Victims and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. We will hear from the shadow Minister first.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Q55 I will start by asking about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. I do not know whether you are familiar with this scenario, but it allows anybody—including victims and the public—the opportunity to appeal against a sentence that they consider to be unduly lenient. The Government’s Bill proposes to give the Government more time to consider an application to the scheme.

We have tabled amendments to suggest that victims and their families should have more time to consider an application to the scheme. Given your experience of working with women affected by violence, controlling behaviour and the other complex things that go on, do you think that 28 days after a sentence has passed is a sufficient amount of time to allow people who might in future wish to make such an appeal to make that decision?

Suky Bhaker: Fundamentally, the challenge with the unduly lenient sentence scheme is that victims are not aware of it. Although increasing the timeframe would be beneficial, and increasing the timeframe for Attorneys General when it comes to reviewing the applications certainly would be, we need to address the underlying issues.

We need to get this on a par with offenders’ rights. Offenders are made aware of their right to appeal by counsel immediately, and it is often the witness care unit that informs victims. However, a lot of victims do not fall under that scheme, so would never know that they were eligible. That is what leads them to apply quite late. There are also exceptional circumstances where offenders are able to apply outside of the 28 days. That needs to apply for victims as well, so that there is parity for victims and offenders.

Andrea Simon: Although we are pleased to see that there are provisions around extending the unduly lenient sentence scheme time limit to 28 days in the Bill, we still think it is too short. Our members advocate that it should be extended further to six weeks for the Attorney General, and the 14 days to apply to the Court of Appeal should be extended as well. There definitely needs to be more time.

Getting advice from a criminal barrister is also quite important in these cases. Anecdotally, we have heard from member organisations that there is not enough time for a barrister to look over sentencing reasons. This can sometimes result in judges failing to apply, for example, the dangerous criteria to a sentence, so we think it would make a significant difference if that time was extended.

Farah Nazeer: I do not have a significant amount to add. Suffice it to say that victims—particularly of the abuses we are talking about, including sexual and domestic abuse—are deeply traumatised when they come out of that process, and need sufficient time to make a decision. They also need the right kinds of advice, and to know where to go for that advice. The pathways are often completely unclear and often victims are battling many other factors—ill health, trauma, managing children and all sorts of things. As colleagues have said, absolutely yes, but how about that wraparound support to enable victims to do that in the first place? Doing it is just not possible, even if the provision is there, if you do not have the support to do it.

We have often sought to support victims to apply, and they are just not ready at all in that first month. It is too traumatic—everything is just a fog, a haze. It takes time for that haze and that fog to clear, for your mind to be able to still and for you to think, “Actually, I’m willing to go round this a second time.”

Then the right support has to come into place—not just the legal support, but the emotional and trauma support, knowing that there is somewhere to place your children and knowing that the children will have support through the process. All that is equally important if a victim is to be able to claim justice.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I want to ask about victim personal statements, commonly referred to as victim impact statements. I have spoken to victims of crime who have been told that they have to change their victim statements, perhaps if they are making personal remarks about the offender. We have introduced an amendment that would minimise the restrictions that can be placed on what a victim can say as part of that process.

First, have you ever heard of—or do you have experience of—people being told to alter or adjust their statements? Even if you have not, if that were the case, do you agree that we should do whatever we can to allow victims to say what they would like to say at sentencing hearings, outside of things that they legally cannot say?

Suky Bhaker: For victims of stalking, the crime is very much a crime of impact. At Suzy Lamplugh Trust, we predominantly work with victims of stalking and harassment and, as I say, it is a crime of impact, so the victim personal statement is paramount in terms of explaining the effects of the crime, particularly because a lot of them are psychological effects; it is not physical behaviours that we are seeing. We would argue that it is absolutely paramount that victims should be able to take that opportunity and to have the power to voice exactly what that experience has been for them. They are often left powerless within a system, and this is their one opportunity to be able to convey the impact.

Having said that, a lot of victims of stalking choose not to make such a statement because they choose for that information not to be shared with the perpetrator; often, perpetrators receive a sense of gratification in court on hearing about the impact. For us, there has to be a balance—perhaps in allowing victims to produce a statement but it not being available to perpetrators.

Farah Nazeer: I guess that something underlying this is that barristers or solicitors will often advise people to remove things irrespective, because of the way the courts will respond to it. That speaks to a wider and more problematic culture within the court system. I do not think that you can really look at one without looking at the other.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I want to ask about the measures introduced by the Government to compel defendants to appear at sentencing hearings. We have tabled an amendment to suggest that when that takes place—when the judge is making a decision about that—the judge should have to consult with victims and their families about the approach to take: not to let victims and families dictate what happens, but to ensure that they are at the heart of that decision making. Do you think that victims and families would value the opportunity to at least make it clear to the court what their views on the matter are? Again, I start with Suky.

Suky Bhaker: You need to take into account the risks for the victims. Some victims would very much like and want the opportunity for the offender to be there, but for other victims of stalking that occasion is an opportunity for the offender to have contact again with them. I guess that there would be concerns from victim survivors about the potential behaviours, or how that perpetrator might play out in a court setting.

Stalking is very much about communication, so putting the victim and the offender in the same room actually fulfils the gratification of the offender on some occasions. However, we absolutely recognise that there is a sense of justice for other victims and that they very much want that offender to be there. You need to take the victim’s view into account.

Farah Nazeer: I have nothing more to add to that; it is the same across all the crimes that we work with.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I now turn to something more clearly focused on the specialist areas in which you work, which is parental responsibility. The Bill introduces a measure that means that if someone is convicted of a child sexual offence related to children for whom they have parental responsibility and they are sentenced to four years or more in prison, an order would be put in place or they would lose their parental responsibility.

There have been concerns that the measure should apply to any children so that you lose parental responsibility if you have been convicted of an offence against someone who was not one of your children. Do you have a preference for one of the two approaches? I do not know whether I have explained them clearly enough; please let me know if I have not.

Suky Bhaker: We believe it should be extended to any child. Someone who presents a risk to their own children certainly presents a risk to other children. In fact, we would go further and say that it should be extended to include other forms of violence against women and girls as well as offences such as attempted murder.

Andrea Simon: I echo that. We definitely agree in principle with the aims to limit the parental responsibility of men convicted of a child sexual offence. That restriction should certainly be expanded to include serious sexual offending against any child and should not be limited to the individual’s own child. There is a lack of clarity in the proposals about what would happen if a stepchild was abused, for example, so we want to see those loopholes and inconsistencies closed.

Farah Nazeer: I agree. I would add that we think it should be extended further, given how long these things can take for those going through trial, those on bail, those awaiting trial or those being investigated—that is the reality of the vast majority of certainly domestic abuse cases. The consequences of ignoring that are dire. We have a report coming out next week that illustrates the impact on children in terms of harm and death when it comes to making these quite frankly unsafe contact arrangements.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Finally, one welcome measure in the Bill flips around the concept of where offenders can go and where victims are protected from seeing them, because it should be the offenders that we restrict. We should restrict their mobility so that victims can know that as long as they are not in certain places they will not run into offenders. Your organisations have probably called for that in the past. I am interested in your perspective on how important that will be for victims. Suky, would you like to start?

Suky Bhaker: It is paramount that victims themselves should not feel that they are the ones being restricted by restraining orders. Often our service users tell us that exactly that happens and that the exclusion zones are not broad enough. Without knowing where the perpetrator is or making the zones wide enough, the victims themselves end up being the ones who feel imprisoned and restricted: they do not know where it is safe to go, because they do not know where the offender will be. Those exclusion zones definitely need to be made wider.

Andrea Simon: We also need to think about the practicalities and who will actually ensure that the exclusion zones are adhered to and monitored, and that actions are taken if there are breaches. That is in the broader scope of how we resource probation and policing to make sure that victims can feel reassured that these measures will result in their safety. That is absolutely vital.

Farah Nazeer: We often see orders that just do not make any sense—for example, where a perpetrator and a victim work in quite close proximity and that has not been taken into account, and where children go to school and so on. There needs to be a victim-centred approach when it comes to thinking about the exclusions and where a perpetrator can be. It is a really important principle and a good principle to have, but what we need is the training, the thought and the care that sits behind that, and also the enforcement.

Even the orders issued currently are broken on a regular basis and there are not the resources to address that. It is one thing to set this in motion and put it in place, but how it works on the ground is something that the Committee should really consider when it comes to statutory services’ ability to deliver to the aspirations and ambitions of the Bill, and equally the ability of services on the ground to support victims through varying processes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)]

Q Thank you for giving evidence today. Can I take you back to the restriction of parental responsibility? Farah, you mentioned the impact that issues around parental responsibility are having, particularly on domestic abuse victims and children. Our measure in the Bill is quite tight. We have kept it tight because this is a novel approach, so it is restricted to the criminal court element, rather than the family court element.

You said that you welcome the provision and that you want it to be extended further. Can you talk about how the family courts are used in this way at the moment? Obviously, perpetrators and offenders will be able to appeal from the criminal court to the family court. What impact will it have if large swathes of them choose to appeal? That is why we have chosen to keep it quite tight.

Farah Nazeer: From our perspective, the victims we work with—women going through the family courts—see the family courts as a place of further perpetration and trauma, and an instrument of post-separation abuse. They are cross-examined, not believed and made to justify every single aspect of their lives. Although children should be recognised as victims of domestic abuse in their own right, they are often not, and the perpetrator’s rights are put above those of the children, which leads to dire consequences.

It is an astonishing omission that this Bill does not consider the family courts, because they need to be absolutely central. We feel that the Bill currently prioritises justice through a societal lens, but not healing and moving on for the actual victims through the family court, which is the court that the vast majority of victims engage with and causes them the most harm.

It is incredibly important that the Committee considers the implications in the context of the family court setting. No policy area that Women’s Aid works on is a picnic, but this is the worst of all policy areas because we see the instruments of justice being weaponised to harm survivors. We see children harmed all the time, and dying as a result of unsafe contact. If anybody who has been involved in the process were to read the transcript, they would think, “Why on earth would this happen? Why on earth would anyone do this?” It is absolutely astonishing, but it happens day in, day out. This would be a completely lost opportunity if this issue were not considered really carefully as part of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you very much indeed. Paula?

Paula Hudgell: I am Paula Hudgell, and I am part of the group as well. I am the adoptive mother of Tony Hudgell, who I am sure a few of you know. He was abused by his birth parents at 41 days old, and he was at death’s door. As a result of his absolutely horrific abuse he lost both his legs, along with other injuries.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I am Kieran. Just for transparency, as with some of the other witnesses this morning, I want to say that we have had the opportunity to meet previously and discuss some of these issues. I want to begin by asking you about victim impact statements—or victim personal statements, as they are technically known. We have heard that people do not always get the chance to say what they want in their statements, and that they are told that they have to alter or edit them. Have either of you experienced that, and could you perhaps share that experience? As you are not here physically, I will direct things to you, Glenn, so that you know when it is your opportunity to speak.

Glenn Youens: We were led to believe that our victim impact statement was a way of saying how the crime and what had happened had impacted our family. We had to write it two or three times before we even went to court, to make sure that it was right and put in the right process. When we got to court, we were told that we had to edit it as there were certain things in it that we were not allowed to say. For instance, my wife Becky called Aidan McAteer a “child killer”, and we were told that we couldn’t say that because he had not been convicted of it. Even though he had pleaded guilty to it, we were not allowed to call him that.

There were quite a few things that Becky wanted to be quite graphic about. She wanted to talk about all Violet’s injuries, exactly what had happened to her and how she had died of brainstem death. We were told that we could not do that because it would not be fair on him. From our point of view, if this is supposed to be a victim impact statement, we are supposed to be telling the judge, the court and—in our case—the perpetrators exactly how what they had done has impacted our family. To then be told, “You can’t say that, you can’t say this”, does not feel like a true representation of the impact on our family. For us, it was quite a negative experience.

Also, on the day, Becky’s mother, my mother-in-law, was also hit. She was crossing the road with Violet, and she never got the chance even to put across an impact statement, because she was in hospital fighting for her life. We tried to put those things in there, but we were told that we were not allowed to, because it would not be fair on him. For us, we feel that it should have been a chance for us to say to him how he had affected our family, but it was not done that way, so for us and a few other families we have spoken to, it was not as we feel it should have been. It was not a true impact statement.

Paula Hudgell: Most of the people I have spoken to have had an experience like Glenn’s, but it just shows that there is a way of having a positive victim impact statement. We were very lucky that the barrister on our case was very experienced. She read out the impact statement in such a way that it captured everything. She got across everything that needed to be said, but in those two weeks of the trial, the jury had aged about 20 years. It had been very difficult, and they still did not know whether Tony was alive or dead. In that, she put a photo of Tony under the Christmas tree with my other children, which the whole courtroom just applauded, because they realised that he was alive and living as good a life as he possibly could.

That impact was, we felt, absolutely right. It was right for the situation and for us. Everything had got through. The perpetrators were there, and for us, it was seeing their faces of sheer shock—they did not know he had had his legs amputated by that time, but we felt it was a very positive experience. It just shows that it can be done that way, but I know of so many people who had their victim impact statements changed. It was the same for the Everards; they were told to delete part of theirs. It is not everywhere that people have that experience to be able to do it properly.

Glenn Youens: Having spoken with Paula last night and had a conversation about this, hearing how impactive and how positive it was for Paula—if that is the right word in the situation—really highlighted for us the inconsistencies in the information that people are given and the way things can be done. I am grateful that Paula got that, but for us it was completely the opposite. It just shows, even within our small group, how inconsistent that is from one court to another court. That is what we need to look at.

[Dr Mullan]

Q You mentioned the sentencing hearings, Paula. I want to move on to questions about the new measures to compel people to attend their sentencing hearing. First of all, we tabled an amendment to say that victims should be consulted as part of the process—that it should not just be left to a judge and that, while victims might not have the final say, the judge should be extremely mindful of what the victims’ views are. May we start with you, Paula, with your views?

Paula Hudgell: Yes, we absolutely agree. We feel that the victims should be asked about the sentencing hearings, but we also appreciate that in some cases—although you want to see the perpetrators and you want to be there to see them sentenced—some of the perpetrators really do not behave, and they can actually cause more harm to the victims and their families by being there. I know it says it is down to the judges, but the victims and their families really should be consulted on how they want to proceed.

Glenn Youens: I would say the same as Paula: it really should be down to the families. For judges, it is another case, another part of their job, but the families are the ones living that reality. If they want to see the perpetrators in court, they should be able to; if they do not want to, they should be able to put that forward. I do not think that anyone can make that decision apart from families. It is important that they are given the option. It should not just be what the judge thinks; there needs to be a conversation with them, letting them put their point across properly. Some people might want to see them; some people might not. It is really important that the families, the victims, are considered properly, and that it is not just, “This is what the judge thinks.” It needs to be a conversation with the victims.

