Oral Answers to Questions

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The Sentencing Act 2026 had a very clear aim, which was to stabilise the prison capacity crisis and to prevent victims from having to go through the ordeal of finding out that their perpetrator was being released not because they had served their time, but because there was a capacity crisis. However, the Government’s own capacity projections depend on both building capacity and keeping current cells operational. In the Budget, the MOJ’s capital for maintenance was reduced from £2.3 billion to £1.9 billion for 2029-30, but the cost of the maintenance backlog sits at £2.8 billion and cells are regularly being taking out of use. Can the Lord Chancellor confidently and categorically rule out, at the Dispatch Box, any more early release schemes before the end of this Parliament?

[Alex Norris]

I have been very clear that the point of the Sentencing Act was to move us on from having to have early release schemes, and I am more than confident that it will deliver that. The hon. Member makes a very important point about maintenance. She will know the success we collectively had with the Treasury over the summer in bringing forward investment to ensure that we can access places more quickly. However, she is right that, while we talk a lot about new places, we need to work really hard, through our investment programmes, to make sure that existing places stay online. As I say, I am confident in the work that we have done with the Treasury to ensure that.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is rare that we can achieve cross-party consensus in this place, but I think we have consensus that no party here would want to see rich and powerful men abusing our justice system to silence the voices of victims of violence against women and girls. Eleanor de Freitas took her own life in 2014 after being privately prosecuted for allegedly making a false rape accusation. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women found that the UK violated Eleanor’s rights. Will the Minister please consider Eleanor’s law to ensure that prosecutions concerning allegedly false reports of rape and sexual violence can be brought only by public prosecuting authorities?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will certainly look into the case of Eleanor’s law and do all I can to prevent such a situation from happening again.

Draft Administrative Court (Recording and Broadcasting) and Court of Appeal (Recording and Broadcasting) (Amendment) Order 2026 Draft Magistrates’ Courts (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2026

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec.

The Liberal Democrats support these orders. As the Minister outlined, they build on existing broadcasting practices across the judicial system to expand the broadcasting framework for the Court of Appeal and to permit recording and broadcasting in the administrative court, and in the magistrates court for the most high-profile magistrates cases.

The UK Supreme Court has been broadcast since 2009, the Court of Appeal since 2013 and Crown court sentencing remarks since 2020, with the first Crown court broadcast in July 2022. Transparency in the criminal justice system is essential for public trust. It is crucial that justice is not just done, but seen to be done. These orders will support open justice and make the administration of justice and the rule of law more accessible.

I have just a couple of questions for the Minister. First, following the power outage of the Google cloud network that caused chaos across the court system on 20 October, does the Minister know of any evidence that the broadcasting of proceedings has ever caused delays in our court system? Does she have any concerns that expanding the use of digital technology the system could delay proceedings?

Secondly, justice is obviously made more accessible by the provision of court transcripts to victims, which we have discussed many times. Many victims are unable to attend the entirety of hearings or trials, and court proceedings can be very complex and difficult to follow, especially when it comes to sentencing decisions. Although we welcome the progress made in the Sentencing Act 2026 on providing Crown court sentencing remarks free of charge, the Government must go further. I know that the Minister is keen on that, so will she outline what more she hopes to do in respect of court transcripts to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done?

Electronic Monitoring of Offenders

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

Over 5,000 offenders went unmonitored in the first half of this year due to serious delays in the tagging system, and in the year to March, an average of 300 people per week were released from prison with no fixed address, making it incredibly difficult to ensure that offenders are tagged and then managed in the community. That adds to the strain on both the Probation Service and the police, who are using scarce resources to manage an increasingly large caseload and keep victims safe. The Government have repeatedly promised that they will not jeopardise public safety, but many victims following the stories over the weekend, especially after Mark Rowley’s comments, will struggle to believe them. Will the Government listen to the calls of the Victims’ Commissioner to tag individuals at the gate and roll that out to every prison by January?

We also welcomed the Government’s announcement to introduce restriction zones for offenders, which limits the movement for perpetrators rather than victims, but the effectiveness of those zones will require offenders to be properly monitored and any breaches to be addressed without delay. Is the Minister confident that there are enough resources to operate restriction zones effectively, and when will we see a national roll-out of this important measure?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Lady makes a number of thoughtful and helpful contributions. It is very important that housing and homelessness are tackled among the prison leaver population, to ensure that they have the opportunity to build a life and not reoffend, and we will work with local authorities as effectively as possible to ensure that prisoners are not at risk of becoming homeless. It is a priority of this Prime Minister and this Government to tackle homelessness across the board, which was reinforced by the announcement yesterday of £874 million of priority funding to tackle homelessness. We are already extending the period by which collaboration must happen between the prison and probation unit and local authorities, so that they have the maximum period possible to put in place arrangements that ensure victims’ safety and the public’s safety.

The hon. Member rightly raised tagging at source, which we have had a very successful pilot of. This has not been done previously by any Government. We recognise it as an opportunity to really improve the work that is happening, and we are working at pace to ramp up tagging at source. She also raised the restriction zones. I can only reiterate that these are world-leading measures we are putting in place. We are not just fixing the mess that we inherited but working at pace to make this system work in the interests of victims and the public, and creating a society that everyone can contribute to.

Controlling or Coercive Behaviour: Sentencing

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for setting out the petition so clearly on behalf of the Petitions Committee.

I congratulate Paris Shears especially, and all those who signed the petition. It is very clear that there was a desire across the country to have this debate. It takes immense bravery to bring deeply personal and traumatic experiences into the public eye in order to try to effect change. I am profoundly impressed by those who use their trauma to try to make the world a better place for those who come after them so that they never have to see somebody suffer in the way that they have. I am very grateful to Paris for all that she has done, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for her support for Paris. Paris’s story and her tireless efforts have inspired many to sign the petition and share their own experiences.

