should never be political. I stand here willing to work with anyone of any stripe and of any colour to make sure that we bring forward the strongest package available for victims.

The issues and the inheritance of our justice system have long been discussed in this place. It is well known to Members what a state our justice system was in when we came into office just 10 months ago, but this Government have begun to rebuild its foundations. This Bill will be just the beginning, not the end of our reform programme for victims. We have the independent review of our criminal courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson. That will lead to a more effective and efficient criminal courts system, improving timeliness for victims, witnesses and defendants without jeopardising the requirement for a fair trial for all involved. We await the imminent outcome of David Gauke’s review into sentencing, which will address a number of the issues that Members have raised today.

Turning to some of the issues raised, I will respond first to my friend, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I am proud to work with him for victims in this place. He has always been constructive and is always seeking to do what is right. Although I cannot give him the commitment today, I am meeting him tomorrow morning, and we will hopefully have imminent news for him on a lot of the work we have been doing together. I also thank his fellow Liberal Democrat, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for all her work on court transcripts and specifically the pilot for sentencing remarks transcripts in cases of rape and serious sexual offences. Having spoken to victims and survivors, I know how vital that is for them. The pilot is due to end next week and we will soon be publishing our response and how we intend to take that forward. I look forward to speaking with her further on that soon.

Many Members spoke about the parental responsibility measures. I stress that the Government have heard the strength of feeling on this issue. Our focus must be on automatically restricting parental responsibility for offenders who have committed serious child sexual abuse offences—the most heinous crimes in society. We are taking that step today in this Bill for those who have committed these offences against a child for whom they personally hold parental responsibility, because we need to protect those in direct harm. I stress and echo the words of the Secretary of State that this is a novel and untested change in the law. The response from perpetrators is unpredictable, so we have chosen to focus first on cases of highest harm, because we do not want unintended consequences and we need to prioritise all vulnerable children who are going through the family courts. However, this is the beginning, as we have said, and we look forward to working constructively across the House on this measure.

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

I know that my hon. Friend cares deeply about this issue. In the course of the passage of the Bill, will the Government look at amendments that could see the family courts end the presumption of contact and ensure we end this cycle of abuse?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

My hon. Friend is a champion for the cause of protecting children going through the family courts, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), whose contribution today was equally powerful. Meeting her constituent Claire Throssell, and hearing the story of Jack and Paul, will stick with me forever. I think about that on a daily basis.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the family justice system delivers the right outcomes for survivors of domestic abuse and their children. We have heard loud and clear concerns in the Chamber and from outside on the need to go further. A child’s welfare must always be the family court’s paramount consideration when making decisions about that child’s life. The Ministry of Justice has undertaken a review on presumption of parental involvement, and its findings, along with any recommendations, will be published shortly. I look forward to working with hon. Members across the House, including my hon. Friends, on that soon.

Right hon. and hon. Members across the House made many comments about the unduly lenient sentencing scheme, welcoming measures in the Bill about extending the time limit for the Attorney General to look effectively at cases so that justice can be served. As they will know, the Law Commission is undertaking a review into the scheme as a whole, and I—and I am sure the Law Commission—would welcome their feedback on that. We will look closely at the findings of that review to ensure that any recommendations are carried out effectively.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way—by the way, I have always liked her. I take at face value what she has said. Will that Law Commission review be in time to amend the Bill? That is key. If it will not be on time, how can we handle that?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

It is important to look at any Law Commission recommendations properly and effectively. Of course there will be time, because we are in the first year of a five-year Parliament and this will not be the Ministry of Justice’s only Bill. As I have said, the justice system that we inherited from the previous Government was in crisis, and we are beginning to put it back piece by piece, starting with our prisons, our courts, our victim support and family courts, looking at the system as a whole. Further legislative vehicles will come forward from the Ministry of Justice where recommendations that have been reviewed could be adopted.

I know that we are short on time, but I want to turn to the comments made by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) about the IICSA. I will put it on the record again—I think it needs to be said—that the Government are absolutely focused on delivering meaningful change for victims impacted by these horrendous crimes. Earlier this year, we published our plan for responding to the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse through the Crime and Policing Bill, on which I am proud also to be a Minister. We are strengthening the law by introducing a mandatory reporting duty to make it an offence to fail to report or to cover up child sexual abuse. We are also legislating in that Bill to make grooming a statutory aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offences to ensure that that behaviour is reflected in the sentencing of perpetrators.