[Dr Mullan]

Q There was a discussion earlier this morning about the extent to which force might be used to compel someone to attend. We have had the opportunity to speak to other members of the group, who have suggested that even if someone was restrained, or gagged, and making a lot of noise, they would still want them there, and other people would not want them there. Do you think that is a choice that some victims should be encouraged to make and that, if they are willing to tolerate that disruption, that should be something that we listen to?

Paula Hudgell: Yes. As long as it is what the victims themselves or their families actually want, then yes, I think they should be compelled to be there. Obviously, it is slightly different, but with our VPS in a parole hearing they refused to listen to it. I do not agree with that, because you cannot see how that person reacts. It should not be down to their rights; it should be down to a discussion with victims as to whether they want it. Yes, I agree with forcing people.

Glenn Youens: I think it is down to the families. In our case, Aidan McAteer and Dean Brennan asked if they could not come to court; they wanted to do it by video link. And the judge said, “No, you have to be there. You have to attend.” For us, that was what we wanted. At the end of the day, these criminals chose to do what they did; they chose to be there. Among the victims, nobody chose to be there. The victims should be looked after and made to feel that if that is what they want, then that is what we will do, because they are the ones who have been pushed into this.

A lot of people do not have experience in court and do not have experience of the criminal side of stuff; they have been dragged into it. The least the courts can do is to make them feel as comfortable as possible. If that means the criminal being there and acting up, shouting up, doing what they want—if they still want to see the criminal’s face when they receive proper justice, the criminal should be made to attend. Whether that they should be restrained or had time added on to their sentence, they should be made to do it. What the victims’ families feel should be done for them.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I have a final question about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. As you may be aware, victims and anyone else really have 28 days to appeal an unduly lenient sentence. In the Bill, the Government have chosen to extend the time available to the Government to decide on an appeal, but they have not given more time to victims and their families. We have tabled an amendment to say that victims and families should be given more time to make an appeal.

Paula Hudgell: It is very difficult when you have been through a trial or a sentencing. Your emotions are everywhere. It is so draining—it just takes over your whole life.

A lot of the time, the information is not given that you can actually appeal a sentence. Twenty-eight days is not long enough. People are going through a bereavement. As one of our group pointed out, “You have 28 days to take a T-shirt back to the shop—28 days to make a decision over that!” You may not find out until the last minute. It is very, very difficult.

Also, a lot of the time you do not know the process, unless you are from a legal background. Sometimes you are not told and that information does not filter through. Yes, it should be a lot longer, because your emotions are all over the place when you are in that situation.

Glenn Youens: As Paula said, and as Katie said in our group—“Twenty-eight days? You get longer to decide if you like an item of clothing or not.” Becky asked the CPS about how we appealed the sentence, and we were actually advised on the day not to appeal it, because it was felt that if we did appeal it, the criminal could get less time in prison. That was our first experience with it.

After that, we were planning Violet’s funeral; we had to go from there and plan our daughter’s funeral, and then we had 28 days to try and appeal the sentence. Your head was not in the right place. We did not open post for about four or five months after that. We did not answer the phone to people, because we were trying to put our life back together. But then to realise that, as you say, you have 28 days to appeal it—it is not enough time for people like us and other victims. Their first thing is trying to put their lives back together again. Then, when you are strong enough to realise, “I can go through this court case—I can go through this again,” to be told, “It’s too late now.”—I just do not think that is acceptable for families.

Unless you have been in a situation where you have had to go to the sentencing of somebody who has killed your loved one, it is really hard to express how you feel in the next few days, weeks or months. I was off work for seven months before I returned to work—it was seven months before I felt like I could go back to any kind of normality. Yet you are only given 28 days to decide whether you want to go through that court case again, and also to decide whether that is worth doing when there is a chance that he might get a lesser sentence than the already insulting sentence he has been given.

That needs looking at. It needs to be done properly, and the families need to be consulted, because I am pretty confident that most families you will speak to will agree that 28 days is not long enough to do anything in that situation.

[The Chair]

Glenn, thank you very much. We are going to have to move on.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from ManKind Initiative. We have until 3.20 pm for this panel. Will the witness please introduce himself for the record?

Mark Brooks: My name is Mark Brooks. I am chair of the trustees of the ManKind Initiative charity. We are a specialist by-and-for service for male victims of domestic abuse, and we work with colleagues across the sexual violence sector and related sectors.

[Dr Mullan]

Q It is really welcome that you are here. There is an understandable focus on women and girls, but these issues do not just affect women and girls, so it is great to have your representation.

I want to ask about exclusion zones. At the minute, a perpetrator will be told that there are certain places that they cannot go, but they can go everywhere else. We have heard evidence that this means that victims of domestic abuse or other offences are constantly unsure about where they might run into the offender. The Government propose changing that around, so that there will be certain places that the perpetrator can go, and then the victim can be confident that, by not going to those places, they will not run into them. Do you have any views on that approach?

Mark Brooks: We support that approach, because it puts the victim first and the rights of the perpetrator second. The ex-partners of some of the men we have spoken to have gone to prison and, after coming out, have caused a huge number of problems for them in the wider community. Those men and their children—daughters and sons—have had to move, and they are continually fearful of coming into contact. We would be in favour of that approach. It is the right way round.

[Dr Mullan]

Q You mentioned children, and I want to ask you about the parental responsibility measures in the Bill. Under the Government’s proposed measure, if an offender is sent to prison for four years or more for a sexual offence against a child for whom they have parental responsibility, they will have their parental responsibility removed. Under our amendment, an offender would lose parental responsibility if they were guilty of an offence against any children, not just their own. Do you have a view about which is the preferable approach?

Mark Brooks: For it to act as a deterrent, we think it should apply in all cases. We want far-reaching consequences for anyone who commits those crimes, so we think it should be extended.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Lastly, the victim contact scheme and the helpline will be made available to a wider group of victims. Do you welcome that? What difference do you think it will make?

Mark Brooks: I absolutely do. The key thing is to make sure that all victims are aware of it. We should make sure that domestic abuse victims, female or male, are far more aware of it, especially where the criminal sanctions have not been large. As you heard from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the impact of abuse post-separation or post-sentence—when the criminal sanctions have ended—can often be as traumatic as the crime itself, because it potentially leaves the victim on eggshells for the rest of their life. If they have access to the helpline and know what is happening with the person who committed the crime against them, they can better manage that. As previous witnesses have said, we obviously need more funding for people to go to local support services when their offender is released from prison.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Thank you for coming today, Mark, and thank you for all the work you do to support men and boys who are victims of domestic abuse. As the shadow Minister said, it is really important.

In these evidence sessions, we have heard a lot about the importance of communicating with victims, not just to give them information relating to their perpetrator but to help them understand their rights. Can you tell us about your interaction with the victims code? How will the measures in the Bill relating to compliance, the scrutiny of agencies and the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers help with that?

Mark Brooks: We are continually promoting the victims code, not only through our helpline and our website but through our interaction with practitioners across the domestic abuse sector. The victims code is really important, and it has helped a number of men who have gone through that.

Part of the problem is that male victims, in particular, are often not in the system in the first place, so they do not come forward to the police and to community-based services. Only one in 20 clients of community-based domestic abuse services or independent domestic violence advisers is male. The victims code is really important in supporting men when they are in the system, but the challenge on communication is getting them into the system in the first place.

Anything that better promotes the victims code—I really welcome the new powers for the Victims’ Commissioner to audit the code—is really important. From my wider business experience, I know that if you do not measure it, it does not get done. That is a really important new power for the Victims’ Commissioner.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear oral evidence from His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. We have until 3.40 pm for this panel. Could the witnesses briefly introduce themselves?

Kim Thornden-Edwards: My name is Kim Thornden-Edwards, and I am the chief probation officer in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service.

Chris Jennings: My name is Chris Jennings. I am an area executive director in HMPPS, with operational responsibility for prisons and probation in the south-west and what we call south-central. I also have a national victims policy team sitting under my command—that is really why I am here today, rather than the first part of my job.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I am Kieran Mullan, the shadow Minister. Forgive me, but I want to understand your capacity to give evidence as civil servants. Would I be correct in saying that, if you were asked to comment on something that is not Government policy, you are restrained in giving a view, or is that a misunderstanding from my side?

Chris Jennings: That sounds well described from our perspective. It is obviously for Ministers to set policy, rather than us.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Would I also be correct in saying, from looking at your areas of expertise, that you do not have any particular expertise on issues such as physical restraint, the moving of prisoners and using force?

Chris Jennings: I have operational responsibility for 15 prisons, so I have some expertise, but I have never been a prison officer and do not have personal experience in that way.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Thank you. On the issue of restraint and the use of force, would you accept that the prison service is experienced and very capable when it comes to using force in certain circumstances to manage prisoners and offenders?

Chris Jennings: Yes, I would say we are skilled in that.

[Dr Mullan]

Q If I were to tell you, and it is true, that the US judicial system has a specific legal power to allow people to be restrained and gagged as part of court proceedings—they have the training, or whatever it might be, to make that a possibility—is there anything to make you believe that we would be incapable of replicating that, even if you might disagree on the policy of it?

Chris Jennings: With the appropriate training and resources, I guess it would be possible.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I will move on to talk about the expansion of the victim contact scheme. Are there resource implications for the service in extending it, and what are your initial views on how capable you will be of meeting those expanded resource requirements?

Chris Jennings: There are some resource implications, but not massive ones that are causing us particular concern at this stage. A lot of the legislation is about bringing work that we already do on to a statutory footing, so we are not adding a huge amount of new work into the system, albeit the helpline is an expanded service that will be new. However, for the victim contact scheme, there is nothing massive, and we have published an impact assessment that sets out our views on that, and the numbers of new staff and resources are not massive.

Kim Thornden-Edwards: We already operate with a helpline that addresses some aspects of this. We would be looking to build on and expand the resources into that helpline. We already have resources in place, so it will just be about building out from that. As Chris says, our impact assessment so far does not indicate that a significant uplift in resources will be required, but we will keep that under review.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Q To follow up on the previous question, there are long-standing concerns about staffing levels in the Probation Service. As the Bill will bring more victims under the auspices of the victim contact scheme, more victims might use it. You sound pretty confident that you will be able to manage that, but if you are already facing staffing challenges, how do you think that will look if a lot more victims suddenly want to use that scheme and helpline?

Chris Jennings: We have staffing challenges in different ways in the Probation Service. Victim liaison officers are a particular group of staff that we recruit through a particular route. It is not the same route that we recruit probation officers through, and that is not the same route that we recruit unpaid work supervisors through. There are different role types within the service, and some of them are under more pressure than others. VLOs are not one of the areas where we are under most pressure, despite your description being absolutely true for some of the other areas.

There is also a geographic spread of where we are under pressure operationally; it is not the same everywhere. Some places are very well resourced and some are less well resourced. Those combinations lead us to a place where we do not think that resourcing should be the thing that holds us back from making a success of this. Of course, we have to pay close attention to it, because if the numbers go up more than we anticipate, we will need to make sure that we resource that adequately, but we are not hugely worried about it at the moment.

Kim Thornden-Edwards: The victim contact scheme is a discrete service, so we do not transfer staff across or expect people to do a multiple brief on it. It is a discrete service that we recruit to separately. Our recruitment of victim liaison officers has been on an upward trajectory over the last 10 months. The banding and grading, and therefore the salary, of victim contact officers also increased last year, so we anticipate that there will be further uptake in terms of recruitment. Across the Probation Service, most grades saw an increase over the last year, so we are generally on an upward trajectory for staffing. You may be familiar with the Lord Chancellor’s announcement that we will look to recruit a further 1,300 probation officer staff during this financial year. We anticipate continued significant growth of probation areas over the period of the spending review.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Good afternoon, Minister. For the record, could you introduce yourself?

Alex Davies-Jones: I am Alex Davies-Jones, the MP for Pontypridd and the Minister with responsibility for victims and tackling violence against women and girls in the Ministry of Justice.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I will start by asking you to talk about the context through which the MOJ looks at what it can learn from international examples. For example, can you confirm that, in other elements of justice policy, you have looked at Texas to learn from what the United States does and have brought that over here?

Alex Davies-Jones: Yes, indeed, and we look at other international examples. Of course, we look for best practice.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Great. What is your understanding of the US legal framework when it comes to the use of force, including, for example, restraining or gagging defendants in court?

Alex Davies-Jones: It is very important to note that the judicial system in the USA is very different from that in England and Wales. It is not easy to operate a distinct comparison. In the US, as far as I am aware, they are able to use extensive force to compel perpetrators to attend hearings, court and so on, but I am not immediately familiar with all the intricacies of it.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Would you accept that Mr Jennings and Deputy Chief Constable Telfer, as they described, have expertise in the use of force and the physical management of offenders?

Alex Davies-Jones: I would not want to speak for them. You heard their evidence today.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I think they said on the record that they consider themselves to have expertise in that area. Would you accept that they both agreed that it would be possible in principle to implement measures such as the restraining or gagging of an offender, even if they did not necessarily comment on the policy area?

Alex Davies-Jones: In principle, along with extensive training and resource, I believe is what they said.

[Dr Mullan]

Q So can we agree that there is not anything in principle that would stop the Government instigating such a measure as is proposed in our amendment?

Alex Davies-Jones: I would have to consult with other stakeholders, such as the Prison Officers’ Association, other potential legislation, and so on. It is not as black and white as that.

[Dr Mullan]

Q If you accept in principle that it can be done, and that it is done in other countries, why—

Alex Davies-Jones: In the same way that anything can be done, but it is not as simple as that.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Fine. Great. Thank you for your agreement that it can be done.

Moving on to the ULS scheme, you have mentioned, both in the Chamber and in your questions today, that the Law Commission is considering issues such as criminal appeals. What is your understanding of its consultation proposal of changes to the ULS scheme in relation to victims and others making use of it?

Alex Davies-Jones: I am very pleased that the Law Commission has extended its time limit for the consultation in order to take into consideration the views and feedback of victims. The consultation has been extended until the end of June. It is really important that a range of views is taken into consideration. We have heard a range of views in the evidence today about how the ULS works and people’s different experiences with it. It is very important that the Law Commission takes that into consideration. I would like to put it on the record that I have met the Law Commission to discuss this and other parts of the work that the commission is looking at as part of the Ministry of Justice. The feedback has been taken on board that victims’ views should be considered.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Okay, but taking you back to the question, what is your understanding of what the Law Commission currently says are its proposals for changes to the ULS?

