debates/debates2025-10-27f conversation_22
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-10-27)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-10-27f conversation_22

Frank McNally:Many of my constituents are experiencing delays in migrating to universal credit, due to years of Tory mismanagement of our welfare system. This is a stressful time for claimants and a very busy time for the Department. Will my right hon. Friend outline what steps the Department is taking to ensure it is fully resourced, so that delays are reduced and claims are processed? \p Andrew Western: The Department is prioritising ensuring that there is adequate staffing resource available to support claimants and deliver migration smoothly and on time. I am concerned to hear what my hon. Friend says about the experience of his constituents in Coatbridge and Bellshill. I will look into this issue further on his behalf and report back to him. \p Andrew George: The Trussell Trust recently reported that three in 10 people who were referred to food banks in 2024 were in working households and that the majority, 72%, were on universal credit. What more can the Government do to ensure that work pays and we can take low-paid workers out of poverty? \p Pat McFadden: I recently spoke at an event in Parliament hosted by that organisation. I am pleased to say that its report said there had been a small drop in the use of food banks over the past year. We have put the household support fund, now the crisis and resilience fund, on a proper basis for the next three years to support those families in the most desperate need. \p Rachael Maskell: Giving sick and disabled people agency and drawing on lived experience sets the only path to getting policy right, so that they can access work appointments and get out of their homes, avoiding worklessness, health decline and isolation, with their mobility support needs recognised through PIP. Further to the Minister’s previous answer, will he ensure that any policy reforms to PIP mobility payments are fully co-produced with sick and disabled people? \p Stephen Timms: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the review of the PIP assessment, including the mobility element of that benefit, will be undertaken fully in co-production with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations. I will be setting out very shortly how the review I am going to be leading will be undertaken. \p Jerome Mayhew: Business is crying out that the Employment Rights Bill will cost jobs. Now, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, the spiritual home of the Secretary of State—  [Laughter.]—says it will cripple the jobs market, especially for young people. It is not a laughing matter. What is the Secretary of State’s view? Will the Employment Rights Bill help his Department to increase employment, or will it cost even more jobs? \p Pat McFadden: It should be no surprise that a Labour party supports better rights at work for people. History is replete with warnings that better employment rights would result in fewer jobs. Those were the warnings the Conservative party gave when we introduced the national minimum wage many, many years ago. Of course, it is important that when legislating on these issues we do it closely in consultation with employers. That is precisely what we intend to do. \p Kim Johnson: Some 47% of children in my constituency live in poverty. The Minister mentioned that he will consider all levers. Does that include speaking with the Treasury to look at a wealth tax to bring in much-needed money to the Treasury to remove the two-child cap? \p Pat McFadden: As we have discussed a number of times, of course we want to reduce child poverty. My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that, when it comes to tax, that is a matter for the Chancellor and not for me. \p Iqbal Mohamed: I welcome the Secretary of State to his place and wish him well. Last week, I attended a drop-in for the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign where I was informed that there are currently 4,320 women in Dewsbury and Batley affected by the WASPI scandal. That number was previously higher, but many of the women have already passed away without justice. On 27 July I wrote to the former Secretary of State regarding her support for the WASPI campaign after being contacted by more than 40 of my constituents, but I have yet to receive a response. With the Government still refusing to engage in civil mediation to deliver justice to the WASPI women, will the new Secretary of State reconsider meeting campaigners to find a just way forward? \p Torsten Bell: The previous Minister for Pensions met representatives of the WASPI campaign in order to hear directly from them about their experiences. She was the first Minister to do so in eight years. I will look into the details of the letter the hon. Gentleman mentions. \p Torcuil Crichton: I welcome the Secretary of State to his office and thank the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), for a recent visit to the DWP debt and fraud centre in my constituency. There are 95 jobs at the centre doing tremendous work across the UK, proving that civil service job dispersal does work. Is this not a template for other Departments and an example to the SNP Government in Scotland, who have dispersed no jobs, no power and no