Bereaved Parents: Birth Certificates

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this debate on an important and emotive subject. I start by saying how sorry I am for the loss that she and her family suffered, and how much I admire her resilience in coming to this House to share her story. That takes a huge amount of courage.

The circumstances in which the hon. Lady and others have lost co-parents are heartbreaking indeed. The Government are determined to ensure that the justice system is better able to support children and families, and particularly mothers who have lost the father of their child.

The hon. Lady helpfully outlined the current process for registering a parent’s name on a birth certificate when that parent has passed away, but it is important to set out precisely how this works. Under section 55A of the Family Law Act 1986, in situations where a child is born to unmarried parents and the father is deceased prior to birth, a declaration of parentage must be issued by the court for paternity to be established. It is right that a fee is attached to this application, but it is important to say that there are mechanisms in place to support those who cannot afford the fee.

The help with fees scheme considers a range of factors, including an applicant’s income, their savings and whether they receive any benefits, so that the fee can be waived in certain circumstances. Once a declaration is issued, the birth can then be re-registered to include the father’s details or, to put it another way and as we have heard, to fill in that blank space.

To recognise the challenges that mothers face when seeking a declaration of parentage, a key intention of the provisions in family proceedings is to make the process as simple as possible in the most difficult of circumstances, while at the same time ensuring that the court has the means to establish parentage if one parent is deceased and is not, of course, able to convey their views themselves.

That process, while we have to emphasise simplicity and ease for those going through the toughest of circumstances, is an important one. It is important because in some cases the process can bear on significant financial implications for others, such as children from previous relationships, and can bear on issues such as nationality and others that touch on the best interests of the child. While ensuring the process is clear and simple to support bereaved parents, the courts must therefore have a process that instils confidence in the important details that a birth certificate contains.

[Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)]

I want to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this incredibly important debate.

The Minister has spoken well on the process involved. If a couple are married when the father dies while the woman is pregnant, it is a relatively simple process to register that person as the father of the child. It is a much more complicated matter for people where the couple are not married. I suggest, and I hope my hon. Friend agrees, that legislation might not have kept pace with societal change and with the reality of how couples now choose to live when they plan families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right to reflect on the growing number of couples in this country who cohabit and for whom marriage is not something they have chosen. It is right, too, that in general the law keeps up, to reflect that sort of societal change. I will come in due course to discuss more widely what the Government are doing in that space. I return, however, to the essential point that while clarity, simplicity and affordability are important in the registration process, particularly to support bereaved parents, we must have a process that instils confidence in what the birth certificate contains.

I thank the hon. Member for South Devon for drawing attention to Widowed and Young’s campaign. As she rightly points out, it does some absolutely amazing work, particularly for those younger people who have tragically lost a spouse or life partner. I can reassure the hon. Member now that the Government take the matter incredibly seriously and we are working hard to improve the family justice system for children and families.

Widowed and Young advocates for a simplified court process. We know that delays in the court process add to the distress when someone is going through bereavement. That can have a significant impact on children and families. We are committed to improving timeliness and reducing the outstanding caseload in the family court. That is why we have set ambitious targets for reducing delays in 2024-25 and have focused on closing the longest-running cases, not least so that can free up court time to deal with precisely the sorts of processes to which the hon. Member draws attention.

To further support those who use the family court, we are committed to improving digital solutions to support families with exploring various options for resolving child arrangement disputes early and away from court whenever possible. That is an area where digital solutions can be brought to bear on the sorts of issues that have been raised today. The Ministry of Justice is working on testing and developing various digital innovations that aim to support users in the private family justice system to help those families find the right information at the right time for them to reach agreements where that is appropriate, and particularly in the sorts of processes and proceedings under focus, which in the vast majority of cases are entirely non-contentious.

Let me turn to the wider issue of cohabitation reform. The subject that the hon. Member for South Devon raises and that others have raised today speak to the broader issues for cohabiting couples in our society who, under existing law, have only limited financial protections compared with those who are married or in a civil partnership. I know that a number of colleagues across the House have written to my Department about this, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby was pleased to attend a parliamentary roundtable to discuss it last November.

We know that the limited rights and protections available to cohabitants can affect the most vulnerable in our society who are often affected at the most difficult stages in life, such as when a partner dies, or at the point of separation. We know, too, that those limited rights and protections disproportionately affect women, including victims of domestic and economic abuse, as well as their children. With the number of cohabiting couples in the UK having more than doubled over the past 30 years, it is important, as others have said, that law reflects the society in which we now live. That indeed is why the Government set out in our manifesto a commitment to strengthen the rights and protections available to women in cohabiting couples. We will be setting out the next steps on this manifesto commitment—how we intend to implement it—as soon as possible.

