Oral Answers to Questions

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is a champion of individual liberty, and I understand him to be someone who believes in the equal application of liberty for individuals too. He must, surely, share my discomfort that there are individuals with tariffs of 18 months who have served 18 years on those sentences. This has been a matter of consensus for a long period of time; that is why his colleagues, when in government, discontinued those sentences. That is not to say that it is easy. In exactly the spirit in which he says that it must be done safely, my commitment is to do that with him and with colleagues across the House.

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

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

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

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

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I have struggled with this vote perhaps more than any other in Parliament. Had I been asked at any time in my life whether I was for or against assisted dying, I would have said that I am in favour of it. I believe that people have autonomy over their own bodies as a fundamental liberal principle. But we do not vote on principles here; we vote on legislation, and this Bill at this time is not one I can support. I do not believe that it is safe. I do not believe that it addresses the very legitimate concerns raised by disabled voices, and I do not believe that it has come at the right time. In my speech, I will cover the state of palliative care and fears of coercion, but first, I thank my constituents for the role that they have played in this, coming to meetings, speaking to me at surgeries, writing me emails in a respectful way—the way that we should conduct our politics in all things but particularly those that are so serious.

I bring professional and personal experience to this debate. I have been a council cabinet member for social care, sitting on a safeguarding board, I have worked for the General Medical Council and for the past two years I have sat on the Health and Social Care Committee. Like many people, I have also sat with a loved one as they died. Ultimately, my experience means that I do not for one minute believe that this is simple. I know that if we do not pass this Bill, some number of people will die in preventable pain and suffer a painful death. I also know that if we pass any Bill, there will be some number of people who are coerced into taking their own lives. If you have moral certainty—

[Dr Opher]

rose—

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

I will not give way just now. If you have moral certainty on this question, I honestly envy you.

On the state of palliative care, we are told that this Bill is about giving our constituents more options—a choice between good palliative care or an assisted death. But in a world where there are such gaping holes in our health, social care and palliative care system, that is simply not the case.

[Martin Wrigley]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

Not just now. Our Committee asked our independent expert panel to look into the quality and availability of palliative care, and the results should give everyone in this room pause for thought, because we do not have a universal offer of palliative care in this country. The report points to a postcode lottery of provision. Hospices are largely funded through charitable donations, which means that in better-off areas there is better care. The Committee hears constantly about the social determinants of health. Let us not have one of them be that those in wealthy areas have the choice of a comfortable death, while the poor must choose an early one.

Furthermore, there is a workforce crisis in palliative care. There are 700 palliative care doctor posts, but 70 vacancies. Add to that 130 doctors expected to leave the profession in the next five years while, to make matters worse, training bottlenecks mean that there will not be specialist doctors trained to replace them. All that is in a landscape where we expect demand for palliative care to increase by 55% in the current decade.

I want a safe Bill that takes all those things into account. A safe Bill would give some discretion to the Health Secretary on when they implement it. This Bill does not.

[Anna Dixon]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

I am sorry; I will not just now. This Bill has an auto-commencement clause, which means that within four years of the passage of this Bill—whatever the state of our health service, of our social care, or of our palliative care; even if there has been another pandemic—it will come into force.

That brings me to our safeguards. I cannot vote for a Bill that does not sufficiently guard against coercion. That is what my constituents with disabilities say they fear the most and, having been in charge of social care, I know what that looks like. Let me be clear: the safeguards in this Bill are not enough. If the Bill in its current form passes, a patient would be subject to more scrutiny to give up a kidney than to give up their life. The ultimate weakness of this Bill is that the question being asked when a patient goes to the panel is a medical and legal one, not a social and psychological one. The main judgment will be an assessment of whether they are likely to die in the next six months, not of why they have chosen to die or whether there is a risk of coercion.

Coercion is not always committed by the traditional villain; it is not someone who wants money. It is often committed by a loved one at the end of their tether, as support falls away, money drains, options narrow and people’s sense of what choices they have narrow, too. Without improving palliative care, we will put far too many people in that heartbreaking position.

As MPs, we are used to being forthright in our opinions and advocating for ourselves and our constituents. On our Select Committee, we constantly hear from vulnerable patients who say that they are frequently ignored, talked about or talked over by medical professionals. They feel talked at, not talked to. When considering this legislation, I do not ask whether it will work for people like me; I ask whether it will work for the most vulnerable—those whose voices are rarely heard and who are most dependent on the state for protection. They rely on us to be their voice.