The topic of today’s debate is vital. Controlling and coercive behaviour is an utterly abhorrent and evil crime. As has been said by many Members across the House, it is the sort of crime that stays with the victims forever. It leaves them traumatised and scared, not only while the behaviour is occurring but often for many years afterwards. Victims are often desperate for help but unable to reach out without putting themselves in further danger because of the very nature of the coercion and control, which cuts these people off from their lives, from accessing health services and from even being able to leave their homes. In these instances, warning signs are missed, opportunities for intervention are bypassed and the abuse and trauma continues.

It is everybody’s responsibility to ensure these victims receive the support, early intervention and justice that they deserve, but too often the justice system has failed to do that. In cases where the abuse is identified—when criminal charges are brought forward or it ends up in the family courts—victims are faced with systems riddled with issues, including delays to trial and a culture that allows perpetrators to manipulate the system and continue their cycle of abuse. That culture continually undermines faith in our justice system and discourages participation when victims simply want to move on with their lives. It is an agreed principle that many defendants will put in a not guilty plea in the hope that their victim just gets tired and cannot bear the thought of going through a trial.

The situation outlined today perfectly demonstrates some of those flaws. As we can attest from the numerous testimonies, victims are seeing their abusers benefit from the system. They see their abuser’s sentence being reduced while simultaneously having to go through re-traumatisation. For a victim who has escaped their abuser, having to go through a trial, provide evidence and face questioning can open old wounds and take them back to the time of their abuse and often undermine their recovery.

Sentence reductions for guilty pleas are a long-standing practice, and their importance within our criminal justice system cannot be overstated. They help to avoid costly and lengthy trials that add further pressure to the system and prevent some victims from ending up with a trial that they do not want or have to have. However, we must recognise that there are instances where defendants are exploiting that incentive to harm their victims again.

In their response to the petition, the Government stated that they are “committed to updating” the statutory guidance on controlling and coercive behaviour before the end of 2026, so I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government remain committed to that timeline and to provide a timeline for their publication of the review. As part of that review, will the Minister commit to considering a mechanism that has come to mind during this debate, which is one that could look at a rehearing 30 days in advance of a trial to see whether a defendant will change their plea before we get to a trial? A reduction could be included at that point, but not on the morning of a trial. It should be made very clear that a defendant would not have the option of putting in a guilty plea that would result in a reduction if they chose not to make it 30 days in advance.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I thank those in Taunton and Wellington who signed the petition. In addition to the review of sentencing guidelines for which my hon. Friend has advocated, and which I very much support, does she agree that, in respect of Paris’s law, which I also support, prevention needs to be tackled through greater perpetrator programmes, so that individuals are targeted and coercive and controlling behaviour can be stopped at its root as much as possible?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to reflect that, as part of the Government’s commitment to halving violence against women and girls, we need a multi-agency approach to tackling the root causes of coercive control. The Liberal Democrats also believe that the Government should review, as part of the update, how sentence reductions apply specifically in cases of controlling and coercive behaviour, so that perpetrators cannot use legal proceedings maliciously to continue their abuse.

Beyond that, the Government must go further to support victims of coercive control and domestic abuse across the entire court system. The Liberal Democrats tabled multiple amendments to the Courts and Tribunals Bill that aimed to improve the experience of victims in the criminal courts. We often hear from legal experts and victims about a lack of understanding of these issues in the courts in general. One of our amendments would have required judicial staff to receive mandatory training on domestic abuse and violence against women and girls, and all court staff to receive trauma-informed training to ensure that victims receive the best possible support from the moment they arrive at court. On multiple occasions, the Government have argued that such mandatory training would not be possible, especially when it comes to the judiciary. However, similar provisions are included in the Government’s plans for rape and serious sexual offence courts. I struggle to understand how they can commit to having trauma-informed members of the judiciary for RASSO courts but not across the entire court estate.

At the heart of this issue are the delays. The Crown court backlog now exceeds 80,000 cases, and victims are waiting longer than ever to see justice. The Government must take real action to address the inefficiencies at the heart of the failing system, rather than pursuing the unevidenced structural changes we have seen in recent months. Real change can be achieved through targeted listing, the better use of court time by holding more sittings in a day and reforming prisoner escort contracts.

We believe that failings in the family courts allow abusers to continue abusing victims, and that they too often fail to recognise domestic abuse, despite its presence in over 70% of hearings. Once again, training must be extended to cover these issues and protect individuals who are victims of domestic abuse and coercive control. We must provide sustainable funding for support services for survivors of violence against women and girls and domestic abuse, and expand the provision of high-quality perpetrator programmes in domestic abuse cases, with the aim of preventing further abuse. We want to establish specialist VAWG taskforces in every police force, bringing together officers and specialists with the training, resources and capacity to effectively support survivors, including by working in partnership with frontline women’s services.

As my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) said in his excellent speech, we believe that special measures should be the standard, with victims having the opportunity to opt out of special measures, because so often, and especially for those who do not have access to legal aid, they have no idea what is available to them when it comes to special measures. If they were a standard principle across all courtrooms and a victim could then say, “No, actually, I don’t want the special measures. I want to be able to face the accused in court,” that would be very different from their getting to court and finding out that nothing is in place for them.

If we can take one thing from this debate, it is that victims continue to go unheard in our criminal justice system. We must listen to those who have spoken up in support of the petition and ensure that they have their concerns addressed, so that other victims of these horrendous crimes do not suffer in the same way.