Alex Davies-Jones: It is looking at a broad range of proposals around the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Let me help you, Minister. It says that it should not change it. Its current proposals are that there should not be any changes to the ULS scheme from the perspective of victims and criminals. If the Government’s position is that we should not make any changes to it prior to the Law Commission completing its consultation, why have you chosen to make a change to the time you allocate to the Attorney General to make a referral?

Alex Davies-Jones: I am happy to answer that question. To reiterate what we have heard throughout the evidence sessions today, there is a wide range of views, particularly on whether and how we could make an amendment to allow victims to appeal. It is important that that wide range of views is taken into consideration.

With respect, we only have one Attorney General; therefore, there are not many people for us to consult with. The request has come directly from the Attorney General’s Office to allow it more time to review cases from this side of things. This is a measure that was in the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill, which fell before the general election. There were no other measures in that Bill to change the unduly lenient sentence scheme. This Government have chosen to take that measure and put it in this Bill, while being aware that there is a range of views that need to be considered on the unduly lenient sentence scheme as a whole for victims.

[Dr Mullan]

Q The overwhelming weight of the evidence that we heard from witnesses today—it was almost universal—was in support of an extension of the scheme, but that was not enough to convince you that we can move ahead with this regardless of what the Law Commission says.

Alex Davies-Jones: I agree that the vast majority of witnesses we heard from think that the scheme needs to be amended. There was a huge discrepancy in how they thought that should take place and what the time length should be. There were also a lot of views on the communication around the ULS and other victims’ rights, which need to be considered. That is why I think it should be carefully considered by an independent body such as the Law Commission rather than hastily changed in this Bill. It should all be considered as a whole.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Finally, you will have heard again the evidence that the witnesses gave in relation to changes to the personal impact statements. I know you are passionate about victims’ issues, and I am sure you will have been as affected as all of us by hearing those stories. Is there any particular reason why you would not support ensuring on a statutory basis that people can say what they want to say on impact statements, with the very minor exclusions that you might have to have in a courtroom in terms of language and so on? That is what our amendment does.

Alex Davies-Jones: I am committed to ensuring that victims’ voices and views are heard and represented throughout the justice process. That is why we have introduced the Bill, and why we are committed to putting victims back at the heart of our criminal justice system. I think it is important for the Committee to know that, at present, a victim impact statement is considered a vital piece of evidence in a judicial proceeding or court of law, which is why it has to be quite tight in its formation. As we have heard today, that is why it is important to increase victims’ awareness of what they can put in the statement.

I am always open to hearing how we can best convey the views and feelings of victims, and I have tasked my officials with looking at whether there is another way that we can make that possible. We are currently looking at that, but we must be aware of the parameters of a specific victim impact statement and the weight it is given by a judge and potentially a jury, which is why it needs to be quite specific and why we have heard that victims have been told or asked to change it.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I just point out that the statement is used post conviction, so it would not influence the jury—it is for the judge. Do you accept that our amendment, which emphasises that it is for the judge to distinguish between remarks that would or would not be rightfully taken into account in sentencing, will address your concerns about the wider use and impact of the statement?

Alex Davies-Jones: I think it is important to note that it is considered by a judge or jury in sentencing, and it is still classed as evidence. It needs to be factual and there are also restrictions placed on what victims can say about a perpetrator. For example, they are unable to threaten a perpetrator in the victim impact statement. I agree that victims need more education and support in understanding what they can say, but I do not want to be in any position where I am restricting a victim in how they can put forward the impact that a crime has had on them. Therefore, I am actively looking at what mechanism is best to do that.

[Dr Mullan]

Finally, I just point out again that our amendment addresses the issue of making threats, for example. Those are things that you cannot do anyway, in terms of free speech, so our amendment covers that issue also. I encourage the Minister to look at our amendment again more closely, to see whether she can support it.

[Caroline Voaden]

Q I would like to talk about the measures to change parental responsibility. Could you tell us why the provision in the Bill applies only to people who have been convicted of offences against their own children and not serious sexual offences against other children?

Alex Davies-Jones: I am happy to clarify the Government’s thinking behind why we have kept this measure quite tight. It is important to say at the outset that there are other mechanisms to remove parental responsibility from offenders and perpetrators, and those mechanisms will still remain, such as the family court process.

What this measure does is quite novel: it removes parental responsibility at the point of conviction in the criminal courts, and it is an untested measure in doing so. It is important that we can see the impact this will have on victims, survivors and, first and foremost, children. It is important to stress that perpetrators will be able to appeal this through the family courts, and they will be able to apply for legal aid through the system as a result of this.

Therefore we feel that, at this point in time, it is important to keep such a novel approach quite tight. That is why we have chosen to restrict it to offenders who have been committed of any sexual offence against their own children and been sentenced to four years or more. We are not saying that we would not be open to expanding it in the future, but, as I think we heard quite clearly throughout the evidence sessions today, we must consider the impact this could have on the family court system as it currently stands.

The family court is under immense pressure. Sadly, another element of the criminal justice system that we inherited from the previous Government is the immense pressure from the backlog. You also heard about the issues that currently stand within the family court, and how many victims and survivors, particularly victims of domestic abuse, feel that it retraumatises them. I would not want to put any other victims through that process, and that is why the Government have chosen to target this measure, as a starting point, at that specific cohort. We feel it is a novel approach; it has never been done this way, and so we have chosen to be quite specific with it.

Victims and Courts Bill (First sitting)

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before we hear from the witness, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interest in connection with the Bill? If any interests are particularly relevant to a Member’s questioning or speech, they should declare them again at the appropriate time.

We will now hear oral evidence from the Crown Prosecution Service. We must stick to the timings in the programme motion to which the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 9.45 am. Could the witness please briefly introduce herself for the record?

Sarah Hammond: Good morning, everybody. My name is Sarah Hammond. I am the chief Crown prosecutor for the CPS in Mersey-Cheshire and the CPS national lead for victims and witnesses.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Q I am Dr Kieran Mullan, Committee member and shadow Justice Minister. You will be aware that at least part of the Bill aims to make changes to how the unduly lenient sentence scheme operates. Can you explain what, if any, role the CPS currently has in challenging or referring cases where it feels that the sentence is unduly lenient?

Sarah Hammond: The CPS looks at every sentence that is imposed to see whether, in our view, it is potentially unduly lenient. If we identify that a case is potentially unduly lenient, we would ask for some advice from the prosecution counsel who appeared in the sentencing court. We would read that, and, if we still felt that the sentence was unduly lenient, we would put together a package of papers to send to the Attorney General’s office for consideration.

[Dr Mullan]

Q There have been reports of victims of crime and their families not even necessarily being aware of the existence of the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Does the CPS have a role in ensuring that there is a good awareness of the scheme, at least among victims and their families, and, if so, how effectively do you think you are playing that role?

Sarah Hammond: Currently the responsibility for informing victims of the sentencing outcome from the hearing lies with the police witness care unit officers. Having said that, if there are questions that the witness care unit officers cannot answer then under the victims code they can refer the matter back to the CPS. We would then happily speak to the victim, explain the unduly lenient sentence programme, and signpost them to where they can access that and the steps around it. We have a guide for victims once they come into the criminal justice system, to explain what happens when a case comes to the CPS, and there is a section within that about when they feel a sentence is too short. We also have a presence in court at the sentencing hearing so, where possible, either prosecution counsel or a member of the CPS can speak to the victim about the sentence and answer any questions they have about potential challenges.

[Dr Mullan]

Q You will be aware that there is a 28-day time limit on the ability of anybody, including victims and their families, to appeal a sentence, given your experience of working directly with victims and their families around that crucial period. I have heard that it is not appropriate to expect a victim and their family to manage, consider and make an appeal during that 28-day window, considering some of the momentous events that might be happening to them during that period. Does the CPS have a view on whether a wider timeframe for victims and their families might be beneficial, based on your experience of working with people who are deeply traumatised at that point in time?

Sarah Hammond: I am aware that the Law Commission is looking more widely into potential reforms of the law and criminal appeals.

[Dr Mullan]

Just to make you aware, the Law Commission’s current consultation paper says that it does not recommend any change to that time period, so I am interested in your views on that question specifically.

Sarah Hammond: Okay. A timescale of 28 days is challenging, but at the moment we feel it works quite well. As professionals within that environment we are well used to obtaining the information we need with a sense of urgency. There are quite good mechanisms in place. That said, if there is evidence that extending the timescales would make the process smoother or more efficient and give people who, as you say, probably have other things on their minds than appealing sentence the ability to do so, then the CPS would support that.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Moving on to victim personal statements, commonly referred to as victim impact statements, I have heard directly from victims and family members that they are sometimes told to remove things from these statements that they would like to say—for example, personal remarks directed at the offender. The CPS plays an important role in working with victims and their families on those statements. Have you seen examples of the CPS advising that statements need to be changed?

Sarah Hammond: I have not personally. I could make some inquiries into how often that happens and we could happily write to the Committee with some more detail around that.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Thank you. One of the amendments that the Opposition are tabling would introduce a greater freedom for victims and family members to speak more freely in their victim impact statements, with the proposal that the judge makes the choice of distinguishing between what is or is not relevant to sentencing. Would the CPS, in your branch at least, have any objections to allowing victims greater freedom to say what they would like at sentencing hearings?

Sarah Hammond: I think we would have to look at what the extent of the legislation is, but we would be happy to work together with the Government in relation to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q We will now hear oral evidence from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner and Victim Support. Again, we must stick to the timings in the programme motion to which the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 10.25 am. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?

Katie Kempen: Good morning. My name is Katie Kempen, and I am the chief executive of Victim Support, the leading victims’ charity for England and Wales.

Baroness Newlove: Good morning. I am Baroness Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales.

Dame Nicole Jacobs: I am Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I am Dr Kieran Mullan, the shadow Justice Minister. I should say for transparency that I have had the opportunity to meet Katie and Baroness Newlove to discuss some of the matters before us today. I will begin by asking a question to all three witnesses. Do you think that the current 28-day time limit for victims and their families to appeal an unduly lenient sentence is sufficient, or should victims and their families get more time?

Baroness Newlove: I welcome the fact that there is an extension as such, but the 28-day limit has not changed for the victim, and that is the worry. The extension is more in the backroom. I agree with it, because I do not want things to be rushed, but the limit has not changed for the victim, which worries me. Victims really do not know this information; it will be mentioned only if the prosecution lets them know about it. Once they leave the courtroom, it can take a long time, but the clock is ticking. Really, that is the crux of why we have mentioned this. Nobody understands undue leniency in the first place, and it is then for the victims to look into it.

Also, at the end of the 28-day process, I have had victims put a request in, but the box has shut at 5 pm, and that is it. I think that is quite cruel to a victim as well. I think the limit needs to be a lot longer to give them time to absorb the sentence and understand it. When I say longer, I am thinking six months, because we give plenty of time to an offender, who has a legal advocate all the way through. I speak personally on this issue. I can assure you that it needs to be looked at again.

Dame Nicole Jacobs: I would echo that. I am stating the obvious, but with victims—certainly through the lens of domestic abuse—you have to appreciate some of the dynamics of coercion and control, including isolation from family and friends. Often, a lot of information is unknown and comes to the attention of friends, family and victims in different ways. There is so much there that has to be unpicked and understood.

I know we will go on to talk about this, but certainly support for victims throughout the criminal justice system, really needs improvement. It comes down to the most basic understanding of who is who, and what your rights are. That was the whole point of the Victim and Prisoners Act 2024, and this Bill is about improving on that. It is really true how disorienting the system is, and we need to do so much more to put in place solid advice and support for victims. Those 28 days seem to fly in the face of that.

Katie Kempen: We would also support an extension. Our experience of working with victims who have gone through court is often that the process traumatises them and they need some time for decompression. They need time to speak to their advisers or advocates. We know that victim services are under pressure. Our advocates will be carrying other caseloads as well. From our perspective, to give the victims time to understand and process what has happened to them, and to be able to access the support and guidance that they need, 28 days is really difficult to work within, so we would support an extension. We have no issue with the extension that is within the Bill. We support that.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I want to move on to questions about the victim personal statement, commonly referred to as a victim impact statement. I know we have discussed this, and there is widespread reporting that it has been suggested to individuals that they have to make their statements say different things and not necessarily criticise the defendant, even though they have been convicted and are guilty at that point. We have put forward an amendment to try to remove those curtailments on what victims can say in their impact statements. Do you have experience of victims being told they cannot say what they want, and would you support us doing what we can to reduce those restrictions?

Baroness Newlove: Again, from personal experience—after 17 years, and still going through the criminal justice system—I think that, once a person is convicted, you have to consider the whole environment of what the victims and families have sat in. I sat for 10 weeks in a courtroom, listening to everything, and I think we need to understand that the victim personal statement—I prefer “impact statement”, to be honest; it was changed under Gordon Brown—is their right to have their say. I do not think there is the right to keep redacting.

I am now a bit concerned because I am hearing that it is a piece of evidence, so they have got to be careful what they say. In all the years that I have been working in this area, I have never heard that before. For me, it is about having that voice—for example, hearing about somebody who has been brutally murdered. It is their opportunity. I am going to look further into this, as Victims’ Commissioner, but I think it is a right for the victims. It is in the victims code; it does not have any caveats.

I am very concerned to hear, when we meet victims, that something has been redacted three times, or taken out three times. There needs to be more evidence about this and how they are treated. These are the most appalling crimes, and I do not think it is acceptable. Otherwise, victims are just going to say, “Why bother?” The championing I have done over 13 years has been to ensure that the victim impact statement is the voice of the victim, which has been silenced all the way through.

Katie Kempen: The addition from our perspective is that the victims we support, by and large, find the whole process quite confusing, and they need support to get through it. We would welcome clear guidance, clear information and respect for the victim’s right to have their voice heard, in so far as is possible.

Dame Nicole Jacobs: I would agree. A lot of these answers are going to come back to the same principles: one of the things that we have not achieved is clear support for victims, end to end. There are contracts, or bits and pieces—I am sure Katie can speak to this—that are parts of the process. However, all those things feed in to one another. The victim impact statement is an example of where victims often do not understand what their rights are. They do not understand who to speak to if they are being told something they feel is unjust or they do not agree with. We could do so much more. One gap in the Bill that I wanted to mention concerns wider support for victims, in terms of building community-based support that could start at a much earlier point in the criminal justice process.

In the context of court delays, court backlogs and the sentencing changes afoot, this is a critical piece of legislation that could address some of those gaps. That would help victims very much, end to end. Some of the examples of injustice that we pick out would be much more comprehensively addressed. That is one of the things I would encourage you all to consider.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I want to ask about the requirement for defendants to attend the sentencing hearing. I have spoken to victims who are quite robust in wanting to see that implemented, even if a defendant is disruptive. We have tabled an amendment to give a judge an explicit right to restrain and gag a defendant if necessary. We have also said that, if a judge is minded not to compel a defendant to appear, or not to restrain them rather than have them removed from court, victims and their families should be consulted about that decision. If they are not going to be there, at the very least a judge should hear clearly the views of victims and families. Would you support a measure that ensures they are consulted? Would you support measures that say, if the victims support it, and it means the defendant being there restrained and gagged, we should consider it?