The issue raised by the hon. Member for South Devon speaks directly to those challenges that sometimes face parents who are unmarried. I would like to thank her once again for securing this important debate and pay tribute to her bravery in coming forward to talk about it. I hope that this is the start of a conversation. I hope that she and I can discuss in more depth very soon the sorts of changes that might be necessary to better protect people in law, and I look forward to working with her to that end.

While I am on my feet, let me also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for the related issue that he raises and let me extend my personal condolences to the family involved. They have been through one of the worst things imaginable in my view. Certainly, processes of administration—of registration—should not be designed to exacerbate that. If he will write to me with that particular case, I would be happy to take a look at it, and I look forward to working with him on how we can address and mitigate the distress of parents of children who die in childbirth.

Once again, let me thank the hon. Member for South Devon for securing this important debate. I look forward to working with her on how we can ameliorate the situation for those for whom she is campaigning.

Question put and agreed to.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Seventh sitting)

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Green]

Q To follow up on what you just said about legislative consent, in October of last year, the Senedd voted against Julie Morgan’s assisted dying motion. In your opinion, what implications does that have for the Bill and its progress?

Professor Lewis: A motion was put forward by Julie Morgan that was supported by three or four Members of the Senedd, which was broadly in support not of this specific Bill, but of the purpose of this Bill, and it was defeated, as you say, after a full debate on the Floor of the Senedd. Formally, legally and constitutionally, that is of no consequence, because it was not a legislative consent motion, and of course, as I said earlier, this Parliament is able to do what it likes. It could totally disregard that. Whether that would be a prudent or an appropriate thing to do, or even what one might describe as a constitutionally appropriate thing to do, is another matter.

I think it reinforces the point that there is a significance in making sure that scrutiny of the Bill has a Welsh focus. You might consider, for example, making different provision in Wales. How do you respect what was a democratic vote in the Senedd in Cardiff? Well, you might consider having different commencement provisions—I am not advocating this, it is just an example of what you might do. Commencement of the Bill in Wales might happen in a different way, on the assumption it was passed. You might put that in the hands of Welsh Ministers and the Senedd, just as an example.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

Q To be clear, I am here as a Government Minister on this Committee, and the Government are entirely neutral on the Bill, so we do not take a position on the substance of the issues you have raised. Clearly, the draft Bill is intended to apply in both England and Wales, as you say, and your note is extremely helpful in highlighting some of those issues that will need to be worked out. As a Government, we will work closely with the Welsh Government to assess the legalities and practicalities of any potential changes to the law.

You have highlighted in particular the distinctions between health law, which is a devolved matter, and the law on suicide, which currently is not devolved. On the first page of your written evidence, you draw out clauses 32, 31, 33 and 34 in particular as issues that we should focus on in ironing out those legalities. Is there anything else you want to add to that that you think that we as a Government should focus on in our work consulting with the Senedd?

Professor Lewis: I think it is important that both Governments understand how the implementation of what will be a pretty radical change in the law will happen on the ground within the health service and among those who are responsible for delivering social services. I am thinking of issues such as adult safeguarding, which in Wales has its own specific law and is slightly different from the arrangements in England. There are those kinds of nuances between the two territories, and I think it would be prudent to focus on them.

I also think it is wise to bear in mind that Wales has certain statutory bodies whose interests might extend to the Bill. For example, there is the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales, in particular; there is the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales as well. I think it is important that there is some forum, some scope, for those people also to be involved in how this is shaped.

[Sarah Olney]

Q Dr Price, I am really glad that we are able to have the Royal College of Psychiatrists in front of us today; thank you for making the time. I want to ask you about paragraph 11 of your written evidence, which states that it is the royal college’s view that the Mental Capacity Act

“is not sufficient for the purposes of this Bill.”

Could you expand a little on that and, if you feel able, make some recommendations as to what you think could be sufficient?

Dr Price: Thank you. In answering this, I will also refer back to Professor Gareth Owen’s oral submission, thinking about the purpose that the Mental Capacity Act was drawn up for and the fact that decisions about the ending of life were not one of the originally designed functions of it. We would need to think carefully about how that would then translate into a decision that was specifically about the capacity to end one’s life.

We also need to think about how that would work in practice. When we are thinking about capacity assessments, it is usually related to a treatment or a choice about a treatment or about somebody’s life—for example, changing residence. Psychiatrists and doctors and actually lots of professionals are very used to those sorts of decisions and have gathered a lot of knowledge, expertise and experience around it. This particular decision is something that in this country we do not have knowledge, expertise and experience in, and we therefore need to think about how that would look in practice.