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Can I just emphasise to Members that votes will come at 6 o’clock, which leaves us very little time, and inevitably not all Members will get in? I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The entire criminal justice system is on the brink of collapse. We can all agree today that the current backlog in our Crown courts is unacceptable, untenable and unsustainable. The situation we face—a backlog sitting at over 80,000 cases and victims of rape waiting on average 424 days for their case to complete—is the direct result of the historic and monumental failings of successive Governments. Whether it is a lack of prison places, soaring reoffending rates or the horrendous backlog in the Crown courts with a growing backlog in the magistrates, it is a national emergency waiting to happen. But the Government’s plans to address this situation have been equally dangerous. Under Keir Starmer, this Government led us down a path—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We must refer to other Members by their constituencies. Oh, he is not a Member any more—apologies!

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Under Keir Starmer, this Government led us down a path towards curtailing jury trials, presenting it as the only way to deal with the backlog. That was despite widespread opposition from the legal profession and Parliament, including from their own Benches, and despite the absence of any coherent modelling or trialling to demonstrate the impact of the proposed Crown court bench division. Political capital was wasted pursuing a solution that was never feasible. What we are presented with today is still fundamentally a flawed plan.

We remain deeply concerned about the pressure that these changes will place on magistrates courts. The plans for those charged with either-way offences to lose their right to elect trial by jury, alongside the increases in sentencing powers and the removal of the right to appeal, will place immense and dangerous pressure on magistrates courts, while simultaneously removing vital safeguards. The Government now predict that an additional 25,000 cases will be added to magistrates court caseloads each year, and the current rate of increase in the backlog of open cases is expected to be 9%—it is exceeding that of the Crown court backlog.

Increased complexity also raises questions regarding the suitability of summary justice to deal with these cases—a point that has been raised by the Bar Council and others. I also have profound concerns about the experiences of victims in summary justice; it is not just the Crown court where victims are so often failed. The Minister spoke very powerfully about Morwenna. I remember Morwenna’s powerful testimony. I am thinking today about Georgia, whose case in the magistrates court was postponed four times in a row. She spent months and months of building herself up for that moment before being totally failed because she did not get her day in court. The Government have done little to address those concerns, which is why amendment 11, tabled in my name, remains on the amendment paper. It would prevent magistrates’ sentencing powers from being increased beyond 12 months.

The Liberal Democrats also fundamentally oppose the removal of the automatic right to appeal decisions made by magistrates. This is a vital safeguard for summary justice, where lay magistrates are expected to make decisions with significant and real consequences. On the whole, we all agree that they make these decisions very well, with fewer than 1% of cases being appealed. But of those cases, the latest figures show that 56% were successful. We are now expecting magistrates courts to hear more complex cases carrying higher sentences at the same time as the Government are bluntly removing this protection against those miscarriages of justice. The Government want to speed up the process within a system, but changing the appeals process at this point is unnecessary and frankly dangerous. The reasoning, as per their own response, is:

“If we do not reform the appeals process, we expect absolute volumes of appeals to the Crown Court to increase given the impact of other reforms will be to retain more cases in magistrates’ courts.”

Let us reflect on that for a moment. Over half of current appeals are currently successful, and because the Government believe this number may increase, they are satisfied to remove that safeguard. How can the Minister defend a position that removes that vital safeguard in summary justice, while also accepting that it would be more needed than ever?

There is also scant provision in this Bill for, or consideration of, the implications for legal representation in magistrates court. Currently, there are differing income thresholds for legal aid between the Crown and magistrates courts. Shifting cases from the Crown courts will mean that many more defendants who may be accused of crimes carrying sentences of up to 24 months will be ineligible for legal aid, leaving them unrepresented. Baron Leveson reflected in his review that the differing thresholds for legal aid could be creating a “perverse incentive” for a defendant to choose the Crown court, but the Government rejected Baron Leveson’s recommendation in their response yesterday.

This not only has a profound effect on fairness in our justice system; it also affects the Government’s assumptions about how quickly the backlogs can be cleared. A lack of legal aid impedes efficiency and will slow down cases, leaving victims and defendants waiting once again. That is why we have tabled amendment 18, which links legal aid to the severity of the sentence, rather than the venue of the trial, and we have written to every Member of the House asking them to support it.

New clause 20, tabled in my name, requires all new contracts for court-related services to include performance penalties, to put an end to these sham contracts that are currently failing to deliver prisoners on time.

The Liberal Democrats also believe that opportunities have been missed to maximise the use of time within the existing court structures. There is scope to increase the number of trials heard in selected courtrooms across England and Wales from one to two a day. That approach was trialled during covid, and it resulted in 3.5 trials per week being cleared, compared with fewer than 0.9 trials in courtrooms operating under standard hours. New clause 4 calls for a review of the feasibility of hearing two trials a day in selected courtrooms, split between morning and afternoon sessions, with each trial sitting for four hours. Solutions such as this—which have not been explored by this Government, as confirmed in Committee—would supercharge the Crown court process, with a specific focus on clearing the backlog.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I recognise the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for making the criminal courts work more efficiently, but I put to her a practical problem with the solution she proposes of courts starting at 9 o’clock in the morning—especially if we were not able to resolve the problem she identified of prisoners not always being brought to court on time. She will recognise that those of us who represent criminal clients in the criminal courts do not start our day at the time the court starts; we start a lot earlier. The opportunity to speak to our client, discuss the case properly with them and perhaps find a way of resolving the case without the need for a trial is extremely valuable. Does she recognise that problem?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Absolutely. The right hon. and learned Member makes a really important point about the prisoner escort and custody services contract and ensuring that defendants are delivered to court on time, but not all defendants going into a Crown court are being held on remand. There are also defendants on bail who can get themselves to court, and it would be up to the listing officers to ensure that those cases are heard in the morning, which would take off the pressure that the PECS contracts clearly have in delivering people to start at a 10 am slot; instead, those defendants might be arriving for a 2 pm slot. He raises an important point and gives me a lovely opportunity to explain why I have thought about that and how we would overcome it.

