Draft Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025
(1 week, 5 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Fair Dealing Obligations (Pigs) Regulations 2025.
As always it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 13 March.
Let me begin by paying tribute to the UK pig sector, which is a cornerstone of our food system and a shining example of British farming at its best. The sector is built on generations of hard work, innovation and pride. Whether that is our skilled producers raising health, high welfare animals, or our forward-thinking processors adding value and reaching global markets, the pig industry is delivering day in, day out. It is about not just food on our plates—although the quality, taste and consistency of British pork products are second to none—but rural jobs, resilient supply chains and our wider goal of national food security. The sector quietly underpins so much of what we rely on, and it deserves recognition and support.
We also have to acknowledge the challenges. As in many parts of agriculture, the pig industry is not without its imbalances, in particular between typically small producers and much larger consolidated processors. When those imbalances are not addressed, the risk of unfair practices can creep in. We saw that most starkly during the pig crisis of 2021: the strain on the system exposed the underlying vulnerabilities and, sadly, in some cases, it even led to welfare culling on farms—a devastating situation for any farmer. Many of us remember that period very clearly. I remember visiting farms at the time, seeing oversized pigs and talking to experienced people who told me, genuinely, that it was a dangerous situation, because of the problems we had got into.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
This may be a stupid question—there is no such thing; just a stupid answer. I looked through the draft legislation this morning. It struck me that there did not seem to be much mention of the welfare of the animal. I wondered whether that was an omission or it is covered in different legislation. Will the Minister clarify that?
Daniel Zeichner
There are no stupid questions, and that is an important one. Animal welfare is clearly important and, in fact, goes to the heart of that very point about when the sector was not working properly—it was the welfare issues that were most troubling for many people. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that many other pieces of legislation will be coming forward to deal with welfare concerns.
The crisis at that time—thankfully, such instances were limited—served to illustrate how important it is that the system should work better for everyone. That is why this draft statutory instrument is important. It protects and builds on the good practices already happening in the sector, but also goes further. It puts in place the kind of transparency and fairness that pig producers deserve, giving them more confidence and a fairer footing in the market. The regulations have been shaped in close consultation with industry, reflecting a process that began with a public consultation and continued through extensive engagement with stakeholders. The result is a statutory instrument that is both practical and proportionate. I am pleased that it has been welcomed by key voices across the sector.
The draft regulations establish a framework for fair and balanced supply contracts, with preserved flexibility to reflect how businesses operate, provided practices are clearly agreed and set out in writing. To support transparency, contracts should be in writing and include all terms relating to the purchase. While many in the industry already operate in that way, it is not universal, and written agreements are essential for clarity and accountability. However, a fully compliant contract is not always appropriate, in particular in spot market trades, so the regulations include an option for producers to issue a notice to disapply and to step outside the framework for particular purchases when that suits both parties. Where the regulations apply and a written contract is in place, several key terms must be clearly set out. Most importantly, contracts must specify expected supply volumes and remedies if those volumes are not met. That was a major point of failure in the recent crisis I just mentioned, and the new requirement will give producers and processors greater certainty and stability.
The draft regulations also promote pricing transparency. We have been keen to protect and encourage transparent models in which prices are based on factors that farmers can verify themselves, such as market indices or shared cost of production data. Where prices are determined through internal or discretionary methods, additional rules ensure that farmers can understand how prices are set and raise concerns if needed. For many farmers, the ability to negotiate collectively, primarily through marketing groups, is a vital safeguard against imbalance. The regulations support that model, by ensuring that collective sellers benefit from the same protections as individual producers.
Other key provisions address fairness in contract termination and clarity around force majeure events. Although specific terms may still be negotiated, new restrictions help prevent one-sided practices, and contracts must clearly explain both parties’ rights and responsibilities in such situations. The core principle throughout this is that contract terms cannot be changed unilaterally. Any changes must be agreed in writing by both parties, ensuring transparency and fairness, while allowing flexibility.