As for advice to the Committee about what that might look like, I think that we need to gather what evidence we have—it is actually very thin—from other jurisdictions that think about capacity as part of this process. I am thinking about my PhD: I visited Oregon and talked to practitioners who were directly involved in these sorts of assessments. They described the process, but they are not using the Mental Capacity Act as their framework. They described a very interpersonal process, which relied on a relationship with the patient, and the better a patient was known, the more a gut feeling-type assessment was used. We need to think here about whether that would be a sufficient conversation to have.

One of the things that I have thought quite a lot about is how we can really understand the workings of a mental capacity assessment, and one of the best ways we can do that is to see who is not permitted to access assisted suicide because of a lack of capacity and what that assessment showed. We do not have data because the assessments for people who were not permitted to do it are not published; we cannot read them, so if this becomes legislation, one of the suggestions that I would have—it is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists—is to, with patients’ consent, record capacity assessments to see whether they meet the standard that is necessary. I think it is important to set out the standard necessary and the components needed to be confident about a mental capacity assessment. That will help with standards, but will also help with training, because this is new territory for psychiatry, for medicine, and to be able to think about consistency and reliability, training needs to actually see a transparency in capacity assessments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Francis]

On a point of order, Mrs Harris. Yesterday, we heard evidence about the impact of the Bill on different groups with protected characteristics, including age, disability, race and sexual orientation. We heard from the EHRC, an arm’s length body of the Government, that it strongly recommends that a full impact assessment, a human rights assessment and a delegated powers memorandum be undertaken before the Committee begins line-by-line scrutiny.

We have also heard from witnesses about the impact that the Bill will have on disabled people, from Disability Rights UK and others, on black and minority ethnic people, from Dr Jamilla Hussain, from LGBT people, from Baroness Falkner, and on those from a low-income background, from Sam Royston of Marie Curie. We heard from Dr Sarah Cox and Dr Jamilla Hussain that evidence from their work shows that this Bill has a higher probability of pushing minority groups further away from seeking healthcare, while inequality pre-exists. As observed through the pandemic and from available data, minority groups do not always trust that their interests will be best represented in institutions that would enable the facilitation of someone’s death, should this Bill become law.

I therefore believe that on the basis of that advice, so as not to inadvertently widen health inequalities through Bill, it is essential to have health impact assessments. I appreciate that an equality impact assessment will be produced for Report stage, it will not be available for detailed line-by-line scrutiny. When we agreed the timetable for line-by-line scrutiny last Tuesday, we were not aware that this assessment would be produced, given it was first reported to the House during the money resolution last Wednesday. There is a risk that there will be a bigger impact on people with protected characteristics, and this will not be understood fully until the Government have produced the equality impact assessment. As things stand, that means that we will move into line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill on 11 February without a full understanding from the assessment of the impact of the Bill.

I am therefore minded to request a short Adjournment of the Committee so that, as advised, we can receive the assessments before we progress to line-by-line scrutiny. Please will you advise me, Mrs Harris, how I could secure such a motion to adjourn the Committee until we are in receipt of the evidence, as advised by the witnesses yesterday?

[Sarah Sackman]

Further to that point of order, Mrs Harris. I want to clarify the Government’s position. As the Committee knows, the Government are neutral on the Bill, but once the Committee has concluded its work and prior to Report, we are committed to publishing the ECHR memorandum, a delegated powers memorandum, the economic impact assessment that was committed to during the money resolution debate, and an assessment of the equalities impact of the Bill. In terms of the timing, it is necessary that the impacts that are assessed be of the Bill as it is brought forward. If the Bill is liable to change via amendments proposed by members of this Committee, it is important that we know what it is that we are assessing the impact of. That is why the proposed timing is to publish the impact assessment at that stage. The point is that before Members of the House come to a vote on Report and Third Reading, they will all have before them the impact assessment in respect of equalities and all those other aspects of the Bill.

[Danny Kruger]

On a point of order, Mrs Harris.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

9. What steps she is taking to support survivors of domestic abuse and violence against women through the criminal justice system.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

This Government are committed to supporting victims and survivors of violence against women and girls. These are abhorrent crimes. We are therefore funding the rape and sexual abuse support fund to the tune of £26 million, as well as funding independent domestic and sexual violence advocates. We are also strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner to improve accountability where those victims’ needs are not being met.

[Anna Sabine]

A constituent of mine from Somerset was seriously sexually assaulted in another county more than two years ago. Despite reporting the assault in 2022, she has been given a court date in December 2025. She told me that the legal process, involving both the courts and the relevant police service, has been more traumatising than the incident itself. What better support can we offer women who find themselves stuck in these processes for such lengths of time?