New clause 2 supports the implementation of fast-track courts for rape and serious sexual offences. We have heard powerful testimony across the House during the passage of the Bill about the need for rape and serious sexual offence courts, which we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have called for. It was therefore welcome when the Government announced their plans to implement them, but it is puzzling that they have not included those provisions in the Bill, because there is no point in waiting—these courts should be implemented urgently, to bring an end to the disgraceful waits that these victims are facing.

The Government also announced when they agreed to roll out these RASSO courts that all judges presiding over them will undergo specialist trauma-informed training. Given the Government’s decision not to include domestic abuse cases in these RASSO courts, that would surely strengthen the case for having universal specialist trauma-informed training for all of the judiciary, which we have called for throughout the passage of the Bill.

New clause 11 would give victims the right to receive transcripts of all judicial summings-up and bail decisions relevant to their case. Amendment 15 is particularly relevant given the direction of the Bill, as it would ensure that magistrates court transcripts are free for victims and accessible within 14 days. On the issue of transcripts, the Government have made real progress, which I welcome. Many victims choose not to attend the entirety of their hearing or trial, and even when they do attend, being able to process the events of a court case afterwards provides a valuable opportunity to better understand why those decisions were made. Transcripts being freely accessible aids in moving forward with one’s life, and at every turn, the Liberal Democrats will continue to push the Government to go further.

Finally, I turn to new clause 17, tabled in my name. The Courts Act 2003 introduced Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Court Administration, which was established in 2005 but then closed in 2010. A 2022 Justice Committee report found that the argument for closing the inspectorate had not stood the test of time and called for the re-establishment of an inspectorate body. In his review, Baron Leveson also recommended a mechanism to inspect His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, which was rejected by the Government. This is a particularly important time to introduce the additional oversight that a courts inspectorate would provide—a position that was also supported by the Victims’ Commissioner.

In conclusion, the Government have approached this issue in the wrong way, pushing unworkable measures, opposed by those working in the legal sector who have to deliver the reforms, and eroding the safeguards that protect those who come into contact with the criminal justice system, be it defendants or victims. The Bill before us today makes dangerous changes that will have little effect on the backlog. That is why the Liberal Democrats will be unable to support the Bill, which is unfortunate especially given the good clauses at the end of the Bill that deal with the serious issues around presumption.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

I have therefore tabled amendment 70, which is based on a recommendation by the Committee that would require the Government to increase the legal aid thresholds in the magistrates court before the removal of the right to elect can be implemented. I urge the Minister to consider giving us that commitment today. Otherwise, the House is being asked to double the sentencing powers of magistrates and remove the right to elect without any reassurances that defendants who cannot afford to pay privately will be legally represented.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

As the hon. Lady has just turned a page, I am confident that she will go on to the fact that, at the same time, the Government are proposing to remove the automatic right of appeal. If somebody has no legal background and cannot navigate a system that is totally alien to them, they will not know how to follow the process or what legal backing they could have if they had grounds for appeal.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I am very conscious of the time available for this very important legislation, so I am turning the page to conclude.

To return to where I started, I welcome the Government’s commitment to bringing down the backlog. However, if we sweep the queue away from the steps of the Crown court only to lengthen the line around the block at the local magistrates court, we will not serve that aim, and we will continue to fail victims of crime and defendants alike.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirith Entwistle]

I speak today as a victim of domestic abuse who has found going through the court system especially triggering and on behalf of constituents who have shared their harrowing experiences with me. One wrote to me and said that

“the system still allows a father to weaponise the child, to throw accusations whilst protecting his position, while none of the issues I raised got any acknowledgement.”

Another felt that

“the process itself has repeatedly failed to meet the standards expected of our justice and child protection systems.”

I start with new clause 6, on victim-led intensive case management, which I stress is an issue across all courts. Recent experience of the courts shows that special measures are still not being properly implemented. The lack of a common-sense approach to communication is still a problem in 2026, when great technological advances have been made.

I commend the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on her many amendments that seek to improve experiences for victims, such as new clauses 7 to 9 on judicial training. I stress that all members of the judiciary should always have access to training. In fact, they should have to hear at first hand from victim-survivors about their experiences as part of that training. It does not matter how many times somebody tells me that they understand what I am going through or acknowledge what I have been through—they really cannot unless they have lived it themselves or they know somebody who has.

The phrase “trauma-informed” is incredibly powerful and crucial. Such training should always be trauma-informed. That brings me to new clause 13 and the duty to provide trauma-informed training, which needs to include looking at how we communicate what will happen in court with victims, as well as the impact those proceedings will have on victims.

There are severe issues with diversity and representation across all levels of the judiciary. I would be interested to hear more about what our Government are doing to ensure better representation.

New clause 16 is about remote participation. As someone who has recently been through that as a victim, I believe that we must include an assessment of the special measures involved and whether they are adequately communicated to victims. In my case, they were not. I recently experienced an online hearing in which I had my perpetrator staring at me the entire time. I was not able to blur the background on my screen and I was not able to hide his face. The hearing was adjourned because the relevant documents did not reach the right parties on time, despite the fact that email exists and has done for some time.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank the hon. Member for her bravery in sharing her powerful story and for highlighting how special measures do not work if people do not know that they available to them. During the Bill Committee, I argued that special measures should be there as standard, with people having the ability to choose to remove them to face their perpetrator in court. Does she agree that we could easily roll that out across all our courts so that every victim would be protected from the moment they arrived?

[Kirith Entwistle]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I agree that we should look for that to be the standard measure. I did ask for special measures, but when I turned up at court they were not implemented, so I had to walk past my perpetrator before going into the courtroom. That is what I experienced as a Member of Parliament. I dread to think—although I do know—what some of my constituents are experiencing.

On new clause 24, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) for ensuring that children’s voices and views are enshrined in the family courts. I know that representatives of Women’s Aid are here, as is the formidable Claire Throssell. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) on her tireless efforts in making that happen; she is incredible. The pro-contact culture embedded in the court system puts too many children at unnecessary risk. I am really pleased to see that the Government are removing that.