funds from Edinburgh? \p Andrew Western: I endorse everything my hon. Friend has said. I had a fantastic visit to the very beautiful constituency that he is fortunate enough to represent,   where I saw exactly what can happen through our places for growth initiative, which looks to relocate jobs out of London and into places such as Stornoway. \p Rachel Gilmour: I have met many pensionable-age constituents, most of whom live on the Duck estate, who have lost their entitlement to pension credit because of as little as 50p. Does the Minister agree that pension credit, the employment and support allowance and PIP assistance could all do with more common sense and a little less of a “computer says no” mentality? \p Torsten Bell: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. In general, lots of life could do with less “computer says no”, so on that basis we will agree. On the specifics of the question she raises about pension credit, the nature of the system is obviously that it provides a guaranteed level of income; it is not setting out an entitlement like universal credit, so there does have to be a limit somewhere, and I am afraid that that does mean that some people will always be on one side of it. What we do not want to see in a system is too many things in that winner-takes-all perspective—I take the point she raises. \p Leigh Ingham: I recently visited Drake Hall women’s prison in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, which has the brilliant initiative of a Halfords training centre to support people into employment once they leave the prison estate. It supports people all over the country, not just in my constituency. Can the Secretary of State tell me what conversations are happening with the Ministry of Justice about supporting or expanding schemes like that? \p Pat McFadden: That sounds like an excellent initiative. Of course, if we are to rehabilitate prisoners, it is important that they get training and the chance to get into constructive employment after their sentence. I am sure that that applies not just to the prison in my hon. Friend’s constituency but throughout the country. \p Ben Obese-Jecty: Alan Marnes is a constituent of mine in Southoe who has staunchly campaigned since 2002 on the issue of the lack of indexation for pre-1997 pension rights, having been one of 140,000 people who lost their occupational pension.  I wrote to the Secretary of State more than two months ago asking whether the newly revived Pensions Commission will address the issue of failed pension funds and I have still not received a response. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and Alan to provide some much-needed clarity on such a long-standing issue? \p Torsten Bell: I am not absolutely clear whether the particular case that the hon. Gentleman is raising relates to people within the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme or to a pre-1997 indexation within a solvent pension scheme, but if he writes to me with the details I will absolutely make sure that I come back to him. \p Steve Witherden: One in three children in my constituency is growing up in poverty. With the Budget approaching, what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about scrapping the two-child limit—a policy widely recognised as one of the biggest drivers of child poverty in Britain today? \p Pat McFadden: We have already taken action to reduce child poverty, by extending free school meals to all families on universal credit, and we will of course explore other avenues. We want to reduce child poverty—in stark contrast to the record of the Conservatives. \p Oliver Dowden: When my constituents move into new social housing, they find it stripped of perfectly good white goods, curtains, carpets and so on. What can the Government do to address this? It is driving my constituents further into poverty and benefit dependency. It is also environmentally destructive. Surely there is a way through this issue, so can I call on the Minister to work with others across Government to address it? \p Andrew Western: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. It might be better raised at questions to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but as he asks me to pick this up with Ministers across Departments, I am happy to do so. I can tell him that the crisis and resilience fund—formerly the household support fund—is in place to support people setting up in their new homes, as are grants that are available from housing associations directly.[Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 6WC.] (Correction) \p Andrew Bowie: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if he will make a statement on the future of the North Sea oil and gas industry. \p Michael Shanks: The North sea will be at the heart of Britain’s energy future. For decades its workers, business and communities have helped to power our country and our world, and they will do so for decades to come. The oil and gas industry has lost around a third of its entire workforce in the last decade as oil and gas production has declined. A plan is now needed. That is why in March we consulted on a framework for building a world-leading offshore clean energy industry in the North sea, alongside managing existing oil and gas fields for their lifespan. We will respond to that consultation in the coming weeks.