[Sarah Sackman]

I am terribly sorry to hear about this case. We know that such cases are not isolated, which is why this Government are bearing down on the Crown court backlog; we are increasing the number of Crown court sitting days and increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers to free up capacity in the Crown court, so that we can get swifter justice for victims. We are also investing in the victim transformation programme, through the Crown Prosecution Service, to provide precisely the kind of support that would benefit the hon. Lady’s constituent, keep her engaged in the process, and bring those trial dates forward.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

It has been revealed that just 4% of rape and sexual offences reported to Lancashire police in the past year resulted in a charge or summons. What steps will the Ministry take to restore confidence in the criminal justice system for my constituents?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend will know that this Government have a landmark ambition to halve violence against women and girls, and the criminal justice system has an important part to play in that. While setting that priority, whether it is for the CPS or our police, we want to drive charging decisions and drive up the conviction rate. Providing swifter justice for victims is going to require once-in-a-generation reform to bring down the Crown court backlog.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Sarah Sackman]

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

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

11. What steps she is taking to improve prison conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

17. What steps she is taking to reduce processing times for deputyship applications by the Court of Protection.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

Applications for deputyship to the Court of Protection play a vital role when people need to be able to make decisions for loved ones who lack capacity. It is important to support those people through prompt and efficient processes. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has been implementing an improvement plan, driving down waiting times by recruiting more staff, enhancing judicial capacity, digitising application forms, and implementing a new case management system.

[Lisa Smart]

One of my constituents has contacted me to ask why he has been waiting nine long months for a decision from the Court of Protection on his deputyship application. He needs to secure the deputyship in order to make crucial decisions for a vulnerable loved one. Another constituent, in a similar position, waited for two months without any acknowledgement that his application was being looked into. Their experiences are not unique; solicitors and judges alike acknowledge the systemic delays plaguing the system. Does the Minister agree that such long delays in processing times are unacceptable, and what does she think is acceptable?

[Sarah Sackman]

I agree with the hon. Lady that such delays are not acceptable, and I am sorry to hear of the distress that this will have caused. It is right that we continue to invest in our improvement plan and continue to see progress with digitisation. Digitising the application forms is a first step, but we want to see end-to-end digitisation, which we know is resulting in decent progress and has sped up those times over recent months. There is more to do, and we shall do it.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

21. What steps her Department is taking through the criminal justice system to help tackle violence against women and girls.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

As I have said, the Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls within a decade. It is an important ambition, and the criminal justice system has a vital role to play in it. In November, we launched a pilot promoting domestic abuse protection orders in selected areas, and we have ambitions to roll that out further. We will also introduce independent legal advisers for adult rape victims, ensuring that victims have the legal support that they need and deserve.

[Rosie Duffield]

Last week, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner found that just 5% of reported domestic abuse results in a conviction. Does the Minister share my concerns that lengthy investigations into non-crime hate incidents are potentially diverting vital resources from the criminal justice system and from prosecuting actual violence against women and girls?

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Member is right to remark on the low charging and conviction rates for domestic abuse. We have an ambition to drive those up. That is why we are putting more funding and more prioritisation into this area and calling on our agencies, whether it is the police or the Crown Prosecution Service, to really focus on it, because right now we are not doing enough for women and girls.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

The tragic reality for many women who suffer domestic abuse and then have to go through family court proceedings on top of it is that the presumption of parental contact provides another opportunity for perpetrators of domestic abuse to prolong it. The Government are rightly reviewing this. Will Ministers ensure that we make the most of this opportunity to better protect women who suffer domestic abuse through the family court system?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is right to make that point. Our family courts should never become sites of retraumatisation for victims of domestic abuse. We are reviewing the presumption, and when we are ready, we will publish the findings and our policy response to that review.

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

T7. Today we learned not only that Yevgeny Prigozhin, a sanctioned warlord, used frozen funds to make legal threats to silence a British journalist, but that the enablers of this textbook example of lawfare have since gone unpunished, with the Solicitors Regulation Authority ruling that Prigozhin’s lawyers “broke no rules”. That inaction, in the face of such clear-cut wrongdoing, shows that our current framework is inadequate. Can the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to create a tough deterrent against harmful lawfare tactics, particularly when they are deployed by insidious individuals like Prigozhin?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for the campaigning work that he is doing in this area. Journalism is the lifeblood of democracy, and strategic lawsuits against public participation represent an abuse of the legal system; they are used by those with deep pockets to harass and silence journalism. Such behaviour is intolerable. My focus, and the focus of this Government, will be on the implementation of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which introduced an early dismissal mechanism and cost protection for SLAPP defendants.

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

T3. Last September, the Secretary of State confirmed that foreign national offenders blocking up our jails were being removed and deported. Will she update the House on how many have been removed and deported, and does she agree that the fastest way to free up capacity in our prisons is to remove the vast majority of them?