The Bill comes from a place of compassion, but it could lead to a place where a disabled person feels that they are less. It could lead to a place where poor social care means that people do not feel that they have a choice between a comfortable life and an early death. That is why I say, with a heavy heart, not this Bill and not at this time.

Criminal Justice Reform

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I look forward to having these conversations with the leadership of the POA and its members, who do such a great job. I am very aware of the attrition rates and retention challenges among people working in our prison system because the estate runs hot. What we are doing is exactly in the service of making it a better place to work, so that they are not having to administer a system that is tense and running at its margins all the time. Deflating it in the ways that I have talked about will help us to build a more stable regime and a better place to work.

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

We know that these decisions are not easy and that they reflect the state that the system was left in, but I have concerns, as do charities, about domestic abuse survivors, because perpetrators are going to be let out as early as next month. It is clear that we need to do more to support these victims, so can the Minister please tell me what services will be put in place to ensure that there is adequate support for victims of domestic abuse whose perpetrators are being released?

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for the question. As I have said to other colleagues, I think that this is an important thing to demonstrate. My hon. Friend will have heard what I said about bringing the helpline forward and about support for local organisations to help support survivors through difficult periods, but the critical thing is high-quality engagement with victim liaison officers so that those individuals have certainty about what is happening and can help design controls around their perpetrator.

Oral Answers to Questions

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Sackman]

In individual cases, how those financial settlements are made is a matter for the judiciary. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, as in so many cases, the family court is downstream of decisions that have been made elsewhere, and it is quite right that there should be join-up between areas of Government. I am happy to take away his direction that we should liaise with DWP colleagues to ensure that child maintenance is addressed fairly.

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

Will the Minister reassure me that we remain committed to repealing in this Parliament the presumption of contact in family courts, to bring full justice to the 67 children murdered at the hands of abusive ex-partners with whom contact should never have been granted?

[Sarah Sackman]

We are resolute and committed to repealing the presumption of parental involvement in the Children Act 1989. The campaigning efforts of the likes of Claire Throssell have been little short of heroic, and we will redouble our efforts to ensure that the repeal of that presumption comes about through the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

Child Contact Arrangements

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Catherine Atkinson)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and commend her for securing such an important debate.

I want to start by reflecting on the stories that she shared—stories of children feeling unheard and of families in anguish. No one could listen to them and fail to be moved. As a mum, I find them really difficult to hear, but people do not need to be parents to understand the pain that they describe. Anyone who cares about children, their safety, their wellbeing and future, as all of us here do, will recognise the profound responsibility carried when decisions are made about their lives. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her determination and persistence in bringing these issues to light.

I know from my hon. Friend’s previous speeches in the main Chamber, as well as from the meetings she has held with my colleague Baroness Levitt, just how deeply she cares about ensuring that children’s voices are not lost in family court proceedings. She is right; no one could disagree that children must be at the heart of any decision that the court makes about contact, or indeed any decision that has a profound impact on their lives. Whenever we seek to reform the family justice system, it is these children we work for. It is their welfare, experiences and futures that matter. They are who I have in mind when I speak today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby spoke powerfully about the work she is doing in the context of the Courts and Tribunals Bill and the need for children’s voices to be heard and believed when they say that they have experienced abuse. The question is, are we listening when a child tells us that something is wrong?

The family courts often deal with the most complex, painful and emotionally charged circumstances imaginable. Throughout those proceedings, the child’s welfare must be the guiding principle. I assure my hon. Friend that that is precisely the approach enshrined in section 1 of the Children Act 1989, which makes it clear that the child’s welfare will be the court’s paramount consideration when the court is making a decision about the upbringing of a child. It is also why the welfare checklist set out in section 1(3) of that Act requires the court to consider, among other things, the clear wishes and feelings of the child concerned. Those requirements reflect a fundamental belief that children are not bystanders; they are individuals with experiences, views and voices that matter.

My hon. Friend also raised the issue of so-called parental alienation—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), who also raised that issue. I reiterate the Government’s position clearly: we do not recognise parental alienation syndrome. We do not believe that it can be diagnosed.

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

It is true that the Government do not recognise parental alienation and the syndrome, but courts too often do. In fact, a report released just yesterday by the campaign group Right to Equality that analysed language used in family court judgments found that over 70% of those judgments used victim-blaming language. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to open up the Judicial College to some scrutiny if those are the kinds of judges that it is producing?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I was discussing that report with Baroness Levitt yesterday, so it is one that I am conscious of and one that we will be looking at.