Alongside that, we published our clean energy jobs plan, which sets out that over 400,000 more good jobs are to be created across the UK, including 40,000 in Scotland, by the end of the decade. That is facilitated thanks to record investments in clean energy as well as over £50 billion of private investment since July 2024 thanks to the certainty our plans have created.

Turning to today’s news, colleagues will be aware that Petrofac Ltd has for some time been working on a restructure relating to its global portfolio. The restructuring plan failed, following the unexpected termination of a contract by TenneT—a Dutch transmission company. At 7 am today, holding company Petrofac Ltd announced that it will be entering administration. While that is obviously disappointing for the company, it is the product of long-standing issues with its global business.

Contrary to misleading reports today, the UK arm of Petrofac has not entered administration and is continuing to operate as normal—as an in-demand business with a highly skilled workforce and many successful contracts. Indeed, only last month Petrofac’s UK arm extended two significant contracts, demonstrating that the business has a viable future. Today’s announcement covers only the top-level holding company Petrofac Ltd, which has no employees. The Petrofac group has faced long-standing challenges, including a high-profile £77 million financial penalty imposed in 2021 following a Serious Fraud Office investigation into bribery.

We understand that there is reason to be optimistic about a commercial resolution that includes the UK arm. The Government have been, and will remain, in close contact with the company. I repeat this to the House: the UK business has not entered administration. It is successful and growing, and it will continue to operate as normal. \p Andrew Bowie: Another week and yet another hammer blow to our North sea oil and gas industry, another gut punch to energy workers and another blow to our energy security. Whatever the Minister says today, the blame lies squarely with this Labour Government. [Interruption.] They do not like to hear it, but it is true.

Today, the energy giant Petrofac has entered administration, casting doubt over the future of its 2,000 employees in Scotland—as its global headquarters is in Aberdeen—and the countless more who are supported indirectly through the supply chain. As the Minister said, this company has had issues for many years, but the hostile environment in the UK continental shelf created by the Government has made operating here nigh on impossible for far too many companies.

Our offshore energy industry has seen thousands of redundancies since the 2024 general election. Harbour Energy completed a new round of redundancies just last month and, with depressing regularity, we hear of more job losses in the North sea. Whether at Harbour Energy, Apache, Hunting or Petrofac, each job lost means uncertainty for a family, a mortgage jeopardised, investment fleeing our communities and our world-class supply chains and skilled workforce pushed towards extinction.

How many more will it take for the Secretary of State to change course? These are political choices. This is a manufactured decline. As a direct result of the hostile trading environment, the “closed for business” sign is hanging over the UK continental shelf. From the energy profits levy extension increase to the ban on new licences and the refusal to defend the Government’s decision on Rosebank and Jackdaw, the odds are stacked against the North sea industry, damaging the business environment, threatening investment, harming our economy and undermining our energy security. These are political choices that have resulted in job losses.

What steps are being taken to support Petrofac’s HQ employees in Aberdeen? How many more jobs have to be lost across the industry for the Government to change course? When will the thousands of jobs promised through GB Energy for Aberdeen and around the United Kingdom materialise? Will the Minister personally act and ask his boss—the Secretary of State for Energy—to change course, or is he content to sacrifice Aberdeen, the north-east and our energy industry on this vainglorious campaign to destroy our fossil fuel industry? \p Michael Shanks: On Petrofac, the hon. Gentleman should be careful with his tone. To come here and try to undermine efforts to find a buyer for the UK arm and to talk down a business, which, as I just outlined, is a successful and growing business in the North sea, is deeply irresponsible. There have been long-standing issues at the company; he of all people should be well aware of that, given his previous role as a Minister in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. All of us across the House have a responsibility to support the company at the moment, not to undermine it, and to send a positive message to those workers, the suppliers and the customers that the UK arm is continuing to operate as normal. All the signs are that there is a viable long-term future for the company, but that will not happen if we have comments like those made by the hon. Gentleman undermining that business.