I am also pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) addressing, in the form of amendment 22, the issue of post-separation abuse, which the courts have facilitated. I thank him for being a strong ally and for standing up for his constituents. He and I have both experienced a deluge of constituents contacting us about the abuse that they face and their experiences of the court system. It is always good to have his support.

I am grateful that the Government are taking steps to go further for victims by introducing the victims helpline, addressing the issue of the automatic right to appeal so that victims are not retraumatised, and establishing specialist RASSO courts. However, I want to put on record my experiences as a victim and those of my constituents to ensure that the system truly supports all victims and ensures that they are genuinely heard and properly communicated with, that they know what their rights are and what is available to them, and that we are all shielded from further triggering and traumatic experiences involving our abusers.

I am fed up of people and institutions telling me that they understand and then taking action that tells me they do not. I am fed up of being told that they are familiar with domestic abuse or coercive control and then telling me that it does not matter. I am fed up of feeling ignored and dismissed, and so are my constituents. Our justice system exists to protect victims, not to enable perpetrators. We should always remember that.

We still allow our perceptions about how good a person looks on paper to cloud our judgments. Perpetrators walk among us: they are police officers; they are teachers; they are fathers; they are mothers. They are here in every aspect of our daily lives, and we cannot judge somebody because of how good they look on paper and give them the benefit of the doubt because of that. We have to look at the facts, we have to ensure that victims are heard and, crucially, we need to make sure that their voices are put at the heart of every decision that we make and that they are properly and adequately supported at every single step of the way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

Time and again, for more than a year now, Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box and told the House that their attack on jury trials was essential to making the courts work efficiently. Time and again we told them that they were wrong, and so did more than 100 of their colleagues on the Government Benches. We said that the right to a trial by jury is an ancient English right—a vital part of our national inheritance and a necessary safeguard against the might of the state.

Ministers ignored us and said that we did not understand. They briefed against their colleagues and, in the case of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), they smeared him disgracefully. Now they admit that they were wrong and we were right. All those Ministers and Labour MPs who stuck to the Government line in the face of all the evidence should reflect on the limits of blind party allegiance and following the instructions of their Whips. It makes them look very foolish today.

I remind the Courts Minister in particular of our exchange in the House in June. When I told her that the incoming leader of the Labour party, now the Prime Minister, was going to scrap her prized policy, she told the House that I misunderstood his position. She said that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) did not in fact oppose their assault on jury trials. Yet here they are, with their policy largely abandoned, and her authority as Courts Minister lies in pieces.

Like Monty Python’s Black Knight, the Courts Minister declared in June, “I move for no man.” As her policy lost one limb, she insisted it was but a scratch. As it lost another, she claimed it was just a flesh wound. Now that the Bill is left completely dismembered, she has gone from insisting, “I am invincible,” to finally saying, “All right, we’ll call it a draw.” But it is not a draw; it is a very serious defeat, and it is a victory for our constitutional settlement, our rights under the Crown and the sacred principle that no one shall be convicted and deprived of their liberty except by a jury of their peers.

This was a battle that should never have been fought. In the last year, 17,601 sitting days were lost because Crown courtrooms sat empty. On average, about 16% of Crown courts are not sitting on any given day. We have repeatedly called on the Government to get the courts sitting throughout the year. That is how they should cut backlogs, not by attacking juries.

I said that the attack on juries had been largely abandoned, but the Government have not completely given up. There remain serious problems with the Bill, which will remove the right of defendants to elect a jury in either-way cases and increase the sentencing power of magistrates courts so that more cases are heard there. However, the magistrates backlog has reached 380,000 open cases—a 9% increase on the previous year. The Government have not told us what additional resources will be given to magistrates to manage the increase in workload, nor what new safeguards will ensure justice. Indeed, there has been no assessment of the likely effect of the change on appeal rates. We know that of appeals against verdicts given by magistrates, up to 56% are allowed.

The Bill will also remove juries from what it calls complex and lengthy trials, which are normally said to be cases involving fraud. The independent reviewer of fraud, Jonathan Fisher KC, concluded that there was no justification for the change. But clause 4 does not only concern fraud trials; the Government seek to extend the scope of judge-only trials to other complex cases in later years by secondary legislation. That would give them the power to resume their attack on jury trials without proper scrutiny or debate. The proposal is a disgrace and we reject it emphatically.

The Bill as amended will also establish a review of the court system with a specific remit to consider inequality of outcome based on racial identity. Once again, the Labour party is trying to engineer judicial outcomes based on identity rather than treating us all as free individuals accountable before the law. The Opposition will resist that and stand for the principle that it is only our actions that matter, not who and what we are.

Opposition Members are committed to the ancient right to trial by jury, but while the principle of jury trials is sacrosanct, there is increasing evidence from recent cases that juries may, in some examples, have been compromised by the political or religious bias of some jury members. We have seen the acquittal of violent thugs, including the man who smashed a female police officer’s spine apparently because he was a member of Palestine Action. We have seen vandals from Just Stop Oil found not guilty despite clear evidence of their guilt.

Many in the legal profession are concerned that this is an increasing trend in courts across the country. If those who break our laws walk free because jurors feel kinship towards them or because the cause for which the defendant committed a crime is just, justice is no longer blind. That flies in the face of the rule of law. It must be stopped.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that many in the legal profession are sounding the alarm about the perceived bias of juries. Will he please state which legal organisations have expressed that view to him?

Prisoner Early Release Scheme

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The prison capacity crisis that the Conservatives left behind is unforgiveable, but the situation we find ourselves in two years later is a national emergency waiting to happen. The entire criminal justice system is in freefall. Victims have been left looking over their shoulders for their released perpetrators; more than a third of the places that were freed up by the last wave of releases were filled again within a week; and the very probation officers who are overseeing these releases will decide in the coming weeks whether to take strike action.