We recognise that even with clear rules in place, disputes can still arise. That is why contracts must now include a clear dispute resolution procedure. That will give farmers clarity on how to raise concerns with the processor, and confidence that those concerned will be handled fairly and consistently. To ensure proper enforcement, oversight will be provided by the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator—ASCA. Acting on behalf of the Secretary of the State, the ASCA can investigate alleged breaches of the regulations that have not been resolved through dispute resolution. If breaches occur, it has the authority to impose fines, order compensation, or both.
This statutory instrument is the second to make use of the powers in the Agricultural Act 2020 to improve fairness in supply chain contracts, following the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024. It also makes a targeted amendment to those regulations. After implementation, we were made aware of unintended consequences relating to the rules on tiered pricing in exclusive supply agreements. For businesses with shared ownership structures, moving away from exclusivity is challenging, as exclusive supply is often fundamental to their operating model. To address that, we have made a limited amendment to the regulations to permit certain practices that were prohibited for those types of businesses.
In closing, I hope that I have demonstrated why these changes are both proportionate and essential. They respond directly to the concerns that we have heard from producers, and in a way that supports best practice, maintains flexibility and creates a fairer, more transparent market for the pig sector.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I thank the Minister for bringing forward this statutory instrument. I pay tribute to the UK pig industry, which does so much for our economy, food production and food security. I am very proud that under the previous Conservative Government, new powers were introduced in the Agriculture Act 2020 that allowed the introduction of regulations to address unfair trading practices in agricultural sectors.
In March 2024, the House considered the draft Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations, which related to the rules governing the relationship between buyers and sellers operating in the dairy industry. I am pleased to say that the Minister, when he was then shadow Minister, welcomed those regulations. I am happy to say today that we, His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition, are supporting these similar and very important draft regulations for the pig sector.
The backdrop to the crisis that faced the UK pig industry in the years following 2020 was a perfect storm of the pandemic and concomitant labour shortages, leading to animals tragically dammed back on farms, with abattoirs and processors unable to process them. There were huge animal welfare consequences: adverse behavioural issues, respiratory diseases and, tragically, more than 60,000 healthy animals culled on farms.
The former Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, on which I sat, worked hard on that issue and was grateful for the engagement of Conservative farming Ministers to work with the sector to try to mitigate the horrific situation. However, it was a crisis—economically, for animal welfare and, importantly, for the mental health of those people involved in the situation. These draft regulations are crucial.
In 2022, the previous Conservative Government held a consultation on contractual relationships in the pig sector. Findings showed that 89% of respondents were supportive of written contracts, and 64% of respondents reported issues with honouring sale agreements, including price and quantity disputes. Bearing that in mind, I ask the Minister: why has there been a delay in laying the regulations? With the introduction of the family farm tax, the withdrawal of the sustainable farming incentive and the significant reduction in delinked payments, it is clear that our farming communities—today we are talking about our pig farming and dairy farming communities—desperately need our support.
The draft regulations introduce important safeguards and tackle the noticeable disparity in the commercial relationship, which has sadly led to farmers being vulnerable to unfair trading practices and to the risks of contracts that impose commercially harmful terms and provide little legal protection. During the passing of the milk regulations, the then shadow Minister—the current Minister—commented that he did not think that the Government had
“really approached this issue with the pace and urgency that are required”. —[Official Report, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 19 March 2024; c. 6.]
In a similar vein, I put it gently to the Minister: why has it taken the Government so long to lay the current regulations?
I also note that the draft regulations, as the Minister has said, make an important amendment to the milk regulations, concerning exclusive contracts. I would be grateful if he could provide an update on the implementation of the milk regulations to date. Specifically, has the Secretary of State had to use his power to issue a monetary penalty or to order compensation, since the regulations came into force in 2024 for new contracts? Have the Government had any representations from dairy businesses and buyers who are amending their contracts, ahead of the deadline this year for pre-existing contracts, to fall in line with the regulations? I urge that the change is kept under close review to ensure that it is working as it was intended and does not undermine fair contractual practices in the dairy sector.