The Family Justice Council has published guidance to assist courts in handling cases of this nature. Importantly, the guidance recognises that there can be entirely justified reasons why a child might fear or reject contact with a parent. Those reasons can include domestic abuse, a parent’s limited involvement in the child’s life and poor parenting. The guidance is explicit that where findings of domestic abuse are made, a child’s rejection is a justified response to that abuse. That behaviour should not be characterised as alienating behaviour. That is incredibly important because children who have experienced abuse have already shown extraordinary courage in speaking about what has happened to them.

The justice system must be capable of hearing those voices fairly and with compassion. Taken together, the legislation and the Family Justice Council’s guidance are clear: children’s voices must always be central in those cases. I also acknowledge the important point made by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), as well as the fantastic work that contact centres undertake. That work is so important to the relationships of parents and their children and wider family relationships as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby also raised the experiences of families who believe that they have been wrongly separated from their children following allegations of so-called parental alienation, and their difficulties in accessing an appeal. As I have said, she is absolutely right to highlight those cases, and the families affected have my deepest sympathies. The human reality of that is of a parent and child being torn apart, and a family living with uncertainty, grief and deep distress, with seemingly no straightforward means of resolution.

That is why I welcome the important work being undertaken by the Family Justice Council at the invitation of the former president of the family division to consider whether an alternative and more appropriate procedural approach is needed in cases where unregulated parental alienation experts have been instructed. Although it would not be appropriate for the Government to pre-empt the outcome of that work, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby that we recognise the importance of the concerns and are closely monitoring the work as it progresses.

My hon. Friend also raised an important question: what more can we do to ensure that children’s voices carry weight in family courts? That is the most important question for our system to consider, and it is right that we continue to ask it. I assure her that there are already encouraging signs of progress. In March, the president of the family division released a toolkit to guide judges on how to write to children so that they better understand the decisions that affect their lives. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and CAFCASS Cymru continue to strengthen the way that their staff engage with children. The Family Justice Board brings the voices of children into the heart of the Government’s work in this area by including representatives of the Family Justice Young People’s Board in its meetings. That means that those responsible for driving improvement in the system hear directly from children and young people, but we know that there is more to do.

My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the child-focused model. Following a highly successful pilot, we are rolling that model out nationally over the next three years. It is a significant change in approach. Too often family proceedings become focused on the conflict between parents—between adults. The child-focused model centres on the needs and views of children at the start of every case through the introduction of the child impact report. That report represents an assessment of risks and issues through direct engagement with the parties, with relevant agencies and, crucially, with the children themselves in most cases. That means that judges receive better information earlier and can make orders that are safe and sustainable, sparing many children the trauma of their cases repeatedly returning to court. The impact is already clear: cases operating under the model were resolved about twice as fast as the national average, which means that children can get on with their lives rather than being stuck in the limbo of family court proceedings. Importantly, children who have experienced the model consistently report feeling listened to; one young person described feeling as though a weight had been lifted from their shoulders. That speaks volumes.

My hon. Friend also spoke about wider reform, including the case for a family justice Bill. I understand that ambition but would point to the significant programme of reform already under way. We are repealing the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989. As my hon. Friend mentioned, that is testament to the brave fight of campaigners such as Claire Throssell, my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) and many more. Through the Victims and Courts Act 2026 we are restricting the exercise of an offender’s parental responsibility in cases of serious child sexual abuse and where a child is born of rape. My colleague Baroness Levitt has confirmed that we will implement Jade’s law by the end of the year. Taken together, those measures will protect thousands of children each year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby also rightly raised the problem of unregulated parental alienation experts. Families facing family court proceedings are often navigating some of the most difficult parts of their lives. It is absolutely essential that experts are suitably qualified, properly regulated and held to appropriate professional standards. So-called experts on parental alienation are practising the kind of pseudoscience that we do not want to see in family proceedings.

I again thank my hon. Friend for securing a debate on such a crucial topic and for her determination in championing these issues. Every child who comes into contact with the family justice system is already navigating the most difficult circumstances. They deserve a system that protects them, that listens to them, and that puts their welfare above everything else. I believe that every hon. Member in the Chamber shares that goal. We want children to be safe, to be heard, and to have the chance to move forward with stability and hope. That is what this Government are determined to achieve.

Question put and agreed to.

