Oral Answers to Questions

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Satvir Kaur (Southampton Test) (Lab)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to support female offenders.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

This Government’s plan to support women is clear and ambitious. The aim is to reduce the number of women going to prison, and our Women’s Justice Board will lead on this. Following Susannah Hancock’s review, which was published in March, this Government have acted to prevent girls from being held in young offenders institutions.

[Dr Gardner]

I have been very concerned to hear first-hand reports of female prisoners being handcuffed during childbirth, sometimes to male officers. Does the Minister agree that there should be an independent investigation into the use of birth cuffing in women’s prisons across the country that consults all women who have been or may be affected?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend refers to a shocking situation. Our policy is clear that pregnant women should not be restrained during hospital appointments, except in the most exceptional circumstances. There is an ongoing deep-dive review taking place into matters at HMP Bronzefield, commissioned by the prisons Minister in the other place.

[Satvir Kaur]

I thank the Minister for his response. In my constituency, Hope Street is doing incredible work to offer residential alternatives to custody for women. We know that this model reduces the number of women being sent to prison, preventing separation from their children, who are likely to be taken into care, which we all know has a hugely detrimental impact. Can the Minister share any plans to replicate and scale up the Hope Street model?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I agree with my hon. Friend that for some women supported accommodation is very valuable. Existing provision includes His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service-led community accommodation services and third sector residential women’s centres, including Hope Street, which she rightly praises for its excellent work. The Women’s Justice Board is exploring options to increase use of robust community alternatives to custody, including residential options where appropriate.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

Project SHE in Somerset, run by the Nelson Trust, allows some women who have been arrested for the first time for low-level crime an alternative to court, working with offenders on rehabilitation and reducing the impact on the community and the criminal justice system. What support is the Department providing for such schemes?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

These schemes are very important. The hon. Member highlights a very good one, and the Department continues to support those sorts of schemes.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Does the Minister agree that counselling services are crucial in supporting female offenders as they address trauma, addiction and mental health challenges? Furthermore, will she join me in commending the charity uHub in my constituency for its exceptional counselling services for young women?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member mentions an excellent counselling service in his constituency, which I praise. These counselling services are crucial and a very important part of the system.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

It has been six days since the Supreme Court handed down its landmark judgment in the case brought by For Women Scotland—a judgment that confirms basic biological reality and protects women and girls. It was a Conservative Government who brought in the policy to stop male offenders, however they identify, being held in the women’s estate, especially those convicted of violence or sexual offences. Will the Lord Chancellor and her Ministers confirm that the Government will implement the Supreme Court judgment in full and that they will take personal responsibility for ensuring that it is in every aspect of our justice system, or do they agree with senior Ministers in their party who now appear to be actively plotting to undermine the Supreme Court’s judgment?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We inherited the current policy on transgender people in the prison service and we have continued the policy that the right hon. Gentleman describes during our period in office. In the light of last week’s Supreme Court ruling, the Department is reviewing all areas that could be impacted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to support young offenders in Staffordshire.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

This year, the Department will provide more than £1 million in funding to the Staffordshire youth offending team to supervise children and support them in turning their back on a life of crime.

[Adam Jogee]

At the election, we promised to take action to reduce youth offending, with a network of Young Futures hubs and a crackdown on antisocial behaviour which causes so much pain to my constituents and to people up and down our country. Criminals must face the full force of the law, and young offenders cannot be a lost cause. Will the Minister confirm that this Government will do whatever we can to divert young people away from a lifetime of crime?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. We must do whatever we can to move people away from a life of crime and keep the public safe. This year, despite the fiscal challenges we inherited, we are investing more than £100 million in youth offending teams across the country to identify children and divert them away from crime. With turnaround funding, Staffordshire youth offending team delivered skill-building activities for children in antisocial behaviour hotspots during a successful six-week summer programme.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

11. What steps her Department is taking to help reduce levels of reoffending among young people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

The Government are determined to reduce youth reoffending as part of our safer streets mission. Despite the huge fiscal challenges we inherited, we have been able to increase our core funding to youth offending teams across the country, allowing them to support children away from crime.

[Dr Sandher]

Constituents across my community of Loughborough, Shepshed and the villages have been facing the scourge of offroad bikes, often ridden by young reoffenders. That causes havoc for residents, it is dangerous for pedestrians, and can be fatal for those who are on those bikes. Those young reoffenders often have little else to do, as there are few education, training or employment opportunities, so can the Minister please set out how this Government will end the scourge of offroad bikes and reoffending, and how they will once again be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. In the past, antisocial behaviour has been too easily dismissed as low-level, but as he rightly describes, it can cause real distress and misery to our communities. I am pleased that the new Crime and Policing Bill includes measures to enhance police powers to seize nuisance offroad bikes and other vehicles used in an antisocial manner.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Engineered Learning in Derby teaches welding skills to young people at risk of offending and reoffending. A qualified, experienced welder can earn more than £50,000, yet we have a national shortage of welders. Does the Minister agree that preventing reoffending and securing the skills our country needs is a win-win, and will he look at how we can get more young lives back on track, learning trades such as welding?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. What Engineered Learning is doing is a clear win-win, teaching welding skills and moving people away from crime. The Department will continue funding youth offending teams to work with local education and employment providers to help young people get the skills they need to have productive careers and positive lives.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Aspiration and ambition are drivers of social mobility and help to reduce deprivation and crime. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Education to increase apprenticeships and training, so that these opportunities can be extended to all and we can reduce young offending throughout the UK?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We have regular discussions with the Department for Education on these matters. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the more young people we get into training, education and work, the less crime we should have on our streets.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for that answer. Quite clearly, those who reoffend do so because they go back to where the peer pressure is, where the unemployment is, and where poverty levels are high. Those are things that must be addressed in order to help these young people not to reoffend. They are big issues; what can be done to ensure those three things in the localities where those young people live do not overtake them, with the problems they have?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that all those issues contribute to circumstances that might create offending, but it is really good that we have the turnaround programme in place. Only 5% of children who completed their turnaround interventions received convictions in their first year of the programme. That is an example of the sort of programme we need to be engaging in to turn young people away from crime.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

6. What steps she is taking to increase access to legal aid in rural areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to help reduce levels of reoffending by people on probation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I take this opportunity to recognise the excellent work that our probation staff do day in, day out. Probation is an indispensable part of the criminal justice system, but the service currently faces significant pressures. That is why we will recruit a further 1,300 probation officers by March 2026, invest £8 million in new technology to reduce administrative tasks for officers and focus efforts on reducing reoffending.

[Perran Moon]

May I take this opportunity to wish you a belated Pask lowen, Mr Speaker? 

Reoffenders are among the most socially excluded in society and often experience complex mental health and social issues, including drug and alcohol addiction. We know that perpetually locking them up does not work and costs a fortune. Can the Minister reassure me that he is working with both the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that wraparound detox and rehabilitation support is available, such as that offered by Bosence Farm in Cornwall?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Yes, I can reassure my hon. Friend. We work with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Home Office to get offenders into treatment at the earliest opportunity, and have increased the use of drug rehabilitation requirements as well as improved links to ensure that prison leavers stay in treatment on release. In 2025-26, the DHSC is providing £310 million in additional targeted grants to enable local authorities, including Cornwall, to improve services.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)]

Because our prisons are running at about 98% capacity, not only are existing prisoners more likely to reoffend but, sadly, as we allow more prisoners to be released early, more people on probation will do so. Apart from the terrible effect on victims, the Ministry itself estimates that this costs a staggering £18 billion a year in England and Wales. What is the Minister’s policy to help reduce reoffending?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We have only just taken over a system that was struggling under the weight of 14 years of mismanagement, and we are doing our very best to get on top of it. We have set in train an independent sentencing review, and are committed to appointing 1,300 new probation officers by this time next year.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

10. What recent discussions she has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on trends in levels of prison capacity.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

Ministry of Justice officials regularly meet representatives of the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, as part of the “Five Nations Forum”, to discuss prison capacity. This allows best practice to be shared and emerging issues to be discussed. The Prisons Minister in the other place knows the Northern Ireland prisons system well, and will be going there later this year to compare notes.

[Robin Swann]

The Minister has mentioned best practice. The “separated regime” in Northern Ireland prisons gives those who have been committed to prison as a result of paramilitary activities a special kudos, and when they are released they emerge with a certain status. Can the Minister see the inherent dangers of applying such a policy on a wider scale when dealing with people who may have been radicalised while in prison and may, when released, bring the effects of that into a broader section of society?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member is right to suggest that we need to learn lessons from wherever they can be learned, and he is right to caution against approaches that might bring about results that people do not wish to see.

[Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)]

12. What steps she is taking to tackle court backlogs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

17. What steps her Department is taking to reform the prison system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

We inherited a system in crisis from the previous Government. With prisons over 99% full, we took immediate action to prevent the collapse of the prison system by changing the automatic release point for standard determinate sentences. We are building 14,000 new prison places, and we published our 10-year capacity strategy in December. However, we know that we cannot build our way out of this crisis, which is why we have also launched an independent sentencing review to ensure that we will never run out of places again.