Baroness Newlove: First and foremost, you need to consider what the victims and families have gone through—the whole context. This is just one part of it. I am nervous when you focus on one section and do not look at the environment. Victims and families are sat in the courtroom for many months. They have listened to everything. They may have given evidence via the defence. They have a prosecutor that is not for them, but for the state, and may have let them down. This needs to be viewed in its context. I have always said that I wish judges would own courts, because defendants run them ragged. I have been to many courts over the years, and when you get a good judge, you really get that.

We are also talking, however, about families who do not understand the judiciary or the language. There needs to be a part of the hearing, when the defendant has been convicted, to say, “We need to speak to the families.”—but do not just do it on the day of the sentencing; give them the opportunity to digest, as you would with the defence and legal arguments, when nobody is allowed in. That could be private, where nobody comes in. It is important to recognise the whole context.

If the defendant is not there, put TV screens in the prison cell. When I worked in the courts, I went to prison cells when defendants would not come down, and we have been up and done that. It is about controlling the environment but, more importantly, it is for the victim, because the defendant seems to control this, which is so wrong when they have been convicted. We need to train the judiciary how to do this, and it is not going to be favourable to one side. Victims only get this time after the whole process, and I am concerned that they will not have the opportunity to digest it. They are emotionally drained and I think it could be rushed too quickly.

Dame Nicole Jacobs: I agree with that.

Katie Kempen: Building on that, there is a need for a holistic exploration of what victims experience in the courtroom. Our report, “Suffering for justice”, referenced long waits for sentencing hearings and not being able to access special measures. The reality for victims in court is that they are standing outside court with the offender’s supporters and family, that they have to sit in the public gallery, and that they clearly feel they are being intimidated when the sentencing remarks come through. We welcome the sharing of the sentencing remarks with victims, ensuring that they understand the impact of them.

We agree that the victims’ voice needs to be at the centre of any sentencing hearing. Some victims may well want the offender to attend. In other cases I have attended, I have seen young people give their victim personal statements against people who have abused them, it was very difficult for them to be able to see the offender. I really feel that victims’ needs should be taken into consideration so that they feel they can have their say in that environment.

Baroness Newlove: May I just add something important? When offenders have been acquitted, as they were in my case—I say this because this is how it feels—the offender’s family may be in the public gallery. My family had to have police protection. It is about the environment in that sentencing court. It is not simplistic. I hope that the Government take on board the fact that there is all that going on: you having to digest a very important, very technical decision while you are being goaded and having to be protected.

[Dr Mullan]

Q A final question from me. I am conscious of time, so I will direct this question to Dame Nicole because of your particular expertise in domestic abuse.

You will be aware that the Bill introduces a duty on the court to make an order to remove parental responsibility in respect of any children for whom an offender has parental responsibility, if they have been sentenced to four or more years. We have laid an amendment to suggest that provision should apply if an offender is convicted of an offence against any child, not just a child for whom they have parental responsibility, and to any offender who has a custodial sentence. Which do you think is the preferable approach, or, more generally, what are your views on removing parental responsibility for those convicted of child sex abuse?

Dame Nicole Jacobs: I am very aware of dysfunctions within how domestic abuse is understood in the family court. It is positive to clarify to the court that, with certain offences, allowing parental responsibility should be considered inappropriate. Even saying that, though, I am a bit cautious about a completely black-and-white approach. I agree with the provisions in the Bill, but you would have to think very carefully about the range of other offences—for equivalent convictions against other children, absolutely, but I do not know enough about what is being proposed in terms of the range of other offences.

While we are on the subject of family court, one of the long-standing clarifications needed from Government is about a presumption of parental involvement. The Government were looking into that literally years ago, when I was first appointed as a designate, and it has not been resolved. That should be either clarified through this legislation or just clarified full stop. In the family court, the welfare checklist in the Children Act 1989, which is adequate in considering the safety of a child, is often confused with a presumption of parental involvement. I believe that the safety of children, who are recognised as victims in their own right in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, should be paramount.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q Thank you all for coming to give evidence to us today.

Going back to non-attendance at sentencing hearings, what impact will compelling perpetrators to attend their sentencing hearings have on victims and their families, and will giving the judge—for the first time ever—the ability to issue sanctions on them once they are in prison make a difference in terms of helping victims and families feel that they getting justice?

Dame Nicole Jacobs: As Baroness Newlove said, it depends on the victim and the family, and the context of the situation. For many people, it would be heartening to feel that there is an ability to compel someone to come to court to hear their sentence and the consequences of their actions, which have devastated the lives of those people. But I could also imagine, especially in the context of domestic abuse, situations in which the victim, or their family if they have been murdered, would find some of that difficult. You would have to understand those dynamics.

In the context of domestic abuse, for example, there could be a very clear notion that that would be the just thing to do. There could be another example where, because of the nature of the family—keep in mind that for domestic abuse, I am looking through the lens of the fact that the victim and perpetrator are very well known to each other; that is not the case for all sorts of other crimes—there could be dynamics that are more complex. That is why what both Katie and Baroness Newlove have said, about understanding that the victim and families will feel confident and engaged and able to speak, is really important.

We must also keep in mind, especially with domestic abuse, that there could be family members and people involved as victims who have radically different views. Again, there is a complexity to this that does not necessarily always come through in a very black-and-white provision.

Baroness Newlove: Again, I want to support the family. The decisions we are making here are for the professionals to make the courtroom run seamlessly, but it could happen instantly—if the defendant just does not come down, how are we going to manage the emotions on the day, as well as the emotions they have gone through on the journey? I really want to make sure that they are supported.

I see that there is going to be a penal order in prison. I could go on a bit about that myself, but I will not—that is out of scope. I welcome that provision, but am also concerned about how it is managed. If the governor of the prison sees that that is going to be detrimental to their health and wellbeing, it might not happen, and so then where is the transparency about that being delivered for the victim? I think we need to do further work and look at that, because there is very little communication to victims. Nobody knows what they do in prison. Victims are told what they are doing, but they get very little information. For me this is a step forward, but what happens at the end of the day is far more important.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Resolve and ASB Help. We have until 10.55 for this session. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

Rebecca Bryant: Good morning. My name is Rebecca Bryant and I am the chief executive of Resolve.

Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: Good morning. I am Charlotte Hamilton-Kay and I am the deputy chief executive of ASB Help.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Good morning. I am Dr Kieran Mullan, a shadow Justice Minister.

The antisocial behaviour that your work focuses on is often resolved, at least initially, through non-custodial sentences, so the other measures available to the court are particularly important. I would like to ask you about court fines and compensation. I have spoken to victims who feel it is unfair that if someone is responsible for, let us say, the criminal damage of property, the victim will not necessarily be awarded compensation for the value of that property, as they would if they took someone to the small claims court. To reassure people in the community that the measures available are effective, would there be benefit in ensuring that when someone is responsible for property damage, the victim is awarded compensation that matches the value of the damaged property?

Rebecca Bryant: Compensation in relation to antisocial behaviour cases is currently quite vague. Often, if you are looking at cases that are resolved through an early intervention and prevention approach, you would be looking at more of a restorative justice element, and perhaps mediation, where there is no compensation and it is more about recognising the impact of the behaviour the person has perpetrated. Once you move into the legal action arena, we have to recognise that a lot of the people who are perpetrators of antisocial behaviour may not be in a position to pay any compensation—although I recognise that, from a victim’s perspective, some sort of restorative approach would be welcome.

Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: I agree with that. Part of the problem with antisocial behaviour is that when we record it, and when certain agencies take reports, there is a real grey area in how it is classified. We struggle with the classification of crime versus antisocial behaviour. It is often dismissed as a misdemeanour or, as Baroness Helen said, it is low level, so we are not necessarily going to reach the threshold at which we can look at compensation. That is impactive for victims of antisocial behaviour, because it immediately makes them feel that what they have experienced and suffered is not as important or serious as other cases that might meet the criteria. We would really need to look at that before we could go that way.

Additionally, victims of antisocial behaviour often do not report what they are experiencing because they feel they are not going to be listened to or taken seriously. Introducing a compensation element would just complicate that at this stage.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Is it ever an element of the community resolution process that a perpetrator might agree to make some kind of financial compensation voluntarily?

Rebecca Bryant: That is not something that I have come across at all. Restorative justice and community remedy can be either between the two individuals or group of individuals who are involved in the antisocial behaviour—bringing them together and doing a piece of work to recognise the impact of that behaviour—or something in the community itself, perhaps with higher visibility. There was a pilot last year around immediate justice and the impact on the community of seeing the behaviour paid back, if you like.

Restorative justice is often only one of the tools that we use to respond to antisocial behaviour. When we are talking about early intervention and prevention, we also use mediation and warnings, highlighting to the individual perpetrator the impact that the behaviour is having on the victim and the community.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Related to that is the issue of fines, which are separate from compensation. I accept your point about people’s ability to pay, and that there is always a process that ensures that fines are collected only in a way that is proportionate to someone’s means, but you can time out of fines: if you have not paid them in a certain amount of time, you do not have to pay them. Would you support that time limit being taken away, so that if someone comes into financial means later on in life, they will still be held accountable for stuff they did in the community for which they were given a fine as part of community resolution?

Rebecca Bryant: Yes, I think I would, but how long is that time? I think a victim of antisocial behaviour, community safety issues or even crime wants to see some closure, move forward and move past the incident that has happened. Having something like that hanging over them for an indefinite amount of time might not enable them to have that closure.

Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: The bonus of fines or penalty notices for antisocial behaviour is that we hope they act as a deterrent. If they are not working as a deterrent, it does not matter what amount of time we put on them: they are not going to have the effect on the perpetrator of stopping the behaviour. Yes, there needs to be culpability —we should not just have a “get out of jail free” card if we can wait out the clock—but we need to be realistic about what they are going to achieve.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I appreciate that some of what you deal with would not end up involving a magistrate passing a sentence, but sometimes that will be the case. Would it benefit transparency for victims, even at a magistrates level, to have a record of the remarks that were made in relation to why the sentence was passed?

Rebecca Bryant: Absolutely, yes, I do. What is taken into account around sentencing is often rather opaque, as is whether someone actually has to attend the sentencing. Victims need to be able to see justice done, because they have had a traumatic experience and have perhaps gone through the process of giving evidence live and having to face the person who has perpetrated the antisocial behaviour, crime or community safety issue. Having access to the sentencing report and the sentencing itself, and understanding that their victim impact statement is being read out and taken into account, would be significantly beneficial.

Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: I agree. We have to look at everything on a case-by-case basis, and in some situations it would not be appropriate—a victim would not feel comfortable with it. The problem with antisocial behaviour is, again, that grey area between ASB and crime. Impact is the biggest factor, and a victim needs to have that voice and explain how they have been impacted, but we certainly do not want the secondary traumatisation of coming face to face with someone who potentially does not acknowledge what they have done. You would have to look at the complexities of each case.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q What are the benefits of the Bill having the first ever duty to co-operate among housing providers, the Victims’ Commissioner and other relevant authorities? What will that do for victims of ASB?

Charlotte Hamilton-Kay: It is a really great step. We need more accountability, and oversight of all agencies involved in managing antisocial behaviour, and the duty to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner, is a really great start to that. There is a huge postcode lottery and disparity across England and Wales in the way that victims of antisocial behaviour are supported, the way their cases are managed and what action is taken on different behaviours. Anything we can do to bring a nationalised approach would be really beneficial to victims.

Rebecca Bryant: I think there is a balance. We welcome the Victims’ Commissioner having the authority, and the co-operation element, but the arena of social housing, local authorities and antisocial behaviour is very crowded at the moment. You have the social housing regulator, which is currently looking at housing providers in relation to the consumer standard, which includes antisocial behaviour—their approach to it, the number of cases per 1,000 and the respondents’ satisfaction with how they respond to it. That is not just for housing providers; it includes local authorities with housing stock. That is one side.

You also have the local government ombudsman and the housing ombudsman, which both deal with individual people who are not satisfied with the response they have received from the agency we are talking about. We are very supportive of antisocial behaviour victims and approaches being at the forefront of the Victims’ Commissioner’s mind, and her or him being able to pull together responses, require people to respond and perhaps look at themes and areas where we can strengthen our support and guidance for agencies that work in this arena, but what will that actually look like? We are currently working on that with the current Victims’ Commissioner. At the moment it is quite vague. There would have to be a tightening up of what element she is going to look at, bearing in mind that the ASB case review, the housing ombudsman, the local authority ombudsman and the social housing regulator are all looking at the same thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We have until 11.25 am for this session. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

Clare Moody: Good morning. I am Clare Moody, representing the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners.

Genna Telfer: Good morning. I am Genna Telfer, representing the NPCC.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Hello. I am Dr Kieran Mullan, shadow Justice Minister. I want to begin with the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Obviously, you will work directly with victims, and the outcome of all your work will be a sentence passed by a judge. I know from personal experience that, privately, the police can sometimes be just as frustrated with sentences as victims are. You will know that at the minute, anyone, including victims and their families, has only 28 days to appeal against a sentence they consider to be unduly lenient. Given your experience of being in court and working alongside victims, with all the trauma that they might be experiencing at that time, do you think there is any merit in extending the time available for victims and their families to appeal against an unduly lenient sentence?

Genna Telfer: That is a difficult question to start with. It is a tricky one. This would probably be better done through a victim survey of individuals who have been through the process. Although we would want to give people additional time to truly consider it, what might take someone two weeks to think about might take someone else 12 months, so what is the right timeline to put on it? I am not sure I can answer that from a policing perspective.

Obviously, our witness care teams keep victims informed and talk to them. That is absolutely something we would do. We inform them about the scheme, but we do not tell them whether they are eligible for it or not, because we think that would be better done by the CPS, which has a better understanding of how it all works. But in terms of the timeline, that is a difficult one to answer, because how long is a piece of string?

Clare Moody: I agree with Genna. I do not feel that I am qualified to say right now that if you extended this to three months or to two months—

[Dr Mullan]

Q If I may interrupt—sorry—do you think 28 days is enough?

Clare Moody: I would want to come back to you on that point specifically and separately, because I do not feel right now I could give you an informed response.