Furthermore, while this instrument provides a degree of flexibility, it is essential that those flexibilities are not open to misuse, and that the draft regulations genuinely benefit producers. Will Minister, therefore, give assurance that the Government will commit to keeping the regulations under regular review and to making any amendments, where necessary, to ensure that they remain robust and effective?
Finally, could the Minister update us on the progress of introducing regulations to address unfair practices in the poultry sector or the fresh produce sector? As delays have harmed dairy farmers in the past, timely action is critical for other agricultural industries. Farmers deserve robust protection across all sectors, and I strongly encourage the Minister to prioritise introducing similar regulations.
His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition strongly support the draft regulations and look forward to their implementation to protect and support our vital and hard-working UK pig farmers, and to improve fairness and transparency in the industry.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I will keep my remarks brief, but it would be remiss of me not to say something, having spent about two years working on the issue in my previous role at the National Pig Association, before being elected to this House. I first pay tribute to the two previous farming Ministers, Victoria Prentis and Sir Mark Spencer, for getting the process underway, and I thank the current Minister for his support, both in Opposition and now in Government. I am delighted to be here as we reach the conclusion of what has been a lengthy process.
I also pay tribute to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials who have worked on the process from the start. Their engagement with the sector has been fantastic. I know that all the farmers involved felt engaged throughout the formulation of the draft regulations. Last but not least, I thank those farmers who engaged. They are very busy, and they have had an awful lot on their plate in the past few years, but a lot of them gave up a lot of time to look closely at the regulations to ensure that they are as good as they can be. Although some will say that the regulations are not perfect and that there is more work to do—particularly to ensure that the new Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator is effective and works alongside the Groceries Code Adjudicator to stamp out unfair practice throughout the supply chain—I think that they are a huge step forward and I am delighted to support them.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance this afternoon, Ms Vaz. Likewise, I am very supportive of the draft regulations. The UK pig industry is something that we should all be proud of. It is instrumental to our rural communities right across the country and an important exporter, but it also maintains the highest quality of produce and animal welfare standards. That is important in an era in which we are seeking potential deals with countries whose animal welfare standards may not be quite so high. The industry is vital to our rural economy and our food security. John Maynard Keynes said, among many other wise things:
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
The reality is that the market is ambivalent, at best, on whether we have a strong pig sector. Without safety, security and fairness in the sector, we stand the chance of losing it all together.
It is right that the intervention happened, as other Members have talked about. Post Brexit, we saw a terrible crisis, particularly in staffing of the sector, which saw the culling of tens of thousands of healthy animals, as we have heard. That was appalling for those animals, and appalling and heartbreaking for the families involved. A devastation lingers, which has driven us in no small part to this stage. It is right to give credit to the previous Government. The consultation began in 2022, following that crisis. I have also paid tribute to all who were involved in that consultation, providing the feedback that was instrumental in leading us to where we are now.
The spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, talked about the other threats that farming faces, and that is absolutely true. People talk about the impact of the inheritance tax changes on family farms, which will be a massive blow for hundreds in my constituency. We will wait and see. I have tabled plenty of parliamentary questions to try and find that out, but the University of Cumbria’s research tends to conclude that the underspend on the current departmental budget for the environmental land management scheme will be in the region of £400 million. That money is not in farmers’ pockets, and that undermines our ability to have a food security. As I mentioned, a fair market is crucial to food security. If we lose pig producers and pig farmers, we simply offshore the industry and end up in a situation where our ability to secure pig products becomes more difficult, more expensive and, importantly, less secure. These regulations will build in transparency, security, clarity and fairness in the pig sector, in particular for the producers themselves.