[Jessica Morden]

As Ministers will know from previous questions about Parc Prison, parents in Newport East have very serious concerns about the welfare of family members there, with worrying reports continuing to emerge in recent months. Can the Minister give an update on any progress being made on prison safety, mental health support and drug interception since Parc has been receiving targeted support?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Safety in prisons is a key priority, and we are working hard to make prisons as safe as possible. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the concerns at Parc. I have recently visited HMP Parc, as has the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and the Prisons Minister in the other place. On that visit, I saw how seriously the director is taking these issues and engaging closely with families on their very real concerns.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The catastrophic security failure at HMP Frankland has exposed the danger that terrorist prisoners can pose to prison officers and other inmates across the prison estate. Will the independent review also examine the culture of gang-related violence and intimidation that have contributed to such incidents in our prisons?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

There is an ongoing audit of all the review’s recommendations. Our thoughts remain with our brave prison officers who were attacked, and with the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing and their families, who are understandably concerned by the shocking events in HMP Frankland. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor took immediate action to set a review in place.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Personal protective equipment is now worn in all kinds of jobs where people may have to deal with dangerous situations. As Professor Acheson has said, it is

“staggering that frontline police staff working in conditions of far greater peril…are not issued with stab vests capable of stopping an attack with a bladed weapon.”

We should all be ensuring that our prison officers come home safe to their loved ones. Unions have called for this measure, and I can assure the Minister that they have the full support of those on the Opposition side of the House. Will he act—not in two months or six months, but now—to protect prison officers before it is too late?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

That is part of the review that has been announced. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor is meeting the Prison Officers Association tomorrow. These things need to be done rightly and properly, and that is what will happen with this Government.

[Jack Rankin]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but I suggest that this is something we should just get on with—it is common sense. There is a more fundamental issue. Perhaps I can invite the Minister to provide his assessment of the relative threats provided by different ideological extremists in prisons, which may be fuelling such violence. Islamist terror suspects make up the vast majority of MI5’s caseload. Do they also make up the majority of radicalising criminals in our prison estate?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Gentleman urges us to get on with it. By my reckoning, the Conservative party had 14 years to get on with it. We are getting on with it. We set up the snap review straightaway. [Interruption.] “It’s not party political,” he says. Well, people might judge that for themselves by listening to the sort of questioning we have had today.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Key agents of reform in our prisons are prison officers. Unlocked Graduates is an amazing scheme that supports the production of prison officers with new innovations, but it has had the rug pulled from underneath its feet, beyond its current cohort. There are mixed accounts of what has happened from different civil servants and other individuals in government. Will the Minister explain exactly what has happened? Why has the contract not worked? Will he sit down with me and Unlocked Graduates to see if we can find a way forward?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I very much praise the work that Unlocked Graduates has done over many years. Unfortunately, when the contract was let previously, Unlocked Graduates was unhappy to progress with the contract. That is the situation. Obviously, these things are very difficult, but I am very happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss matters further.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

18. What steps she is taking to increase the provision of legal aid services.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I am happy to write to my hon. Friend on the detail of the data collection and remind him that we have a sentencing review in process that will be looking at all of those things.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

T3. In a single week in Bradford, we have seen council leaders once again reject my calls for a full rape gangs inquiry. An ex-police officer has been threatened with arrest for investigating these horrific crimes, and now a judge is blocking the release of official transcripts from a major rape gang trial in Bradford. Can the Lord Chancellor explain why our justice system is being used to block the truth about these trials?

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

T8. Restricted patients are mentally disordered offenders who are detained in hospital for treatment and are subject to special controls by the Justice Secretary. What additional support is my right hon. Friend’s Department providing to help mental health trusts to treat and rehabilitate these patients, so that they can be released from this secure environment in a timely manner?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend asks a serious and difficult question. The Mental Health Bill, introduced to Parliament last November, aims to stop restricted patients from languishing in hospital unnecessarily, while prioritising public protection and managing any risks. The Department also works closely with clinicians and care teams to make decisions on restricted patients as quickly as possible, in line with the published guidelines.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

T5. Release on temporary licence is denied when people say nasty stuff on Twitter but granted for much more serious crimes. Can the Secretary of State tell me when I can expect a satisfactory reply to an urgent ROTL case that I have already raised with the Prisons Minister and senior civil servants and that affects a grieving family in my constituency?

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

Children adopted from care or living under special guardianship are currently disproportionately at risk of entering the criminal justice system later in life if early trauma goes untreated. Given the recent changes in the adoption and special guardianship support fund, what steps is the Lord Chancellor taking alongside Cabinet colleagues to ensure the availability of more equitable access to such support?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We know how vulnerable many children with care experiences are, and we are working closely with colleagues in the Department for Education to help reduce their risk of entering the criminal justice system. The Government are committing £50 million to the adoption and special guardianship support fund this year.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Will the Minister take a special look at the problem of rogue builders who repeatedly target our constituents—often very vulnerable people? They take thousands from them and wreck their homes, yet the only redress is said to be trading standards. Surely that amounts to fraud and there ought to be a prosecution to follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

We have a case in my constituency of a young offender, well below 16, who is causing havoc—he has been arrested many times—and is not complying with a court order. The assumption is against incarceration because of his age. Will the Minister explain what work the Government are doing to crack down on prolific offending by young people well below 16 who are causing stress and fear in their local communities?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am very happy to answer queries about that particular issue, if the hon. Lady wishes to write to me. The Government have increased the youth offending team budget this year and continue to invest in the turnaround programme. As I said before, it has been shown that young people who are engaged in that programme have only a 5% chance of reoffending.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House for their valuable contributions. I think what I heard at the end from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), was support for this Bill, and I thank him for that. Today’s debate has been helpful; it has underscored the broad support for this legislation, and for the principle of equality before the law. Many Members—pretty much every Member who has spoken—underlined the importance of that principle. I am proud that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor acted so swiftly to address this situation in a way that was courteous and respectful to all involved, and to get us to where we are today.

While we have had much agreement, the Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for whom I have the highest regard, announced herself as being in a minority of one. I am sure that is not the case, but she drew attention to her serious concerns about disproportionality in the criminal justice system. I can say to her that we share her concerns about disproportionality. That is why my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor has announced a proper review of all the data, so we will know what actions will properly address that disproportionality and bring about change in a way that addresses the seriousness of the unfairness in the system to which she rightly referred.

Equality before the law is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system. It is the Government’s policy and belief that it should be protected. We know that more must be done to address inequalities in the justice system, and we are absolutely committed to tackling racial disparities across the criminal justice system. We are also taking steps such as increasing diversity in our staff and working with the judiciary to make sure that our appointments are reflective of the society we serve. That has included supporting under-represented groups in joining the judiciary and the magistrates, and has involved the Ministry of Justice and partners running widely supported outreach programmes to reduce barriers to individuals joining. However, we need to do much more. I commend my right hon. Friend the Mother of the House for keeping us on notice, and I promise her that we will deliver.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, reminded us, as indeed did my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), that these guidelines were nodded through by the previous Conservative Government. The hon. Member for Eastbourne also reminded us of our inheritance of an underfunded probation and court system, which has led, in his words, to a rationing of pre-sentence reports. I agree with him that the debate should be about how we move to universality of pre-sentence reports, not about rationing. Of course, none of this debate alters the fact that independent judges can ask for pre-sentence reports whenever they feel they are necessary. Indeed, in her opening speech, the Lord Chancellor made it clear that capacity is being increased, quite properly, so that more pre-sentence reports can be done.

We had very helpful contributions from the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). Both of them drew attention to the importance of pre-sentence reports in identifying the most appropriate and effective sentence for individual offenders. The Chair of the Select Committee gave us the full timeline of this affair to date, and a good analysis of where we are with the Bill. I agree with him that we will have more opportunity to look at matters in detail in Committee. Likewise, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam drew attention to his concerns about the breadth of the Bill. Again, we will have an opportunity to examine them further in Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) raised very serious concerns about issues relating to pregnant women, and was pleased that the Bill does not affect Court of Appeal case law in that respect. In fact, nothing in the Bill, as she helpfully reminded the House, prevents judges from requesting PSRs for pregnant women. Judges will continue to be able to request PSRs in cases where they ordinarily would, including appropriate cases involving pregnant women. We would expect that to continue.

I am happy to have heard so much support for the Bill. There will be a drop-in for MPs on Monday about the next stages of the Bill, at which Members can have any questions answered, and can feed into the process before Committee stage next week. This emergency legislation, while a small Bill, is of great significance. It will stop the Sentencing Council’s updated guidelines on pre-sentence reports from coming into force, and will safeguard against the risk of differential treatment arising from their use. The action taken by the Government on this issue underscores our commitment to equality before the law, which all hon. Members who have spoken today have underlined, and which is most important. It is the ancient principle on which our justice system was built. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill: Programme

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

That the following provisions shall apply to the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Gerald Jones.)

Question agreed to.

Whiplash Injury Compensation

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 20 March, be approved.

This draft instrument amends the fixed tariff for whiplash compensation set by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 by applying an inflationary uplift to the tariff values. In doing so, the amendment gives effect to recommendations made by the Lord Chancellor on 21 November 2024 following the completion of her statutory review of the 2021 regulations. By adjusting the whiplash tariff values to account for inflation, the Government will ensure that claimants can continue to receive proportionate compensation until the next review in 2027.

The whiplash reform programme changed the way claimants are awarded damages for low-value whiplash injuries following road traffic accidents. The aim of the reforms was to ensure an efficient, proportionate and reliable system for both claimants and defendants involved in road traffic accident-related whiplash claims. At their core, the measures aim to reduce the number and cost of whiplash injuries and deliver savings to consumers via reduced motor insurance premiums. Elements of the reform programme were delivered by the Civil Liability Act 2018, which introduced several important changes to the civil claims process. Alongside measures that introduced a legal definition of what constitutes a whiplash injury and banned the settling of such claims without medical evidence, the 2018 Act empowers the Lord Chancellor to set a fixed tariff of damages for road traffic accident-related whiplash injuries lasting up to two years.

The 2018 Act measures were supported by additional secondary legislative changes to increase the small claims track for road traffic-related personal injury claims from £1,000 to £5,000, and the introduction of a new pre-action protocol for personal injury claims below the small claims limit in road traffic accidents. At the same time, the insurance industry-owned and developed Official Injury Claim portal was launched to assist claimants affected by the reforms.

