Arbitration Bill [Lords]

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to contribute to the Committee stage debate on the Arbitration Bill on behalf of the Opposition. I thank Lord Bellamy, the previous Conservative Minister who originally introduced the Bill in the Lords in the previous Parliament, and I recognise the work of the Law Commission. Much of this Bill is based on the excellent work that the Law Commission did in considering the original legal framework for arbitration.

We fully support this Bill’s objective of modernising and strengthening the UK’s arbitration framework. Arbitration is a vital pillar of our legal system, supporting businesses, individuals and international commerce while reinforcing London’s position as a world-leading hub for dispute resolution. It is important that this legislation is as robust, effective and fair as possible. The Committee stage presents an opportunity to ensure that the Bill delivers on its promise, and we welcome the improvement that it introduces. I do not intend to go through all the Bill’s clauses, but I reassure the House that the necessary scrutiny that one would expect from the Opposition in Committee is taking place. I will just touch on some of the key clauses.

First, clause 1 provides welcome clarity on the governing law of arbitration agreements, particularly in light of the Enka v. Chubb case in 2020. Defaulting to the law of the arbitration seat where no choice is specified increases certainty for businesses.

Secondly, clauses 3 and 4 extend arbitrator immunity to protect them from liability unless bad faith is proven. This is an important step to ensure that arbitrators can act independently without undue fear of litigation. We must retain an effective safeguard to challenge an unreasonable resignation, and we welcome the Minister’s reassurance that parties affected by an arbitration resignation are not unfairly disadvantaged.

Thirdly, clauses 5 and 6 streamline the process for jurisdictional challenges. Parties will either need to seek a preliminary ruling from the court under section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1996, or wait to challenge jurisdiction under section 67.

Fourthly, on the procedural innovations covered in clauses 7 to 9, the introduction of summary disposal of claims is an important step towards greater efficiency, though we would welcome reassurances from the Government that they will monitor its use so that we can be sure that it is applied carefully and fairly, and does not have any unintended consequences. We believe that the recognition of emergency arbitrators is a positive step that enhances the availability of urgent relief, aligning the UK with international best practice.

Also of note is the right of appeal in clause 13. As the Minister stated, there was an unusual previous drafting issue that suggested that appeals to the Court of Appeal were permitted only if expressly allowed under the 1996 Act. That was incorrect. Clause 13 corrects the error, ensuring that appeals are permitted unless specifically restricted. This is a vital change to uphold fairness and legal certainty.

I want to acknowledge an important issue that was raised in the other place by Lord Hacking, whose contributions to the discussion on arbitration have been incredibly valuable. I know that other Members have also pressed for greater scrutiny of how confidential arbitration could be misused to conceal corruption. We welcome the Minister’s assurances that arbitral institutions are taking steps to mitigate those risks, and we believe that the Government must remain actively engaged in monitoring and addressing potential abuses, and not rule out taking further action at an appropriate time if it becomes necessary.

Beyond the issue of corruption, other crucial areas were mentioned in the other place; these are important and warrant further Government attention. They include the need for expedited hearings to prevent undue delays in arbitration proceedings, the role of third-party funding, and ensuring transparency and accountability in funding arrangements, as well as the authority to mandate mediation between parties, where appropriate, to encourage resolution outside of arbitration. The Minister’s attention to these issues is essential, so I would welcome confirmation that they will be addressed in due course.

In conclusion, the Arbitration Bill is a necessary and welcome step in ensuring that the UK remains a pre-eminent jurisdiction for arbitration. However, as with any legislation, its success depends on the details. The Opposition remain committed to ensuring that the Bill delivers legal clarity, procedural efficiency and fairness while upholding the integrity of our arbitration framework. I commend this Bill to the Committee and look forward to seeing its rapid progress through the House.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I rise in support of this Bill, which introduces important measures to modernise our arbitration framework. We Liberal Democrats welcome the approach that the Government have taken in refining the Bill’s provisions to ensure clarity and effectiveness.

Clause 1 is a key part of this new Bill, and we are fond of the changes made following the recommendations from the Special Public Bill Committee in the previous Parliament. For example, the Committee proposed removing two words to prevent undue confusion, and I am pleased that the Government have accepted that recommendation. In addition, the Government have further clarified that investor state arbitration agreements derived from treaties or non-UK legislation will not be subject to the default rule, which is a welcome and sensible step that is necessary to bring greater legal clarity to the process.