Let me say a word about the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. In no small part, the draft regulations are necessary because we do not allow the Groceries Code Adjudicator to intervene in arrangements where there is not a direct link between the producer, the farmer and the retailer. Yet, a massive majority of deals are with pig farmers, or indeed other farmers, and a processor of some kind or another. I am proud that one of the things that came from the Liberal Democrats manifesto and went into the coalition agreement was the establishment of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I was frustrated, though, that we ended that Government with it not having the powers that we wanted it to have.
To protect farmers of all kinds, I would love the Minister and the Government in general to consider very seriously ensuring that the Groceries Code Adjudicator can accept referrals on the fairness or otherwise of deals between farmers and processors, not just farmers and supermarkets. Anonymity should be kept within the system. We can see why a farmer would not want to refer their deal, because it might be the only one they have, even though it is not a fair one. Third parties such as those present, the National Farmers’ Union and other organisations should be permitted to make referrals anonymously on behalf of those farmers who are being ripped off.
On top of that, the referee—the Groceries Code Adjudicator—should simply be given yellow and red cards to mean something, to hold those more powerful parts of the industry to account. There are thousands of producers, but only a handful of processors and supermarkets, so of course it is an imbalanced and unfair market. A referee has to have cards—otherwise, what is the point? My final point about the Groceries Code Adjudicator is that, last time I checked, it had five staff—what is that up against an industry that is massively better supported? Let us support our farmers by ensuring that the market is fair and that it is refereed fairly and strongly. The draft regulations go a small way to achieve that in the pig sector.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for the contributions of knowledgeable and well-informed hon. Members. I am sure we can all agree that a resilient and sustainable pig sector that supports Britain’s food security depends on fair treatment across the supply chain, in particular for those in a weaker commercial position. I am therefore encouraged to hear support for the draft regulations. I am confident that they will deliver the protections needed to ensure a stronger and fairer future for the sector.
I am grateful for the Opposition’s support and perfectly happy to pay tribute to the previous Government and to my predecessors, Victoria Prentis and Mark Spencer. Victoria and I discussed the Agriculture Act over many hours, and it is good to see its provisions coming into effect. The hon. Member for Epping Forest chided me slightly on pace, but he will not be surprised when I point out that the gap between the Agriculture Act and the end of the previous Government’s term in office was about four years, while this Government have been in place for eight or nine months. We all understand why these things take time—in part, because it is important to get them right.
I also endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds. I pay tribute to him for his important piece of joint work between Government and organisations such as the National Pig Association. The praise he lavished on officials and farmers to get it in place was well merited and deserved.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest asked about the milk regulations. I do not think that any mandatory penalties have been issued, but I will go away and check. I think that the regulations are working as intended, but it is important to point out that we are making a strong commitment to keep these draft regulations under review and to make any amendments necessary. The fact that we came back with an amendment to the milk regulations demonstrates that the process is working.
On the poultry and fresh produce sectors, work is ongoing. I do not think it is a secret to say that the fresh produce sector is challenging—it is a complicated sector —and, again, it is important that we get it right and that we introduce regulations that work for the sector appropriately.
Finally, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale missed no opportunity to raise the issue of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I say gently that we also have the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator—they are different jobs, different roles, and it is important to ensure that we support both of them in their important work. I am confident that they will be able to achieve the outcomes that we are all looking for. With that, I am hopeful that the Committee will agree the draft regulations standing in my name.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025
(1 week, 5 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. The draft order makes a number of important changes to ensure that legal aid continues to support victims of domestic abuse. It is an important part of the Government’s commitment to ensure that legal aid continues to be available to those most in need and continues to serve some of the most vulnerable people in our society who need our support. It also ensures that our legal aid legislation is aligned with wider Government legislation on domestic abuse and immigration law.
Principally, this statutory instrument does four things. First, it will make changes to enhance the scope of immigration legal aid. It will make legal aid available for those eligible to apply for settlement in the United Kingdom as a victim of domestic abuse under the immigration rules. This change will ensure that all eligible domestic abuse victims can access legal aid for applications under this immigration route.