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

Humanist marriage has been legal in Scotland for 20 years but continues to wait to be legalised in England and Wales. The Law Commission made recommendations two years ago on clarifying the law, but when asked to set out a timetable for action, the Minister in the other place could only respond, “in the fullness of time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 December 2024; Vol. 841, c. 910.]

Can the Minister set out the timetable or, alternatively, say when the Government will make an order to end the long wait for humanist marriage?

[Sarah Sackman]

I understand that humanists have been campaigning for legally binding humanist weddings. The Government are committed to strengthening the rights and protections available, particularly for women in cohabiting couples. We will look at the Law Commission’s work and publish our response in due course.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

T5. Gambling with Lives is a charity that supports families who have been bereaved by gambling-related suicide. Jo from Cullompton lost her son Daniel to gambling suicide, and speaks powerfully about it. What is the Minister doing to ensure that accurate data is recorded for each death linked to gambling?

[Sarah Sackman]

May I express how sorry I am to hear of the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent? I am happy to write to him—he asks quite a specific question—but it is important that we provide support to all sorts of victims. That is why we have the victims code, which strengthens the power of the Victims’ Commissioner, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that specific matter.

[Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Last week, the Court of Appeal overturned a first-instance decision regarding the anonymity of a judge who presided over the tragic Sara Sharif case in the family courts. I do not expect the Minister to comment on individual cases, and it is certainly not about that individual judge, but will the Government use this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to open justice and press freedom?

[Sarah Sackman]

As my hon. Friend rightly says, I cannot comment on that specific case, but we adhere to the principle of open justice and transparency in our legal system. That is why we have the publication of sentencing remarks and transcripts, and the broadcasting of many of our hearings, so that the public can see exactly how justice in this country is administered.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

T6. We know that the Attorney General has recused himself from advising the Government, but he will not tell us what for, and he still refuses to be transparent about potential payments by former clients. Does the Secretary of State for Justice really not believe that the public have a right to know?

--- Later in debate ---

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

We have just witnessed the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission being prised out of her job, six months after the Secretary of State described her as

“unable to fulfil her duties”.

When will a new chair be appointed, and will this be accompanied by a wider review of the CCRC, to restore confidence in that damaged organisation?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to restore confidence in the CCRC. That is why we are taking the decision not only to appoint an interim chair to steady the ship but, more importantly, to implement the recommendations of the Henley review so that we can restore confidence in this important institution, particularly in the light of the appalling miscarriage of justice in the case of Andrew Malkinson.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

T8. With an ever-increasing prison population and monumental delays being experienced in the courts and throughout the justice system, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to address the significant delays that arise from the period of time required to download and analyse digital material?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I know that the Justice Secretary is aware of the tragic case of my constituent Sara Sharif. Will she consider reforming family courts and ending the presumption in favour of parental contact despite the fact that there were safeguarding concerns?

[Sarah Sackman]

That case of that little girl, Sara Sharif, is one of the most tragic of recent times, and I know that that view is shared right across the House. That is why a safeguarding review is under way to look at all the agencies that were involved and should have been protecting that little girl from those who ended up killing her. We are looking at the presumption: there is a review, and we will consider the findings of that review and publish our response in due course.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

My constituent, who is a British citizen and the mother of two young children, faces the prospect of being forced to return to Poland to accompany those children under the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, having fled escalating domestic abuse. If she does, her inability to speak the language or work will leave her entirely dependent on her abuser, even though he is barred from contacting her. Will the Minister work with me to ensure that domestic abuse is explicitly recognised as a valid defence against return orders of this type?

[Sarah Sackman]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I invite her to write to me about that specific case, which sounds like it throws up a very difficult set of factual circumstances that I would like the opportunity to consider.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting)

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Q I have a question for Alex Ruck Keene. I noticed the concerns in your evidence about presumption of capacity, and I know that you have written in the past about concerns over different disciplines having different definitions of capacity. Later on in your evidence, you also mention multidisciplinary consideration of circumstances in assessing eligibility. How might that multidisciplinary eligibility assessment alleviate some of your concerns in relation to capacity decisions?

Alex Ruck Keene: We have capacity, but we also have to make sure that it is settled, informed and voluntary, and that we do not have things like pressure or influence going on. It is important to make it clear that we are not just saying that this is about all the weight going on capacity. For instance, if you have social workers involved—if you have, say, palliative care social workers involved, assuming it is a palliative care situation—they are going to be far better informed about what options might be out there than a doctor, potentially, depending on the doctor. Social workers more generally might well have more expertise in picking up signs of coercion or influence than a doctor, but I do not necessarily want to get into, “Some disciplines are good at X” and “Some disciplines are good at Y”—I have come across brilliant examples and bad examples in both zones.