The Government have never had a grip on this issue. Everyone who comes into contact with the criminal justice system is being failed, and tinkering around the edges will not fix the problem. Will the Minister commit to tagging prisoners immediately upon release—at the gates—as called for by the Victims’ Commissioner, ensuring that perpetrators are not allowed to evade being tagged or left unmonitored for days? Will he also commit to a royal commission on the entirety of the criminal justice system, so that we can finally get to grips with the deep-rooted issues caused by successive Governments’ complacency and mismanagement?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The Lord Chancellor mentioned working with experts in his previous answer. Amnesty International has recently questioned the Government’s human rights assessment of the Courts and Tribunals Bill, describing the proposals as a

“dilution of the quality of justice”,

particularly in relation to

“efforts to combat racial discrimination”.

These issues were raised at earlier stages of the Bill, but the Government batted away our concerns. The time is right to change course, prior to the return of the Bill in October. Can the Secretary of State confirm that those concerns are being heard by the Prime Minister while he considers the future of the Bill, and can he guarantee that hon. Members from across the House and experts in the sector will have adequate time to scrutinise the Government’s amendments before we are asked to debate it on the second day back after recess?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The Liberal Democrats in the other place have secured an amendment to address the injustice of locked child trust funds for disabled children. The leader of the Liberal Democrats has experience of this issue with his own disabled son, and he has been a passionate campaigner for a change in the law for many years, working with other campaigners such as Andrew Turner. When the amendment comes back to this House, will the Labour Government support it?

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on leading today’s important debate and for setting out comprehensively, but also succinctly—I am very grateful for that—why we are here debating SLAPPs. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) on originally securing today’s debate.

Our justice system was built on the principle of fair and equal treatment for all who go through it. It should not be a tool for the rich and powerful to systematically silence accusers and avoid accountability, but the growing use of SLAPPs makes it abundantly clear that the system is in fact tilted towards those who harness power or wealth. Victims, journalists, academics, whistleblowers and many more, all attempting to speak truth to power, are being silenced by mechanisms within the justice system that are being weaponised and abused. Those mechanisms are not intended to protect these rich and powerful individuals but are doing just that and preventing access to justice. Lawsuits and threats with immense financial implications and additional time constraints are being used to intimidate and coerce individuals into stepping out of the legal system and stopping their actions. They are keeping cases of immense importance and significance to the public out of the courts, undermining the fair and equitable justice system that we should all strive to achieve.

I know many today have been supported by the work of the Anti-SLAPP Coalition, which has done so much to expose these cases and push for the legislative changes that are necessary. The coalition has reported spikes in the number of cases sent to it in recent years, blaming an environment in the UK that is claimant friendly and in favour of those suing. That is not something that we should be proud of. Of course, there have been high-profile cases that have come to light, and some have been alluded to today. Mohamed al-Fayed, the Horizon scandal and Grenfell all provide serious regrets, and attempts to bring those scandals to light were continually blocked from the courts, elongating the pain of their victims and meaning that many never saw justice served at all.

One case provided by the Anti-SLAPP Coalition illustrates many of these issues. It is the case of Heidi who, having contracted a building firm to carry out an extension of her home, became concerned about the quality of the work carried out. She terminated the work, but having taken a six-figure loss, made a complaint to the trading standards authority. She was informed that she would need other cases to take the case forward, which she then requested on social media. Having done that, Heidi was challenged by the building company’s lawyers with a letter stating that her actions amounted to harassment, defamation and malicious falsehood and falsely questioning her legal qualifications.

It is very similar to a case brought to me by a gentleman connected to the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, who spoke to me about the intense level of legal correspondence he received from an estate management company that he had accused of poor service and mismanagement. He had created a Facebook group not just for that estate management company but to find other cases of estate management companies that had been failing their residents. He was relentlessly pursued by the estate management company’s legal team, with letters insisting that he remove the group or he would face legal action.

There is also the harrowing case study that was covered by the BBC’s “Woman’s Hour” of a clinic that performed plastic surgery. Having encouraged customers to leave reviews on its website and on Trustpilot, the clinic had its lawyers pursue legal action against at least five individuals who dared to write negative reviews of its service. Those reviews related to legitimate concerns about the quality of treatment provided by the clinic, yet the customers were pursued with vigour—threatening legal action of taking individuals to court and defamation claims of thousands of pounds. One woman said that she hid the whole case from her husband for fear of losing their family home. She felt totally silenced by this plastic surgery company that was threatening to take away her home. It resulted in a number of the individuals removing their completely legitimate concerns about their treatment from the online forums.

All of these cases highlight situations arising up and down the country in which the legal system is being used to intimidate and to scare individuals into not speaking out—and those are the ones we know about. As many Members have said today, this is just the tip of the iceberg, because a number of people will have folded under the immense pressure and immense amount of money being thrown at them. We do not know how many cases we do not know about.

What we need to combat such practices are universal statutory protections to counter SLAPPs in UK law—something eminently achievable, as has been shown in the US and Europe. Currently, well-meaning journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners and victims speaking out on matters of public interest unrelated to economic crime have no legal recourse, and these gaps must be addressed. New legislation should be introduced that ensures equal access to the justice system and does not allow those with vast amounts of money the opportunity to silence victims or those undertaking legitimate scrutiny. That legislation must include a filter mechanism that allows courts to swiftly dispose of SLAPPs; an extension of early dismissal procedures; cost protections for defendants in all SLAPP cases, not just those involving financial crime; and the empowerment of courts to impose financial penalties on those who bring forward abusive SLAPP claims or use SLAPPs relentlessly against multiple claimants.

