Victims and Courts Bill

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I cannot speak for the Ministry of Defence, but I can speak for my own record here as the Minister and my own actions in government when it comes to delivering for victims. I am happy to put on record that we are working at pace to deliver this. The hon. Gentleman will see what measures come back in the Lords and what commitments we can make once we look at what is possible, practical, workable and effective.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Minister gives the fact that she needs to consult as a reason for turning down the Lords amendments. Is the usual approach not to consult before bringing the legislation, not to bring the legislation then consult afterwards?

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Perhaps I was not very clear. This is not about consulting with victims on what is required—we know what victims want, and I have spoken to many of them regarding court transcripts—but looking at what is possible right now. We are prioritising delivering sentencing remarks for free for all victims, and working with the judiciary to ensure that we get this right and accurate. That is the priority for the Government. As I have said, we are willing to go further on court transcripts; this is not the end. For example, we are looking at what would be the best next step for victims. Is acquittal the best thing to focus on right now? We need to get that right before we go further, and I will happily come back to this House with the Courts Minister on the next steps.

Lords amendment 1 would create a new entitlement for all victims of crime to receive transcripts of routes to verdict and of bail conditions and decisions relevant to their case, free of charge and within 14 days of a request—let us not forget that that is what is in the amendment. I will explain in more detail why that proposal would not provide significant benefits over the systems already in place. First, under the victims code, victims already have the right to be informed of bail outcomes and release conditions within five working days—a shorter timeframe than that proposed in the Lords amendment. We recognise the importance of this right and the benefits for victims in being able to access information in a timely or consistent way. We are exploring how responsibilities under the victims code are being met by the relevant service providers and how to better support them in the delivery of the code.

We are seeking views through the ongoing victims code consultation, which ends at the end of April, on whether the processes for providing bail information are working as intended. To strengthen them further, the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 will, once commenced, introduce a compliance framework requiring all criminal justice bodies to keep their delivery of the code under review. Taken together, these operational and legislative measures address the core concern around timely and sufficient provision of bail information far more effectively than introducing a statutory duty to provide transcripts of bail hearings.

Secondly, providing victims with routes to verdict would be unlikely to add significant value, which is why we need to discuss with victims what would be of most value to them. A route to verdict is typically a very short document—sometimes it is not even a document at all. Its purpose is not to explain the outcome of a case, but to guide members of the jury through a series of legal questions that they must consider privately when applying the law to the facts. Crucially, juries do not provide their answers to those questions or even give reasons for their verdict. Victims would therefore see only the questions that the jury was asked, not how they were answered, and they would gain no additional insight into the decision.

Lords amendment 3 would require the Crown court to publish sentencing remarks transcripts online and in public within 14 days of a request being made and to inform relevant victims of their right to request anonymity before publication. While the Government are fully committed to strengthening transparency—I make that commitment—the Lords amendment would create significant operational and financial pressures for victims at a very difficult time. Public release demands a higher standard of anonymisation to remove both direct and indirect identifiers of victims and witnesses. That is detailed, skilled work. Current AI-based tools cannot reliably carry out anonymisation for the complex and sensitive material heard in the criminal courts, and trained staff are still required to manually review each and every transcript. That means that even modest increases in publication would create disproportionate pressures on operational capacity.

Furthermore, requiring the court to make victims aware of their right to request anonymity, make appropriate redactions and publish the transcript online—all within 14 days of a sentencing remarks transcript request being made—would not be operationally viable at this time. As I have said, our immediate priority must be delivering the sentencing remarks expansion for victims properly and at pace. Adding substantial new duties at this stage would divert the very resources needed to deliver these important commitments for victims, which victims have asked us directly to provide.

Lords amendment 2 proposes the creation of an appendix to the victims code, setting out how the code applies to close relatives of British national victims of murder, manslaughter and infanticide outside the UK, where the victim was resident in England and Wales. The Government cannot support this Lords amendment, as it risks placing obligations on agencies to provide services to bereaved families that are impossible to deliver in practice and that in some places would go beyond what is in the victims code. It also risks confusing the existing legislative framework and therefore the workability of the code, and it could raise the expectations of victims.

The victims code already applies to some families bereaved by homicide abroad, namely where the offence is murder or manslaughter and the perpetrator is a British national or British resident. That is because, in those circumstances, the case can be prosecuted in England and Wales. Where offences cannot be prosecuted in the UK—for example, where the crime is committed overseas by a foreign national—most entitlements under the victims code do not apply. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), who is in his place, for all his work with the brilliant organisation Murdered Abroad and for representing the views of all the families here.

While I appreciate that the code does not capture the whole of the cohort covered by the Lords amendment, I give the hon. Member for Maidenhead and the House my absolute assurance that the Government recognise the particular challenges faced by all families bereaved by homicide abroad, including those navigating very complicated overseas criminal justice processes, often in different languages. We are committed to working with agencies to improve the support available to them in England and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Steve Barclay]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

The point I was highlighting was the inherent contradictions in the Minister’s remarks. Even now, in her summing up, she has said that the Government are going to go further in 2027, but in her opening remarks she said that they cannot go further because there are technical impediments. The point is that there are inherent contradictions in the Government’s narrative.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I will try to break it down more simply for the right hon. Gentleman, as he is clearly not listening—

[Steve Barclay]

That’s patronising.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

Patronising, but truthful, given that what I am saying is that the Government are determined to go further in the right way. We agree with the sentiment of the Lords amendments, but they are not workable and will not work in this legislation. Where practically possible, we will be bringing forward legislative changes and we will work with right hon. and hon. Members across the House to ensure that this happens, but that will not be in a way that would be a dereliction of duty and disrespectful to the victims whom this Government represent. The victims are at the forefront of this legislation, and we need to ensure that the Bill works in practice. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was part of a Government who clearly did not do that.

I am also incredibly grateful to those who have supported the measures in the Bill, particularly the victims, who have waited far too long for change. They want a justice system that treats with them dignity, keeps them informed and ensures that offenders are properly held to account. The Bill delivers tangible improvements that can be implemented while sitting alongside wider reforms that will modernise our court process and put victims at the heart of the system.

Today, the House has the opportunity to support and protect victims and restore confidence in our justice system. I urge the House to support this Bill and to reject the Lords amendments.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.