It is partly about multidisciplinariness and also about the fact that you have more than one person trying to talk it through. When I train, I always try to tell people that 85% of capacity assessments are not all that difficult —they are just made difficult because you do not have time or you are not listening—but 15% are more difficult. I think a lot of these will be in the 15% zone, and in that zone, the more people you can have thinking about it, so long as they have an agreed framework within which to think, the more reliable, transparent and accountable the outcome is going to be.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

Q I want to pick up on your evidence, Sir Nicholas, in relation to the panel that we have just been discussing with Sir Max. I have three questions. First, what do you envisage the panel doing under your model? Will it be ensuring that a lawful process has been followed or doing something more than that?

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: The former.

[Sarah Sackman]

Q That is helpful. Secondly, what information do you think the panel will need in order to reach a determination on that question?

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: It will have the statements in schedules 1 to 4, signed by both doctors twice. This is where it gets slightly tricky. Is the panel expected to be a ferret and say, “This does not quite chime for me”? The Committee will have to consider how investigative the panel will be, or whether it will purely sit back, be passive and work on the material it has. Of course, under clause 12, it has to hear orally. That might get the alarm bells going, but I believe that the panel should be entitled to call for further evidence if it has concerns. As I say, I have been trying to find out why 10% of cases were rejected by the panel in Spain. There must have been some kind of procurement of further evidence by the panel in order to do that.

[Sarah Sackman]

Q I suppose my third question, then, is how do you envisage such a panel, if at all, interacting with the High Court—with, say, a final right of appeal to the High Court, similar to what is in the Bill?

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Article 10 of the Spanish law gives an appeal on a point of law to their high court, so I would have the same, with an appeal on a point of law to the High Court, but only on a point of law.

Alex Ruck Keene: Either way—it would have to be either way. It could not just be against a decision not to approve, logically, because the current model is very odd in saying that you can only appeal one way to the High Court.

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Yes. Spain gives either side the right to appeal, so I agree with that, but it is confined to a point of law.

Sir Max Hill: I would only add that I wonder whether that is the only route through, namely leaving open a judicial review appellate process, or whether, for example, as we imagine with a number of commissioner-led processes already in this jurisdiction, the panel—or frankly, I suspect, panels, which might sit regionally, chaired perhaps by the retired judiciary—would have an appellate route to a national body, which you could call a national commission, instead of a judicial-review route to the Court.

There are a large number of commissioners, some sitting under the Home Office and some sitting under the Ministry of Justice—in a sense, I was a commissioner when I was the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation—with closely defined powers. There are many others who sit in an enhanced regulatory position—highly qualified individuals. You could describe them as national commissioners, if that is an appropriate term, and they would have superintendence over regional panels, and the power to appoint retired judiciary, perhaps with the assistance of the Official Solicitor, to sit on those regional panels, and then to have an internal appellate mechanism.

Sir Nicholas Mostyn: You have to have an appeals process of some type, because otherwise there will be judicial review. If there is no appeal, there is judicial review—so you have to have an appeal of some type or there will be judicial review.

Sir Max Hill: Yes, I agree.

[Sarah Sackman]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

We have some Members who want to ask more questions; we have about six minutes or so. Jake Richards, you did have a possible question earlier on.

Infrastructure Planning and Judicial Review Reform

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

My noble Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede), has today made the following statement:

My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook MP) and I are pleased to announce changes to the statutory judicial review process which will help to streamline and speed up infrastructure planning cases.

The delivery of major infrastructure projects is central to the Government’s mission to drive growth and unlock clean power. The largest and most complex of these projects currently require a development consent order (DCO) under the nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) regime established by the Planning Act 2008.

The number of legal challenges against DCOs has spiked in recent years, with 58% of decisions being subject to legal challenge. Delays to these major projects have serious implications, including holding back the delivery of essential benefits to the country and imposing considerable additional costs on development.

Despite 30 challenges being brought against major infrastructure projects, only four decisions to approve a project have been overturned by the courts. It comes as research shows that, on average, each legal challenge takes 1.4 years to reach a conclusion and the courts have spent over 10,000 working days handling these cases. Such cases impact upon the use of public money, with major road projects paying up to £121 million per scheme due to delays in legal proceedings. While it is fundamental that the public can challenge the lawfulness of Government decisions, there is scope for rebalancing the judicial review process to improve efficiency and reduce delays to NSIPs.

In October, we published Lord Banner’s independent review into the delays to NSIPs caused by legal challenges, which recognised that concerns with the process were well founded and outlined policy options for the Government to consider. Alongside publishing Lord Banner’s report, we launched a call for evidence which sought views on Lord Banner’s ideas. This closed on 30 December. We thank Lord Banner for his work in delivering the review and all those who engaged with the call for evidence.