We also plan to legislate to remove the three-year limit for compensation claims and shift the burden of proof from victims to defendants in the civil courts, as well as amend the law of apologies to encourage employers to apologise to people wronged by their employees. A legislative vehicle is currently being identified for that measure. I stress again that the Government are getting on with the job of delivering for those victims and survivors. We are not delaying; we are actively working at pace to ensure that justice will be served and support is available.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) raised the case of Rhianon Bragg. Again, I was proud to have the opportunity to meet Rhianon and to discuss her case. Through the Bill, we will be strengthening the victim notification scheme and opening it up to more victims, ensuring that timely communication is available. Victims have told me time and again that that is needed; this change will be testament to that. On her calls for Wales, she will know that, as a proud Welsh MP, I will always stand up for Wales and for Pontypridd. A justice system that covers England and Wales robustly is important, and I will ensure that it is there. I will meet the Welsh Government soon to feed back her specific concerns.

A number of colleagues mentioned bad character evidence. They will be aware that the Law Commission is looking into that, and we will carefully consider its recommendations. I stress again that I am willing to work constructively with right hon. and hon. Members on all the issues that have been raised. The Bill is one of many legislative vehicles that we will have.

The Bill stands before us as a legacy for the victims and survivors that I have had the honour of meeting in my 10 months in this role. These changes are long overdue. They will strengthen our justice system and help deliver the accountability and service that victims of crime want and deserve. I urge the House to give them its full support. I stand ready to work with everyone on that. I proudly commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Victims and Courts Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Victims and Courts Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 26 June 2025.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)

Question agreed to.

Victims and Courts Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Victims and Courts Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)

Question agreed to.

Coroner Services: West Midlands

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

My condolences to you on your loss, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on securing this important debate. I thank him for his emotive speech, and all hon. Members who contributed, representing the views of bereaved families, sometimes including their own. It is appreciated and they have done so dutifully.

The House will be aware that although the Ministry of Justice is responsible for coronial law and policy in England and Wales, it does not have operational oversight of the coronial system. Coroner services are not centralised as part of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, and are instead administered and funded through the relevant local authorities for each coroner area. The chief coroner provides judicial leadership for coroners. I take this opportunity, as other Members have, to express my thanks to all coroners, their officers and their staff, as well as the chief coroner and her team for their tireless and expert commitment to their work. We are all extremely grateful to them for the vital service they provide to the bereaved and to the justice system.

Coroners are independent judicial office holders. They are specialist death investigation judges and part of the wider death investigation, certification and registration system. Their statutory duty is to investigate any death of which they become aware if they suspect that it was violent or unnatural in its cause, its cause was unknown, or it occurred in custody or other state detention. They also have an ancillary duty to ensure that, in appropriate cases, action to prevent future death is identified via prevention of future deaths reports.

The needs of the bereaved, particularly where there are faith concerns in respect of a death, should remain central to the coroner process. Both the Lord Chancellor, as a west midlands MP, and I are very aware of local concerns about coroner provision for communities that require swift burial or cremation. Clearly, decisions about the release of the body, including whether to hold a post-mortem examination, are independent judicial decisions for the coroner. However, I know that in many jurisdictions, including in the west midlands, families have experienced real delays. Sometimes, that is because the coroner needed to gather further evidence to support the investigation. I fully understand that, regardless of the reason, delays can cause real distress for bereaved families, particularly when faith requirements are dependent on the timely release of a loved one’s body.

We are working hard to cut delays wherever possible and to ensure that families are properly communicated with and supported throughout the process, particularly so that we can ensure that any religious ceremonies or faith requirements can be met, as they should. There are already a range of measures in place to help guide coroners as to best practice in terms of early decision making once a death has been reported, in order to ensure that families can be given certainty as soon as possible.

The chief coroner has issued detailed practical guidance for coroners in dealing with requests for urgent consideration of a death and early release of a deceased body, including on religious grounds. The guidance sets out that legal framework and states:

“Coroners should pay appropriate respect to those wishes, within the framework of their legal duties and in the context of other responsibilities.”