I also welcome the five amendments to clause 11, which enable procedural reforms under section 67 of the 1996 Act. These changes respond directly to concerns raised in the last Committee, and strike the right balance between efficiency and fairness in arbitration proceedings.

Further improvements were made in the other place, where the Government tabled amendments to clause 13 to correct drafting issues, which have been mentioned, and to ensure that access to the Court of Appeal aligns with established case law. These amendments received cross-party support and I am pleased to reinforce the Liberal Democrats’ support for them today.

This Bill strengthens the UK’s arbitration framework by improving clarity, ensuring fairness and refining procedures. We support its passage and urge the House to do the same. We do not expect any problems with that.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I give my sincere thanks to hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions today to what has been a succinct and precise debate. We are all agreed that this is an important step forward, and I am particularly grateful to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), for welcoming the improvements to the Bill and recognising that they have been the work of many people in the Lords and the Commons as well as of contributors from outside, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) reminded us earlier.

The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle raised the important issue of corruption. As I mentioned during the Bill’s Second Reading debate, arbitral corruption is not the result of our domestic framework, which provides several effective remedies to quash corrupt practices. We support sector initiatives to enhance anti-corruption practices such as the International Chamber of Commerce’s anti-corruption taskforce, and we will push for the adoption of best practices as they are developed.

The hon. Member also raised third party litigation and funding issues. The Government have carefully considered the impact of the UK Supreme Court judgment in Paccar, and have decided to wait for the outcome of the Civil Justice Council review before deciding whether to legislate. A comprehensive review of the market will allow us to take a wider range of factors into account. Following the Paccar judgment, concerns have been raised about the need for greater regulation of litigation funding agreements and greater safeguards for claimants. This is therefore an opportune moment to review the status of the market. The review is being undertaken by the Civil Justice Council, supported by a wider consultation group of experts across this area. The final report and recommendations will be published in the summer of 2025, after which the Government will consider the way forward.

The hon. Member also mentioned mandated mediation, and I will try to pick that up as well. The Government agree that dispute resolution, such as mediation, has a key role to play in ending disputes more quickly and cheaply. This is why all parties to a small money claim in the county court are now required to attend a free one-hour mediation appointment with His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service’s small claims mediation service as an integrated step in the litigation journey. This reform will help thousands of people and businesses each year to resolve their legal disputes without the need for a court battle. We will continue to work to drive the uptake of dispute resolution throughout the justice system to allow parties to resolve their disputes more consensually and at an earlier stage.

That concludes my responses to the points raised during the Committee of the whole House. I once again thank all those who have contributed to the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde]

I thank everyone to whom the Minister rightly gave recognition, particularly the behind-the-scenes officials whose work we do not often see, but without whom such landmark legislation would not be possible.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Arbitration Bill, inasmuch as it represents a significant step forward in modernising and enhancing the arbitration process in the UK. With over 5,000 arbitrations a year in England and Wales, worth about £2.5 billion a year to the economy in fees alone, arbitration has long been a critical alternative to traditional court proceedings, providing a more efficient, cost-effective and flexible way to resolve disputes.

One of the Bill’s key merits is its effort to streamline the arbitration process, which can be complex and protracted. By introducing these clearer guidelines and enhancing the powers of arbitrators, the Bill will help us to secure quicker resolutions, reducing delays and backlogs in the justice system. This is crucial for businesses that seek fast and decisive outcomes to disputes.

Of course, arbitration is part of a wider family of alternative dispute resolutions that help to take pressure off our courts. Recognising this, I pay tribute to legal professionals and firms in Eastbourne that work day in, day out, to facilitate many of these alternative dispute resolutions, including Heringtons, Cramp & Mullaney, Hart Reade, Gaby Hardwicke, Stephen Rimmer, SO Legal, Hobson & Latham, Mayo Wynne Baxter, Lawson Lewis Blakers, Cornfield Law, McCarthy Webb—whose services I have used—and many more.

We are pleased to support this Bill for the reasons that I and many other Members have discussed. It will ultimately help to position the UK as an attractive destination for global arbitration, reinforcing its status as a leading centre for business and legal expertise, whether we are talking about the financial capital of the UK or the sunshine capital of the UK, Eastbourne, with its legal expertise, to which I have just alluded.

