Victims and Courts Bill

Debate between Steve Barclay and Pam Cox

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

The Victims and Courts Bill is part of the Government’s wider reforms of our justice system that will, in the round, better protect victims and improve their access to justice, as well as that of defendants. I really welcome its measures to improve communications with victims, to reform non-disclosure agreements, to ensure that defendants appear at sentencing hearings and to restrict the parental rights of child sex offenders. Today, I will focus my remarks on Lords amendments 4 and 7, which are on the financing of private prosecutions.

The Bill amends the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 to provide a new power for the Lord Chancellor to prescribe the rates at which prosecutors acting in private prosecutions can recover expenses properly incurred by them from central funds. This proposal draws on a related recommendation of the Justice Committee, on which I serve. The rates would not be set by the Lord Chancellor, but would instead be consulted on and implemented through secondary legislation, so it is very important that the Government, through the Lord Chancellor, have the power to control the rates that can be claimed and paid. Lords amendment 4 seeks to leave out clause 12, thereby preventing that power from being accorded to the Lord Chancellor. In my view, the Lord Chancellor needs that power. After all, ours is a public justice system, albeit one that has long accommodated private prosecutions.

The current arrangements contribute to inequity in our justice system, which this Bill seeks to address more broadly. In recent decades, we have seen some landmark private prosecutions, such as the case brought by the parents of Stephen Lawrence, the cases brought by the RSPCA and other charities, and the cases brought by the Cyclists’ Defence Fund and others. Although we might argue that, in a properly functioning justice system, we would no longer need private prosecutions, we clearly do need them, and if we do still need them, we need to be able to exert proper control over the resources expended on them.

[Steve Barclay]

It would be easy for anyone watching the proceedings, with not many Members in the Chamber to discuss these Lords amendments, to think this is about some technical issue or minor point of debate, but the votes today really do matter. They matter to victims, who are currently charged often thousands of pounds for the transcripts of the court hearings in which they were involved. They matter for the transparency and openness of our legal system. They also matter to the public, because on this very issue over 200,000 people signed a public petition, which was debated in Westminster Hall on Monday this week. Although people may think these are just Lords amendments, this is an important set of votes.

I gently say to the Minister that her speech did sound a bit like an episode of “Yes Minister” in that her remarks were, “I fully support giving victims more rights, and that is why today I’m going to vote against every one of the amendments to do so.” As she was speaking, I wrote down some of her phrases. She said that this is “a Bill for victims”, as if the amendments made in the Lords are not meant to empower victims, when they clearly are. She said that she wants to “go further”. It is no wonder her own colleague, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), said she was “confused”, and she was not the only one confused by a Minister saying that she wants to go further by voting against amendments that would enable us to go further.

The Minister justifies that inconsistency by saying she needs to consult more, including with the judiciary, as if the Government have been ambushed by their own legislation. They control the timing of this Bill and they brought it to the House, but then they say, “Oh, actually, the timing’s not right, and we need more time to consult.” They themselves are legislating and they control the time, so if they needed to consult, they could have done that in a timely fashion.

The Minister said she accepts the challenge of the pressure that the 14-day period puts people under, especially given the interplay with the 28-day window for the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Just to explain that in lay terms, if people want to appeal a sentence that they feel is unduly lenient, they have to do so within 28 days. However, if they cannot get access to the transcript in a timely fashion, their ability to do that is severely constrained. The Government control the legislation and its timing of its introduction, yet they are going to ask Labour Members to vote against these amendments. Is it any wonder they keep U-turning, because they are saying one thing and then they are going to vote to do the opposite today on the basis that at some point in the future they may come round to doing what they say they want to do at the moment?

The Minister says that more cannot be done now, pointing to reasons of technical issues and constraints, while also saying that the Government are overcoming those constraints in relation to sentencing remarks. Again, there is no “can do”. There are lots of things in a court bundle ahead of a court hearing—witness statements, and a huge amount of other documentation—and vastly more information could be shared with victims in a timely way, yet such discussions do not seem to have taken place. It is no wonder that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) called what we are getting instead “waffle”. We have been told we are going to have guidance, work on awareness and—that Government catch-all—a code, as if that is a replacement for actually giving victims access to the transcripts they want.

The crux of the issue is that the Government are introducing this legislation, but those in the Lords have quite rightly scrutinised it and seen that there are constraints on the timescales. The Government do not dispute that; they accept that there is a good case for victims to have more access to transcripts. Indeed, on Monday in Westminster Hall, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), said:

“There is an issue of transparency regarding court transcripts”.—[Official Report, 23 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 39WH.]

Is it not therefore bizarre that the Government will ask their own Back Benchers to vote against doing something about what they accept is a real issue for victims of crime?