Victims and Courts Bill

Debate between Alex Davies-Jones and Nick Timothy

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Justice Secretary.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

In a week when the Government have been reprimanded for letting foreign criminals out of prison without proper checks or safeguards, have been found to have done absolutely nothing as a firm that was due to build thousands of prison places went bust 18 months ago, and ended short-term sentences, allowing prolific shoplifters and other criminals to escape prison, it is beyond disappointing that they seek today to overturn perfectly sensible Lords amendments. The amendments would make the criminal justice system more transparent and give victims stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences.

We must ask: why are this Government so afraid of the public? Why do Ministers not trust the people? Why do they want to keep injustice—from rape gangs, to serious criminals getting away with a few brief years in prison—out of the spotlight? [Interruption.] Labour Members sigh and moan when I raise the rape gangs. That is exactly the mentality that the country is sick of, and it lies behind the failure to prosecute those cases.

We support Lords amendment 2 on expanding the victims code for murder, manslaughter and infanticide abroad. We support Lords amendment 4 to remove clause 12 from the Bill, because that clause will deliver few savings while undermining access to justice. We support Lords amendments 5 and 6, which strengthen the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Amendment 5 introduces an exceptional circumstances clause that allows the deadline to be extended beyond 28 days, and amendment 6 requires the Justice Secretary to ensure that victims and their families are aware of their rights under the scheme. Those are welcome suggestions. I pay tribute to Katie Brett and the rest of Justice for Victims, and to Tracey Hanson, for their campaigning on this front. They have been consistent in making clear that they want meaningful change, not half measures.

Just last week, I wrote to the Attorney General about the case of Mohammed Abdulraziq, who dragged a five-year-old girl off the street so that he could sexually assault her. He was sentenced to only 11 years in prison, and in all probability, he will be out in just seven. Monsters like him need to be kept away from children. The Government’s opposition to these amendments weakens justice and reduces public protection. I heard what the Minister said about looking at legislation in future, and we will hold her to those words.

The failure to trust the people goes not just for the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but for wider transparency in the criminal justice system, and it is on that point that I will focus the rest of my remarks. We Conservatives do trust the people, so we support Lords amendment 1, which entitles victims to free transcripts of route-to-verdict and bail decisions, and Lords amendment 3, which requires the publication of Crown court transcripts of judges’ sentencing remarks, online and for free, within 14 days of a request made by any member of the public.

The Minister explained the Government’s position on those amendments, and amid the verbiage I could discern only excuses. She sounded like the driver of a broken-down train, who, with passengers stranded miles from the nearest station, was doing her best to assure everyone that the train was indeed moving. Of course everyone knows that there is no movement; the train that we are on is entirely stationary. This is an important lesson for the Minister and other members of the Government: the repetition of fiction does not make something fact. We can all see exactly what is and is not happening.

I want to explain why this is so important. Of course, we want to see how the provisions of the Sentencing Act are implemented, but it is simply not acceptable for victims to be charged as much as £7,000 for a transcript. It is vital that we allow transparency, to make it easier for victims, journalists and the wider public to see what is going on in our courts and detect patterns. We know from too many tragedies, and too many cover-ups, that sunlight is always the best disinfectant.

Let us consider the Courtsdesk scandal. When the Justice Secretary tried to shut down that vital, searchable archive of court hearings, he caused an outcry. Before Courtsdesk, official court listings matched reality just 4.2% of the time. Two thirds of courts routinely heard cases that the media never knew about. From crimes committed by illegal immigrants in asylum hotels and weak sentences for paedophiles, to people dragged through the courts for breaking lockdown rules years after the pandemic and offending by convicted criminals who should have been tagged but were not, Courtsdesk helped journalists to join the dots, securing justice for victims and exposing failures in policy. I still want to know why the Justice Secretary wanted to delete that archive, and why Ministers blamed Courtsdesk for a serious data breach, when documents released since show that the Ministry of Justice considered the breach low risk and not worthy of a referral to the Information Commissioner. I will give way if the Minister wishes to explain. [Interruption.]

[Alex Davies-Jones]

rose—

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The shadow Secretary of State will know that Courtsdesk is a private company that provides a subscription-based specialist data platform aggregating magistrates court data and offering specialist services to journalists. The proposal did not stop data sharing with Courtsdesk at all, and it was not about reducing transparency. It was merely a commercial sensitivity proposal to take the archive offline temporarily while we determined new contracts. It was not about transparency.