The first whiplash tariff was set by the Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021, which came into force on 31 May 2021. The 2018 Act requires the Lord Chancellor to review the 2021 regulations, and thereby the whiplash tariff, within three years of its implementation and every three years thereafter. In fulfilment of that statutory obligation, the first review of the whiplash tariff was completed on 22 May 2024 and the Lord Chancellor published her report of the statutory review on 21 November 2024. Upon reviewing the 2021 regulations, the Lord Chancellor concluded that the structure and component parts of the whiplash tariff were effective. However, she recommended that the tariff amounts be uprated to account for consumer prices index inflation between 2021 and 2024, and to incorporate a three-year buffer to account for expected inflation until 2027. She did not consider that any other changes to the 2021 regulations were necessary.

In reaching her conclusions and recommendations, the Lord Chancellor took into consideration relevant industry and courts data, as well as information from a Ministry of Justice call for evidence, which ran from 6 February to 2 April 2024. In accordance with the review, this statutory instrument increases the whiplash tariff damages values and, subject to approval by both Houses, the new tariff will apply to all road traffic accident-related personal injury claims in England and Wales from 31 May 2025.

I believe that the House will find it helpful if I provide some additional explanation of the increase that will be applied to the whiplash tariff. By way of background, I should say that the whiplash tariff operates via a rising scale of fixed compensation payments determined by injury duration, up to a maximum of two years.

The payments in the original whiplash tariff set in 2021 range from £240 for whiplash injuries lasting three months or less to £4,215 for whiplash injuries lasting between 18 and 24 months. There is a separate, slightly higher, tariff for cases where any minor psychological injury, such as low-level travel anxiety, is incurred at the same time as the whiplash injury. Claims for whiplash injuries that last longer than two years fall outside the fixed tariff.

When the tariff was first implemented in 2021, the amounts were set to include a three-year buffer. The buffer was designed to account for expected inflation, according to the available forecasts at that time, and to ensure that claimants were not under-compensated in the years between the tariff’s implementation and the first statutory review. In reviewing the 2021 regulations, the Lord Chancellor recognised the impact of inflation on the whiplash tariff amounts, noting that inflation over the first three-year period ran at a higher than expected rate, and, as most respondents to the 2024 call for evidence had noted, the real value of the tariff had fallen. In the light of this, she concluded that the tariff should be uprated by actual inflation between 2021 and 2024, and should again include a buffer to account for the expected inflation until the next review in 2027. The whiplash tariff will therefore be increased by around 15% for claims arising from road traffic accidents occurring on or after 31 May 2025.

As I have mentioned, this increase has been calculated using the consumer prices index inflationary measure. After careful consideration of the available data and evidence, the Lord Chancellor determined that CPI remains the most appropriate measure for uprating the tariff amounts by inflation. In contrast, she considered that the alternative retail prices index measure, if applied, would likely overstate inflation. It is worth noting that the use of CPI is in line with common practice across Government, as recommended by the Office for National Statistics.

In accounting for inflation, the Lord Chancellor also decided that the whiplash tariff should continue to be future-proofed by applying a CPI rounding over three years from 2024 to 2027. This approach is consistent with the method used to protect claimants from additional inflationary impacts when the first whiplash tariff was set in 2021. While this three-year buffer could lead to some over-compensation in the short term, not implementing it would allow the real value of claimants’ damages to decrease and risk significant under-compensation in the long term. Therefore, this buffer protects access to justice and minimises the risk of claimants being under-compensated in the years leading up to 2027.

I would, though, like to acknowledge that some respondents to the call for evidence expressed concern that the buffer would artificially increase the amount of compensation available and potentially undermine cost savings. However, the difference in the tariff levels using the buffer is not substantial enough to significantly impact on savings. The tariff amounts are only being adjusted to account for inflation and, as such, it is our view that this does not represent a real-terms increase in claim values.

Conversely, I am aware that other stakeholders suggested that the whiplash tariff should either be subject to an annual review or be index-linked to inflation to ensure annual increases. As the Lord Chancellor made clear in her report, these arguments are not compelling. A three-year review period, as anticipated by the 2018 Act, strikes the right balance between adequately compensating claimants and maintaining a stable system that is as simple to understand and administer as possible.

It is also worth noting that the recent high inflationary cycle was driven by a unique set of circumstances and is not a regularly occurring event. Therefore, while it is appropriate that the whiplash tariff is regularly reviewed against inflation, three years is the appropriate length of time to hold such reviews. Other than uprating the whiplash tariff to account for actual and expected inflation, as I have explained, no other amendments to the 2021 regulations are made by this instrument.

In accordance with her statutory obligation, the Lord Chancellor has consulted the Lady Chief Justice before making this instrument. The Master of the Rolls, acting on behalf of the Lady Chief Justice, expressed his endorsement of the proposal to uprate the whiplash tariff. He also noted that the judiciary would not welcome any further derogation from the principle that damages are assessed and awarded by the courts. As we have seen, in accordance with the powers conferred on the Lord Chancellor by the 2018 Act, the instrument only adjusts the level of damages for whiplash injuries lasting up to two years.

The amendments that this instrument will make to the 2021 regulations represent a balanced, proportionate and practical approach to uprating the whiplash tariff ahead of the next review.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and for the support of the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition on the direction of travel.

I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), for reminding us that behind every claim is a person, and that this is about helping real people and real lives. The official Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), rightly mentioned the report on reducing insurance costs for consumers. We share his and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson’s concern about that, which I think is felt across the House.

The report was published on 27 March and shows that the whiplash reforms have reduced insurance costs for customers. It was produced by His Majesty’s Treasury, which worked with the Financial Conduct Authority to fulfil its statutory obligation under section 11(7) of the Civil Liability Act 2018. Although it is a factual reporting of the information from insurers provided to HMT through the Financial Conduct Authority, it does not represent the Government’s view, so it is right and proper that, separately from the report, the Ministry of Justice will undertake a post-implementation review of the whiplash reforms later this year. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I am sure I heard the Minister ask for the leave of the House at the beginning of his remarks.

Question put and agreed to.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on the Sentencing Council’s publication of community and custodial sentences guidelines.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

The Sentencing Council is independent of Parliament and Government. The council decides on its own priorities and workplan for producing guidelines.

The Sentencing Council consulted the previous Government on a revised version of the imposition guideline, which included new guidance on pre-sentence reports. That consultation ran from November 2023 to February 2024. The previous Government responded to the consultation on the guideline on 19 February 2024. The former sentencing Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who is now the shadow Transport Secretary, wrote to the chair of the Sentencing Council thanking him for the revisions to the guideline. In particular, he thanked the council for fuller guidance on the circumstances in which courts should request a pre-sentence report.

The Lord Chancellor was clear about her discontent with the guideline when it was published. It is our view that there should not be differential treatment before the law. The House will be pleased to hear that the Lord Chancellor met the chair of the Sentencing Council last week, and the discussion was constructive. It was agreed that the Lord Chancellor will set out her position more fully in writing, which the Sentencing Council will consider before the guideline is due to come into effect.

[Robert Jenrick]

In just 14 days, new two-tier sentencing rules will come into force. These sentencing rules will infect our ancient justice system with the virus of identity politics, dividing fellow citizens on the basis of their skin colour and religion. The rules will ride roughshod over the rule of law and destroy confidence in our criminal justice system. The stakes are high, but the Justice Secretary seems clueless—in fact, she is not even here. Has the Department conducted an assessment of the additional pre-sentence reports that will be required and the impact of that on the Probation Service, given that it is already working above capacity? Is it considering providing the Probation Service with additional resources to cope with the extra demand? Does it expect the additional pre-sentence reports to lead to further delays in our courts?

I ask these questions because not only do these new rules violate the most foundational principle of equality before the law, but they also create immense pressure on the criminal justice system. If the Justice Secretary wanted to stop two-tier justice, she would have supported my Bill on Friday. She would have used her powers of appointment to sack the individuals who drafted the rules. Time is running out, and so is confidence in the Sentencing Council. Frankly, the public are losing confidence in the Justice Secretary and her Ministers, too.

I cannot escape the conclusion that the Justice Secretary actually supports these two-tier sentencing rules. Why? Because she supported a group that called the criminal system institutionally racist. Her representatives walked through the two-tier guidance and approved it, and she refuses to legislate to block the guidance coming into force or to take any sanction against the members of the Sentencing Council that drafted it. If there is one thing we know about Labour Governments, it is that they always end in tears. This time, it is a second-tier Justice Secretary pursuing two-tier justice, all to suck up to her boss, two-tier Keir.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

There is one thing that we know about Labour Governments: they always have to clear up the mess left by Conservative Governments. That is what the Lord Chancellor is doing at the moment. She is clearing up the mess left by the previous Government: the clogged-up the courts, the overflowing prisons and the overworked Probation Service.

Getting back to the facts of the case, the Lord Chancellor met the Sentencing Council last Thursday and had a constructive discussion. It was agreed that she will set out her position more fully in writing, which the Sentencing Council will then consider before the guidance is due to come into effect. This is serious government, not auditioning for government. The Conservatives were not only consulted; they welcomed these guidelines when they were in office. The former Minister for sentencing wrote a letter of welcome to the Sentencing Council setting this out on 19 February 2024. There is a process in place now that needs to be allowed to play out. We will not pre-empt that process.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.