On the wider question of the North sea, the hon. Gentleman should know as well as anyone that we lost over a third of the jobs in the North sea during the Conservative party’s time in government. He wants to pretend that the transition arrived in July 2024, but he was in government when those jobs were going, and the Conservatives failed time and again to come up with  any credible plan for managing the future of the North sea. We will not do that. We will come up with a plan. That is why we are building the industries of the future on hydrogen, on carbon capture, on offshore wind and on the supply chains—the very investments that he and Conservative Members turn their backs against time and again. They are turning their backs on the future of the energy story in the North sea as they are more interested in exploiting problems than solving them. Time and again, they have learned no lessons from their time in government, when they left these workers without a credible plan. We will not do the same again. \p Patricia Ferguson: Will my hon. Friend outline to the House how the Government are delivering the clean energy jobs plan, which will see 40,000 new jobs in the clean energy industries in Scotland by 2030? I am sure that move will be welcomed around the Chamber. Will he advise us what support will be given to that plan by the Scottish Government? \p Michael Shanks: My hon. Friend makes an important point about building up the industries of the future. I have said on a number of occasions that we should rightly be proud of six decades of oil and gas in the north-east of Scotland, and we should be proud of the work that that workforce has achieved, but we should also recognise that we have been in transition for a long time. Building up the jobs of the future in carbon capture, hydrogen, offshore wind and supply chains is how we ensure a long-term, viable, sustainable future in the north-east—alongside oil and gas for many decades to come.

The particular work that the Scottish Government need to do in this space is about improving the skills offer so that more of Scotland’s young people can take up the 40,000 jobs we will create over the coming years. That is a huge opportunity for Scotland’s young people, but only if we improve Scotland’s education system. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Pippa Heylings: This is worrying news. Petrofac is one of the North sea’s largest offshore contractors, but it is entering administration today after years of financial difficulty. While I cannot share the desire of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) to ditch the Climate Change Act 2008, I do share his concern for those 2,000 jobs in Scotland and those workers who face uncertainty about their future, so the Secretary of State must act swiftly to find a sustainable path forward, hopefully secure a buyer and safeguard those skilled jobs.

This underlines why the Liberal Democrats have called for an independent just transition commission, putting oil and gas workers and local communities front and centre. It was good to see the much-awaited publication of the Government’s clean energy jobs plan last week. However, we know that job creation is not happening fast enough to keep up with job losses in the North sea, so can the Secretary of State and the Minister confirm what will be done to fill that gap in the meantime—in the short term—and to deliver a genuinely just transition that keeps those skilled workers powering Britain’s clean energy future? \p Michael Shanks: First, can I just say what a contrast it is when someone rightly responds to this concerning issue in a serious way and does not talk down the industry? This is where the House should stand taller and recognise that that company is doing good work and that there are 2,000 workers out in the North sea right now carrying out their duties. We want to ensure that there is a viable future for the company, and we are doing everything that we can in that space. All the signs are that it is a growing, successful business, and we should recognise that and talk it up, not talk it down, as the Conservative party seems hellbent on doing.