Secondly, it will amend the evidence requirements for domestic abuse victims applying for legal aid. It will do this by enabling victims to present evidence of abuse from appropriate medical practitioners overseas. Thirdly, it will make changes to terminology to align with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, replacing the term “domestic violence” with “domestic abuse,” and the term “financial abuse” with “economic abuse.” It will also recognise that abuse against an individual may consist of behaviour directed at another individual, for example at the victim’s child. These changes will ensure consistency with wider legislation.
Finally, the statutory instrument will make changes to complement instruments made in 2023 and 2024 on the scope of legal aid in relation to domestic abuse protection orders and domestic abuse protection notices. If enacted, it will ensure fuller availability of legal aid for individuals in respect of these orders.
Before turning to each of the amendments and provisions in detail, I will take a moment to outline how the legal aid scheme works as a matter of generality. In general, civil legal aid is available to an individual if their issue is listed within part 1 of schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, otherwise known as LASPO. Then, in most cases, an individual must pass a means test—a check on their financial eligibility—and a merits test, which ensures that the taxpayer is not funding unmeritorious cases. In certain cases, most notably those involving victims of domestic abuse or child abuse, evidence requirements also need to be satisfied.
I will now turn to each of the four topics covered in this draft order. First, amendments will be made to the availability of immigration legal aid for victims of domestic abuse who are applying for leave to enter or remain in the UK. Currently, legal aid is available for some victims of domestic abuse who are eligible to apply for leave to remain in the UK under Home Office immigration rules, subject to means and merits tests. The immigration rules set out the rules for entering and remaining in the UK.
The immigration rules include “Appendix Victim of Domestic Abuse,” which I will henceforth refer to as “the appendix.” The appendix concerns victims whose leave to remain in the UK was based on their partner or spouse’s immigration status, and whose relationship has broken down as a result of domestic abuse. It is the route by which victims can apply for settlement in the UK independent of their partner’s status, ensuring that they can escape the abusive relationship without having to leave or be removed from the UK as a result. The eligibility requirements in the appendix are amended from time to time, and that is what we are doing here.
The draft order amends LASPO to ensure that legal aid provision for victims applying for leave to enter or remain in the UK is aligned with the latest requirements set out in the appendix. The changes will ensure that this alignment will continue in the event that amendments are made to the appendix in future. This will mean that all victims of domestic abuse can access legal aid to assist with an application under the appendix for leave to enter or remain, subject to means and merits tests.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Although this is a slightly different situation, I want to clarify what the Home Office’s response would be to the case of one of my constituents. She came into the UK with her partner and sought leave to remain. He was arrested four times for domestic abuse, and she alerted the Home Office to the fact that it had happened on two different occasions by literally sending in the film. Can the Minister elucidate a little how my constituent registered that information with the Home Office and it still granted that man leave to remain in the UK? He has now of course vanished off the face of the earth.
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that case. The circumstances that she describes are appalling, although obviously I cannot comment on the specifics of the case. How to deal with that would ultimately have been a matter for the Home Office. However, where there is evidence of domestic abuse that results in a criminal conviction, that is exactly what these proposed amendments are designed to protect against. We are extending legal aid to victims of domestic abuse where the perpetrator’s immigration status bears on theirs.
The hon. Lady is right that the circumstances she describes come at the issue from a different angle. Either way, what she describes is clearly appalling, and we should not be rewarding such behaviour by granting leave to remain in this country. Indeed, where someone is convicted of an offence, we should be looking to take all steps to remove them from this country.
Tessa Munt
I welcome the broad outline of what the Minister is describing in this draft order. I just wanted to highlight that particular case, which is very distressing for the constituent concerned.