We must also strengthen the regulatory powers of professional standards bodies and ensure that there is robust enforcement against lawyers and law firms that engage in abusive SLAPP litigation, while at the same time improving access to legal advice and support for those facing SLAPP threats. This is a position that the Liberal Democrats have consistently held—we were the only party to support such legislation in our manifesto in 2024—but the point is now clearly recognised across the House.

The previous Conservative Government’s amendment to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act provided protections in cases of economic crime, as has this Government’s public recognition of the issues in this area. We have seen two private Members’ Bills in this Session containing anti-SLAPP provisions, including one due to be presented by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) in November. Will the Minister confirm the Government’s position on those two private Members’ Bills and whether it is the Government’s intention to support them in their passage through the House? Could she outline what conversations she is having or planning to have with the legal profession to stamp out these sorts of practices?

The current context, the attention and the support across the House demonstrate that the time is right to take steps to protect victims and protect the chance of equitable justice. That will only happen with legislation that stamps out malpractice as early as possible, avoiding extortionate costs for victims and allowing the truth to finally be heard.

Criminal Justice Reform

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

The Justice Secretary knows that the chaos and uncertainty for victims and their loved ones over the summer months from the handling of this scheme have been unforgivable. The Government have changed course countless times, leaving PC Andrew Harper’s family and countless others without the certainty that they deserve.

The reality, as we all agree, is that in a properly functioning justice system, no victim or loved one should ever be told that their perpetrator is being released earlier than they were told when that sentence was handed down. However, if tough decisions have to be made, they have to be made carefully, sensitively and preparedly, with the safety of victims, loved ones and the public front of mind. How, therefore, will the Justice Secretary be communicating these—I hope—final changes to those who received the generic letters, including victims of grooming gangs and sexual abuse, earlier this year, and will those letters be tailored to each victim? He mentioned in his statement those who are not in the victim contact scheme and an effort by the MOJ to contact them. Can he please provide an assessment of how many victims he thinks that is, and how much resource he will be given to try to track them down?

The reality for the new Justice Secretary is that his inheritance is now a public safety crisis. If probation staff go ahead with strike action, as threatened last month, is he confident that the system can safely manage the risks of releasing thousands of extra offenders? This has all the hallmarks of a national emergency waiting to happen, yet where is the emergency response? Can he explain why the national Criminal Justice Board has not met all year, despite these changes being discussed last year as part of the Sentencing Act, and will he now convene Cobra to give the situation the gravitas it deserves?

The prison capacity crisis is one that this Government inherited two years ago, but they now own the response. As highlighted by the chief executive of the Howard League, we are

“one major incident away from a disaster.”

Prisons such as Wandsworth have been operating at 62% above their intended built capacity as the new normal, creating dangerous conditions that undermine any effort to rehabilitate offenders. What confidence can the Justice Secretary provide that he can deliver this increase in capacity on time, given past failings to do so, and that he can adequately staff it?

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for the Liberal Democrat spokesperson’s contribution. As I hope she heard me say, I do accept that the impact of our taking the summer to carve more offences out of this regime in a way that is safe and means we have a resilient prison estate has had an impact on victims and survivors and on their families, as they wait with uncertainty. I hope that is not unforgivable, in the sense that I hope it is understood that our aims were noble ones and have allowed us to go further—I think all Members would say that was a good thing.

My mitigation and attempt to balance the situation is in what we do now. I am making a commitment from this Dispatch Box about the quality of engagement with victims and survivors. Everyone is being written to immediately to have a contact sent to them—trauma-informed engagement. This will introduce a conversation with a victim liaison officer specific to them and specific to the information about their offender’s release date and whether it is changing, and will help them to tailor the controls on their perpetrator so they can live the fullest possible life.

On probation and capacity, I pay tribute to my predecessors as Lord Chancellor for the work that has been done to recruit more staff. That is not at its end state, but the £700 million investment is nevertheless starting to bear fruit. I think that gives us optimism for probation, but I am aware that there are still challenges. I have met staff and will continue to engage, and we of course want to avert strike action, as the hon. Member says.

The hon. Member’s point on the national Criminal Justice Board speaks a little bit to the point I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott): I want to reinvigorate it as a place that takes real ownership of a reform of our criminal justice system. I think we would all accept that our criminal justice system is not delivering, and we are paying a lot for failure as well. I have not had very long in my role, as I hope the hon. Member would accept, but I certainly look forward to meeting the board.

On convening Cobra, I have to say that it is not in my gift, but it is in the Prime Minister’s. However, the changes we have made are exactly to avert the scenario of getting to such a crisis. In the spirit of what the hon. Member says, I am conscious of the pressures we have put on over the summer—they have been for good aims—but now we need to build a much better system.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Jess Brown-Fuller Excerpts

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

[Nick Timothy]

The point is that this is a new duty, which is backed by criminal sanction, and that is why it is different from the status quo.

As I was saying, the Justice Secretary is a Privy Counsellor. He is the Deputy Prime Minister. He was once the Foreign Secretary—the man to whom MI6 and GCHQ were accountable. He knows that these sources of intelligence from allies are essential. They support our national interest, protect our way of life and save the lives of innocent people. Neither he nor the Minister can, hand on heart, stand here today and say that they know for sure that this Bill does not endanger that intelligence. Nobody can say that, because this Bill will change the behaviour, decisions and actions of those we ask to keep us safe, because it might change the terms of the relationships with our allies, and because we cannot anticipate the decisions made by individual heads of future investigations and inquiries.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that chairs of inquiries and inquests already have the power to hold closed sessions in private if they are looking at information that is sensitive or potentially poses a risk to our national security? That already exists, and the measures in the Bill do not impact that at all—it is already done on a daily basis in inquiries.