On the hon. Lady’s wider point, she is right to say that the future of clean energy involves tens of thousands of jobs across Scotland and hundreds of thousands across the UK, but that we need to ramp those jobs up as quickly as possible and ensure that people can achieve those jobs. We are doing what we can around looking at the skills framework, but we also ensuring that, through the investments we are making through Great British Energy, those jobs come forward much faster and that people are supported to move from jobs in oil and gas into jobs that have a real correlation in skills. We are picking this work up after the failure of the previous Government to have any plan. We are moving as fast as we can, and we will see more on that North sea plan in the coming weeks. \p Torcuil Crichton: I have to say that this is a very underpowered urgent question. It is similar to a two-stroke engine attached to a rowing boat—[Interruption.] \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. When I decide on an urgent question, I do not need to be questioned about how urgent it is, or whether it is like a two-stroke engine or a 50 cc—actually, some of us think it might be a three litre. \p Torcuil Crichton: I was, of course, referring to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who knows full well that he has missed the story here. Petrofac went into administration because the Dutch Government cut a contract for offshore wind farm developments. I dare say that that raises concerns about the viability for finance and the supply chain for the offshore wind farm industry, but as the Minister has pointed out, and as the shadow Minister well knows, Petrofac is successful in the UK. It has 2,000 jobs in the UK and it has contracts in the UK, so we need less scaremongering from this underpowered Opposition and more assurance from the Minister that he will look after those jobs. \p Michael Shanks: I will just reflect on something that my hon. Friend said. This is a global company, and it has not had its troubles to seek for some time. It was subject to an investigation back in 2017, and it has gone through a number of restructuring routes since then. Ultimately, that process came to an end when it lost a significant contract from TenneT, one of the Dutch transmission operators. This is a company that has faced global headwinds for some time, but I repeat to the House that the UK business has a viable long-term future. It is already growing, it is successful, and we have a responsibility across this House to talk up British businesses and the workers in those jobs, not to talk them down. \p Stephen Flynn: May I convey in the strongest possible terms to the junior Minister the anger and anxiety that is felt by my constituents in Aberdeen? Right now they are providing energy security to each and every one of us on these isles, as well as revenue to his Treasury, yet their only reward, and the only certainty they seem to have on this Government’s watch, is that of looming job losses. May I ask—[Interruption.] He shakes his head. May I ask him to come to Aberdeen and explain to my constituents when he is going to listen to the trade unions, the academics, the workers and the industry and protect that industry, not only for our energy security but for Scotland’s economy? \p Michael Shanks: I am in Aberdeen regularly and do meet constituents of the right hon. Member who work in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen as well as in oil and gas. It is his constituents who will benefit from the investments that Great British Energy will make, for example, which he failed to vote for, and who tell me that after a long period of having no credible plan—[Interruption.] He can shout me down all he wants; he asked a question— \p Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I brought the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) in early because I thought that was right for his constituents and because he had applied for an UQ, but I do expect a little respect, even if he does not like the answer. \p Michael Shanks: The right hon. Member asks a serious question, and I am trying to give him an answer, if he would but listen for a few moments. We take the issue of job losses seriously—of course we do—but we have to recognise that over 70,000 jobs have been lost over the past 10 years because there has not been a credible plan on the future of the North sea. We are going to deliver that alongside new jobs in the energy future.

I also say to the right hon. Member that I am somewhat confused what the SNP’s policy is on this because, as far as I understood it, it is exactly the same as this Government’s policy, which is to look at the licensing position. If he is telling us now that the SNP’s position has changed, that is news to me and, I suspect, to the House, but of course, the SNP has not published the draft energy strategy, which has been in draft form for two years, so it is hard for anyone to know. \p Polly Billington: What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the UK arm of the company, which is an in-demand business with a highly skilled workforce and many successful contracts, has a long-term future in the UK, particularly in the context of our clean energy jobs plan announced last week and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) pointed out, some of the risks around the development of offshore wind in Holland? \p Michael Shanks: We have obviously been liaising with the company over quite a long period of time on the restructuring; indeed, the previous Government did as well. We have been looking at this issue and will continue to work very closely with the company to ensure that there is a viable long-term future for the UK part. But it is an in-demand business and, as I said just last month, it expanded some of its contracts, which  shows that it is successful. Of course, it has a highly skilled workforce working in a huge range of jobs right across oil and gas.