In addition, the chief coroner has issued guidance on the use of post-mortem imaging, including CT scanning, and on pathology more generally, which emphasises that the family should be kept fully informed throughout. I regularly meet the chief coroner to ensure that we have a shared understanding of the issues with the coroner system, including this one. I am also happy to engage with representatives of faith communities to understand their concerns and to meet hon. Members to discuss the matter further.

As the House will know, the Justice Committee undertook an inquiry into the coroner service in 2021, with a follow-up in 2023-24. The Government responded to the Committee’s letter of May 2024, summarising their findings in December 2024. That letter has been published by the Committee. It is right that our focus should be on ensuring that the bereaved are at the heart of the process. I hope the House will find it helpful if I set out a number of steps that the Government are taking to address the issues raised by the Justice Committee, other stakeholders and hon. Members.

After just a few months in office, in September 2024 this Government implemented the statutory medical examiner system in England and Wales. It represents the most fundamental change to the end-to-end process of death certification and registration in recent times. The new system means that every death is subject either to the scrutiny of a medical examiner or to a coroner’s investigation, thereby fulfilling the long-standing ambition of successive Governments to introduce a robust system whereby all deaths, without exception, are subject to an independent review.

Medical examiners and coroners have distinct roles. The new arrangements will ensure that cases are managed in the right part of the system and that only those deaths that require a judicial investigation are referred to the coroner. That will enable better focusing of coronial resource, which in turn is expected to support the reduction of inquest backlogs and delays. I hope we are already seeing the evidence of that. Just last week, the Ministry of Justice’s coroner statistics were published: 174,900 deaths were reported to coroners in 2024—the lowest level since 1995 and down 10% compared to 2023. That is because, following the creation of the new system, only those who genuinely need to go to the coroner will do so. In addition, 81,200 post-mortem examinations were ordered by coroners in 2024—a 6% fall compared to 2023.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

To reduce the burden and time it takes for post-mortems, does the Minister agree that we should use technology, and MRI and CT scans, wherever possible, which will also speed up the release of the body?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s contribution. As I have said, that guidance is there and that equipment is available to coroners if they deem it necessary. Of course, we want to see anything that will help speed up the process for families.

Although we want to wait a full year for the proper data next May, the early evidence is encouraging that the new arrangements are working as intended. Reducing the number of unnecessary cases being referred to coroners means that coronial resources can be focused on the most complex deaths, while reducing the impact and burden on families. It also means that the number of post-mortem examinations that subsequently reveal a natural cause of death may also be reduced, since those cases may be identified by better surveillance and scrutiny much earlier in the process.

More widely, we recognise the concerns expressed by the Justice Committee and hon. Members present about the shortage of pathologists, particularly child pathologists, available to undertake coronial post-mortem examinations. That is a long-standing and complex problem, and its resolution requires a cross-Government approach. I am happy to reassure hon. Members that such an approach is taking place. I am meeting my counterparts in the Department of Health and Social Care to look at how we can fix the issue in the long term. Coroners rely on the pool of pathologists working in the wider medical system, including the NHS, to perform those examinations. We are carefully considering the views of the Justice Committee in its report, as well as the data we have gathered from our call for evidence on coronial pathology, which was issued in late 2023, with a view to publishing a new strategy for improving coronial pathology in due course.

We recognise the impact that inquest hearings are having and are doing all we can to process that backlog as quickly as possible. We will work with the chief coroner to continue to build on the foundation that has been put in place to reduce the time. I know that coroners in the west midlands are well below the national average, as we have already heard. The Black Country coroner area completes inquests in an average of 11 weeks, and Birmingham and Solihull, and Coventry, complete inquests in an average time of 17 and 18 weeks respectively. Bereaved families should not be left waiting longer than is necessary for inquests to be completed.

We are working on a number of areas, including on a guide to make coroner services more accessible. We are considering all we can do and all the recommendations, and I am happy to come back to the House in due course. We will work with the chief coroner on the content of all material, and to reinforce the use and dissemination of these guidance documents.

The hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr spoke about MPs making representations, MPs are elected to this House to represent their constituents, and they should be able to do so. I will raise his point with the chief coroner when I meet her soon.

I recognise the concerns expressed today, as well as the wider concerns expressed by the Justice Committee and other stakeholders, about the importance of an effective coroner service. We will continue to do all we can to ensure that the system continues to put its focus on finding answers on behalf of the deceased, that bereaved families are always at the heart of the process, that lessons are learned from any death and that this learning is disseminated as quickly and as widely as possible to protect the public.