Victims and Courts Bill

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

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

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

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

[Alex Davies-Jones]

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

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

Courts and Tribunals Bill

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Johnson]

That is why I have explained that the presumption is that the parents have involvement. The court must take the risks to the child into consideration and, unless shown otherwise, give contact to both parents. If the child is at risk, however, the court has the absolute right to prevent the child from seeing those parents or to restrict contact to different forms and timeframes. The welfare of the child is key in those decisions.

That is in line with international law, which I know the Government are fond of. The UN convention on the rights of the child says that parents and children should maintain

“personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s…interests.”

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Johnson]

Not for the moment. Article 8 of the European convention on human rights provides the right to family life and suggests that consideration be given to all alternatives before ordering no contact. The Government, however—

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

Will she please give way?

[Dr Johnson]

I give way.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

In talking about the right to family life, the hon. Lady is talking not about the rights of the children, but about the rights of the abusers. If we start from the idea that an abuser has the right to contact their children, we end up with bad decisions. That is why, in the past 30 years, 67 children have died when contact should not have been granted. That is the change that we are making, those are the lives that we are saving and that is why it is important to do this today.

[Dr Johnson]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I will continue my speech and perhaps he will listen to what I have to say.

The purpose of court decisions is, as the hon. Gentleman said, to prevent unsafe contact and to prevent tragedies. As a paediatrician, I have seen situations where children have been given back to parents and have come to significant harm as a result. I have dealt with and looked after those children, and unfortunately they have not been protected or saved in every case. The law is there to prevent unsafe contact, but the children’s needs must be put first, with the power to restrict access where they are in danger. The court must listen to all the evidence available, but no system is infallible and sometimes judges get it wrong. When they do, the outcomes can be hugely tragic, leading to the loss or serious injury of a child.

I know that this legislation has been brought forward with good intentions. The test is whether it will prevent such harm and such tragedies. I think that it might not. The reason is that the impact assessment produced by the Government says that it is “unlikely to materially change” the outcome in court. If that is the case, what is the point of the legislation? Will it, on the other hand, reduce the likelihood of children seeing their parents? Will that, in and of itself, cause some harm? Will it prevent some children from having the contact they need with their family members? Will it prevent the tragedies that we wish to prevent or not? Will it isolate those children who will come to harm? Do we have the right risk assessments to do that?

Every single one of us in this House wants to protect children. We need to improve the risk assessments and ensure that social workers have time to make proper risk assessments so that they identify the children who may be at risk and separate them from those who are not. We also need to improve the representation of children in court. I was once in court, in the witness box, and the barrister who was representing the children got up to speak. He asked me a question, but he had forgotten the name of one of the two children in the family and I had to remind him from the witness box. We really need to improve the quality of the representation of children.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and again thank him for his service on the Public Bill Committee. It was fantastic to have another Member of Parliament from a devolved nation represented on the Bill Committee to discuss why it is so important that everyone in the United Kingdom should benefit from this legislation. I am pleased to confirm that the Scottish Government have indicated that they would like to be part of the mechanism for legal aid, and they have asked us to include them in this legislation. Those discussions are ongoing. It will, of course, be for the Scottish Government to determine the methodology for how they determine who gets legal aid for their fatal accident inquiries and inquests. Those discussions are ongoing, but we have had very positive discussions with the Scottish Government.

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

I travelled through Manchester Victoria station on the day of the arena bombing and I saw the young people on their way into that concert. They were young, vibrant, excited, happy—all the things that they deserved to be, doing the most normal thing in the world: going to see a concert. It was one of the most shocking moments of my life a few hours later to hear that they had been the victims of a terrorist attack. It is painful to me that they were let down by the state and by false narratives. Almost a decade later, I am glad that the families are being listened to. I thank the Minister for her assurance that we are going to take the time to get this right. Can she please confirm that the voices of all the victims and all the families of state cover-ups and of these tragedies will be at the centre of any legislation that comes forward from this point on?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I can indeed confirm that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman will have seen the announcement that I just made on whole-life orders. I will of course ensure that the Prisons Minister meets him. We will do everything we can to keep our probation officers safe.

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

T6. With some victims of sexual assault being told that their trials might not be heard until 2029, what can we do to reduce delays and tackle the backlogs so that victims can be confident that they will get justice and will not have to face the trauma associated with these delays?