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

The Sentencing Council is—it should not need saying—a non-political body whose guidelines are carefully drafted and widely consulted on. These guidelines received positive responses from the Justice Committee under its previous Chair and from the previous Government. They do not require that a pre-sentence report is ordered, they do not limit who should be the subject of such a report and they do not tie the hands of the sentencer. Does my hon. Friend agree that by dragging the Sentencing Council into the political arena without good cause, the shadow Justice Secretary degrades both the Sentencing Council and himself?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee makes a good point about the way in which the shadow Justice Secretary conducts himself. The important thing is that the Lord Chancellor had a constructive meeting with the chair of the Sentencing Council and there is now a process in place to address this issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I would like to think that all in this House believe in equality under the law, in sentencing matters and otherwise, but it is clear that two-tier justice has existed in our country, having been governed by two-tier Tories who thought they could get away with illegal No. 10 parties while the rest of us were told to stay at home; two-tier Tories such as the shadow Justice Secretary, who unlawfully approved a development for his donor; and two-tier Tories who have pummelled our prisons and crashed our courts, leaving victims to pay the price. Can the Minister tell us how he will reform sentencing in England and Wales to protect the victims and survivors so let down by the Conservatives?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member is perfectly right to underline the importance of equality before the law. He gives me the opportunity to give a plug to the independent review of sentencing being conducted by David Gauke with an independent panel, which will address the issues that he has raised.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is a two-tier justice system, it is not the one claimed by the Conservatives, but it is certainly one that was created by them—one where victims of crime are let down by delays, where working-class communities see justice delayed and denied, and where the reality remains that black and ethnic minority defendants are disproportionately sentenced? Does he agree that instead of playing political games with sentencing, we should focus on delivering real justice, ensuring that every decision made in our courts is based on evidence, not culture wars or headlines in right-wing rags?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is right to contrast the approach of the soundbites from the shadow Justice Secretary with the Justice Secretary’s approach of rolling up her sleeves and getting on with the job of sorting out the mess left in our prisons, Probation Service and courts.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Just to be constructive for a moment and to try to get a bit of consensus, surely no one is suggesting that anybody in Parliament wants to restrict the power of judges and their traditional right to sentence people according to their own lights. All we are questioning is whether a quango like the Sentencing Council should try to stack the deck against certain groups. All we are saying is that judges should impose sentences irrespective of people’s race, colour or whatever.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The Father of the House and my constituency neighbour brings a constructive note, and I agree with exactly what he says. We have an independent judiciary that we should let get on with the job.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

As a former magistrate, I have been personally involved in sentencing decisions and have relied on and can attest to the importance of pre-sentencing reports giving as much information about an offender as possible before deciding an appropriate sentence. Used properly, they can cut reoffending rates. Does the Minister agree that pre-sentencing reports should therefore be available for all offenders and that access should not be determined by an offender’s ethnicity, culture or faith?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is exactly right that pre-sentence reports play an important role, and we ought to applaud the work that the Probation Service and others do in preparing those reports. She is exactly right to point to how effective they are in helping with sentencing.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

The Minister is right to stress the independence of the Sentencing Council, but would he accept that he cannot criticise the shadow Secretary of State for having a view on these draft guidelines when the Secretary of State herself did exactly that? I also ask him to consider in this debate the real purpose of a pre-sentence report. It is there to give more information about an offender, but it also enables a judge to impose a non-custodial sentence if they believe that is the appropriate course. It is hard for a sentencer to do that, unless someone has been assessed as suitable for a community penalty. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this debate, is it not important that the Sentencing Council makes clear that what is important in deciding whether to ask for a pre-sentence report is whether that extra information is needed and not anything else, including protected characteristics?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

That is exactly what the Lord Chancellor is saying.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that there is a fatal flaw in the case of the shadow Justice Secretary: his party worked for months to develop the very guidelines about which they now complain? Does the Minister further agree that rather than desperately scoring an own goal for his party, the right hon. Member should get behind this Government’s reforms to clear up the mess left by the Conservatives?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

To be fair to the Conservatives, they did not work on the guidelines, but they were consulted on them, and they did respond to them in a positive way.

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

I note the comments by the chair of the Sentencing Council Lord Justice William Davis, who said that both Labour and Conservative Ministers, or their representatives, had known about the plans since 2022 and did not object. While I am disappointed that the Government are only acting reactively now, does the Minister not agree that the shadow Secretary of State has no shame and that it is hard to take his faux outrage seriously when this is just another audition for Tory leader?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Lady has said what everybody else in this House and outside it is thinking.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the Conservatives have some explaining to do, given that the Sentencing Council’s consultation on the guidelines that recommended differing approaches for those from an ethnic minority background was undertaken during the previous Government, that the previous Government was a statutory consultee and that it was welcomed by the Government at the time?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The previous Government were fully involved in the consultation, and not only were they fully involved, but they welcomed it.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Coming to this fresh, as one without a legal background, it seems to me that there are matters here of very great importance that ought to be properly debated by this House. Does the Minister agree that this is yet another classic example of where the much-vaunted separation of powers is likely to interfere with the process?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

This is the third consecutive week in which we have discussed this in the House. We discussed it in the Lord Chancellor’s statement, we discussed it at Justice questions last week, and we are discussing it again today.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his response. It has already been mentioned that pre-sentencing reports are important for judges. However, does he agree that pre-sentencing reports should be available for all offenders, and that their availability should not be determined by an offender’s ethnicity, culture or faith? Further to what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) said, we also had a two-tier probation system under the last Government.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Does the Sentencing Council understand that, with these guidelines, it is totally out of touch with the mood of the British people, totally out of touch with the mood of the Government, and totally out of touch with the mood of the House? And therefore, why will it not agree to delay these guidelines until they have been properly debated in this House?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

To be fair, the chair of the Sentencing Council met the Lord Chancellor last week, and it was a constructive meeting. He is awaiting a letter from the Lord Chancellor, which he promises the Sentencing Council will consider and respond to before 1 April.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

As a former local authority lead for youth justice, I saw at first hand how important pre-sentencing reports can be in shaping effective and progressive outcomes in justice. However, it cannot be right that access to them is determined by factors such as race and religion. I applaud the Justice team for making such a strong and robust response to the Sentencing Council’s guidance so far. Can the Minister assure me that unlike the last Government, who were clearly asleep at the wheel during the consultation, we remain willing to take whatever action is needed to uphold this important principle?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the last Government appear to have been asleep at the wheel, rediscovering their mojo only once they were in opposition.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Last week, the Prime Minister announced that he is abolishing NHS England to make sure the NHS is brought back under democratic control. Will the Minister be lobbying the Prime Minister to abolish the Sentencing Council to make sure sentencing is brought back under democratic control?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank the former common sense Minister for her question—

[Esther McVey]

You wouldn’t understand common sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

If the right hon. Lady stops gabbling and listens, I will attempt to answer her question.

I think the right hon. Lady is getting a little ahead of herself. There is a process in place, and there has been a constructive meeting with the Sentencing Council. A letter is being sent to the Sentencing Council, and the Sentencing Council will respond.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I do not believe the shadow Secretary of State believes that the law is currently applied equally and free of structural biases. But given the unfortunate politicisation of all this, does the Minister now back the chair of the Sentencing Council, who says that the state should not determine the sentence imposed on an individual offender and that sentencing guidelines of any kind—if they were to be dictated in any way by Ministers—would breach an important principle?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Certain things are a matter of policy, and they are for the Government and for Parliament. We have had a constructive meeting with the Sentencing Council, a letter is going to the Sentencing Council, and the Sentencing Council will respond. We totally respect the independence of our judiciary.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Just the other week, the Lord Chancellor made it clear that she does not agree with the direction in which the Sentencing Council is going, and I think we all hope that her meetings with the Sentencing Council will produce results. However, if they do not, will the Minister commit to working across parties? I think there is a real commitment on the Opposition Benches to work with him to bring forward emergency legislation, if that is required.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank the right hon. Member for the constructive tone of his question. I refer him to the point about our not wanting to get ahead of ourselves. We need to allow the process to go forward, and to respect the Sentencing Council’s role in it; we will address things when we need to address them.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

We are in the bizarre position where the body that advises judges on how to judge may decide to go to court for a ruling on whether Ministers have the power to tell judges what to do. What preparation has the Minister’s Department made for that possibility?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am afraid that I am becoming a bit repetitive. There is a desire from Opposition Members to rush ahead, and I have great respect for that—[Interruption.] Well, you had 14 years, and what did you do in them? [Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Speaker, not you. Opposition Members are trying to rush ahead; we will take things steadily, at the right pace, with proper respect.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

On a point of great importance to the Lord Chancellor, she is reduced to asking the Sentencing Council to change its mind. The former Minister for common sense is right. There is a lesson here for all parliamentarians about the way we delegate powers to quangos that then come up with solutions that we clearly find repulsive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

There was a constructive meeting. If the right hon. Member had been in it, I do not think he would have seen it as somebody “asking”. There was a constructive exchange of views, and there is a proper process in place, which I am confident will come up with the right answer.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

It is obviously ridiculous that the Justice Secretary is on her knees before a quango, asking it to respect the principle of equality before the law, but this is not the only example. The Judicial College’s equal treatment handbook says:

“to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.”