[Dr Mullan]

Q Okay. I would like to ask you next about sentencing remarks. Again, you work with victims; you see at first hand, through your victim care work, the trauma of a court process. Very often—outside some very limited trials—victims do not get to see sentencing remarks. A week later, it is all just what their memory tells them and what might be reported in the press. Again, based on your experience of working directly with victims through the criminal justice process, do you think there is any benefit in having sentencing remarks published, so that people can actually see what was said in court at the point of sentencing? Clare, do you want to start with this one?

Clare Moody: I absolutely can see the benefit in that. When you are in the moment, with so many emotions, and are in a high state of emotional experience, we do not retain information—none of us does. So we are talking about being able to refer back to that. I am not clear, to be honest, on the reasons why the remarks are not already published, so I cannot argue to the specific points about why this does not exist right now. But my instinctive response, if that is fair, is that, yes, it would seem sensible to publish those remarks.

Genna Telfer: I think this came up recently. I am not sure whether it came out from one of the surveys, but there was a question about victims being present at sentencing, and I know that some work was going on about that with the CPS as well. So if they want to be in the room, rather than just reading the remarks, obviously, that might be beneficial to some victims.

[Dr Mullan]

Q I also want to ask you about the new power that is being introduced in the Bill to compel offenders to attend sentencing hearings. We are tabling an amendment to suggest that victims and their families should be consulted as part of that process. Again, based on your experience of being in the courtroom and of working with victims and families, do you think there is benefit in ensuring that victims and families are part of the discussion about what happens with attendance at hearings?

Genna Telfer: Absolutely. That was one of the points that we were going to raise today. I think victims should be considered and consulted as part of that process. Having read about the way that this is going to work—the different options such as potentially adding time to the sentence, or physically removing a suspect into court— the second option is “reasonable force” and I can imagine there are lots of issues with that, in terms of practicality. If someone really does not want to be in court, it will be difficult to achieve that. There is then the potential disruption that could be faced, such as delays for the victim because the trial takes longer to go ahead as a result of that issue. So I think some victims will absolutely want that, but others would probably prefer not to have it.

[Dr Mullan]

Do you want to add anything, Clare?

Clare Moody: In terms of the involvement of the victim in that decision making, as Genna said, there are complications around getting the perpetrator into the courtroom, but who would not want them to see the justice that is being meted out and for the victims to have that opportunity? But yes, the consultation would make sense.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Q On that point specifically, the non-attendance of sentencing hearings, we feel that we have gone as far as we can in the Bill in terms of introducing prison sanctions and other sanctions that can be given to the perpetrators to enable their attendance at their sentencing hearings. It is the first time ever that judges will have these powers at their discretion. You mentioned concerns around “reasonable force” in getting them to the courtroom. That is one thing that is available under the Bill. The Opposition have also tabled an amendment about the ability to gag and restrain perpetrators who attend. Do you have any thoughts on that and on how workable it would be?

Genna Telfer: As I said, moving anyone who does not want to be moved is very difficult. We do it all the time in policing; we have to move people when they do not want to. It is difficult, it takes a lot of people and it takes a lot of resource. There is a risk of injury to the prison staff who are moving them. What we are trying to achieve, versus the impact of trying to do that, might be the balance that is needed. I think that while it is good to have it in there, prison entitlements and the potential extension of the sentence are probably more the tools to do this than the actual physical restraint of people.

Clare Moody: I would say exactly that. An accidental outcome of this should not be the greater traumatisation of victims. The process might wind up with some kind of scene that involves centring the perpetrator, rather than what the victims have been through. I think there needs to be care around that in ensuring that victims are still at the heart of the process.

Humanist Marriage

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain, in what has been a heart-warming debate. I thank the hon. Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) for securing this debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

Marriage and civil partnerships play a vital role in fostering stable families and, as a result, more stable communities. Marriage and civil partnerships are more than personal milestones; they are cornerstones of strong, cohesive and enduring relationships—values that my party holds dear. When talking positively about marriage, I always like to point out that my parents were divorced; I do not approach this issue with some idealised view of what marriage represents and can mean, but understanding that an institution is not perfect does not mean that one cannot champion all of its benefits.

I must also declare an interest in that I consider myself to be a humanist, and I am a member of the all-party parliamentary humanist group—this seems to be a gathering of humanists in Parliament today.

The exact meaning of what it is to be a humanist will be different for different people, just as the interpretation and meaning of religious faith varies among individuals. To me, it has its greatest value at a community and societal level. We can all individually decide to try to lead what we consider to be moral, values-based lives, but humanism provides us with the opportunity to do so from a shared perspective.

Many humanists celebrate significant milestones—births, marriages and deaths—in ways that reflect their values and worldview. As others have said, a humanist marriage ceremony is often deeply personalised, focusing on the couple’s individuality and commitment, rather than adhering just to religious traditions. Humanist ceremonies are gaining in popularity because they offer an alternative that resonates with those who prefer secular yet still meaningful celebrations.

Approximately 1,200 couples a year choose to have a humanist marriage ceremony, and currently they all have to have a separate legal ceremony. The public, outward-facing nature of a marriage ceremony puts into action the idea that values can be even more powerful when shared and celebrated together as a community.

Previous Conservative Governments understood and recognised the importance of marriage. We delivered the groundbreaking Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act, which allowed gay and lesbian couples to lawfully marry for the first time. Indeed, that legislation provided for a review and subsequent public consultation on humanist marriages too.

I understand that the majority of respondents to the 2014 consultation were in favour of changing the law. However, the coalition Government, which included the Liberal Democrats, decided that the legal and technical requirements of marriage ceremonies and registration in England and Wales should be considered more generally, alongside making a decision on this issue.

The Law Commission was asked to review the law governing how and where people can marry in England and Wales, and the Law Commission concluded its work in 2022. The final 500-page report on reforming weddings law set out 57 recommendations. One feature of the proposed new scheme is that regulation would be based on the officiant rather than on the building in which a wedding takes place. The report also set out a scheme by which anybody could be authorised to conduct civil marriages.

I have some concerns about the Law Commission’s proposals. I understand that the recommendations go beyond giving humanist wedding ceremonies legal status, and they would create a free-market, celebrant-based approach to the wedding industry. I disagree with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), that marriage is an entirely individual choice. We have talked about how its value sits within society; and if society does not regulate and choose how that operates, marriage loses its wider shared meaning. Alongside humanists, others have expressed that such a move could undermine the solemn nature of marriage.

I understand that the current Government have also taken the view that wholesale reform is preferable. But every year that passes rightly creates further pressure, as the balance tips closer to those arguing that having specific measures to support humanist marriage ceremonies is the fairer approach. Let us not forget that Scotland and Northern Ireland already legally recognise humanist marriages.

During the pandemic, the previous Conservative Government took steps to adapt our marriage laws to accommodate the social distancing regulations in place at the time. In June 2021, they recognised the need for flexibility during a challenging time for individuals wishing to marry and for wedding venues, by extending legal recognition to outdoor civil marriages on an interim basis. The measure allowed ceremonies to take place outdoors on approved premises, addressing the unique challenges posed by the pandemic.

Following a consultation, that temporary reform was made permanent in April 2022, ensuring that couples could continue to celebrate their union in a safe and meaningful manner. The reform demonstrates the ongoing Conservative commitment to marriage and proves that specific adaptations to our legal framework to meet the needs of the moment are eminently possible.

On a personal level, and as a member of the APPG, I share the frustration with the continued delay to marriage reform and, as a result, the recognition of humanist marriages. I also note the YouGov poll, conveniently published earlier this week, showing strong public support for recognising humanist marriages, with 70% in favour and only 15% opposed. The support is consistent across religious and belief groups of different kinds.

Notwithstanding the concerns I have outlined, the Opposition are positively predisposed to the introduction of humanist marriage ceremonies. While we would need to consider any proposals in detail, we hope to be able to welcome any reform package brought forward. We are increasingly sympathetic to the need for specific measures to allow humanist marriages to take place, given the ongoing delays. A number of Conservative Members who support these measures wished to attend this debate, but as is often the case, timetables can be challenging.

I hope the Minister can outline a timetable, and if she cannot, can instead explain what consideration the Government are giving to targeted reform. What do they see as the obstacles to this approach? As other Members have mentioned, the manner in which the marriage ceremonies of Quakers and Jewish groups are legally recognised provides a template for the Government.

At the heart of this discussion lies a fundamental truth: marriage and civil partnerships are institutions that promote stability, responsibility and community cohesion. These are values that I, as a Conservative, champion unequivocally. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans for bringing them to the fore for the humanists in our society.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Whatever the sentence or offence, victims and families deserve a meaningful and fair route to appeal sentences that are unduly lenient. Twenty-eight days for people who have experienced deep trauma, when criminals get an unlimited time to appeal, is not meaningful or fair. Can the Lord Chancellor explain to campaigners such as Katie Brett and Ayse Hussein from Justice for Victims why she is not willing to give them more time?

[Shabana Mahmood]

The shadow Minister should know that the Law Commission is considering the whole area of unduly lenient sentencing. It is important that we let it do its work and that it is able to look at the measures in the round and think about the consequences across the whole criminal justice system. We will review those proposals once they are made and legislate if we need to.

[Dr Mullan]

I am afraid that that explanation will not wash. The Lord Chancellor knows that she is choosing to give the Government more time in her Bill ahead of the Law Commission’s decision. Why is she giving herself more time, but not victims?

[Shabana Mahmood]

If the shadow Minister ever did any homework, he would know that it is always the Attorney General who has to agree and sign off on unduly lenient sentencing referrals. Our proposals are there to make sure that the Attorney General always has a full 28-day period to consider and make rulings that often help victims. He will also know that the Law Commission is looking at that work. The Conservative Government had 14 years; why did they never do anything?

Decriminalising Abortion

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate and the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for opening it.

As shadow Justice Minister, I have spoken on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition in recent debates on assisted dying, and I do so again today on another complex issue that similarly draws on ethical, legal and moral questions. I do not think that today’s debate is a failure; it reflects the complexity of the issue at hand. Like assisted dying, calls to decriminalise abortion can trigger profound disagreement among families, friends and indeed, Members of Parliament of the same and different political parties. I deeply respect the perspectives of those advocating for this change and everyone who signed the petition, including 142 constituents of mine in Bexhill and Battle. I do not know the new hon. Members quite as well, but I have come to deeply respect the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on many issues, even if we do not see eye to eye on this.

If there were to be a vote, the historical position has always been that it would be a free vote. There are a variety of views among Conservative MPs, councillors and members, and His Majesty’s Opposition would remain neutral. In my experience, the preponderance of Conservative thought, particularly among parliamentarians, has been caution about decriminalisation because, it is argued, it carries risks that could undermine the current balance of rights and protections enshrined in our legal framework.

Let me be absolutely clear to people watching, especially women who might be worried that the UK is somehow rowing back on our abortion provision: in England, Scotland and Wales, abortion is lawful, provided that the usual criteria in the Abortion Act 1967 are met. There are different criteria in Northern Ireland, but the previous Government introduced a new legal framework for abortion services in Northern Ireland to that effect. As hon. Members have said, the Abortion Act 1967 provides grounds for an abortion, exempting women from prosecution under the Offences against the Person Act and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929.

The petitioners have asked us to consider whether abortion should be decriminalised completely, so that no woman, or potentially no individual who assists her, can be prosecuted for an abortion under any circumstances. When considering abortion, we are not just considering the wellbeing, autonomy and rights of the pregnant woman. Our society and legal system have also given consideration to the welfare of the unborn child. The phrase “unborn child” is, on the face of it, a clear and simple one, but in moral and legal terms it lacks the moral clarity we feel about the moral considerations due to a child after its birth.

Religious thought of all kinds very often ascribes moral rights of a high magnitude to an unborn child at any stage. More scientifically focused viewpoints try to give consideration to the level of development, sensitivity to pain and suffering, or the point at which an unborn child might survive outside the womb. I think it is fair to say that there is a very widely held view that a human embryo at any stage is afforded moral consideration beyond that given to any other collection of equivalent cells.

In the case of abortion, the law is designed to recognise that. Criminal law is the manner in which we safeguard the vulnerable and uphold the sanctity of life in our system. Abortion laws, as they stand, provide a structure to ensure the rights of everyone involved, including pregnant women and unborn children, are considered with a degree of fairness and that there is accountability.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I apologise for arriving late, Mr Dowd, and it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. My hon. Friend makes a salient point about the ethical issues around extinguishing the life of the unborn. There is another salient matter: the assumption on the part of the advocates of this move that individual autonomy—we see the same with the debate about the end of life—trumps all else and that personal interests, dressed up as rights, are more important than the obligations to others and society along with duties to the country and those greater duties to God. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the philosophical rather than the theological aspect of that?

[Dr Mullan]

Although my right hon. Friend and I might not agree on where we draw the line on each of those very complex issues in different circumstances, I absolutely sympathise with the view that individuals sit within society and we have a wider obligation. Sometimes, laws and our customs are not there just for the benefit of individuals; they are there because of wider considerations.

[Ms Creasy]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way and I recognise the points he is making. However, he says that criminal law is the way in which we give effect to the framework that he is talking about. Obviously, as we have discussed in this debate, there is no criminal underpinning to abortion in Northern Ireland, where abortion is a healthcare matter and is regulated as healthcare. For the avoidance of doubt, can I clarify that he would also accept that if we were to do as new clause 20 requires and introduce healthcare regulations that are human rights-compliant to replace the criminal regulation, there would be regulation and guidance about health services? It would not create a gap; it would be a replacement.

[Dr Mullan]

What I said was that traditionally in this country the nature of how we oversee and protect sanctity of life questions and those who might extinguish life is through the criminal law. Of course, the hon. Member is right to point out that in other jurisdictions, including in Northern Ireland, they might do it differently, but that is the tradition, certainly in England and Wales and, in most regards, in Northern Ireland, too. I do not think that it is fair for her to use an example of doing things differently to suggest that arguments different from that are not valid. In fact, generally speaking I found her remarks during this debate to be quite insensitive to the complexities of the issues at hand. She was tempted to focus more of her time on talking about Trump than on the very delicate balancing act that many people bring to debates about this morally complex issue. I will now continue with my speech.

We must also remember that ultimately any prosecution undertaken by the CPS must meet the test for being in the public interest. We must not confuse questions about the appropriateness of sentencing and the appropriateness of an individual decision to prosecute with an overall question about whether the criminal law itself is the right or wrong mechanism through which we regulate this activity.

Proponents of decriminalisation often cite the World Health Organisation’s recommendation from 2022, which advocates removing barriers such as criminalisation. Although such recommendations should, of course, carry weight with many, it is essential to view them through the lens of our unique societal context here in the UK. The bulk of the World Health Organisation’s recommendations are very much focused on countries that have a much lower rate of access to abortion, in all sorts of different ways, and so they sit within a different context. Our abortion laws have evolved over time to reflect the delicate balance between the rights of pregnant women and the ethical considerations surrounding unborn life. I would caution against taking a universal recommendation from a global organisation as a litmus test for whether we are or are not doing things correctly.