The Liberal Democrats are pleased to back this Bill, and I am proud to support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting—

(a) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Secretary Jonathan Reynolds relating to Terms and Conditions of Employment not later than two hours after the start of proceedings on the Motion for this Order;

(b) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Lucy Powell relating to Scrutiny of European Statutory Instruments not later than one hour after the start of proceedings on that Motion; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved;

proceedings on these motions may continue, though opposed, until any hour, and may be entered upon after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Anna Turley.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

In a recent written parliamentary question, I asked the Government how many domestic abusers there are in prison and what their reoffending rate is. Under the system this Government inherited from the Conservatives, they said that

“It is not possible to robustly calculate the number”.

That is shocking, and is in part because there is no specific offence of domestic abuse in the law to properly reflect and recognise these crimes. My Domestic Abuse (Aggravated Offences) Bill would correct that loophole. When will the Secretary of State honour the commitment she made on “Good Morning Britain” to meet me to discuss my Bill and how we can better protect victims and survivors?

[Sarah Sackman]

Tackling domestic abuse is a priority for this Government. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 sets out a broad statutory definition of domestic abuse, which is improving our understanding of the wide range of behaviours that can constitute this abuse. While not constituting a stand-alone offence, domestic abuse is considered an aggravating factor routinely throughout our criminal justice system, and rightly so. That is the reason why that data is not collected, and that is the position we will maintain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Confidence in the criminal justice system can be achieved only if support for victims and survivors is adequately funded, but charities such as Victim Support, whose services I have personally benefited from, have said that for them, the hike in employers’ national insurance contributions amounts to a real-terms budget cut of 7%. Victims need more support, not less. Will the Secretary of State fight to reverse that damaging cut and help restore victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the difficult fiscal inheritance for this Government, and that we have had to make some difficult choices. We received a good settlement from the Treasury at the last Budget, but it is not without its challenges, given the high demand in our system. He will know that we have protected funding for victims of violence against women and girls, including rape and sexual offences. We have sought to protect the most vulnerable victims when making decisions on our victims funding packages.

Drones: High-security Prisons

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

The word that was missing from the shadow Justice Secretary’s question just now was “sorry”. A National Audit Office report said of the then Conservative Treasury’s investment in prison maintenance and security that

“capital budget allocations for prisons have been well below the level needed.”

Who was a Treasury Minister at that time? None other than the shadow Justice Secretary. Today’s report is the latest chapter in a catalogue of Tory prison failures that scuppered their mission to reduce reoffending, and therefore let down victims of crime. Will the Minister tell us about a new approach to better empower governors with the investment and the autonomy needed to properly invest in prison maintenance and security? What investment will he make in prison officer recruitment through programmes such as Unlocked Graduates, which are critical to help drive security in our prisons?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member is right about the failures missing in the shadow Minister’s question. He is also right to ask what the Government are doing to support prison officers and prison governors. We are investing in that, and we will announce a new programme for training and developing new governors very shortly.

Violence against Women and Girls

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Far from letting anybody down, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) has lifted survivors up with her contribution today. One of them, who has been watching from home, is my mum, who suffered abuse at the hands of a former partner. I witnessed that abuse growing up, and that is apart from some of the things that happened to me. The statistic, and the reality, that two women a week are killed by their partner or former partner particularly terrifies me, and always has. That must change, so I sincerely thank the Government for their commitment to halving violence against women and girls over the coming decade. I also thank the Safeguarding Minister for the work that she has done on this issue throughout her career. The vast majority of us in this House know that no tech billionaire, no pound-shop Enoch Powell, and no keyboard warrior can take away that record from her. The silence from Reform party Members is utterly deafening today. They might tweet about this issue while we are debating, but they are not participating, and shame on them for that.

Domestic abuse is a foul manifestation of violence against women and girls, as the Government recognised when they set out their intention of excluding domestic abusers from the standard determinate sentences 40% early release scheme, but as they have said, people can be excluded from early release only on the basis of the offence that they committed, not other antecedents. A challenge is that it is not possible to comprehensively exclude domestic abusers because there is no dedicated offence of domestic abuse in law. Instead, many abusers are convicted of offences such as actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm, which are governed by a piece of legislation from 1861 that was not written with domestic abuse in mind. Domestic abusers convicted of such offences are being let out early, or qualifying for early release. We have seen some such cases, and that loophole needs to be closed.