Question put and agreed to.

British Nationals Murdered Abroad: Support for Families

Alex Davies-Jones Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) on securing this very important debate and on his thoughtful and compassionate contribution? He has used his voice this evening for the voiceless, and I thank him for doing so.

Losing a loved one to murder is devastating, but when that tragedy happens overseas, the pain is only compounded by distance, unfamiliar legal systems and the complexity of navigating bureaucracy while trying to grieve. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that families going through something so traumatic should never have to face it alone. They should be able to access support to help them cope and recover. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman and this House that bereaved families in England and Wales can access support, even if the crime took place abroad.

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office leads on providing support to families bereaved through murder or manslaughter overseas. The specialist murder and manslaughter team in the FCDO’s consular assistance department provides emotional support to bereaved families and helps them to navigate challenging investigative and judicial processes in foreign countries. That includes when a death occurred in an event designated by the UK Government as an act of terrorism.

Families can receive updates on an investigation or trial, guidance about local legal processes, and help finding support services in the country where the incident happened. While the FCDO cannot intervene in another country’s justice system, it does all it can to ensure that families are kept informed and treated with compassion.

I do appreciate, however, that the experience of families in legal systems abroad, as we have heard from hon. Members, can be deeply painful at a time when they are already experiencing immense grief. This evening, I want to pay tribute to my constituent Nathan Osman, who tragically lost his life in Benidorm on 28 September last year. His family, including his sister Alannah, brother Lee and parents Liz and Jonathan, have given their consent to speak about Nathan today. My team and I have been supporting them for several months as they fight tirelessly for justice.

Alannah was initially contacted by the Spanish authorities on the day of Nathan’s death. The exchange of information was brief and unclear, with Alannah confirming her name only to be told, “Brother found dead, bottom of cliff.” They were told to contact the British embassy two days later and left with no additional information. The Spanish police initially—like in the case of Dr Ding, mentioned by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone)—ruled Nathan’s death as accidental and closed his case with little investigation or support. It was only thanks to the family’s research and investigation, with help from my team—specifically from Rebecca Lewis—that enough information was collated to reopen that case. I hope that will bring closure for the Osman family. While South Wales police did their best to support the family during the immediate aftermath of Nathan’s death, they had no direct contact with the Spanish authorities or Interpol to clarify if the translated information that the family had received was correct and accurate.

[Jim Shannon]

The point I made to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) was that families sometimes find out about these cases on social media or somewhere else. I would have thought that whenever the police in whatever country become aware that someone was a British citizen, they would immediately contact the embassy and make it aware of what had happened so that it could be the conduit. Could that be done? We have had a similar case in Northern Ireland, although I will not go into any details because it is an ongoing case. There is an important role for the consulate and the British embassy to play.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. It should be the appropriate protocol for the police to be informed first of an incident in a country, with the families informed by the police in that country or by the police in our country via Interpol, as I said. But, in today’s modern age, sadly that is not always the case. It is not fair to the families that they find out second or third hand. An appropriate protocol should be in place. That should be how it happens. Sadly, we know that is not always the case.

The Osman family did not receive, and did not know that they could receive, a trained family liaison officer in Wales, and they were largely ignored by Spanish police. When they visited Spain shortly afterwards, they had to describe the situation on a mobile phone using Google Translate—we have heard that about similar cases—and there was extensive miscommunication throughout the ordeal between the family and external authorities, costing valuable investigation time and prolonging their agony.

There were many other issues with obtaining Nathan’s case file and coroner’s report, which the family believe contain a number of discrepancies. No one should have to endure what they went through. Losing a young family member in such horrific circumstances is a pain that few of us can truly understand, and they were retraumatised through various errors and miscommunications.

In the pictures and videos shared with my team by the family, it is easy to see what a dedicated father Nathan was to his young children and how much he is still loved and missed every day. I thank Alannah, Lee, Liz and Jonathan for sharing Nathan’s story with me, and I thank hon. Members for sharing their stories with me this evening. I am sure the whole House will join me in sharing all our condolences with everyone impacted.