When prosecutions occur, they are no doubt distressing for those involved. However, we also should be wary of changing the law in response to individual cases without looking at the operation of the law as a whole and, as I have said, without considering other elements, such as the operation of the law by the CPS, that have a bigger role to play than the law in itself.

Accountability is a cornerstone of ethical practice and criminal law serves as a mechanism through which accountability is ensured in many spaces. Without such safeguards, society is potentially less able to properly address situations where procedures are conducted wrongly. These are questions that demand careful consideration and proper parliamentary debate before any changes to existing laws are made. As I and others have already mentioned, debates about the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Gower and others will provide the opportunity for that.

In their response to the petition, the Government have stated that they have no current plans to change the law on abortion and I am sure the Minister will say more about that in her closing remarks. Although discussions about potential refinements to current laws are valid and deserve proper consideration, I suspect that a number of MPs would argue that the removal of criminal penalties must be approached with caution.

As I have said already, the hon. Member for Gower has tabled new clause 1 to the Crime and Policing Bill, and Members will know that debate on amendments tabled to the previous Government’s Criminal Justice Bill did not happen because of the timing of last year’s general election. Successive Governments have adopted a neutral stance on abortion and treated it as a free vote issue. However, I understand that the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention was unable to clearly restate that assurance on Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill. I would welcome it if the Minister who is here today confirmed in her remarks that the Government will continue to be neutral on abortion.

Amnesty International has framed abortion as a human rights issue, advocating for its decriminalisation. However, all measures must be applied in a manner that respects the rights of all affected parties, including the unborn. The ethical and moral considerations surrounding abortion are multifaceted and these complexities cannot be overlooked.

Before I conclude my remarks, I will say something about the tone of this debate. As we engage with this issue over the next few weeks and months, it is imperative that we consider the diverse perspectives and experiences that shape opinions on abortion law. I hope that we will all strive to find solutions that uphold dignity, fairness and justice for all. The legal framework governing abortion must maintain an emphasis on protecting both individual rights and societal values. As I said earlier, abortion is an issue that transcends simplistic policy analysis. It is a matter of ethics, justice and the principles that define who we are as a society. The Opposition believe that abortion law should remain robust, balanced and capable of addressing the complexities of these issues. It will be for individual MPs to decide how that balance is best struck.

Victims and Courts Bill

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I thank Members from all parts of the House for their contributions to the debate. We have heard powerful speeches that reflect the deep importance of the Bill, and the heavy responsibility that we all carry for delivering justice not just in name, but in practice. Like others, I pay tribute to the campaigners who have joined us, whom I was privileged to meet briefly earlier, and who are in the Gallery. They have all campaigned on behalf of their loved ones—Sabina Nessa, Zara Aleena, Jan Mustafa and Olivia Pratt-Korbel. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for her incredibly powerful contribution. To see Cheryl hear those words, knowing that they were going on the record, will have impacted so many Members today. I am sure that it will be something that Cheryl will never forget. We must not forget how difficult the campaigning has been. All campaigners have had to relive experiences and deal with the most unimaginable memories. They pay a very heavy price every time they have had to do that, and I thank them for it, and I know that other Members will do the same.

The Opposition welcome the intent behind this legislation. Measures to compel offenders to attend sentencing hearings and to remove parental responsibility from serious child sex offenders were committed to, and work was begun on them, by the previous Government. The provisions to compel offenders to attend their sentencing hearings come after we have seen one too many disgraceful examples in recent years of the most serious and violent criminals hiding from justice, and from the pain that they have caused. That must end.

We welcome cross-party support on this matter, but at present, the Bill leaves out an important principle. The decision to require an offender’s attendance should fundamentally be driven by the wishes of the victims and their families. It is they who must live with the consequences of the crime, and they who should be at the centre of deciding whether the person who harmed them should be made to face them in court. Justice must not just be seen to be done, but should be shaped by those it seeks to serve. We will push for changes to this legislation during its future stages to ensure that is the case. We also want to make sure that the correct balance is struck on the use of force. The Prison Officers’ Association is clear: notwithstanding concerns about prison officers’ equipment, they will not resile from taking offenders to court. The legislation needs to ensure that only in the most exceptional circumstances does that not happen.

We have heard concerning stories about parents having to spend tens of thousands of pounds in court to remove parental rights from serious sexual offenders, and I welcome the fact that the previous Government planned legislation to begin addressing that. We welcome our shared desire to act on this issue, but the Minister will have heard campaigners’ concerns that the approach in the Bill does not cut it. I welcome the Minister’s public commitment to considering how to strengthen it.

Last year, when in opposition, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is sitting in the Gallery, supported an amendment for a much broader measure than the Government are proposing today. I encourage her to speak to her colleague on the Front Bench about how this measure falls short. The debate then was around whether the measure should apply to offenders perpetrating offences against any children, and about where to set the threshold. Our proposed measure was not perfect, but this measure is the worst of both worlds. It relates only those who have offended against their own children, and there is quite a high bar, in that they have to have been sentenced to at least four years. I think that we can do better than that.

We also welcome improvements to victims’ information rights and the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. That role, which has been maintained by Governments of all parties for a significant time now, is incredibly important. Baroness Newlove, the commissioner, will look closely at the Bill, and will support victims and campaigners in their efforts to ensure that it delivers. She has also consistently raised a possible source of funding—funding is always a challenge for every Government Department: unpaid victim surcharges. The £1 billion-plus might help fund some of the work that we want to do.

Although there are measures that we welcome, there are changes that are being trailed as measures for victims, but that are nothing of the sort, such as the changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which have caused confusion even in the Chamber among Labour Members; for example, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) seemed to think that these are measures for victims. The measure on the unduly lenient sentence scheme is nothing to do with victims.

A total of 14,000 people signed the petition for Sasha’s law, which was set up by campaigner Katie Brett, who is on the Justice for Victims group, in memory of her sister Sasha. If the House will forgive me, I will detail what happened to her sister. She was murdered in 2013. Aged just 16, she was raped and stabbed more than 100 times, and her body was set on fire. Katie and her family believe that her killer met the criteria for a whole-life order, but he was only given a minimum sentence of 35 years. Katie and her family did not know anything about the right of appeal, and even if they did, who really thinks most people are in the right state of mind to think about that sort of thing within 28 days of the sentence being passed? Katie is not alone. Ayse Hussein, another member of the campaign group who was also in the Gallery today, campaigns in memory of her cousin, Jan. Jan’s killer had raped, tortured and imprisoned various girls and young women, and also murdered Henriett Szucs and hid the bodies of both women in a freezer. He did not receive a whole-life sentence, and would probably leave prison one day. Again, her family knew nothing of the right to appeal.

When they saw that changes were to be made to the scheme, campaigners reasonably thought that the changes would extend the 28-day time limit for victims, but no: the Government want to give more time not to victims and families but to themselves. More time for Government means that they have longer to think about and reflect on these deeply personal and sensitive matters than victims will have. That is bordering on insulting, and I think the Minister will share my concerns. In Committee we will put forward amendments that require victims, not just the Government, to be given more time. I hope we will have the support of Labour Members who have committed today to supporting that measure, such as the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal).

We welcome the creation of a statutory right for victims to have information about an offender’s release, but we want to know how this will be delivered, who will staff the helplines, how victims will know their rights, and what exactly they will be told. For some time, the Victims’ Commissioner has raised the question of whether victims should get to know the specific release date.

[Sir John Hayes]

To be clear, the current situation allows victims 28 days for a referral, and the Bill extends the period for consideration to 14 days. What we want is for victims to have longer, and it seems absolutely right that that should happen. It would be a perfectly reasonable amendment for the Government to table in order to back victims. Is that really too much to ask?

[Dr Mullan]

My right hon. Friend has laid out the situation correctly. I counted three Labour Members in the Chamber today who already support such a measure. I look forward to them voting in support of an amendment along those lines given what they have said today, but I might not hold my breath.

Let us be clear that victims of crime need more than just the measures in the Bill. They need a criminal justice system that works and delivers justice swiftly, fairly and consistently. That is where the Bill falls short. When we were in government, we toughened up sentences for the worst criminals. We began the difficult task of unpicking automatic halfway early release for offenders, which was introduced by Labour. We quadrupled legal aid for victims and enshrined the victims code in law. We dedicated £230 million to our tackling domestic abuse plan, including a quadrupling of funding for victims and support services, and we introduced tagging of domestic abusers.

Labour Members made a lot of promises in opposition, including on measures in the Bill. It is now up to them to deliver. The Bill might tighten certain laws and improve the experience for some victims, but it fails to address the elephant in the room. It does nothing to tackle the fundamental problems that victims face every day when trying to access justice. For all the good the Bill may do, it does nothing to address the mounting pressures on our courts after the Government spent almost a year dragging their feet instead of doing everything they could to get the courts operating at maximum capacity. Even now the Lord Chancellor is not pulling every lever available when it comes to court sitting days, as the Lady Chief Justice has repeatedly asked her to do. The truth is that victims are still waiting months, sometimes years, for their cases to be heard. Trials collapse, and offenders walk free—none of that is fixed by this Bill. Being a victim of crime is life-changing. The very least a just society can do is ensure that victims are respected, protected and supported through the process.

We also urge the Government to commit to greater transparency across the criminal justice system. Without reliable data we cannot have accountability, and without accountability we cannot have reform. We will press for the regular publication of statistics on court and hearing delays, trial backlogs, court occupancy rates and administrative performance. Victims and the public alike have a right to understand where and why the system is falling short.

Although we will not oppose the Bill on Second Reading, we will continue to work constructively to improve the legislation in important ways. We support many of its goals, but we will continue to ask the difficult questions: is it deliverable and enforceable, and will it actually make victims’ lives better as it intends? Let us make this legislation a genuine step towards a justice system that works better. Justice cannot be delayed, and it cannot be selective; it must be felt tangibly, fairly and swiftly by those who need it most. They deserve nothing less.

Legal Aid Agency: Cyber-security Incident

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, although it was pretty disappointing to hear her deliver it as written. Before I had seen her statement, I drafted one of my own. In it, I was clear that I would limit my party political remarks, and thinking that the Minister would devote a significant part of her statement to condemning the immoral, malicious, criminal actors who are responsible for this attack, I intended to begin with strong words of support for what she said. However, if Members listened closely, they would have heard that she devoted most of her time to party political attacks, and managed barely one sentence of condemnation. I suggest that she looks at her statement when she leaves the Chamber, and reflects on that.

I will say what the Minister should have said to all those worried by what has happened, including those who may be victims of fraud as a result, and taxpayers who will pick up the bill: we should never lose sight of the fact that whatever the role of any Government, past or present, in unsuccessfully defending against such attacks, the primary responsibility for this lies with the despicable criminals who carried it out. This was not just an attack on a digital system; it was an attack on some of the most vulnerable in our society. Their data is deeply personal in some cases, given that sensitive medical records have been exposed. It is utterly appalling. We welcome the fact that the National Crime Agency and the National Cyber Security Centre are involved, and I hope that the Minister will agree that those behind this breach must be brought to justice. Nothing should stand in the way of full accountability for this crime.

Addressing the actions of those behind the attack is paramount. The Minister may seek to focus blame on a previous Government, but I have questions about this Government’s response. First, why was the decision taken not to inform the House and the public about the breach when it was first discovered on 23 April? We now learn that the impact may extend to those who made applications as far back as 2010, and that more than 2 million pieces of information have been accessed. The delay of nearly a month in notifying the public and/or understanding the nature of the attack could have hindered individuals from taking necessary steps to protect themselves from potential harm, such as fraud or harassment.

Secondly, the Minister mentioned taking systems offline that are crucial for legal professional payments. Can she provide a clear update on the operational status of those systems? If they are not yet fully functional, what is the estimated timeline for their restoration? She mentioned contingency plans; could she tell us more about their nature? Thirdly, can she share any information about the origin of this attack? Is it believed to be a state-linked criminal enterprise? Fourthly, has the Ministry of Justice initiated a thorough risk assessment of its other digital systems, and digital systems across Government more widely? She says that the Government believe that the attack is contained, but on what basis has she reached that conclusion?

Fifthly, the Minister talked about the £20 million set aside for delivering improved systems. She will know the challenges that previous Governments faced in attempting to upgrade those systems. What specific improvements will be achieved by this funding, and when? Finally, will the Minister give a commitment to full transparency for the House, through regular updates as the investigations progress? She mentioned seeking to make the public more aware of the issue, so that people know if they might be affected. Will she ensure that those affected by this breach are directly contacted and offered appropriate support? Will she reiterate the Government’s commitment to ensuring that those responsible are brought to justice? The security of our justice system, public confidence and the wellbeing of vulnerable individuals depend on a robust and transparent response to this serious incident.

[Sarah Sackman]

The hon. Member is right to say that those responsible for this attack on our justice system are criminals—no ifs, no buts. What they have perpetrated on our legal aid systems is not only dangerous; it exposes the data of legal aid providers and applicants. The threats made to the Government are entirely unacceptable and malicious, and the Government will be robust in their response and in pursuing justice; I think I made that clear in my statement.

It is important that we are honest and frank about the vulnerability of the legacy IT systems that support our legal aid system. The vulnerability of that system exposed both legal aid providers and end users—as the hon. Member says, some of the most vulnerable people in our society—to unacceptable risk. I am focused on the short term and eliminating the threat, but also on the long term, on investing in resilience, and on the rescue and transformation of the platforms, so that we who are responsible for the legal aid system and our wider justice system do not expose people to that risk again.

The hon. Member asks why the House was not informed when Ministers were informed, in late April. The reason for that is simple: when Ministers were first informed about the exposure of the Legal Aid Agency’s digital platforms to this risk, the full extent of the risk, and the nature and extent of the data put at risk, were not fully understood. As a Minister, I have competing responsibilities. I have a responsibility to keep the legal aid system going—to ensure that those who need to access legal support can do so, and that those providing legal aid to vulnerable clients are paid. At that point, given the understood risk, the responsibility to keep the system going outweighed any need to inform the House of the exposure of the system. However, the most important people in the system—the legal aid providers and, by extension, their clients—were informed, as was the Information Commissioner, whom we are legally obliged to inform. When the greater extent of the risk became known, we promptly and transparently informed the House of the position. That was a transparent and proportionate response to our understanding of the evolving criminal theat.