I convened survivors, academics and support organisations to come up with a solution, which exists in the form of a Bill that I introduced: the Domestic Abuse (Aggravated Offences) Bill, which would create a specific offence of domestic abuse in law for the first time. It would work in a similar way to racially and religiously aggravated offences by creating domestic abuse aggravated GBH, ABH or whatever it might be. Beyond giving the means for the Government to exclude domestic abusers from an early release scheme, it would tighten up some of the data, which is very difficult for academics and others to analyse when they are looking into the effectiveness of interventions.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that collecting data is so important in really getting to grips with the issue?

[Josh Babarinde]

I could not agree more, and I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. If we do not have the data that we want on domestic abuse offences, how can we measure whether we are halving violence against women and girls over this decade, and whether our interventions designed to reduce reoffending among domestic abusers are working?

The introduction of a domestic abuse aggravated offence could help employers with risk management; they could see it when it came up on a Disclosure and Barring Service certificate and press ahead accordingly. I am proud that Women’s Aid and Refuge are backing my Bill. They want to see it made a reality. I thank them and many of those in the media for their support. I also thank Members of this House for supporting my early-day motion 523, and for giving me their support in private discussions, especially folks on the other side of the House. I also thank Ministers for my constructive meetings with them, and the commitment that many have given that we will continue to discuss the Bill, with a view, I hope, to making it a reality. Lastly, and most importantly, I thank victims and survivors of domestic abuse, especially those I have had the honour of working with on the Bill, for their courage, resilience, hope and determination to ensure that others do not suffer as they have.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and for bringing this debate to the Chamber. As has already been mentioned, there have been some powerful contributions today, none more so than that of my friend the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood). I also echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who mentioned that those who have a history of amplifying the voices of recorded misogynists are not welcome here to tell us how we should be running our country.

Secondly and possibly more depressingly, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) mentioned that children watch pornography, and cited the statistic that one in 10 children has watched pornography by the age of nine. This has led to a horrendous rise in child-on-child sexual abuse; according to the police, 52% of recorded sexual crime is child-on-child, the youngest being a child only four years old who uploaded an indecent image and shared it. Much more needs to be done on this matter with our children. I thank the Minister for mentioning male victims of sexual violence, and I also thank a charity in my constituency, First Step, which does some incredible work on this issue.

It is really important that we focus on the needs of victims and survivors. That is why I would like to highlight some of the work that is being done in my constituency. Victims of rape, who have already had to endure such horrendous torture, are sometimes left behind and are victims once again because they get no support whatsoever. That is why for the past 35 years, Shama Women’s Centre in my constituency has provided sanctuary for victims of domestic abuse, among other incredible work. It helps those victims back on their feet, giving them training, job skills, advice, financial help and somewhere to stay while they are hiding from the perpetrators. This really helps women as they strive for independence in their battle for a better life, and to get away from the horrendous abuse they have experienced. We must do more to protect our charity sector; charities are sometimes the last place that these women have to go to, because they have been neglected by everybody else. Financial support is really needed.

[Josh Babarinde]

On the subject of charities that support victims and survivors, yesterday I met representatives of Victim Support. They shared that, at a time when demand for their services is surging, they are facing a 7% real-terms cut in funding because of the increase in national insurance contributions, as well as cuts to police and crime commissioner budgets. Does the hon. Member agree that we should be doing more to support—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. If I am going to get every Member in—and I would very much like to do so—interventions must be short.

Prison Capacity Strategy

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement, and I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for the point of order that I think helped to bring the Minister to the House with this statement today.

Years of neglect under the previous Conservative Government have left our prisons overcrowded and unequipped to provide the tough rehabilitation required, which has let down victims and survivors in my patch and across the country. In fact, as recently as this week, the Conservative Opposition let down those victims and survivors by voting against the measure to exclude people such as stalkers and murderers from the early release scheme.

The result of the Conservatives’ incompetence is the SDS40 scheme—the standard determinate sentences early release scheme—which has seen thousands of ex-offenders released early to unlock emergency prison places. The Minister knows my concerns about that scheme, particularly in relation to domestic abuse, and I hope she will support my proposals to patch it up. Will she, however, confirm what the criteria will be for reviewing the scheme next year?