The wider question about investment into renewables is also one that we should take seriously. We have a huge opportunity in the United Kingdom to capitalise on the economic opportunities that come from offshore and onshore wind, hydrogen and carbon capture, but that requires consistency and a view that the UK is a safe place to invest—things that were threatened by the Conservatives. \p John Lamont: Anyone who has met businesses in Aberdeen will know that they rely on the oil and gas sector. This Labour Government’s “net zero at all costs” policy is a disaster for high-quality skills and jobs in the north-east and across Scotland. What urgent action will the Government take to restore confidence and stability in the energy sector? \p Michael Shanks: I reject the hon. Member’s assertion that this Government are somehow following a course without looking at the evidence. Clearly, oil and gas is a crucial part of our energy mix and will be for decades to come—we have been clear on that—but so too is building up what comes next. That means investing in the supply chains that were so often not part of the building of infrastructure that we have in our waters. We towed things in and switched them on, but had none of the jobs that went with them. We are determined to change that, but that comes with having a credible industrial strategy and a long-term plan for the future of the North sea, which we did not have under 14 years of the previous Government. \p Brian Leishman: Incredibly, it is now eight months since the Prime Minister announced £200 million from the National Wealth Fund for the industrial future of Grangemouth. I have had meetings with numerous companies that have proposals and are, frankly, impatient to get started. When will this money be spent, and when will those jobs come to my town? All there is to show for it so far are the bones of an unjust transition and industrial devastation. \p Michael Shanks: We have been looking at a number of proposals. I met the five companies that are the frontrunners for National Wealth Fund investment, along with the Scottish Government Energy Minister. A number of propositions are to be taken forward, and I hope we will have an announcement to make in due course. Of course, we have been trying not to just spend £200 million on the first thing that comes along but to find the genuinely long-term, viable industrial opportunities that deliver jobs at Grangemouth, not just for a year or two but long into the future. The hon. Gentleman is right that for far too long the site has been the victim of a lack of planning, and it is an example of a just transition done wrongly. We want to make that different by having a serious plan for long-term jobs on the site. The NWF has brought companies to the table, and we will deliver an announcement on that in due course. \p Christine Jardine: I accept the Minister’s comments about Petrofac, but it is a very worrying day not just for the 2,000 workers whose jobs  are at stake but for the entire oil economy in north-east Scotland. Two things are missing that we desperately need in Scotland: one is investment in the jobs and skills that we will need for the renewable industries the Minister talks about, and the other is the reform of the taxation system and the windfall tax to ensure that it is consistent for the North sea area. What are the Government going to do about those things? \p Michael Shanks: The hon. Lady is of course right that any announcements like this are worrying not only for those directly involved but for the wider community. I entirely recognise that point. She is right that it is critical to invest in the jobs of the future. We have worked with the Scottish Government—because we do work with them—to deliver joint funding for transition support so that workers can get the direct skills support they need to move from an oil and gas job into a renewables job. That is really important, but we also need to see much more upskilling of the next generation, who can take advantage of the jobs we will create in the clean energies of the future. On the question of taxation, I am afraid that is a matter for the Chancellor. \p Graeme Downie: My constituency includes small and medium-sized enterprises and large businesses that work in renewables, oil and gas, solar, onshore wind and offshore wind. Does the Minister agree that some of the outbursts today from Opposition Members, both Conservative and SNP, will do nothing but undermine confidence for those companies? Furthermore, can he please reassure me that he is working extensively with colleges and employers in Scotland to ensure that we see a skills transition from oil and gas into renewables, so that people in my constituency can take full opportunity of the investments that the Government are making? \p Michael Shanks: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that huge opportunities are coming. I have said that we should be proud of the history of oil and gas, and we should also be really proud of what the industry is doing to transition into the future. We need to do much more to ensure that jobs are delivered now, but certainty and confidence that the plan is not going to change overnight is critical for how we get private sector investment into the UK to deliver on those jobs. That is also why it is so important that we look at skills in the round.