Will the Minister condemn that logic and say, “No, we must not treat defendants differently because of their race or religion”?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The Government do not believe that there should be differential treatment before the law. The Lord Chancellor has been very clear about that. The “Equal Treatment Bench Book”, to which the hon. Member alludes, is written by and for the judges. Ministers have no involvement whatsoever in its content.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree with me and many of my hon. Friends that policy decisions by unelected non-departmental bodies such as the Sentencing Council are eroding public confidence in our democratic institutions? Will he commit to scrapping such bodies, so that policy is always made by Ministers, who are directly accountable to this House?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Policy decisions should always be made by this House; the hon. Member is absolutely correct about that. The background to where we are today is that the Sentencing Council consulted the Government of the day, members of whom are now on the Opposition Benches. The members of that Government were asleep at the wheel. Now it is down to this Government, yet again, to pick up the pieces they left for us and sort out their mess.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

My constituents are confused about the Justice Secretary’s position. She says she believes that these sentencing guidelines are wrong in principle, and that they amount to differential treatment before the law, but she is in government; she has the power and the tools at her disposal to stop this and change it. Why has she not done so?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I have tried to explain this, and I will explain it once more. The Justice Secretary, the Lord Chancellor, has been extremely clear that she believes in equality before the law, and she is not happy with the guidelines. That is why she wrote as soon as they were published, unlike Conservative Members, who had sight of them earlier in the consultation. They went further than ignoring them; they responded to them in a very positive way.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know you like to think that in order to keep talking a bit—[Interruption.] One of us is going to sit down; it is not going to be me, Minister. There are other things to do and points of order to follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is an honourable man, and I have to ask a question on behalf of the victims, if he does not mind. He will understand that any reform of sentencing must have victims at its heart. For most victims, their concern is not the ethnicity of the perpetrator, but the severity of the crime and the lasting impact on their life. Many victims today will feel that the sentencing guidelines play politics with justice. How can victims be assured that justice will mean time served for crimes committed, and will not be based on ethnicity? Justice is blind, and so must sentencing be.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I agree with him. The victims Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), is sitting next to me; we take victims very seriously. That is why there is a victims’ representative on the sentencing review panel. We need to make sure that victims are at the centre of whatever we do. I have met too many victims already in this role, and every time I meet them, it is very difficult—a little difficult for me, but hugely difficult for them, because they live this.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

It seems like every week we are back here, dealing with culture wars—

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Judging by the lack of action, it appears that the Justice Secretary is comfortable with changes that she has described as two-tier coming into effect in just two weeks. We have heard that she is unhappy; if she really is, can the Minister tell the House and the country what the Secretary of State is doing, other than holding cordial and cosy meetings, to prevent two-tier justice?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The Lord Chancellor has made her position clear. She immediately met the Sentencing Council, and she is writing to it again to set out her concerns, and the Sentencing Council has committed to responding to them quickly.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The Minister complains about having to explain the Government’s position, but why can he not just explain to us why the Secretary of State has not fixed this issue yet? It seems that there has been a meeting, but she has not even written a letter in the last three weeks explaining what she wants to happen. That is why I thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question again. The Minister has not actually fixed the problem that we are all talking about.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The consultation was held under the previous Government, who not only expressed no concern, but welcomed what the Sentencing Council was doing. Immediately on seeing the guidelines as drafted, the Lord Chancellor acted to sort out the mess left by the Conservative party.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The Minister says that the situation is completely clear, so I feel like a bit of an idiot for asking for more clarification, but I will anyway. Pre-sentencing reports are allowed to take in further background on the lives of offenders from an

“ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community”.

What is the definition of a cultural minority, and are our veterans considered a cultural minority?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The hon. Member reads out a phrase that was welcomed by the previous Government, but that the Lord Chancellor is objecting to and talking to the Sentencing Council about.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

On Wednesday, I challenged the Prime Minister directly on two-tier justice, and gave him the opportunity to confirm that he would back the shadow Justice Secretary’s Bill to stop this in its tracks. In his attempts to scramble out of giving that commitment, he said something which has been repeated today: that the previous Government were consulted on and welcomed the guidance. However, the Sentencing Council has already put in writing that the wording is different and so would lead to a materially different outcome. The Government failed to take the opportunity that the shadow Justice Secretary presented them with to block this change. Was the Prime Minister right in what he said, or is the Sentencing Council right? They cannot both be.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The letter the previous Government wrote to the Sentencing Council during the consultation is clear. The previous Government were not just consulted; they welcomed the guidance. The initial version of the guidance included reference to specific cohorts of offenders, including ethnic minorities.

[Robert Jenrick]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his response to the urgent question, the Minister has repeatedly told the House that the previous Government approved the guidelines. In particular, he besmirched the name of the former sentencing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon). What the Minister said to the House today was wrong. On page 4, paragraph 4, of the Sentencing Council’s letter of 10 March to the Justice Secretary, it made it perfectly clear that the guidelines published under this Government were materially different from those considered by the prior Government. In fact, the Minister’s official was present at the meeting of the Sentencing Council at which this version of the guidelines was signed off. Will he take the opportunity to correct the record? I am afraid that he has misled the House not once, not twice, but on numerous occasions today, and that is quite wrong.

[Robert Jenrick]

I do hope it was inadvertent, Mr Speaker.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that I inadvertently misled the House.

Draft Civil Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Fees (Amendment) Order 2025

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Civil Proceedings and Magistrates’ Courts Fees (Amendment) Order 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. This draft order makes a technical amendment to three court and tribunal fees to ensure they can continue to be charged at their current level by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. This forms part of a wider set of amendments to 27 fees, the latest estimated costs of which have fallen below their current value. The 24 fees not included in this affirmative instrument will be reduced by a negative instrument that will shortly be laid before Parliament.

No one will be required to pay a higher fee as a result of the changes made by this draft order. It simply changes the legislative power under which the three fees in question are set without amending the amount charged to HMCTS users. The amendments will protect at least £3.5 million a year in estimated income to help ensure that the courts and tribunals remain efficiently and effectively resourced, thereby reducing the overall cost to the taxpayer.

A properly funded and functioning HMCTS is critical to upholding the Lord Chancellor’s statutory duty to protect access to justice. Fees are an essential source of funding for courts and tribunals, with over 300 fees charged for the various administrative and judicial services provided by HMCTS. In line with His Majesty’s Treasury’s “managing public money” principles, most court fees are set to recover no more than the underlying estimate of what it costs HMCTS to run the corresponding service. Others are set deliberately below the cost of service to ensure that access to justice is protected, such as proceedings concerning domestic abuse.

A minority of HMCTS fees are set under what is known as the enhanced power, via section 180 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Enhanced fees can lawfully over-recover their underpinning costs to cross-subsidise HMCTS services, for which low or no fees are payable. Following a substantial review of my Department’s costing methodology in relation to court processes, the newly estimated costs of 27 fees were found to have fallen below previous estimates. The revised costing methodology is an improved, more nuanced model that relies on data sources that were not available in the previous methodology.

The powers under which the 27 fees are currently set allow them to recover a maximum of their underlying costs, which means that the fees must either be reduced to their estimated costs or kept as they are, albeit restated under the 2014 Act as enhanced fees. In line with Treasury principles, it is prudent for the Act to be used sparingly when setting fees that over-recover their cost. The Department’s position is therefore that the enhanced power should be reserved for fees that can generate substantial levels of income to cross-subsidise under-recovering parts of HMCTS, provided that doing so has a minimal impact on access to justice. That is why the majority of the 27 fees in question will be reduced, in line with their newly estimated costs, by an upcoming negative instrument, with only three enhanced by this affirmative instrument.

I will explain the services to which the three fees covered by this draft order are attached, and why the Department deems it appropriate that each should be enhanced for the purpose of cross-subsidisation. The first is the 50p fee charged for a council tax liability order. This fee is payable by local authorities to legally demand payment of council tax arrears. HMCTS receives a high volume of CTLO applications each year, which raises significant income to support the running of the courts and tribunals. In 2022-23, 2.1 million CTLOs resulted in £1.1 million of fee income. Enhancing the fee will not only ensure this crucial income is retained, but it will also remove the cost to the taxpayer of adjusting the fee in line with its regularly fluctuating cost.

The second fee is charged at £22 for a warrant of entry. Such warrants are mostly applied for by utility companies to gain legal access to private premises. Similar to CTLOs, high volumes of these warrants are issued each year, generating £7.2 million in fee income for HMCTS in 2022-23 alone. Reducing the fee to cost would place significant financial pressure on the Department at a particularly challenging time.

The third fee relates to ships or goods that are seized in the event of a breach and then sold off at auction. The admiralty court charges several fees, which are payable on the sale of a vessel or goods, but the amount payable varies depending on the value of the ship. The fee relevant to this instrument applies to ships valued over £100,000. Unlike the flat CTLO and warrant of entry fees, this fee is £1 for every £100 of a ship’s value up to £100,000, and it increases by a further 50p for every £100 of the ship’s value above £100,000, with a minimum fee of £205. Although this fee does not attract the same volume as applications for CTLOs or warrants of entry, it still provides an important source of income for HMCTS because some ships are sold for several million pounds, meaning that even low annual volumes can result in the generation of notable overall income.

I reiterate that this draft order merely maintains the status quo by not increasing the value of any of the three fees restated under the 2014 Act. As a result, there is no anticipated impact on users of the courts and tribunals. The negligible bearing this draft order will have on HMCTS users is echoed in the response to the previous Government’s 2023 consultation on a series of updates to court and tribunal fees. The consultation included a proposal to enhance the CTLO fee, but the other two fees in question had not yet been identified as over-recovering at the time of the consultation.

Of those who responded to the proposal, 63% had no view and no further comments to share, and 17% agreed with the proposal, stating that enhancing the fee would not negatively impact users given that its current value of 50p would be retained. The two respondents who disagreed had incorrectly assumed that the fee was being increased.

I reassure Members that the number of variations between costs and fee values being corrected by this draft order and the accompanying negative instrument is considered higher than usual. That is because of the revisions brought about by the Department’s updated costing methodology. Although the costs underpinning HMCTS fees will be reviewed on an annual basis, I do not anticipate the need to amend this many fees each year, thanks to the improvements made by the new methodology. The three fees in question are charged in England and Wales only. This draft order will therefore have no effect on court fees in either Scotland or Northern Ireland.