The shadow Minister asked about the restoration of the system. The system has been closed down to negate the threat and prevent further exposure of legal aid providers and users. We will not reopen the system until we are satisfied that it is safe to do so. As he will understand, I cannot comment further on this live and sensitive situation. However, I can assure him that we have put in place contingency plans to ensure that those who need to apply for legal support in the coming days and weeks, and those who are currently accessing legal aid, can provide information to the legal aid agencies through alternative means, so that we can keep the show on the road.

The shadow Minister asks about wider Government exposure to any risks. As I have mentioned, regrettably, Government Departments, local authorities, universities and our best-known businesses are exposed to the sort of criminal activity that the Legal Aid Agency has experienced, but from what we know, this attack is confined to the Legal Aid Agency, and goes no wider than that. He asks about our long-term plans. As I have said, our long-term plans involve a significant investment of £20 million to stabilise and transform the service. Indeed, we know about today’s threat partly because of the investment that we have made since we came into government. We discovered the threat and became alive to the fact that hackers were infiltrating the system partly because of the work that we were doing to stabilise and transform the system. That work has to continue. The Lord Chancellor and I will look at whether we can expedite some of that work to bake resilience into the system.

The shadow Minister asked about full transparency and keeping the House up to date. As I said, I will provide a written update in due course, and today I can undertake to provide full transparency. Legal aid providers have been kept fully informed along the way, as have our professional bodies, such as the Law Society and the Bar Council, many of which are legal aid providers. That is because we need all of them, working in a robust system, to deliver the justice and legal aid that people so sorely need.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & Report stage
Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I would expect the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to at least acknowledge that such references are to judges in their capacity as leaders of the Sentencing Council, not to judges sitting in individual cases. That is an important distinction to make when parliamentarians comment on their conduct.

[Josh Babarinde]

I refer the hon. Member to the comments the shadow Justice Secretary made at the last Justice questions—I think the hon. Member was not in attendance for that—when he named a specific judge and made a critique of or complaint about them outside the formal processes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Mullan]

I rise to speak in support of amendments 3 and 4 in my name and in the name of the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and of Conservative colleagues.

As MPs from across the House have made clear, the draft guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council would have led to an unacceptable two-tier justice system in which defendants were treated differently on the basis not of their crimes, but of their racial, cultural or religious identity. In fact, the record will show that two-tier justice did exist for several hours, because this issue was managed so shambolically that the guidance came into effect ahead of its formal withdrawal. That is not justice—it is a betrayal of the fundamental principle of equality before the law. It would have happened under the watch of this Labour Government and this Lord Chancellor but for the intervention of the Opposition, and in particular the shadow Secretary of State for Justice.

This Bill is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Instead of acting decisively to restore public confidence, after the Labour Government have been dragged to this Chamber to act at all, they now bring forward a half measure—a meagre response that falls short of what it should be. That is why the Opposition have tabled two important amendments.

Amendment 3 would ensure that in future, sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports cannot simply be issued by the Sentencing Council without democratic oversight, and would instead require the consent of the Secretary of State before coming into force. Why is that now necessary? The Sentencing Council has proven itself not just in the initial measures it proposed, but in its attitude and response towards parliamentary and public scrutiny, to be unable to sustain public confidence in its work in this area. It is one thing for a public body to possess operational independence and to seek to exercise that independence on a day-to-day basis; it is quite something else for a public body to choose not to exercise good judgment and make use of that independence to act with restraint in the face of widespread Government, Opposition, parliamentary and public concern. While they do, of course, have their merits, the actions of the Sentencing Council have brought to life the potential pitfalls of unelected quangos that are deaf to the concerns of the people who pay their wages and the politicians who represent them.

While this whole affair has no doubt been humiliating for the Lord Chancellor and the Government, the damage to public confidence in the leadership of the Sentencing Council is just as great. Despite what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) said in his remarks on Second Reading, the Sentencing Council did not agree to pause the implementation of the guidelines to allow for a period of reflection—it outright refused to do so. He has misunderstood the sequence of events. The council paused only because we would have otherwise entered into a constitutionally unsustainable situation where people were being sentenced in the courts, with guidelines being legislated against in Parliament through emergency legislation. It was that direct threat alone that caused the council to pause and demonstrated its lack of judgment.

I am afraid that we must therefore act more broadly to constrain the Sentencing Council in future, pending any wholesale changes that may be forthcoming. That is why the shadow Secretary of State put forward a Bill that would have taken the necessary steps to return accountability of the body through the Lord Chancellor while wholesale reform could be undertaken. Labour chose to oppose that Bill. Today, it is out of scope for the Opposition to seek to introduce a similarly wide amendment, and we are therefore restricted to seeking to at least restore accountability where we can in this field.

The amendment would require that guidelines on pre-sentence reports drafted by the council must be expressly approved by the Secretary of State before they come into force as definitive guidelines—a basic safeguard of democratic accountability, ensuring ministerial oversight on sensitive sentencing matters. Without our amendment, history may repeat itself: the same council will be free to bring forward ideological frameworks that Ministers will be powerless to stop before the damage is done. Had these guidelines gone unchallenged, we would have tilted sentencing based on identity politics, undermining public confidence in the entire system.

Our amendment would create a crucial safeguard, ensuring that no future set of guidelines in this field, at least, could bypass ministerial accountability. I encourage those on the Government Benches who have made clear that they wish to see accountability restored across the work of the Sentencing Council to vote in support of amendment 3; doing otherwise would make clear that they are unwilling to follow through on their concerns with action.

Amendment 4 would make clear that sentencing guidelines on pre-sentence reports must not include consideration of a defendant’s status as part of a group that has experienced historical or intergenerational trauma. Why is this necessary? It would be deeply wrong to allow collective historical grievances to influence the sentencing of an individual today. This area is the latest frontier of identity politics, with the public being told that what should be given disproportionate focus in all sorts of domains—that what matters more than what is happening today, with the whole variety of challenges facing people of all creeds and colours—is, in fact, the past. Sentencing must focus on the actions, culpability and direct personal circumstances of the defendant before the court, not on sweeping assumptions based on historical events.

We are not able in this Bill to legislate across all the workings of the criminal justice system as much as we might like to. The events of the past few months have shown that what has happened with these guidelines was not a one-off. There is a creeping, systemic attempt to inject identity politics into our judicial processes, bail decisions, probation, and even training materials. If we do not confront this now, it will embed itself deeper and deeper into the foundations of our system. It is fundamental to the rule of law that justice looks to the individual, not to the group. It is fundamental that we deal in evidence, not in ideology.

Taken together, our amendments are designed to strengthen this Bill, to ensure that it is not merely a reactive measure, but, in this narrow area at least, provides lasting protection of the principle that justice must be blind, and must be seen to be blind. The public expect justice to be equal, not preferential. Our amendments will go further in helping to secure that.

We are in this Chamber today because the Lord Chancellor was not paying attention, and was then humiliated by the recalcitrant leadership of an unelected body turning its face against parliamentary and public concern. The Government should have acted decisively and immediately and we provided them with an opportunity to do so, but they failed to take it. Even now, we are faced with a Bill that does not do the full job. Our amendments are closing the gap between what the Lord Chancellor is offering and what is necessary—decisiveness in place of timidity. I urge the whole House and the Government to support them.

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. I wish to thank hon and right hon. Members for the points that have been made and the amendments that have been discussed, which I shall respond to in turn. I shall speak briefly to each clause and then remind us of why we are here debating this Bill.

In the last Parliament, the Sentencing Council consulted on a revised imposition guideline, which was due to come into effect on 1 April. The revised guideline includes additional guidance on when courts should request pre-sentence reports. It notes that pre-sentence reports will “normally be considered necessary” for certain offenders, including those from an ethnic, cultural or faith minority. The “normally be considered necessary” is replaced with “may be particularly important”, which the previous Government very much welcomed.

This Government note that a pre-sentence report is necessary. They agree that disparities exist in the criminal justice system. The reasons for that are unclear, but this is a matter for the Government, accountable to Parliament and to the ballot box, to address.

In effect, the revised guideline could have led to judges deciding whether to request a pre-sentence report based on an offender’s faith or the colour of their skin. The Lord Chancellor has been clear that this would be unacceptable, as it risks differential treatment. Singling out one group over another undermines the idea that we all stand equal before the law—a principle that has been in the foundations of our justice system for centuries, and that is why she acted immediately and quickly. By preventing the Sentencing Council making guidance on pre-sentence reports with reference to personal characteristics, this Bill helps to ensure equality before the law.

Clause 1 amends section 120 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It provides that sentencing guidelines may not include provision framed by reference to different personal characteristics, including race, religion, belief or cultural background. Therefore, any existing guidelines that make reference to different personal characteristics will cease to have effect and the Sentencing Council is prevented from making such provisions in guidelines in the future.

The changes made by this clause prevent the Sentencing Council making policy about when pre-sentence reports should be obtained that risks differential treatment before the law, and which could undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The sentencing code is clear that courts should obtain pre-sentence reports unless, in the circumstances of the case, it is unnecessary. The clause does not affect the independent judiciary’s ability to make decisions based on the personal circumstances of an individual offender, or determine where pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable. Nor does it stop the Sentencing Council from advising, in general terms, that pre-sentence reports are sought in cases where the court would benefit from an assessment of an offender’s personal circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

The Court of Appeal has made it clear, and, as my hon. Friend said, it is right to follow Thompson in those circumstances.

While I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam for raising and rightly exploring this issue in Committee, I hope that he will not press the amendment to a vote.

Amendment 3, tabled by the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on behalf of the official Opposition, would require the Sentencing Council to obtain the Secretary of State’s approval before issuing any sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports. Again, I referenced the helpful words of the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam, who said we should tread carefully in this territory and that the separation of powers needs to be very much respected. Therefore, while carefully considering the case for mandating that the Sentencing Council obtain the Secretary of State’s approval, I am not persuaded that that is appropriate at this particular time.

As the Lord Chancellor has set out, this case has highlighted that a potential democratic deficit. That is why we are currently assessing the Sentencing Council’s wider role and powers for developing sentencing guidelines, with recent developments and imposition guidelines in mind.

[Dr Mullan]

I gently suggest to the Minister that if there is a risk of a democratic deficit, surely the thing to do is to act now in the short term and unpick it later if he feels he has overreached.

[Sir Nicholas Dakin]

We certainly do not feel that we have overreached. We are acting in a timely and effective way. As the debate has demonstrated, there are issues of detail that need to be properly explored. The Lord Chancellor has done the right thing in announcing a review that will have a look at things in proper time; that will take place.

Given the special role of the Sentencing Council and the significant policy and constitutional issues involved, it is right that we take the time to consider whether more fundamental reform is needed, alongside considering wider recommendations that come out of the independent sentencing review. I am not convinced that it will be proper to deal with the issue now through this fast-tracked legislation, nor am I convinced that legislating in a piecemeal way would be helpful, noting that the amendment of the right hon. Member for Newark applies just to sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports when there may be other things that we need to look at. To be clear, we are keeping all options on the table and are willing to legislate further in a more comprehensive way if necessary. I therefore urge the Opposition not to press this amendment.

Amendment 4, also tabled in the right hon. Member’s name, would prevent the Sentencing Council from framing sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports with reference to groups that may have experienced trauma from historical racism or discrimination. While we have carefully considered the case for adding this restriction to the Bill, we are not persuaded that it is necessary. We have taken a general approach in the Bill to preventing sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports from being framed by reference to any personal characteristic of an offender. The Bill specifies that personal characteristics include race, religion or cultural background, but that is not an exhaustive list.

More widely, I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Newark has taken a keen interest in wider guidance across prisons and probation that touches on different experiences, including those specified in the amendment. The Government are absolutely clear on the need to ensure equality before the law. Wider work is going on to review relevant policy and guidance, and we will update practices where necessary. I therefore urge the Opposition not to press the amendment.

New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to arrange an independent review into the restrictions the Bill places on the Sentencing Council’s ability regarding pre-sentence reports, which are framed by reference to offenders’ different personal characteristics. I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne for tabling the new clause. Although we have carefully considered the case for such a review and I agree that it is important to carefully think through what the Bill’s effects, I am not persuaded that a review is necessary because the direct changes made by the Bill are very limited in nature.

To recap, the Bill helps protect equality before the law by ensuring no offender receives differential treatment regarding pre-sentence reports based on their personal characteristics. That reflects a fundamental principle that does not need to be reviewed. The Bill does that by restricting the powers of the Sentencing Council to issue sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports. It will prevent guidelines from, for example, creating a presumption around whether a pre-sentence report should be obtained based on an offender’s personal characteristics, rather than all the circumstances of the offender before the court.

For the avoidance of doubt, this Government support the use of pre-sentence reports and we have publicly committed to creating more capacity in the probation service to ensure it is able to do the valuable work that includes preparing pre-sentence reports. We are also happy to continue to work with the hon. Member for Eastbourne on disparities in the criminal justice system and the use of pre-sentence reports more generally.

We fully support the increased use of PSRs in our courts. PSRs include an assessment of the offender’s behaviour and the risk they pose, and the recommendations for sentencing options. It is a valuable tool, as many Members have said, in helping to ensure a sentence is tailored to an individual offender and their circumstances.

Equality before the law is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system. It is the Government’s policy and belief that that should be protected. I again welcome the contribution from the Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), supported by the hon. Members for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) and for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), to keep our feet to the fire on tackling disproportionality. I confirm again that this Government take very seriously tackling disproportionality in the criminal justice system. That is why the Lord Chancellor has commissioned a review of the data on disparities in the justice system to better understand the drivers of the problem. I know that my right hon. Friend does not need my encouragement to keep going on this one, so I look forward to her continuing to hold us to account as we move forward.

I will also be clear on what the Bill does not do, to underscore its limited changes. Nothing in the Bill restricts the court’s pre-existing ability to request pre-sentence reports, nor the Sentencing Council from advising in general terms that a pre-sentence report should be sought where a further assessment of the offender’s personal circumstances would be beneficial to the court. The Bill does not affect Court of Appeal case law about the types of cases where pre-sentence reports are necessary or desirable, as we have covered previously. There is recent relevant case law covering vulnerable defendants, pregnant women and women who have recently given birth, and young defendants. Furthermore, the Bill will not prevent judges from requesting pre-sentence reports in cases where they ordinarily would, including in appropriate cases involving, for example, pregnant women, as well as those involving young people or domestic abuse. I welcome the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson) on those issues.

With such considerations in mind, the Government do not consider the proposed review to be necessary. However, as the Lord Chancellor has set out, she is carrying out a review into the wider role and powers of the Sentencing Council, so I can reassure the hon. Member for Eastbourne that there will be further opportunities to discuss issues surrounding the Sentencing Council in the House. I therefore hope that he will withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition on Third Reading, following on directly from the Committee of the whole House, where Government Members rejected our amendments to strengthen the Bill. We now know the strength of the appetite on the Labour Benches to tackle this challenge properly and comprehensively here and now: there is not one. In truth, we knew that already.