[Nick Timothy]

I think the Minister has been taking lessons from the Prime Minister. She may as well have been reading the phonebook in answering the question. [Interruption.] Well, the answer that she just gave was completely unsatisfactory. There was an attempt to delete the archive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Davies-Jones and Nick Timothy

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Prime Minister said that passing the Hillsborough law would be one of his first acts in office, but last month the Government arranged to bring the Bill to the House for its remaining stages twice, only to pull it at the last moment on both occasions. The Prime Minister has made a promise to the Hillsborough law campaigners that he cannot keep without breaking the assurances that he gave to the intelligence agencies. It is another fine mess from Mr Forensic. Can the Minister guarantee that the Bill will complete its passage through both Houses of Parliament before the end of this Session—yes or no?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

As I said to the hon. Gentleman in a statement, he must have a short memory, because we were brought to this House to discuss this matter. The Hillsborough law will be a landmark moment for this Government. It will be a Bill for the victims, written by the victims who have been through those heinous experiences. We will ensure that national security is upheld, and we will bring this Bill forward when it has the full backing by everyone and when it is ready.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Debate between Alex Davies-Jones and Nick Timothy

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

What an absolute shambles. The Government have had long enough to work this out: the campaign for a Hillsborough law started 10 years ago, in 2016; Labour MPs started campaigning for it a year later, in 2017; in 2022, the Prime Minister adopted it as a formal Labour policy; in 2024, he put it in his manifesto, promising it would be one of his first acts as Prime Minister. Yet here we are today, after another set of rushed amendments, with yet another delay and another promise to get it right, but absolutely no idea what the Government are going to do or even when they are going to do it.

This problem was not some bolt out of the blue or unforeseeable surprise. How the Bill applies to the intelligence agencies is an obvious question that has been known for years, but it is a question that the Prime Minister—the man they used to call Mr Forensic—never thought to answer. Instead, he did what he always does: he made the campaigners one promise and made the intelligence agencies another. That is why, when the Bill’s Report stage was due last week, the Government pulled it. It is why, when it was due again today, they pulled it again, late last night. It is why, just now, the Minister was unable to say when the Government will bring forward their next attempt to get this right.

Right now, in the bowels of Whitehall, the Government are trying to draft their way through the problem—trying to find a form of words that will satisfy both the campaigners and the spooks. But I have news for the Minister: they cannot draft their way out of this problem. There is a choice to be made. If the Prime Minister believes it is dangerous to apply this law to the intelligence agencies in full, just as it is applied to other public bodies, then he simply should not do that. He needs to make a decision.

I have five questions for the Minister. I am not asking for classified information, so she need not use that defence. These are reasonable questions that she can answer. First, by what specific date will the Government return to Parliament with a new amendment to address this question? Secondly, do the Government still believe it is appropriate for the heads of the intelligence agencies to determine what information is provided to an investigation?

Thirdly, if the Government believe that somebody else should decide, who do they think that should be? Fourthly, if the Government believe that the decision rightly lies with the intelligence agencies, and that this is necessary for national security, are Ministers prepared to assert that difficult truth to the campaigners? Fifthly, what representations have the Government received from the Governments of other Five Eyes countries that do not have laws like this?

There are five questions; five clear answers are needed. After all this time, we deserve answers for the families who have suffered terrible tragedies, for the brave men and women who work every day to keep us safe, and for the country as a whole.

This completely avoidable situation is the fault of a pointless Prime Minister who has no idea what he wants to do and, even if he did, no idea how to do it. He made a promise but had no idea how to keep it. He made that promise not once, but five times in this House alone. As with tax and spend, jury trials, ID cards and more, the contradictions are piling up. The Government talk about a duty of candour, but if the Minister was to show some candour now, she would admit that this has been, from start to finish, an absolute mess.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I do not know how the Opposition dare. It is utterly shameful. I know that the shadow Secretary of State knows how complex this all is and how much it means to everyone involved. His party did nothing to solve this issue—the Conservatives did nothing for the families or to bring forward a duty of candour. He asks me to be candid, so I will be candid. This is about righting an injustice and preventing people wronged by injustice from going through absolute hell. To try to make political hay from this matter is disgraceful, and he should be called out for it.

The hon. Gentleman has been in the job for only a few days, and I was going to sincerely welcome him to his position and hope that we could work collegiately on this legislation for the families and the victims of these horrendous state cover-ups. However, I advise him that following in the footsteps of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), by attention seeking at all costs does not end well.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions, we will continue to work with the families, to listen and to work with the intelligence services and other partners to ensure that the Bill is brought back to the House when it is fit and proper.