This draft order can be seen as a corrective statutory instrument that simply delivers minor updates to the statute book for continuity purposes. As such, it does not bring about any practical changes to those affected by court and tribunal fees, and in fact ensures that the fees payable by the relevant court users remain the same. The amendments made by this draft order and its accompanying negative instrument represent the most pragmatic approach to keeping the Department’s fees legislation up to date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for his contribution. He is right that any future changes should have proper scrutiny, like the scrutiny we are providing today, and the Government are always willing to commit to monitoring the impact of such changes such as those made by the draft order. However, I note that these decisions maintain what is currently happening, rather than bringing about any change to charges. All the funds will go directly into the justice system, as he rightly encourages, and fees will always be kept under proper review.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

2. Whether she plans to release land owned by her Department at Springhill Road to the Springhill Road Residents Association.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

As the hon. Member will know from his meeting with the Minster for Prisons in the other place, currently there are no plans to release land at Springhill Road. The Ministry of Justice is working closely with local representatives to ensure that we bring benefits to the local community as part of the new prison build.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful for the Minister’s answer, and for the Prisons Minister’s time last summer. Notwithstanding our local opposition to a new prison, it is an absurdity that has been going on for years that the MOJ owns the greens, the lampposts and the public lighting on the Springhill Road estate adjacent to HMP Spring Hill, even though they are of no use to the MOJ and there is no benefit to the prison estate. The residents’ association is willing to take those greens and care for them, so that kids can play on them and residents can use them. Will the Minister look again at getting the land transferred, because it is of no benefit to him or his Department?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Under the last Government, only 500 prison places were created. By contrast, the last Labour Government delivered 27,830. The Lord Chancellor has set out her ambition to deliver 14,000 new places by 2031. Almost 1,500 of those will be provided by the new prison in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. If he writes to me about the specific concerns of the residents’ association, I will be happy to respond.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

3. What steps she is taking through the criminal justice system to help prevent defendants absconding before their trial.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

The decision to remand or bail an individual is solely a matter for the independent judiciary. Courts are required to considered the likelihood of absconding as part of that decision. The courts have the power to impose a broad range of robust bail conditions in the bail package, including electronic monitoring, exclusion zones and curfews. This Government are committed to ensuring that criminals face justice and victims have peace of mind and closure.

[Robbie Moore]

After the conviction of eight men for a string of horrendous child rapes in my constituency, I would like to be able to inform the Secretary of State that all those men were now serving their just punishment. However, two of them absconded from their trial and are believed to be abroad. Their exact whereabouts are an open secret in Keighley. It is a shocking failure of the justice system that those men are still walking free. Does the Minister agree that if a dual or foreign national is charged with disgusting child rape crimes, courts should be required to put terms on their bail that prevent them from leaving the country during their trial, so that they cannot walk free after their horrendous, heinous crimes?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I understand that the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers took place under the last Government, and the men he referred to were tried in absentia. The Home Secretary set out the steps that the Government are taking to tackle the terrible crimes of child sexual exploitation and abuse, including group-based child sexual exploitation. Through the Crime and Policing Bill, we are legislating to make grooming an aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offences, to ensure that it is properly reflected in the sentencing of perpetrators.

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

4. What steps she is taking to reduce the cost of court transcripts for victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

7. If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of ensuring that all prison leavers receive resettlement support from mentors.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

The Ministry of Justice recognises the benefits of mentoring in resettlement and is currently reviewing our approach to peer mentoring to make sure it is consistent and effective. There are many excellent organisations delivering a range of peer-led rehabilitation support, including Ingeus, Wizer and the Wise Group.

[Bobby Dean]

At my surgery a couple of weeks ago, I had two fantastic volunteers show up from Sutton Night Watch, a local homeless charity. They had been working with prisoners, both before and after they left their cells, to help them reintegrate into the community. They are doing fantastic work, but they now need to expand. They need more space and more people. Can the Minister explain what support is available to volunteers like them to help them to do their work with prisoners?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I applaud the work that the hon. Member describes. It is certainly the sort of work that needs to continue. Overall, the levels of homelessness and rough sleeping that we have inherited are far too high. We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to develop a long-term strategy to put us back on track to end homelessness. If he wishes to write to me about that particular case, I will follow it up.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

As part of the Justice Committee’s work on rehabilitation, I have come across some excellent projects on preventing reoffending, such as Revolving Doors, Peer Support and Key4Life, that use reformed ex-offenders as mentors. On a visit to Wormwood Scrubs prison last month, I saw the Right Course restaurant, which gets almost 60% of its trainees into employment on release. What are the Government doing to support and expand successful rehabilitation projects like these?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his identification of these very good actions that are going on within the prison estate. The Prison Service is keen to encourage all this sort of activity, and I will follow this up with my hon. Friend directly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The sentencing review’s interim report describes the situation at the moment, and it is the first stage of that independent review’s addressing this long-standing issue. Frankly, this is something that the Conservatives spent the last 14 years avoiding tackling. That is—[Interruption.] I will leave it there.

[Dr Mullan]

The House will have heard very starkly that the Minister did not offer me any clarity. I can help him by telling him that there is not one word anywhere on the expectations of victims of crime and their families—[Interruption.] Not one word. Worse than that, it cherry-picks evidence from reports to support a narrative that an ill-informed public do not know what they want and do not understand. Does the Minister agree that for that review to have any credibility whatsoever, it must engage seriously with what victims and the public want when it comes to the use of prison for the punishment of serious offenders?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We heard fully the commitment from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and the Lord Chancellor that victims are front and centre of our approach to fixing the mess that the Conservatives left us. There is a victims representative on the panel, as the hon. Member well knows. Victims were fully involved and engaged in this. I have sadly met too many victims in this role, and I have encouraged all of them to contribute to the report and committed to them that they will be fully involved in the implementation of the report. Instead of carping from the sidelines trying to get cheap soundbites, it is about time the Conservatives rolled their sleeves up and tried to help us sort out their mess.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

8. What steps her Department plans to take to reduce the backlog of domestic violence cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

The Government’s plan to support women offenders is clear and ambitious. To reduce the number of women going to prison, our new women’s justice board will support the implementation of the plan. This Government have taken immediate action to ensure that girls will never again be held in youth offender institutions following the publication last week of Susannah Hancock’s review into girls in the youth estate.

[Liz Twist]

Self-harm in prisons is now at the highest rate ever recorded. In women’s prisons, the rates are eight times higher than in men’s prisons—shockingly, one in three female prisoners has self-harmed. Does my hon. Friend share my deep concern about those figures, and what is the Department doing to tackle that issue effectively?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I certainly share my hon. Friend’s deep concern about that issue, which she is right to raise. Good relationships between staff and prisoners are essential in our efforts to identify and manage the risks of suicide and self-harm. We are providing specialist support to establishments rolling out tailored investments, including specialised training for new officers, recruiting psychologists to support women, and piloting a compassion-focused therapy group designed for women.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

13. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of the independent sentencing review’s interim report, published on 18 February 2025.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

This Government inherited a prison system on the verge of collapse. Under the last Government, in 14 years only 500 prison places were produced. Under the last Labour Government, there was a net increase of 27,830 prison places in 13 years. We are redoubling our efforts to match that number.

[Lewis Atkinson]

The prison capacity crisis that this Government inherited has resulted in persistent offenders not feeling the deterrent effect of a custody option being realistically available. Can the Minister tell us how this Government’s prison building plans will restore a level of deterrence to the system and ensure that capacity is available in time to remove active offenders from the streets?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Where they were blocking, we are building, building, building. HMP Millsike, the UK’s first all-electric prison, will open in just a few weeks and deliver 1,500 places. Just last week, the Prisons Minister in the other place attended a groundbreaking at HMP Highpoint, and we have already secured full planning permission for a new prison in Leicestershire and outline planning permission for a new prison in Buckinghamshire. We are getting on with the job.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Minister will know that the increase in prisoner numbers is often because of the logjam within the Crown court system, and there are too many on remand who are then convicted and released with time served, with no opportunity for rehabilitation or mentoring. Will he confirm that that forms part of the sentencing review or the Leveson review?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

That is why we are doing this big system relook. The right hon. Member is right to draw attention to this. We are going to tackle it and sort it out.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

17. What support she has provided to prisons that have received an urgent notification since July 2024.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I thank the hon. Member for drawing attention to the terrible legacy we inherited from the previous Government. The Prisons Minister in the other place has personally visited three of the prisons that have recently received urgent notifications—Wandsworth, Winchester and Manchester—and plans to visit the fourth as soon as possible. He has strengthened the UN process and meets regularly with governors and senior officials to challenge them and assure himself that sufficient progress is being made.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Prison officers do an important job, and I thank every officer at Downview Prison in Banstead. It is extremely concerning that the number of assaults on staff at Downview more than doubled between 2023 and 2024. What steps is he taking to ensure that officers are protected in their day-to-day jobs?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

As the hon. Member rightly says, prison officers do an outstanding job. The work of the Prison Service is to make sure they are properly supported and protected in that role, and that is what is going on.

[Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)]

18. What steps she is taking to tackle backlogs in the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

T3.   Last year, assaults on prison staff were up by 19% and serious assaults were up by 22%, yet the pensionable age of prison officers is still 68—it is simply too late. Can the Minister update the House on any discussions he may have had with officials regarding that industrial injustice and say when these loyal public servants might expect to see this long-standing issue corrected?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

We recognise the unique and challenging role that prison officers play in protecting the public and reducing reoffending. The Lord Chancellor has requested advice from officials on the pension age of prison officers, and we will continue to engage with trade unions as we work through this complex issue while considering the wider fiscal context. I am meeting the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) to discuss this important issue next week, and I am very happy for my hon. Friend to join that meeting if he wishes.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

T8. A significant proportion of those who experience homelessness are ex-offenders. I have previously raised concerns that the drive to alleviate the prison places crisis must not add to the homelessness emergency. The Deputy Prime Minister is in the process of establishing an inter-ministerial group on tackling homelessness. Will my right hon. Friend’s Department play a full and active role in that inter-ministerial group, and ensure that Ministers and officials from the Ministry of Justice are adequately represented?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and the Ministry of Justice will play a full part in the inter-ministerial group.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s attempts to prevent the Sentencing Council from changing the sentencing process, which would lead to a two-tier justice system. If, however, the council will not budge—as appears to be the case—a two-tier justice system will arrive in just 21 days, contradicting the key principle of the legal system that everyone should be equal before the law without discrimination. Will the Secretary of State introduce legislation immediately to ensure that that two-tier justice system does not come about?