Ultimately, Liberal Democrats believe that we need a sustainable solution to tackling this problem, because more prisons mean more offenders, more offenders mean more victims, and more victims mean more failure. With 80% of people in prison being reoffenders, we know that reducing reoffending must be the key. I know that from having spent my career before reaching this place supporting kids out of crime and gangs, so why, in a prison capacity statement of over 1,000 words, was reducing reoffending mentioned just once? Will the Minister reaffirm her commitment to that effort, and can she provide more details on how she will reduce reoffending to protect victims and survivors across this country?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesman for his comments, and he is right to raise the issue of reoffending. It is important to note that we have prison capacity available to protect the public, to lock up high-risk offenders and to ensure we have public safety measures available, but we obviously see tackling reoffending as a serious priority. We are looking at it across Government and pulling every lever available to us. Every Department must come together to tackle it, and part of that is the independent sentencing review. As he knows full well, however, when we have a prison population that is running at boiling hot, we cannot get into our prisons and do rehabilitation work. Yesterday, I was really pleased to visit His Majesty’s Prison Downview and see the vital work being done with the women in that prison, which is really important to achieve rehabilitation on the outside, prevent reoffending and protect the public.

On SDS40, the hon. Member will know that we had to take immediate action within days of coming into office to protect the public, and to ensure we had places in our prisons to lock up high-risk offenders and keep the public safe. Legally, we could only exclude offences, not offenders, and we did introduce a wider set of exclusions than under the last Government’s early release scheme. All offenders released under the scheme are on licence and are subject to recall. We are working to ensure that we never again get into the position of having emergency releases, and that we have prison places available and can work on rehabilitating our prisoners so that they can serve a vital role in society.

Oral Answers to Questions

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

There are no specific domestic abuse offences in law, so abusers hiding behind convictions such as actual bodily harm are being let out early under the SDS40 early release scheme. That is not right, so I have introduced the Domestic Abuse (Aggravated Offences) Bill to create a specific set of domestic abuse aggravated offences—a bit like racially aggravated offences—that could be excluded from early release schemes. Women’s Aid is backing my Bill; will the Secretary of State back it, too?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The hon. Gentleman is right to note that, under current legislation, it is possible to exclude only offences, rather than classes of offender. I am sure that his Bill will gain some interest across the House. If any such changes were to be made, they would be for the future, as they do not help us with the current crisis. I will ensure to discuss the details of his Bill with the Home Secretary.

[Josh Babarinde]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer—I hope to have the chance to meet her to discuss it in more detail. The Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned about survivors who have been told that, as it stands, their abuser is set to be released early. One such survivor is Elizabeth Hudson, who I met on the set of “Good Morning Britain” today when launching this campaign. She has written to Ministers about her concerns, but says that she has not received a response. Will the Secretary of State meet Elizabeth and me to discuss her case and how survivors can be respected and protected?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I believe that all who have written have received a response from the Ministry, but I will chase down that specific case. The way we implemented the policy meant that we were able to give the Probation Service time to prepare which was not available to it under the previous Tory Government’s end of custody supervised licence scheme. That means that all victims who were supposed to be notified under the victim contact scheme have been notified.

Draft Home Detention Curfew and Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods (Amendment) Order 2024

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 General Committees

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.

I thank the Minister for his remarks. I also thank him and the Government for taking seriously and addressing the issue of overcrowding in our prisons. They inherited a completely unsustainable position, whereby our prisons were driven to the brink by the last Government. It is clear that urgent action was needed. I am concerned, though, and so are Liberal Democrats, about the implications of the SDS40 scheme—and the administration of it thus far—for victims and survivors of domestic abuse. The Minister will be aware of this because I have mentioned it in the Chamber many times, as well as in private meetings.

It is welcome that this order seeks to tighten up loopholes in the scheme, excluding from early release perpetrators of six different offences, including breaches of restraining orders, sexual harm prevention orders and stalking protection orders, revenge porn, and indeed murderers who were convicted in other jurisdictions. But a key concern is that the order is coming in now, after the release of several thousand individuals, some of whom may fall into those categories. What I want to know, and what survivors of domestic abuse need to know, is: how many people who have breached those various orders—how many perpetrators—have already been released?

Secondly, of those who have already been released, if the number is more than zero—and my assumption is that it may well be—how many do the Government intend to recall if they are now saying that these people should be not on our streets but behind bars, continuing their punishment and robust rehabilitation?

How did the Minister and the Government come to the conclusion that these six offences, and no further ones, were to be considered as further exclusions? What consultation have they done with groups in the sector, including the likes of Refuge and Women’s Aid—I have been engaging with so many more—to understand the effectiveness of the additional six offences and whether there ought to be any more? Does the Minister have plans to further consult those groups, which are incredibly concerned about this situation?