The Government today confirm that the current permission stage for NSIP judicial reviews will be overhauled. Instead of the current position where a claimant has “three bites of the cherry”—a paper permission stage, an option to renew to an oral permission hearing and, if unsuccessful, a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal—the new process will be streamlined. Hopeless legal challenges will have just one attempt rather than three to challenge a development consent decision.

The current first attempt—known as the paper permission stage—will be scrapped. All applications for permission will go straight to an oral hearing resulting in less cost to the parties. Primary legislation will be changed so that where a judge in an oral hearing at the High Court deems the case totally without merit, it will not be possible to ask the Court of Appeal to reconsider. To ensure ongoing access to justice, a request to appeal second attempt will be allowed for all other cases.

In addition, we will: introduce non-mandatory case management conferences to NSIP judicial reviews; formally designate NSIP judicial reviews as significant planning court claims; and work with the judiciary to introduce target timescales for NSIP judicial reviews in the Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court.

Taken together, these changes will ensure that the right to challenge NSIP decisions is protected, but with more proportionate and effective processes that give developers and investors greater confidence to get building.

The Government response to the call for evidence on this matter will be published in due course. It will set out how the measures announced today will be taken forward and will provide the Government’s views on the other options which we have considered as part of the call for evidence.

These changes will avoid needless delay, cost and uncertainty for major infrastructure projects, ensuring we can deliver the infrastructure this country needs to drive growth, cut energy bills over time, cut commuting times, and put more money in hard working people’s pockets. These reforms will drive progress of our plan for change by leveraging more investment, supporting more businesses, and getting Britain building.

[HCWS385]

Child Arrangements: Presumption of Parental Involvement

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for securing this debate on an incredibly important subject. I am deeply sorry about what her constituent, Claire Throssell, has been through. The loss and trauma that Claire and her family have experienced is unimaginable and, frankly, unspeakable. If I can address you directly, Claire, the resilience you have shown in the face of the devastating loss of Jack and Paul is astounding. Your commitment to campaigning and advocating for children and adults who have experienced domestic abuse is inspirational, and you are shaping the national conversation on this issue. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and to you, Claire, for the time you spent with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), back in November to discuss the presumption and the wider issues surrounding it.

There is no question but that protecting vulnerable children from violence and abuse must always be a first priority for the state, and the family courts have a vital role to play in that mission by protecting children and safeguarding victims of violence against women and girls. What does the statutory presumption we have been discussing do? As currently designed, it has two important aims. The first is to ensure that any parent who poses a risk to their child can be prevented in law from being involved in their child’s life. The second is to ensure that when it is safe, and only when it is safe, to do so, children are able to maintain some form of relationship with their parent after separation.

Under our current law, the child’s welfare is, as it must be, the paramount consideration. This is known as the welfare principle, and it is enshrined in section 1 of the Children Act. The presumption reflects an understanding that, where it is safe, and only where it is safe, to allow it, and where it would be in the best interests of a child’s welfare, both parents being involved in a child’s life is a goal of family justice.

The Children Act sets out this two-stage process, and it is important that we understand what that process is and how it works when family courts come to consider it. First, the court will consider whether a parent can be involved in a child’s life in a way that does not put that child at risk of suffering harm. If it cannot be assured of that, the presumption does not apply. If a parent can be involved in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm, the child will move to the second stage, and the court will consider whether the parent’s involvement would further that child’s welfare. If there is evidence that a parent’s involvement would not further the child’s welfare, the presumption can be rebutted and will not apply to that parent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge set out the history of how that came to be enshrined in our law. In 2014 the Children Act was amended to introduce the presumption of parental involvement, built on well-established case law in our domestic law and in law enshrined in the European convention on human rights. The intention was to recognise the benefits of both parents being involved in a child’s life.

[Emily Darlington]

I appreciate that the Act was amended in 2014, but our understanding of abuse has widened since then to encompass financial, emotional and coercive control—abuse is not limited to just physical violence. In the light of that, is it not time to review the law and change the definition of harm to the child to encompass the wider definition of what we now understand abuse to be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the broader understanding of what can constitute abuse has to be incorporated in how we reflect on and review the presumption. The point made by a number of Members—that family courts must never be locations where victims can be re-traumatised by the legal process itself—is a vital one. It is also important that, at the centre of our family courts and law, the best interests and safety of the child are always the focus of any decision making. If we were to ask any family court judge, they would reiterate that that is the law they apply.