The Government had an opportunity weeks ago to restore democratic accountability to the Sentencing Council through the private Member’s Bill of the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). They rejected that opportunity, and earlier today they rejected even the more modest strengthening we proposed. That should not be a surprise. Labour has a Prime Minister who is first and foremost a lawyer, not a leader. He is a lawyer steeped in the philosophy of securing political change through legal activism. That is the very approach that the Lord Chancellor has been forced to bring in emergency legislation to curtail. That approach is why the appetite for proper action is so limited. The legislation before the House is a fig leaf to hide the truth that a Labour party led by Keir Starmer will always have to be dragged kicking and screaming to tackle the judicial activism that he has long championed—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. The shadow Minister must be heard.

[Dr Mullan]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; they do not want to hear it.

The root cause of the issue is that the Prime Minister appointed an Attorney General—the Government’s own Law Officer—who is steeped in judicial activism. The Prime Minister himself practised in a chambers that relished it and wholeheartedly supported its expansion case by case.

For anyone interested in a treatise on the risk of this approach—from someone much more qualified than me, as I am sure the House will agree—I encourage them to listen to Lord Sumption’s Reith lecture. His analysis on the divide between matters that should properly be the domain of politics and matters for law could not be more pertinent. He said:

“It is a vice of some lawyers that they talk about law as if it was a self-contained subject, something to be examined like a laboratory specimen in a test tube, but law does not occupy a world of its own. It is part of a larger system of public decision making. The rest is politics. The politics of ministers and legislators of political parties, of media and pressure groups, and of the wider electorate.”

Lord Sumption went on to say:

“The Courts have developed a broader concept of the…law which greatly enlarges their own constitutional role. They have claimed a wider supervisory authority over other organs of the State. They have inched their way towards a notion of fundamental law overriding the ordinary processes of political decision-making, and these things have inevitably carried them into the realms of legislative and ministerial policy. To adopt the famous dictum of the German military theorist Clausewitz about war, law is now the continuation of politics by other means.”

Be in no doubt: this whole sorry episode has been an exquisite further example of that mentality, this time from the Sentencing Council and its members as part of the wider judiciary establishment. The Lord Chancellor has failed to act decisively today. If she continues to refrain from taking decisive action, we will be here again and again, with the Opposition making sure, on each and every step of the way, that voters know where the sympathies of the Labour party and its leader lie: not with the ordinary, law-abiding citizen who expects equal treatment under the law and the democratically elected politicians of this country deciding on policy, but with activists and campaigning lawyers who want to wrestle control from them.

The Bill is barely adequate—barely. We will not oppose it, because it is better than nothing—and at least it tells the public everything that they need to know about those who sit on the Government Benches, and about the mentality of the man leading them.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Criminal Injuries Compensation

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing the debate, and thank him for being willing to share his personal experiences. His doing so has been incredibly valuable. Similarly, I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde).

The criminal injuries compensation scheme is one of the most important parts of our justice system. It does not simply punish wrongdoing but, crucially, offers some measure of direct justice—some attempt to right a wrong for those whose lives have been changed by violence and abuse, as incomplete as that attempt may often be.

In 2020, the previous Conservative Government published the findings of a comprehensive review of the scheme as part of a wider review of a first ever cross-Government victims strategy. It found that overall the scheme was operating well. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was dealing with more than 30,000 applications a year and had a high satisfaction rating of 95% from applicants who had been in contact in the preceding period. Those levels of satisfaction had been broadly maintained. Today’s debate has already highlighted that, within broad levels of satisfaction, there can often be serious and consistent individual failings, which it is important we do not take for granted.

However, the review also recognised that changes and improvements could be made, and a consultation was launched on a number of areas to make the scheme simpler, more transparent and easier for victims to understand and engage with. Those included the approach to classifying and compensating for disabling mental injuries, overhauling how brain injury is represented and reforming the groupings of other injury types. The review also proposed changes to bereavement awards.

Members may be aware that there was a need to launch a further, targeted consultation on the unspent convictions rule to ensure that it was fully and comprehensively reviewed for possible reform. Under that rule, an applicant’s compensation award could be reduced or withheld depending on the sentence imposed for an unspent offence they had committed. The Supreme Court has previously found that the unspent convictions rule was lawful and that the rationale underlying it was legally sound. The judgment also rejected the notion that vulnerability that leads to later offending should require any special exemption from the rule, on the basis that the criminal justice system should already include measures to allow any vulnerability of victims to be taken into account at the time of their prosecution and sentencing.

Following that judgment, there was further impetus to consider change, as the Government rightly sought to respond to the final publication of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which made further recommendations regarding the scheme, as a number of Members have touched on. The 2023 consultation focused on time limits and the scope of the scheme. It considered the inclusion of online abuse in the definition of a crime of violence. It also looked at whether children who suffered abuse should have longer to apply for compensation. It also raised the question of whether non-contact offences should be brought within the eligibility criteria.

The variety of consultations and additional areas for reform reflects what has been a rapidly evolving area of political and public concern. That has created a greater and greater focus on groups of victims, as our understanding of the nature and impact of sexual abuse, particularly historical sexual abuse, domestic abuse and online harms has broadened. Across the consultations, hundreds of responses were received and difficult questions were explored in detail. However, before a final response could be published, the 2024 general election was called.

Last month, the current Government sought to move forward to resolve those pieces of work and to progress on the basis of this extensive background. However, they have also decided to make no changes at this time to the scheme’s scope or time limits or to the unspent convictions rule, and it is important for the Minister today to clearly explain why.

I recognise the concerns about singling out particular categories of offending and about the unintended consequences of such changes. However, concerns arise when the guidelines that do exist that attempt to allow for exceptionality do not operate as well as they should. If the Government choose not to make formal changes to the rules, there is an even greater emphasis, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield said, on ensuring that the guidelines that do exist that operationalise the exceptionality clauses function as they should.

On unspent convictions, the Government have laid out their reasons for not making changes—again, that is on the grounds of not wanting to create unintended consequences for victims. However, a proposal for reform was put forward that would have allowed the Government to maintain an overall bar on people seeking compensation despite their offending, by considering whether lower-level offences, such as community offences, could be removed from the disbarring applications, or where there could be a significant gap between the injury suffered and the nature of the indexed offence. That would be universal, rather than singling out particular types of offending. I would be interested to hear why the Government did not take forward that suggestion.

I would also like the Minister to explain further the Government’s failure to provide a comprehensive response to the 2020 consultation, which suggested many reforms. The Government have said, to quote directly from the Minister’s foreword to the Government response:

“I have decided not to publish a substantive response to the 2020 consultation as the victim support landscape has changed substantially since 2020. I am concluding that consultation by writing to the Justice Select Committee notifying it of my decision.”

[Sarah Russell]

Does the hon. Gentleman see that there is some irony in his asking why our current Minister has not responded to a 2020 consultation, when his Government, which was in power for another four years, did not do so?

[Dr Mullan]

I think I have clearly laid out the timetable and the sequence of events, particularly in terms of the courts requiring a further consultation, and the sensible decision to respond further to the inquiry consultation. I am interested in actually getting a response; I appreciate that the hon. Member seeks to make a party political point, but that is fine.

It is slightly disappointing not to see a comprehensive response, notwithstanding the hon. Member’s concerns, as I think that the 2020 consultation and the many proposals in it—some of which were implemented on an interim basis—were important. Does that mean that the Government have now entirely rejected some of the other changes I have outlined, or will the letter set out in more detail which changes will or will not be taken forward, and the reasons why? It is important for the Government to do that.

Although the scheme may be working well overall, we should continue to consider where challenges remain operationally. We know that the experience of applicants varies regionally. For example, in Birmingham, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield, the average time for a compensation decision was over 490 days in 2022. While there has been some improvement, wait times are far too long for some individuals, even if the majority receive their compensation in a timely manner.

We have heard from a number of Members today about individual cases and their personal experiences. It is important that we hold the Government to account in terms of ensuring that as many people as possible, and as great a ratio of applicants to the scheme as possible, receive an adequate service.

The true measure of our commitment to victims is not the volume of our pronouncements, but the effectiveness of the systems we create to maintain them. I want to finish by saying that the criminal injuries compensation scheme has always been about more than money: it is about recognising harm and restoring dignity. The Conservative Government took that responsibility seriously. We listened, we consulted and we left a clear foundation for action. Now it is for the current Government to build on that foundation, and we will hold them to account, simply because victims deserve nothing less.

Court Waiting Times: Kent

Kieran Mullan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) for securing the debate and for his opening remarks. He laid out the impact of court waiting times in Kent on behalf of constituents, as is his job.

I will begin by laying out the background to how we arrived at the challenges that we face, given the apparent profound amnesia of all other Members who have spoken. As a result of the pandemic, all jury trials in England and Wales were suspended on 23 March 2020. There was a limited reopening in June, beginning with just 26 courts—less than half the total. Gradually, more courts were added, but trial times and the number of individual courts available were both significantly impacted by the need to have covid protection measures in place.

The previous Government, recognising the central importance of jury trials to our judicial system, decided to keep them during the pandemic, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford recognised. That decision was supported at the time by the then shadow Justice Secretary, who is now the Foreign Secretary. The Opposition will not apologise for keeping jury trials, and I welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), recently reiterated his party’s agreement with that decision.

The decision required the Government to take extraordinary steps to tackle the impact of social distancing measures on our ability to hold jury trials. We opened, and extended the use of, 20 Nightingale courts, and increased the number of judges by 1,000 and raised their retirement age. That brings me to sitting days, which are of course necessary to fund the use of the court capacity available. Each financial year, the Lord Chancellor decides to fund a certain number of sitting days in the Crown courts to ensure their efficient and effective operation. In April 2021, coming out of covid, the then Lord Chancellor removed the cap on sitting days for ’21-22 and subsequently removed the cap for the following two years. As a result, the number of sitting days in each year rose from 81,899 in ’19-20 to 98,604 in ’21-22, and to 100,950 in ’22-23.

Let us look at what Labour said it would do when it was in opposition. Its general election manifesto argued:

“Victims wait months, sometimes years, for their case to come to trial, unable to move on with their lives.”

Labour said that it would “address the courts backlog”. It would therefore have been reasonable of voters to assume that Labour had a plan to bring the backlog down, but what has been the reality since it took office? What do we see today, after Labour has spent nine months in charge? Instead of working through the backlogs, waits are getting worse under this Government. There are now over 74,000 unresolved prosecutions in our courts and the backlog is growing. Some suspects are being told that they may not face trial until 2028.

Those delays, caused by court closures, the pandemic and strike action, have serious consequences. A record 17,000 people are now held on remand, taking up one in five prison places. Yesterday, on 7 April, according to the Idle Courts data feed, 68 out of 516 Crown courtrooms across England and Wales sat empty. That is 13% of our Crown capacity not in use. Yesterday, in Kent, the picture was equally stark. Only three courts were sitting in Canterbury and just one in Maidstone. This is not a system working at full strength. In a stark admission, the Lord Chancellor herself actually admitted defeat and said that the courts backlog will keep on rising. So much for what Labour said in its manifesto.

What could Labour have done differently? Since taking office in July 2024, the Lord Chancellor has acted too slowly. She has wasted valuable time by failing to fund the additional sitting days offered to her by the Lady Chief Justice, sitting on her hands when many more court sessions could have been running. On taking office, the Lady Chief Justice was clear that at least 6,500 sitting days were available to address the courts backlog. Did the Labour Government take up that full offer? No. Instead, there was an increase of just 500 Crown court sitting days in September. Realising their mistake, in December, they funded an additional 2,000 Crown court days. That brought the total to 108,500 by the end of 2024.

More recently, the Lord Chancellor came to the House on 5 March and announced that the total number of sitting days would rise to 110,000. That is the story of Labour’s time in government and its efforts to tackle the problem so far—dither and delay. Even now, we are still short of the 113,000 days a year that the Lady Chief Justice says are available, and are losing valuable time to hear cases in order to tackle the backlog. Nearly half of victims have had their Crown court trial date rescheduled, with most facing repeated delays before their trial takes place. The frequent adjournments and extended waiting times cause victims immense stress, severely impacting their wellbeing.

I know that the challenge is particularly severe locally, for which I understand a number of causes have been identified. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford identified variation even within the waiting times that he has experienced locally. For example, there are more cases entering the system, likely related to the fact that police numbers in Kent are at an historic high and charges are up 50%. There are also acute staffing challenges, which have not only resulted in the closure of the Maidstone Nightingale court but, as I highlighted earlier, left courts empty even when the physical space is available. One of the reasons that has been discussed locally is that Kent struggles to recruit and retain legal professionals, as many move to London for better pay. I understand that there has been discussion of a south-east allowance to tackle that.

For victims, it is vital that the Government take action to reduce the backlog. As Members have said, justice delayed is justice denied. In yet another display of the absence of their own ideas, Ministers have asked Sir Brian Leveson to consider the future of criminal courts, and specifically the merits of hearing more trials outside the Crown court. The review will consider the merits of longer-term reform, as well as court efficiency. I understand that Sir Brian will consider court reform options that would reduce demand on the Crown court. We look forward to seeing his recommendations in full and giving our perspective on them.

The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), asked questions about shorter sentencing. He fell into a common trap of trying to make comparisons between short sentences and non-short sentences in relation to reoffending rates. He fails to understand that when judges make decisions on sentencing, they do different things with different cohorts. If we case-match for the difference between the types of people who get short sentences and non-custodial sentences, the differences in reoffending trickle down to single figures. I ask him to consider that when discussing this issue in future.

When might we expect to see the review published, and does the Minister, or the Government, intend to implement any of its recommendations in legislation this year or in future years? Can she update us on how many Nightingale courts remain in use, and what assessment the Department has made of their value for money in bearing down on the backlog? The Government should also think about how to ensure that court procedures are efficient. To that end, will she be looking to extend the pilots for the court case co-ordinators that have been implemented recently? I would be grateful for her comments on those points.

Quite simply, we need more courts open for longer, hearing more cases. The Labour party decided to tell the general public that it would fix everything once in office, and that it would solve the many difficult challenges across our public services flowing from the pandemic and global challenges. However, whether it be small boat crossings, inflation, economic growth or today’s topic of the court backlogs, things are actually getting worse, not better.

The Government talk frequently about their inheritance. Even if we take at face value the contested £22 billion in financial pressures apparently binding their hands, which I do not, I gently remind them that the equivalent figure in 2010 when we took office was around £100 billion. I do not remember them giving us much leeway for the difficult decisions we had to make then, including in relation to funding the judicial system. The buck stops with them now, and I took forward to the Minister fulfilling their commitments.