[Nick Timothy]

What the hon. Lady says is not entirely relevant to this proposition. This is about the provision of information to particular investigations and inquiries, and we do not know—indeed, we cannot know—the identities of the people who lead those investigations and inquiries. That is one of the reasons why this is such a step into the dark.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I wish to speak to the amendments and new clauses tabled in my name on behalf of my party. Up and down the country, those who have been failed by state institutions, unheard and ignored for years, will today be relieved that this hurdle has been cleared and the Hillsborough law can finally progress. I pay tribute to those campaigners, many of whom are with us in the Gallery, for their courage and perseverance through years of campaigning, and for never saying, “That’ll do”, and instead making sure that the Hillsborough law was delivered in full.

This is known affectionately as the Hillsborough law, but it represents many victims and their loved ones. Be it the Post Office scandal, the Manchester Arena attack, the contaminated blood scandal, Grenfell Tower, nuclear weapons testing veterans, the pelvic mesh scandal, LGBT veterans, or any of the many others, those individuals have stood up for the voiceless and demanded change. These are scandals in which countless individuals have lost their lives or livelihoods, or suffered life-changing injuries.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

My constituent Gary is one of the victims of the infected blood scandal. He was a pupil at Treloar’s College, and 120 boys from Treloar’s were given contaminated blood. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to those boys who have fought so hard for justice, and does she agree that it has taken far too long?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner on behalf of her constituents and the victims of the contaminated blood scandal, and she is right to highlight how long it has taken to get here. I commend the Government for ensuring that we eventually got to this point.

These scandals have been uncovered despite the best efforts of public institutions to keep them buried. Institutions that should have been transparent and accountable instead used public money to protect their reputations and deflect blame. Every single victim deserved better. The efforts of campaigners are what have brought us to the point at which we can begin to level the playing field and address the imbalance between the power of the state and that of the ordinary individual. That is why we Liberal Democrats have, at every stage, welcomed the provisions in the Bill, but it was clear at the beginning of this year that there were major gaps in relation to the carve-out for the security services that needed to be addressed.

Campaigners rightly pointed to the role that the intelligence services have played in the past in covering up mistakes and failing to take accountability. Last week there were reports that MI5 had lied in court about Agent X, who had violently abused his partner. Likewise, last year we had the Stakeknife inquiry—Operation Kenova—which raised serious questions about the running of, and collusion with, British informants, while once again highlighting the immense difficulties of obtaining information from the security services. It is clear that these organisations have at times suffered from the same protectionist, inward-looking faults that other public organisations have suffered from. It would have been completely unacceptable for there to have been a carve-out, especially considering that mechanisms already exist to allow for information with national security implications to be heard behind closed doors.

The breakthrough announced over the weekend is welcomed by the Liberal Democrats and will come as a relief to all those wanting to see this Bill progress. I commend Members on the Government Front Bench who secured it, and those no longer there, particularly the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who worked so hard to get the legislation to the place it is today. I know from her contributions in debates, her willingness and openness to meet me and Liberal Democrat colleagues to hear our concerns, and her engagement with campaign organisations and families, that she has fought to deliver the Hillsborough law as it was intended by those involved in the campaign.

The Bill Committee took place eight months ago, so it was fun going through all the notes to remind myself exactly what was said. I pay tribute to hon. Members from across the House who scrutinised the legislation, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). I know they sought to ensure that victims and their loved ones remained at the centre of the Bill and that their concerns regarding the drafting were heard. We have worked alongside them to ensure that no stone has been left unturned in seeking to secure the best possible outcomes in this legislation. Our amendments are all aimed at tightening the gaps that we can see in the legislation.

First, there is the importance of whistleblowers, who, in many of the tragedies mentioned today, have provided vital information at great personal risk for the public good. The Liberal Democrats have long called for stronger whistleblowing protections to ensure that wrongdoing within organisations and public bodies is swiftly exposed and brought to justice. Amendment 3 ensures that public authorities involved in an inquiry or investigation demonstrate that they have taken steps to ensure that individuals can safely disclose information relevant to that investigation.

Amendment 6 would require that a public authority’s code of ethical conduct includes information about to whom a person can make a protected disclosure and how that person will be protected. The Minister talked about additional guidance being provided with the legislation, so will she, when she sums up, set out whether there will be an expectation that that will include how to make a protected disclosure? We would have liked this Bill to go further on whistleblower protection, but much of what we proposed was considered out of scope for the Bill. I urge the Government and the new Administration to look more widely at what can be done to protect those who attempt to expose wrongdoing in the future.

A statutory duty of candour in the NHS has existed since 2014, yet we know that there remains a culture of retiring or firing staff who dare to speak up. Our new clause 2 would create an offence for anyone who wilfully destroys relevant records after a major incident that could lead to an inquest or inquiry. New clause 3 is aimed at providing a national oversight mechanism through the publication of an annual independent report on compliance with the Act, as has been mentioned multiple times already in the debate. Many hon. Members spoke of the need to have an overnight mechanism, and similar amendments have been tabled by the right hon. Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) and the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter).

Amendments 1 and 2 would ensure that the legislation is fully up to date with modern investigations by making it clear that digital messages must be provided as evidence to investigations. The Bill includes provisions for the inclusion of subcontractors under the duty of candour, but we do not believe that they go far enough. Amendment 4 would therefore extend those provisions to all subcontractors throughout the chain of provision. We need only look at the way local authorities subcontract to understand that most working within the public sector are subcontractors of subcontractors of subcontractors. We believe that the scope needs to be extended to include those.

The extension of non-means-tested legal aid to bereaved families at inquests is also long overdue and greatly needed. For too long the system has been weighted against ordinary people seeking justice. Those attempting to bring these scandals to light have faced well-resourced and highly motivated public bodies intent on protecting their reputations, but we do not believe that the provisions go far enough and we will be seeking to amend them in the other place. Amendments 11 and 12 would ensure that public officials do not escape their responsibilities when they cease to hold public office, and that they remain accountable for their actions even if they have since resigned, retired or been shuffled out.