It is right, however, that a review has taken place. The Government understand the concerns that have been so eloquently raised today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge pointed out, the previous Government and the Ministry of Justice conducted a wide-ranging review of private family law proceedings. A harm panel comprising experts analysed submissions of evidence from victims and families from right across the public, publishing a landmark report on private family law. As I said, family courts must never be a tool for domestic abusers to continue to exert their coercive control and abuse over others.

The panel recommended that we review the presumption of parental involvement, because in some cases it is leading to negative and unintended consequences. That review has been undertaken, and the Government will be publishing the findings. At the moment, we are grappling with what the policy implications of those findings will be. It would not be right for me to pre-empt the publication of the findings, but it is on its way. As soon as we can publish it alongside our policy response, we will.

[Dr Sullivan]

May I ask the Minister for some advice, then? If some of our constituents have found that the family courts process and procedures have led to the re-traumatising of victims, what advice can we offer them? As the Minister eloquently set out, the family courts are not designed to do that, but it does occur.

[Sarah Sackman]

If that is what is being experienced, it needs to be fed back. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has complaints processes and, in my hon. Friend, her constituents have an outstanding advocate to make those points. I will be taking back the lessons that we learn in today’s debate, and it is right that the feedback happens. I will come in a moment to what we are doing, not least through the pathfinder pilot, to reshape and reform our family justice system so that the re-traumatisation does not occur. The progress that we are seeing through the pathfinder pilot, which this Government will extend, is a vital part of that work.

One hears talk about reviews, but it is not enough to simply have a review, and it is important that we act on it. We are not waiting to act. As others have said, this Government have a landmark ambition to halve violence against women and girls within the next 10 years. There is a role for our family courts to play in achieving that wider culture change. Others have made the point that we need joined-up, mission-based Government—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Sackman Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

10. What steps her Department is taking to reduce the backlog of Crown court cases.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

The Crown court backlog that we inherited from the Conservatives was dire. Instead of cutting the number of cases waiting to be heard, as they promised, the backlog of cases exploded under their watch. This Government are getting a grip of the problem. We have taken important first steps. We have funded 106,500 Crown court sitting days this year, and we have increased magistrates’ sentencing powers to free up more sitting days in the Crown court to hear the most serious cases, but we know that there is more to do.

[Luke Myer]

I am campaigning to put more police on our streets, but that is only part of the picture. This backlog in our courts means that the entire criminal justice system is creaking and justice is being delayed. This time last year, there was a backlog in my region of more than 9,000 cases. Will the Minister ensure that this Conservative court chaos is dealt with and offenders are brought to justice?

[Sarah Sackman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to describe the situation as Conservative court chaos. Indeed, the full picture of the last Government’s terrible inheritance will become clear when we publish Crown court data later this week. Demand on the criminal courts is increasing at a faster rate than the actions we are able to take, and we must therefore go further. This Government understand the scale of the problem and are ready to confront it with the fundamental reforms that will be necessary.

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

The Minister referred to court chaos. A tribunal judge and a court worker from my Taunton and Wellington constituency wrote to me. The tribunal judge said:

“tribunals are being cancelled every day as they say there are not enough judges to cover the cases. This is absolutely not the case,”

and

“People are waiting months for their benefit appeals in appalling poverty and again we cannot deal with the cases because of this limit”

on sitting days. What will the Minister do to increase sitting days in Taunton and Somerset courts?

[Sarah Sackman]

We are investing in increased court capacity and in the recruitment of 1,000 judges and tribunal members. As the Lord Chancellor said, we have increased the number of Crown court sitting days by 500, but it is not simply enough to increase court sitting days. We have to look at fundamental reform to address the serious backlogs we have inherited from the Conservative Government.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

12. What steps her Department is taking through the criminal justice system to help support victims of gambling-related crimes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

The current court backlog across England is an indictment of the previous Government, with almost 1,800 cases in Nottinghamshire alone. Rape victims are waiting on average over a year to have their case brought to trial, if it gets that far. What is the Department doing to prioritise these cases and restore faith in the criminal justice system for victims of rape and serious sexual offences?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)]

My hon. Friend is right that justice delayed is justice denied, and our hearts break for victims waiting too long for trials to come. That is why we must tackle the Crown court backlog, which we are doing by keeping open 16 Nightingale courts through the recruitment of more judges. As I said previously, we need fundamental reform, and that is what we will bring about.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

To boost public confidence in the criminal justice system, can the Minister confirm that the Government will not resort to increased dependency on community sentences, many of which are unserved?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Sackman]

The modernisation of the courts and the digitisation programme is a priority. Clearly, that can increase efficiency in the progress of cases and improve the workings of case management. We are looking at that and working in close co-operation with our colleagues in the judiciary to ensure that we make progress in that area.