In addition, a key concern of many victims and survivors groups is over the interaction between the SDS40 scheme and the victim contact scheme. If and when an abuser is to be let out—whether early or not—it is critical for victims and survivors to know that that has happened. It is important for them to be able to prepare for what life will be like after that moment. As it stands, the victim contact scheme only kicks in if a perpetrator has been sentenced for 12 months or longer, but we know that there are many abusers, including those convicted of common assault, who are in prison for less than that amount of time and therefore do not fall under the victim contact scheme. Refuge, and many other organisations like it that I have engaged with, have been pushing the Government to expand the victim contact scheme to include victims and survivors of all abusers, no matter how long the abuser’s sentence, and I want to push the Minister and the Government on that again today.

In the Chamber and beyond, this Government, and the Secretary of State in particular, have given assurances to victims and survivors of domestic abuse that they will keep them safe, but unfortunately that has not been the case so far. We have seen that through the loopholes that the Government left the first and second time round. More assurances are required from this Government in order for survivors of domestic abuse to feel safe in the context of the scheme, which has been brought about as a result of the last Government’s maladministration of our prison system. I will leave it there.

Oral Answers to Questions

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I welcome the new shadow Justice Secretary to his place. As he has campaigned to withdraw from the European convention on human rights, I am sure we can rely on him to champion international law for all of us across the world.

I want to ask about domestic abuse. For too long, domestic abusers have been able to exploit a loophole in our legal system, whereby the domestic abuse that they perpetrate is masked by the ambiguous conviction of common assault. This has meant that, under this Government and the previous one, domestic abusers have qualified for early release schemes. When I pushed the Secretary of State on this issue the other day, she admitted that her measures to exclude domestic abusers from early release were

“not of course fully comprehensive.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 206.]

The Liberal Democrats believe that things need to go further. Will the Minister meet me and domestic abuse charities to discuss some of our proposals for closing the loopholes so that victims and survivors get the justice they deserve?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his question. He will know that certain offences are excluded from the SDS40 early release scheme, not the offender. This Government put in strict protections to protect the public, unlike the previous Government, who introduced an end-of-custody supervised licence scheme. Those who are released from sentences for common assault are flagged for domestic abuse markers, and they are given priority for electronic monitoring and risk assessments. I meet the sector regularly to look at what else we can do. We are learning lessons from SDS40, but this Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

An estimated 80,000 disabled young people are unable to benefit from their child trust fund savings, because their families are being thwarted by a complex legal process before they can access them. The previous Government let these families down by tolerating that, so this Government need to act. Will the Minister commit to simplifying this agonising process to ensure that these disabled young people get the cash that they deserve?

[Heidi Alexander]

This Government recognise the difficulties that parents and guardians of young people who lack mental capacity can face in accessing their child trust fund. I recently met the hon. Member’s colleague, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), and his constituent about this issue. The Government will consider what can be done in a way that safeguards those who lack capacity.

Sentencing Review and Prison Capacity

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.

Having myself grown up in a home of domestic violence at the hands of my mum’s former partner, I share the concerns of the Victims’ Commissioner and survivors of domestic abuse that loopholes in the early release scheme’s criteria could mean that some of their abusers, who have been convicted of violent offences but not of domestic violence-specific offences, may have been released early today. I know the Secretary of State attempted to provide some reassurances, but I can say to her that I have received communications from affected people outside this Chamber who are not satisfied with those assurances yet. Domestic abuse survivors deserve to be safe. Can she address these concerns today?

We welcome the Government’s determination to fix the mess that the Conservatives made of our criminal justice system through the evidence-led, independent sentencing review. The former Lord Chancellor chairing it and I have a track record of fixing things together. In my past life, I used to run a social enterprise phone repair company staffed by ex-offenders, and we ran pop-up repair shops in the MOJ, at one of which the then Lord Chancellor David Gauke eagerly presented his phone for repair. I hope this Lord Chancellor shares that collaborative fixing spirit when it comes to engaging with the Liberal Democrats and me on this review—and I will happily sort the Secretary of State out with a phone repair if she needs one.

While empirical evidence will be critical to this review, some of the most valuable insights on this matter are held by victims and survivors themselves. I was therefore disappointed not to find the words “victim” or “survivor” mentioned once anywhere in the terms of reference, although I have heard the Secretary of State say them today. Will she put that right, and outline specifically how victims and survivors will be represented and formally consulted in the sentencing review?