--- Later in debate ---

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

Last week, at a Justice Committee hearing, it was confirmed that an effective probation service is essential to the rehabilitation of offenders and to prevent reoffending. However, over the years the service has been under immense strain owing to increased demand. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that probation officers have manageable caseloads, and that support is provided for their mental health and wellbeing to avoid high levels of stress and burnout, and also to help with the recruitment and retention of staff?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the probation service. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the chaotic running of the service under the last Government. We are actively monitoring the effectiveness of the probation reset policy and assessing its impact on workload capacity, the time saved, and the increased focus on individuals posing the highest risk to public safety. We recognise the significant pressure that probation officers have been under, which is why comprehensive wellbeing support models have been put in place across our services, including dedicated wellbeing leads for both prison and probation services.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

What work is the Secretary of State doing with the Victims’ Commissioner to ensure that the families of British citizens who are murdered abroad have the same rights as the families of homicide victims in the United Kingdom?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

Prison maintenance privatisation has been a complete and utter disaster. When will it be taken back in-house?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We are investing approximately £500 million over two years in prison and probation service maintenance to improve conditions across our estate, but it is fair to say we have inherited a system in serious need of repair. The estimated cost of bringing the prison estate to a fair condition and maintaining it till the end of the decade is £2.8 billion. The programme is now under way, and we hope that we will make as much progress as possible.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Reform of Private Family Law Hearings

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) on securing this important debate, and I applaud the thoughtful and considered way that he has approached a very challenging area. I think we all want to mitigate the disruption and pain that family law hearings cause to children, and he is correct to say that we all want to have children’s best interests as the anchor point in everything we do. I applaud the way that he set out his concerns.

It is well known that family breakdowns are almost always challenging. At times, disputes are unavoidable and often intense, with children caught in the middle. The family court plays a crucial role in resolving such disputes. I want to clarify that magistrates who sit in the family court are formally referred to as “lay justices”. However, for the purposes of today’s debate, I will use the term “family magistrates”, as it is more widely recognised.

The hon. Member is well aware that the family justice system in England and Wales relies on the work that family magistrates do to ensure that the most vulnerable members of society, particularly children, are protected and that their best interests are prioritised. I welcome his words about the importance of magistrates in our justice system, even though he has concerns about the role that they play in this particular area.

Although family magistrates do not have formal legal qualifications, they undergo a rigorous selection and a comprehensive training process that is provided by the Judicial College, and it is worth noting that family magistrates were involved in family proceedings long before the inception of the family court in 2014. Before that, family magistrates in the civil and county courts would sit on family proceedings and make decisions about arrangements for children. There is a long history of that in our law.

Family magistrates are recruited from the community and bring a diverse range of impartial perspectives and experiences to the court. This diversity helps to ensure decisions are fair. It is crucial that we recognise and preserve their contribution to the family justice system for several compelling reasons, especially in the light of the arguments made by the hon. Gentleman in both his recent article and this debate, suggesting that family magistrates should no longer be able to make child arrangement orders. The House will know that these are family court orders that detail arrangements for a child, including where the child will live and how they will spend time with each parent. The hon. Gentleman has clearly spelled out some of the implications.

The Government appreciate the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman regarding the training of magistrates. However, we believe the existing system has safeguards in place, which I will outline to offer reassurance not only to him but to everyone listening to this debate. I am talking about the training that magistrates receive, the role of the justices’ legal adviser, and the robust protocols the family court has for allocating and reallocating cases.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the quality of training provided to magistrates is of a high standard. To safeguard their independence from Government, the statutory responsibility for training family magistrates rests with the Lady Chief Justice, as set out in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. These responsibilities are exercised through the Judicial College, which offers a comprehensive training programme to equip family magistrates with the necessary skills and knowledge to handle the intricacies of private law children’s cases effectively. This training ensures that family magistrates are prepared to make informed decisions that prioritise the welfare of the children involved. Further information on the college’s training programme can be found on the judiciary’s website.

When sitting in the family court, family magistrates are supported by the justices’ legal advisers, who are qualified to provide advice on the law and procedures that family magistrates must follow, and who are also subject to an ongoing family training requirement. All judges, including family magistrates who hear applications for child arrangement orders, are obligated by the Children Act 1989 to have the child’s welfare as their paramount consideration and must undergo extensive training. To be appointed as a family magistrate, each individual must undertake training on determining the best interests of the child, navigating the welfare checklists, and ways of communicating with people in court, particularly where there is high conflict.

Let me emphasise and underline the role of justices’ legal advisers in assisting family magistrates in these cases. A panel of family magistrates decides cases with the presence and involvement of the justices’ legal adviser. The recent case law, Derbyshire County Council v. Marsden, confirms that these advisers play

“an integral, and legally required, part of the decision making process.”

Justices’ legal advisers provide essential guidance and support to family magistrates, ensuring that decisions are made with a thorough understanding of the complexities of family law, and always prioritising the best interests of the children involved.

Nor are family magistrates operating in a vacuum. They rely on assessments carried out by trained professionals for arrangement orders, prohibited steps orders and other key rulings when making arrangements for children. This collaborative approach enhances the quality of the family court’s decisions in these very sensitive cases.

Family magistrates do not deal with the most complex cases in the family court. Established rules and guidance determine the appropriate level of judiciary based on a number of factors, including the complexity of the case. Cases involving certain complexities will be immediately allocated to other tiers of the judiciary—district judges, circuit judges and, at the most serious level, High Court judges—in accordance with the issued guidance. It is like a lift that the judiciary enter at the appropriate level.

The judiciary, including family magistrates, have an ongoing duty to keep allocation decisions under review, particularly if further information is received from the parties and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. The case can then be reallocated to a more appropriate level of judge depending on the complexity and the issues in the case, and that can happen in the course of proceedings. The system ensures that magistrates handle appropriate cases for which they are trained, while more complex cases are managed at a different level of the judiciary, depending on the issues in the case. The mechanism not only maintains the efficiency of the legal process, but ensures that justice is served appropriately.

Family magistrates also play an essential role in the effective functioning of our family justice system. The number of outstanding cases in the system has grown since 2018, and the average time taken for cases reached a high of 47 weeks in 2023 under the previous Government, which is similar to the data the hon. Member shared earlier. While we have taken steps to address the underlying issues, which means we are on track to reduce the outstanding caseload by more than 10%, there are still significant challenges facing the system. Family magistrates routinely deal with a number of cases about children. Removing that capacity from the system would fundamentally undermine the effective administration of justice, but more than that, the resultant delays in resolving cases would have a profound impact on the wellbeing of the children involved and on parents seeking to resolve their issues.

Furthermore, the Government remain committed to reforming private family law processes where appropriate. Just last week, the Government announced that our new pathfinder model of private family law proceedings will be extended to mid and west Wales in March and to West Yorkshire in June. It is a significant reimagining of private law proceedings, with dedicated support for domestic abuse survivors, up-front multi-agency information sharing and a greater emphasis on the voice of the child through the production of a child impact report. Those proceedings allow our judges, including family magistrates, to have a much richer understanding of a family’s circumstances from the outset and ensure that parties are fully supported by professionals.

It is clear that family magistrates are indispensable in hearing private law children’s cases. Their collaboration with justices’ legal advisers, the quality of their training, the mechanisms for allocating and reallocating difficult cases and their contribution in alleviating the burden on all our judges are all critical factors that contribute to a more efficient and effective legal system. By maintaining the involvement of family magistrates in those cases, we can ensure that the best interests of our children, which are what we are all focused on, are upheld and that justice is delivered in a timely and compassionate manner.

Question put and agreed to.

Arbitration Bill [Lords]

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes.

On account of the Bill’s 18 clauses being grouped together, I will speak to them in numerical order. I begin with clause 1, which contains one of the Bill’s key reforms: provision for determining the governing law of an arbitration agreement. This is important because different governing laws may give different answers to important questions such as who is party to the agreement and whether the type of dispute is capable of being arbitrated.

Clause 1 will determine the governing law of the arbitration agreement by replacing the common law approach established in Enka v. Chubb with a new statutory rule. The law governing the arbitration agreement will be the law expressly chosen by the parties. Otherwise, it will be the law of the seat. By way of simple illustration, if someone arbitrates in London, by default the applicable law would be English law.

Whereas the common law approach is complex and uncertain, the new approach in clause 1 is simple and predictable. It reduces the prospect of satellite litigation to determine governing law, which can be slow and costly. Where the arbitration takes place in London, as is the choice in so many international arbitrations, by default the arbitration will be fully supported by English law.

For the avoidance of doubt, I would like to add that an express choice of law to govern the main contract rather than the arbitration agreement is not enough. Clause 1 will not apply where the agreement is derived from standing offers of arbitration contained in treaties or foreign domestic legislation, as with investor-state arbitration, for example, as these are better underpinned by international law and foreign domestic law respectively.