[Josh Newbury]

I thank the Minister for the open and sensitive way in which she is responding to the debate and for sharing the experiences of the family of her constituent Nathan. I am familiar with that case. She heard me explain the contact that I am having with the family of Rob Spray in my constituency. Would she be willing to meet me and the family, when the time is right for them, to see what could be done to get them the answers they so desperately want?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the Sprays’ experience. It is their lived experience and the experiences of other bereaved families that fuel me and give me that information to conduct my role as the victims Minister. I wholeheartedly welcome that correspondence and information.

In addition to the FCDO support that I have set out, the Homicide Service is commissioned by the Ministry of Justice to provide specialist practical, emotional, peer and advocacy support to families after a murder, whether it happened here or abroad. For homicides that occur overseas, that includes funding to contribute to the cost of repatriation to the UK, for the family to travel to the country in question, and for the interpretation and translation of documents, among other services. Crucially, this support is tailored to each family’s circumstances and is available for as long as it is needed, so that families are not left to navigate these challenges alone.

[Tom Gordon]

I have been helping a constituent whose relative was murdered abroad over 10 years ago, and it is still an ongoing issue. My constituent tells me that the responses from the FCDO have not always been prompt or clear, that there has not always been a named point of contact and that, sadly, in some instances there have been mistakes in emails that were labelled “official” by the FCDO. In addition to offering support to colleagues through talking about their experiences, would the Minister and her colleagues consider setting up some sort of drop-in to which MPs could bring their cases, so that we can all help our constituents to get the justice they deserve?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for that contribution, and I am so sorry to hear of his constituent’s experiences. It is exactly that type of experience that is fuelling me to find out what more we can do to support the families of those murdered abroad. I think a drop-in would be welcome, and I welcome correspondence from Members across the House on their experiences. I also appeal to families across England and Wales to let me hear about their experiences directly so that I can work with charities such as Murdered Abroad and the Victims’ Commissioner to see what more we can do for them.

We have a memorandum of understanding in place on murder, manslaughter and infanticide abroad between the FCDO, UK policing and His Majesty’s coroner. This sets out clearly the support that is available when a British national is murdered overseas and the deceased has been repatriated to England or Wales. It clearly defines the roles of each signatory, setting out a shared commitment to working together in support of bereaved families. In some cases, this includes assigning a family liaison officer to bereaved families in the UK, although I appreciate that this is at the discretion of the local police force. At local level in England and Wales, police and crime commissioners also have the power to commission services for all victims of crime, including supporting victims where the crime has been committed overseas.

However, as I have already outlined, we recognise that for many families in this difficult position, it is not always clear what support is available or how to access it. That is why, as we develop the new victims code provided for in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, we are considering what further information can be included to better signpost help for those affected by crimes overseas. I intend to consult on the new code with all new Members and the public in due course.

[Mr Reynolds]

While the Minister is developing that code, and before we reach the point at which it is ready to be shared widely with the public, would it be valuable for her to meet Eve and others who founded the charity Murdered Abroad, and to talk directly to them about their experiences and how they could influence the code at this earlier stage?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I welcome the hon. Member’s comments. It is crucial that we consult organisations such as Murdered Abroad when looking at the new victims code. It is important that we consult all organisations supporting victims and survivors as we look at what else is missing from the code and how best we can provide that support.

That said, I should make it clear that we do not necessarily believe that the victims code is the right place to make provision for victims of overseas crimes. The code sets out the minimum standards of service that victims should receive when involved in cases dealt with in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. It is therefore designed around the laws and procedures that we have here in our jurisdiction and our criminal justice system, much of which will not be applicable in cases involving crimes overseas. It is therefore not the right vehicle to make provision for victims where the offence is investigated and prosecuted abroad, as consular support overseas relies on the responses of agencies in that specific country where the crime occurred.

I commit to the hon. Member for Maidenhead and the House that, following the new code, my Department will work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the FCDO, the Victims’ Commissioner and Murdered Abroad, taking into account the lived experience of others, to explore how we can make clearer what support exists for families affected by homicide abroad and what more we can do to support them.

We know how traumatic and isolating it can be to lose a loved one to violence in a foreign country. No family should face that kind of devastation alone, and our hearts go out to families who have gone, and are going, through it. When it does happen, those families deserve compassion, clarity and proper support. We are working to improve access to the help available and to ensure that those who need support know how to find it. I hope the hon. Member for Maidenhead is reassured by the measures I have set out and the steps we are taking to strengthen the support on offer even further.

Question put and agreed to.