I have to say that, despite the outbursts today, the SNP in Holyrood and the UK Government are working closely on ensuring that the skills opportunities are delivered. Would I like that to go further? Of course I would, and I hope we will have a change of Government and can make that happen. This only works if we have a serious approach to recognising the challenges, building the jobs of the future and ensuring that people can take advantage of the opportunities right across Scotland. \p Harriet Cross: We urgently need to restore confidence and stability in our oil and gas sector, or we will be here again and again as more and more businesses suffer and more and more jobs are lost, whether in my constituency, across north-east Scotland, in Scotland as a whole or in the UK as a whole—there are oil and gas and energy jobs everywhere in the UK.  The future of Petrofac’s 2,000 skilled and expert staff, as well as the indirect jobs that rely on them, are now at risk and reliant on Petrofac being able to find a buyer for its North sea assets. Does the Minister think that the job of finding a buyer has been made more or less likely, given that the Government have created, in the industry’s words, “the most unstable fiscal” environment “in the world”? \p Michael Shanks: I have enormous respect for the hon. Lady, but I have to say that this is not the day to be talking down this particular company. She can make the wider points about this Government’s policy—I totally recognise that—but this is a hugely important moment in which not to undermine a successful and growing company. We need to ensure that the suppliers, related companies and customers of Petrofac continue to support that business, because as of today it is operating as normal. It is incumbent on us all to ensure that that continues to be the case. We are working closely with the company to ensure that that outcome is delivered—the hon. Lady is right to mention the wider impact—but those 2,000 jobs and the supply chain jobs that rely on them have continued as normal today, and any suggestion to the contrary is just not correct. \p Kirsteen Sullivan: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to speak responsibly, with care and accuracy, about the successful UK arm of Petrofac? To do otherwise will only serve to undermine the business and job security that we all want to see across the House. What steps is he taking to ensure that it has a long-term future in the UK? \p Michael Shanks: I rightly expect to be challenged in the House on the Government’s policies. A strong back-and-forth exchange is important. In this one instance, however, and separate from any view that Members might have on the wider policies of this Government, it is important that we come together where we can and say that this is a strong, successful, growing company. It is in all our interests across the House to talk up the importance of that company’s continuing to be successful so that a buyer or another commercial resolution is found and those jobs can be maintained. That is surely in all our interests. \p Kirsty Blackman: Every single one of us has been criticising Government policy, not criticising Petrofac, the expertise and workers at Petrofac, or any of the workers in our oil and gas industry. The Minister says that he has been spending time in Aberdeen. Does he have any idea how it feels to be in Aberdeen just now, with another hammer blow coming? And it is because of the Government’s policies; it is because there is this massive gap. Skilled workers in the oil and gas industry will just go abroad; they will go elsewhere. It does not matter whether we retrain them; the jobs are not there for them right now. What is he going to do to plug that gap? What will he do to keep these skilled workers in Scotland, in Aberdeen and in these islands, and not drive them away? \p Michael Shanks: I take the hon. Lady’s first point with a pinch of salt, after her second point that this comes as a hammer blow to the community. There is no hammer blow; those jobs have been protected—today 2,000 workers are waking up and doing the same job they were doing last week.