Sarah Sackman
Indeed, and the hon. Lady is very welcome to write to me about that specific case, if the Ministry of Justice is the appropriate place to deal with it. Of course, I will respond to her, but it may well be a question for the relevant Home Office Minister.
Secondly, this draft order will make changes to the evidence requirements that victims of domestic abuse must satisfy to receive legal aid. Acceptable forms of evidence are set out in schedule 1 to the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012. Currently, certain forms of overseas evidence are accepted as evidence of domestic abuse. For example, legal aid applications may include supporting documentation concerning an arrest or a police caution abroad. However, evidence of domestic abuse from overseas medical practitioners is not currently accepted. The Government wish to change regulations to enable evidence from appropriate health professionals who are licensed and registered overseas to be accepted for legal aid applications. That will enhance the ability of victims to take action against perpetrators.
Thirdly, the draft order will amend the terminology within LASPO and associated regulations to align with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Since its enactment, terminology across Government has moved away from “domestic violence” towards “domestic abuse” to recognise explicitly that perpetrators can often use more than just physical violence to harm an individual. Within its definition of “domestic abuse,” the 2021 Act describes such behaviour as including “physical or sexual abuse,” “violent or threatening behaviour,” “controlling or coercive behaviour”, “economic abuse” and
“psychological, emotional or other abuse”.
The inclusion of the term “economic abuse” in this definition rather than “financial abuse,” which is currently used within LASPO, also reflects a shift in recent years to acknowledge explicitly that abuse often goes beyond interfering with money and finances to include broader economic resources, such as housing, possessions and clothing.
Further, the Domestic Abuse Act expressly states that domestic abuse of an individual includes
“conduct directed at another person”.
For example, an abuser may direct behaviour towards a child in the household to facilitate or perpetuate the abuse of their partner. The definition of “domestic violence” in LASPO recognises that abuse extends beyond physical violence and therefore implicitly includes abuse directed at third parties. By updating the LASPO terminology to align with wording used in the Domestic Abuse Act, we aim to reduce the risk of victims perceiving that the abuse they are experiencing is out of scope for legal aid funding.
Finally, the draft order complements previous statutory instruments that made provision for bringing legal aid into scope for victims, third parties and those subject to domestic abuse protection orders and domestic abuse protection notices. DAPOs and DAPNs, as they are known, are new orders that are now available in Greater Manchester, three London boroughs—Bromley, Croydon and Sutton—and Cleveland, and are used by the British Transport police in those areas. We will shortly be extending DAPOs and DAPNs to north Wales.
The draft order makes further changes to LASPO and the Criminal Legal Aid (General) Regulations 2013 to bring other aspects of the Domestic Abuse Act in relation to DAPOs and DAPNs within scope of civil and criminal legal aid. These changes will help to ensure fuller availability of legal aid for individuals in respect of these orders. These technical changes are designed to address unintended gaps in provision.
To conclude, the draft order will make legal aid available to some of society’s most vulnerable people, furthering this Government’s ambition to support victims of domestic abuse.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Sir Desmond. Legal aid plays a critical role in our justice system, particularly for the most vulnerable in society. Access to that legal advice and representation can be a lifeline for individuals facing incredibly difficult circumstances, and those who have experienced domestic abuse are often in particular need of such support. That is why any changes to the legal aid framework in this area warrant careful consideration.
It is clear that a significant number of the changes in this draft order will help legal aid provision to keep pace with the evolving legal landscape. The alignment of terminology—moving from “domestic violence” to “domestic abuse” and from “financial abuse” to “economic abuse,” for example—is a necessary step to reflect the broader understanding of the multifaceted nature of abuse, consistent with the landmark Domestic Abuse Act. That modernisation of language is not merely semantic; it will help to make sure that a wider range of behaviours, and their impact, are properly recognised within the legal aid system, so it has our support.