Victims and Courts Bill

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 1 in my name. It would ensure the implementation of recommendation 18 from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. Survivors of child sexual abuse have been let down for years by a national compensation scheme. Too often their applications are delayed or denied, not because the legitimacy of their abuse is in any question, but because of loopholes set by the very organisation that was established to support them: the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

The many limitations of the scheme were considered during IICSA, which resulted in a clear recommendation to remove the unfair barriers set by CICA, but in April Ministers rejected that recommendation. My new clause 1 would overturn that decision. It has commanded the support of 27 Members from across the House and the backing of 29 charities and experts. They include the Marie Collins Foundation and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, which have campaigned passionately on this issue. In opening, the Minister said that she wants a universal scheme without hierarchy, but unfortunately that is not the case at the moment.

My amendment would widen the eligibility of the scheme to include those who have been victims of online-facilitated child sexual abuse. The recent Casey audit found that 40% of the 100,000 recorded child sexual abuse offences last year took place online, so that is around 40,000 children who will struggle to access compensation because their abuse is not considered by CICA “violent” enough to qualify. As IICSA rightly concluded, that rule

“does not take account of the extent of the harm and damage”

of online abuse, such as the ongoing fear that images of sexual abuse will remain available online indefinitely. By continuing to leave online abuse out of scope, CICA reinforces the risk that online sexual abuse is perceived somehow as less serious or less deserving of redress, but nothing could be further from the truth.

New clause 1 also seeks to increase the time limit for applications so that survivors have seven years from the date the offence was reported to the police, or from the age of 18 if the offence was reported while they were a child. The scheme currently has just a two-year time limit, but the average time it takes for a survivor of child abuse to come forward is 24 years to 27 years. There are many reasons for that, and we have heard some in the Chamber today: trauma, fear and shame, not to mention the length of time to go through the court process. The Minister knows this, which is why she and the other Justice Ministers rightly abolished the three-year time limit for civil claims by survivors of child sexual abuse, in line with IICSA recommendation 15.

However, the decision means that survivors face a strange paradox: no time limit for them to take legal action against their abusers, but tight restrictions if they wish to seek compensation for that same abuse. The Government have argued that there is discretion in the scheme to allow applications after the time limit has expired. That is indeed true. However, the proportion of resolved cases accepted after the time limit has fallen each year between 2020 and 2024. In 2020, 87.3% of applications received outside the time limit were resolved. By 2024, that was down to 66.9%. By contrast, the compensation model in Quebec allows seven years for all types of crime except for domestic abuse, child sexual abuse and sexual violence, which have no time limit at all. Surely that is the model we should be following.

Finally, new clause 1 would prevent survivors of child abuse from being affected by a rule that blocks or reduces compensation for victims with unspent convictions. APIL shared with me the case of a woman who was sexually abused by her father. She had suffered with her mental health as a consequence and was hospitalised. While in hospital, she threatened to kill herself with a letter opener. The hospital called the police, and she was convicted of possessing a knife. Because of that conviction, she was then refused the compensation by CICA that had been originally offered to her. That is why new clause 1 would ensure applicants with unspent convictions are not automatically excluded where offences are linked to circumstances of their sexual abuse as a child.

Anti-slavery charities have also been in touch to explain how this particular rule impacts on victims of trafficking who try to access the compensation scheme. It is not unusual for victims of slavery or, indeed, child or criminal exploitation to be forced into criminality by their exploiters. Those convictions, however, commonly lead to immense difficulty for those victims to then access compensation—something that victims of modern slavery, for example, ought to be entitled to under article 15 of the European convention on action against trafficking.

The criminal injuries compensation scheme is supposed to be a support scheme of last resort. Sadly, for many survivors, it is not even that. In the long term, CICA needs a complete overhaul. In the short term, however, survivors are keen to see the swift implementation of recommendation 18, because in doing so this House and this Government can send a powerful message that their abuse is recognised, that their future is prioritised and that meaningful change is under way.

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

I want to speak in support of new clauses 10 and 11, which would place a duty on authorities to guarantee support for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and child criminal exploitation, as well as their care-givers. I am proud to support a Government who are committed to halving violence against women and girls and who just last week announced some of the most significant steps towards supporting victims of abuse, including denying rapists access to children born of rape and an end to the presumption of contact in the family courts—not just words but action. I support calls for meaningful action today.

Victims are not only dealing with the trauma of what has happened to them. For many, the thought of the court case risks retraumatizing them. Given the backlog in our courts—a backlog left by previous Governments—victims are waiting months and sometimes years before cases are heard. That wait takes a huge emotional toll. We have to address the fear of the process if we are to meet our target of halving violence against women and girls. We have to support victims throughout the process. I urge the Government to build a system that gives victims the confidence to come forward knowing that they will not be left to cope alone.