Clauses 2, 3 and 4 make provision in relation to the arbitral tribunal. Clause 2 requires an arbitrator to disclose circumstances that might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality. It will apply prior to the arbitrator’s appointment, when they are being approached with a view to appointment. It will be a continuing duty that also applies after their appointment. This codifies the duty of disclosure recognised by the Supreme Court in its decision in Halliburton v. Chubb and will enhance trust in arbitration.

Clauses 3 and 4 will reassure arbitrators that they can take the right decisions in their proceedings without fear of reprisal from a disappointed party. Clause 3 provides that an arbitrator will not be liable for the costs of an application to court for their removal unless the arbitrator has acted in bad faith. Clause 4 provides that an arbitrator’s resignation does not give rise to any liability unless the resignation is shown by a complainant to be unreasonable.

Clauses 5 and 6 both concern jurisdiction. There are two ways for a party to question the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. One way is to wait until the tribunal has issued a ruling and then challenge that ruling under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which allows a challenge to an arbitral award on the basis that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The other is is by invoking section 32 of that Act, which allows the court to decide whether the tribunal has jurisdiction as a preliminary point.

Clause 5 makes clear that if the tribunal has already ruled on its jurisdiction, any challenge must be brought through section 67. Clause 6 provides that where the arbitral tribunal or court rules that the tribunal has no jurisdiction, that tribunal can nevertheless award the costs of the arbitration proceedings up until that point. This will ensure that if a party wrongly starts arbitration, they can still be held responsible for the wasted costs incurred.

Clauses 7, 8 and 9 deal with arbitral proceedings and the powers of the court. Clause 7 will confer an express power on arbitrators to make an award on a summary basis—that is, adopting an expedited procedure—to dispose of an issue where an arbitrating party has no real prospect of succeeding on that issue. This aligns with the summary judgments available in court proceedings and will deliver more efficient arbitrations. This power can be exercised on application by any of the parties. The procedure to be adopted is not prescribed. It will instead be a matter for the arbitrator to decide on a case by case basis after consulting with the arbitrating parties.

Clause 8 concerns emergency arbitrators. Arbitral rules sometimes provide a regime for the appointment of emergency arbitrators on an interim basis. Such arbitrators can make orders on urgent matters, such as the preservation of evidence, pending the constitution of the full arbitral tribunal. Emergency arbitrators were not commonplace when the 1996 Act was drafted, so it is important that we now expressly empower them. Clause 8 will provide that failing to comply with an order made by the emergency arbitrator will have the same consequences as those for a normal arbitrator.

Clause 9 concerns interim court powers exercisable in support of arbitral proceedings. Under section 44 of the 1996 Act, the court can make orders in support of arbitration proceedings on certain matters—for example, the taking of witness evidence, the preservation of evidence, sales of goods and interim injunctions. Clause 9 will amend section 44 to make it clear that such court orders are also available against third parties. For example, the court will be able to make an order preserving assets against a third party such as a bank. This will mirror the position in court proceedings.

Clauses 10, 11 and 12 concern powers of the court in relation to an arbitral award. An arbitral tribunal can issue an award on whether it has jurisdiction, and it can issue an award on the merits of the dispute. Either type of award can be challenged under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the basis that the arbitral tribunal did not have jurisdiction. Clause 10 will equip the courts with the full suite of remedies for section 67 challenges. When the court has a jurisdiction challenge in front of it, it will have two new options: to declare the arbitral award to be of no effect, or to return the matter to the arbitral tribunal for consideration so that a revised award can be made. These remedies already exist for other challenges, for serious irregularities and for appeals on points of law, so this provision fixes something of an inconsistency in the 1996 Act.

Clause 11 also amends section 67 of the 1996 Act. It will confer a power for rules of court to provide that, unless necessary in the interests of justice, there should be no new grounds of objection and no new evidence put before the court unless it was not reasonably possible to put them before the tribunal. The amendments made to section 67 by clause 11 also provide that evidence taken by an arbitral tribunal should not be reheard by the court. This will avoid these challenges from becoming full re-hearings, departing from the precedent set in the case of Dallah v. Pakistan. Re-hearings can involve duplication of time and costs, and it can be unfair to allow a party who lost before the tribunal a complete rerun.

Clause 12 amends section 70 of the 1996 Act, which governs how arbitral awards can be challenged before the courts. It will clarify that the 28-day time limit for such a challenge will start running only after any arbitral process of appeal or correction has concluded.

Clause 13 concerns appeals from High Court decisions and corrects a rare drafting error in the 1996 Act. Section 18 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and section 35 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 were amended by the 1996 Act. When read at face value, those sections currently suggest that High Court decisions made under the 1996 Act can be appealed to the Court of Appeal only if expressly permitted in the 1996 Act.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is clear from what my hon. Friend is saying that the Bill is welcomed by the legal sector. What engagement has he had with the legal sector and relevant stakeholders?

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

There has been massive engagement with parties interested in this Bill. The Bill began in the last Parliament, to which I am grateful for the work already done. It began in the Lords, who engaged fully with parties at that stage. The Lords have had to restart the Bill in the new Parliament, so they have had two bites at the cherry, and all the feedback from stakeholders has been very positive. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing that out in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Let me first thank all Members of this House and the other place who have spoken in support of this important Bill and the reforms within it. I am particularly grateful for the support expressed on Second Reading by the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover); the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) has added his approval today as well. I am also grateful to all the hon. and right hon. Members who contributed to this afternoon’s Committee proceedings. It is encouraging to see enthusiasm on both sides of the House for further improving our already world-leading arbitral framework, and for the business that those changes will generate.

I also thank the many noble Lords who have given this Bill and its predecessor in the last Parliament such thoughtful consideration. Without their input and expertise, the Bill would not be so finely tuned. I pay tribute to the former special Public Bill Committee, which marshalled expert evidence from the sector, the judiciary and the world of academia. That Committee was ably and expertly led by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I am also grateful to all the other noble and learned Lords who have contributed to the passage of both Arbitration Bills in the other place, particularly Lord Hacking, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, Lord Verdirame, Lord Beith, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Mance. I wish to give special mention to Lord Bellamy, who first introduced these important reforms to Parliament as a Justice Minister under the previous Government.

Of course, we owe a debt of gratitude to the Law Commission for its exceptional work reviewing the Arbitration Act 1996 and recommending the reforms that are being taken forward in the Bill. Professor Sarah Green and her colleagues at the commission have led what can only be described as a masterclass in public consultation and law reform. I particularly thank Dr Nathan Tamblyn for his work leading the commission’s review, and for the support he gave the Ministry of Justice in taking forward this legislation. It is fair to say that no one knows the Arbitration Bill better than Nathan. His contributions to this area of the law will, no doubt, have a long-lasting and positive effect.

This Bill has greatly benefited from the input of experts and practitioners from across the arbitration community. Their contributions were made both through the Law Commission consultations and during evidence-taking by the former Arbitration Bill’s special Public Bill Committee. As has been recognised by both Houses, it is vital that our modernised arbitral law works effectively in practice. This has been made possible by the involvement of those who will use this legislation once it comes into force.

Lastly, I put on record my thanks to the officials who have worked on this Bill since it was introduced in the last Parliament. I thank the policy lead, Lee Pedder, the Bill manager, Iona Bonaventura, and Helen Hall from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. I also thank my excellent private secretary, Gillian Atkinson.

I conclude by highlighting again the importance of this Bill for the arbitration sector and for UK economic growth more generally. We have a proud history of arbitration on these shores—a point that I covered in some detail on Second Reading. Since the 1996 Act came into force almost 30 years ago, the UK has been the chosen arbitral location for many thousands of disputes from across the world. This House can be confident that the modernisation in the Bill will enable our jurisdiction to continue playing that vital role for many years. This is very much a growth Bill—a growth Bill from a growth Government. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Prison Capacity Review

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)]

My noble Friend, the Minister of State for Justice (Lord Timpson), has made the following statement:

Unlike the previous Government, this Government have a plan to ensure we are never again in a position where we have more prisoners than prison places. We have launched the independent sentencing review to ensure that our future prison system is sustainable, in balance and that there is always space in prison for dangerous offenders. In December, we published the 10-year prison capacity strategy and the first annual statement on prison capacity. Our strategy is detailed, setting our commitment to build the 14,000 places the last Government failed to deliver, with the aim of completing the build programme by 2031. Our plan is realistic, recognising that prison building is complex. We are also committed to improving transparency via the publication of an annual statement on prison capacity.

The Lord Chancellor announced that we would be launching a review into the handling of prison capacity. The previous Government’s approach to the criminal justice system was flawed and this review will consider the reasons why prison supply and demand did not meet, making recommendations that may help future Governments avoid the cycle of repeated prison capacity crises, helping to guide our strategy.

Specifically, the review will consider strategic supply and demand choices and how these choices affected remaining prison capacity. It will shine a light on relevant decision making and an analysis of impacts on the wider criminal justice system. Alongside this written ministerial statement, the terms of reference for the review have been published on www.gov.uk.

The Lord Chancellor has appointed Dame Anne Owers to lead the review. Her extensive knowledge of the criminal justice system means that this review will be conducted to the highest standards. The review will report its findings in spring 2025.

[HCWS426]

Justice

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the Second Reading of the Arbitration Bill [Lords] on 29 January 2025.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am getting towards the end of going through the clauses. In fact, I have come to the last and final clause that I wish to comment upon, clause 15, as you had probably worked out, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that usually comes after clause 14. [Laughter.] There is no clause 16, so clause 15 is the final clause.

[Official Report, 29 January 2025; Vol. 761, c. 335.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin):

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

I am getting towards the end of going through the clauses. In fact, I have come to the last and final clause that I wish to comment upon, clause 15, as you had probably worked out, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that usually comes after clause 14. [Laughter.] Clause 15 is the final clause I will speak to today.