Finally, even though the Secretary of State has said there will be no constraints and no constrictions, something else missing from the review is the injustice of indeterminate imprisonment for public protection sentences, under which almost 3,000 people remain imprisoned with no release date. What is more, people are serving IPP sentences who have committed lesser offences than those being released today under the Government’s early release scheme. Reforming these sentences could help address prison overcrowding and the safety crisis, so why have the Government explicitly excluded IPP sentences from this review, and will she reconsider that decision?

[Shabana Mahmood]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for his questions. I am sorry to hear about his personal experiences, but they will of course inform the valuable contributions that he makes in this House from his own lived experience.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is not a specific offence of domestic abuse in our legislative framework. To bring in the emergency release scheme to prevent us from running out of prison spaces in July, I have pulled every lever at my disposal. We can make these changes in law only by excluding offences, not offender cohorts or offender types. That is why the list of offences covered includes those most closely connected to domestic abuse situations, but it is not of course fully comprehensive. It cannot be, because we can exclude only offences, not offender types. I hope he will recognise that I pulled these levers as early as possible in the Parliament—almost as soon as I walked into the Department—because I wanted to give the Probation Service time to prepare for this change. Specifically, it was so that it could notify victims, work on proper release plans for these offenders, make sure that the licence conditions are the right ones and make sure that the monitoring of these offenders in the community is as strong as it needs to be.

The hon. Gentleman will also know that those who are flagged as having a domestic violence background are prioritised for tags. Every choice I have made in bringing forward these emergency release changes has been made to try to minimise the impact on victims. I really empathise with and am very affected by the concerns of victims that those who have offended against them are being released some weeks or months early. That might sound small, but I know it has a huge impact, and I do not seek to minimise that in any way. As I say, I have pulled every lever at my disposal to try to minimise those concerns.

On the sentencing review, when we reveal the whole panel we will ensure that victims’ voices are represented, as that is important. In the terms of reference we have tried to capture the fact that all of society suffers collectively when we do not get reoffending rates down. This is a strategy for cutting crime and producing fewer victims in future, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will support.

IPP sentences are specifically excluded. That is a challenging cohort of prisoners in our system, and where it is safe to do so I am determined to make progress on releasing those who are currently serving an IPP sentence. I worked with the previous Government and supported changes to the licence terms and conditions brought in by the Conservative Administration. We are implementing changes that were made in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which was enacted just before the general election. What we cannot do is release people who still pose a risk to the public, and with this cohort of offenders I cannot release those who are still a danger to themselves and to others. Getting that balance right is incredibly important, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that it is not appropriate to put that cohort of offenders within the sentencing review.

Criminal Justice System: Capacity

Josh Babarinde Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. So many of my constituents are appalled by the state in which the Conservatives have left our justice system: huge court backlogs, a woefully big remand population, overcrowded prisons and so many victims and survivors without justice. I therefore welcome her determination to arrest this problem and this decline, and especially the reports of her correspondence with the Prime Minister over a fully funded Ministry of Justice. However, I want to address some of the Liberal Democrats’ key concerns about some of the proposals that she has set out.

First, the Secretary of State recognised that there may be additional issues with prison capacity in the short term. With the system bursting at the seams and with us, a matter of weeks ago, just 100 men away from the prisons being completely full, how will she prevent our prisons from collapsing as a result of these measures?

Secondly, on prison effectiveness, putting too many eggs in the prisons basket will ultimately fail to keep our communities safe. We know that 75% of ex-offenders go on to reoffend within nine years of being released. From the work I did before I arrived in this place on getting kids out of crime and out of gangs, I know that rehabilitation, done holistically, is a critical way of reducing reoffending and victimhood. How will the Secretary of State double down on rehabilitation and through-the-gate mentoring programmes to reduce offending?

Thirdly, these measures will put more pressure on magistrates courts, at a time when many, such as my own in Eastbourne, have closed. That risks forcing victims of crimes currently heard in those courts to wait even longer for justice. How will the Secretary of State address that risk?

Finally, one of the worst Justice Secretaries in recent memory, Dominic Raab, tried a similar policy in 2022, with magistrates increasing the number of people being sent to prison on short sentences. The scheme was dropped after a year, and short-sentence reoffending rates are at 57%, which is a deplorable number. How will the Secretary of State avoid these measures backfiring in a similar way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Just for reference, your questions should be two minutes, no longer.