The amendments relating to immigration legal aid for victims of domestic abuse also warrant careful attention. The inclusion of those applying for leave to remain under the updated appendix to the immigration rules is a change that addresses a specific vulnerability. Individuals whose immigration status is tied to an abusive partner are in a precarious position. We support these changes, although we will closely monitor how they are implemented.
We agree that the changes to the evidential requirements in private family law cases, allowing medical evidence from registered overseas health professionals, are a pragmatic step. Survivors of abuse may have sought medical attention outside the UK, and it is sensible and right that such evidence should be considered in legal aid applications. People who are fleeing abuse should not be inadvertently disadvantaged in accessing legal aid.
The amendments concerning domestic abuse protection notices and domestic abuse protection orders represent a further stage in the integration of these relatively new protective measures into the legal aid framework. DAPNs and DAPOs were introduced to provide more streamlined and effective protection for victims of domestic abuse.
The previous Government introduced statutory instruments in 2023 and 2024 to amend legislation to provide access to legal aid for both victims and respondents, where appropriate. This draft order makes further amendments so that the appropriate type of legal aid—civil or criminal—is available to those who are party to DAPO proceedings, and for those subject to DAPNs. It is right that victims and, where appropriate, respondents in such proceedings should both have access to legal representation to ensure fair and just outcomes.
We will be particularly interested in the effects of these changes, which we support in principle. We particularly note the Government’s ongoing evaluation of the DAPN and DAPO pilot, which was launched on 27 November 2024 in the locations that the Minister mentioned, and how the legal aid provisions interact with the findings of that review.
I understand that no formal consultation was undertaken specifically for this draft order, as the Government view these as technical amendments aligning with existing policy and legislation. While we understand the rationale, we reiterate the importance of ongoing dialogue with stakeholders, including legal aid providers and those representing victims of domestic abuse, to ensure that the practical implementation of these changes is smooth and effective.
The commitment from the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Aid Agency to monitor the impact of these amendments on the legal aid scheme is important to ensure the transparency and adequate functioning of the legal aid system. The impact assessment accompanying this instrument provides a degree of insight into the anticipated costs and effects of these changes, and we note the estimated increase in the legal aid fund related to the expansion of immigration legal aid, and the assessment that other amendments are unlikely to result in a substantial increase in applications. We will monitor that closely, and we call on the Government to similarly keep these assessments under regular review, as the changes take effect.
While we acknowledge the Government’s stated aims and the technical nature of many of these amendments, we also recognise the profound impact that legal aid has on the lives of vulnerable individuals. Ensuring that the system is accessible to those who genuinely need it, is up to date and reflects the realities faced by victims of domestic abuse is a shared objective. On the basis of the information provided and the commitment to ongoing monitoring and review, we will not divide the Committee on today’s order.
Sarah Sackman
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to a debate on a really important topic. The consensus that has been expressed is truly welcome. Though these are perhaps technical changes, they affect, as the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire rightly pointed out, some of the most vulnerable people, who need to navigate a complex legal and justice system. Legal aid, and the accessibility of that system, is critical to their ability both to know their rights and to enforce them.
I truly welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for changes that, as he rightly says, are not just semantic but meaningful, and that we hope will capture wider types of behaviour within the scope of legal aid, while supporting the accessibility of legal aid in the context of the immigration system and in relation to DAPOs and DAPNs. I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for her intervention and, as I said, we may be able to follow up on that case.
The Ministry of Justice is piloting DAPOs because we believe that they can work. Our aspiration is to roll them out, but obviously we will do that in an evidence-based way. I can report to the Committee that the early signs are good. Both the police and the courts are finding that the orders are working. DAPOs are resulting in perpetrators being put behind bars for breaching them, and in those perpetrators being required to attend behaviour change programmes to alter their behaviour towards partners and others impacted by what are, ultimately, heinous types of coercion. The early signs are good, but we will be guided by the evidence, and we will of course keep the House updated on how it is bearing out. I welcome Members’ support for these technical but truly important changes.
Question put and agreed to.