I am often in Aberdeen but I do not pretend that I hear as much from people there as the hon. Lady does from her constituents. Although I have made an effort to be there as often as possible to hear the concerns, I recognise that we need to move further and faster than the previous Government did for 14 years, and the Scottish Government did for 18 years, to put a credible plan in place for the future of those jobs. That means not only investing in future jobs, but ensuring the processes are in place so that people can take advantage of those jobs much more easily. Passporting, which was stuck in the mud for years, is now being delivered because we helped to unlock it. There is a lot more to do, and we will say that in the coming weeks when we publish our future of the North sea plan, but we are the ones driving forward investment that creates the jobs of the future. I am afraid that other parties—I did not count the hon. Lady’s party as one of those until today—are harking back to the past rather than recognising that the jobs of the future need to go hand in hand with good, well-paid oil and gas jobs in the short term. \p Scott Arthur: I thank the Minister for his statement and the confidence that he is showing in those workers. We have heard from the SNP. The difference between Labour and the SNP just now is that the SNP wants to scrap the energy profits levy but does not know what it will replace it with other than something that is fairer. Does the Minister think that is the kind of leadership we need in the oil and gas sector? \p Michael Shanks: We recognise that the energy profits levy will come to an end and have consulted on what the future of that looks like with industry. It is a matter for the Chancellor to outline tax policy, as is standard practice in this House; it is not for me to comment on that. But there is a broader question about how we ensure that we drive forward investment. Talking down the investment in carbon capture, hydrogen, offshore wind and the supply chains is not the way to drive forward the jobs of the future, alongside the critical, important oil and gas jobs that will be with us for decades to come. \p Bernard Jenkin: Why does the Minister refuse to issue new licences for the exploitation of new gas fields and new oil fields in the North sea? That is what the industry would like, and that is what the country would like, because we would like a stronger balance of payments, more tax revenues for the Exchequer, and a future for the North sea oil industry. What is the point of choking off our own North sea oil and gas industry when we have to import those fuels from other countries? \p Michael Shanks: We will respond to the consultation on the future of licensing in due course. This Government were elected on the manifesto commitment to not issue new licences to explore new fields, but it remains our position that we will support existing licences and fields for their lifetime. We must manage the future of the basin, which has been in decline for 20-plus years—we hit peak oil in 1999 and peak oil in 2000, so we have been in transition for a long time—and that means investing in the industries that come next, alongside oil and gas. \p Stella Creasy: I am reassured that it is this Minister who is looking at the issue and fighting for those jobs in Aberdeen. I am acutely aware that the previous Government did not take full account of the impact of this situation. We now know that using Rosebank, which the shadow Minister raised, would create 50 times more climate-harming gases than the previous Government admitted, and that the climate crisis is one of the biggest drags on growth. I know that the Minister is committed, in common with all Labour Members, to protecting jobs and the planet, but what more can we do within our supply chains to support his work in getting growth and the just transition that this country desperately needs, without Rosebank? \p Michael Shanks: The House will understand that I will not be drawn on applications that are currently awaiting decision, so I will not comment on that specific application. On my hon. Friend’s broader point, as has already been said, the net zero economy is growing three times faster than the economy at large, and it is our economic future. I recently attended the G20 in South Africa, where Ministers from across the world were talking about the opportunities offered by the clean power transition in their own countries. It is the economic opportunity of the 21st century, as well as how we deliver on climate leadership: contrary to what Opposition Members might now think, that still matters. It is only right that we deliver a genuinely just transition for the workers who have powered our country for the past 60 years. We have seen where transitions have not been done well. The previous Government failed to put in place any kind of plan, but we will deliver a plan that delivers a just transition and our economic future. \p Seamus Logan: I hear the Minister’s reassuring words, but surely he can understand the worry of the workers waking up this morning to the news that they heard. It is not just warm words that are causing the problem: it is policy, the energy profits levy and the ban on exploration. It is not just me saying that: those who are concerned include the Port of Aberdeen, Robert Gordon University, the North Sea Transition Authority, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change and the Scottish Affairs Committee. What will the Minister do to address these policy problems? \p Michael Shanks: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tone and I accept the point that he makes. As I have said, we can be clear that there is a viable future for those 2,000 workers and we should be positive about that—it is important that we talk up the future potential of the company—but I recognise that that does nothing for those who might be worrying. We accept that the EPL will come to an end. We have consulted with industry on what the future of that looks like. We want to ensure that the Treasury gains value from price spikes, a point on which his party and mine agree, and that is a matter for the Chancellor to take forward. If he is in favour of a tax cut for oil and gas, it is important that he says where that significant amount of revenue will come from to fund the public services on which he and I rely. \p Mary Glindon: I welcome the Government’s mention of tiebacks in a consultation earlier this year. The development of  tiebacks is important because it reduces costs and extends the life of existing critical infrastructure. However, many existing hubs are reaching the end of their life and we may miss the opportunities that are in front of us. Will the Minister look at tiebacks as a pragmatic step to help aid the transition? \p Michael Shanks: My hon. Friend is always a great champion for the industry. Although we often talk, quite rightly, about Aberdeen and north-east Scotland, she is right to champion her own community, where there are a significant number of oil and gas workers. I always welcome her straightforward challenge to me on many points. I will not get into the detail of the response to the consultation, which we will publish in due course, but we have been clear that we want a credible, long-term plan for the future of the North sea. That is why we consulted on a range of factors, not just the future licensing position, and we will come to a pragmatic position on what the future of the North sea looks like. \p Julian Lewis: For how many years, in the Government’s estimation, will we have to keep importing foreign oil and gas, as a result of not being allowed fully to exploit our own supplies? \p Michael Shanks: Perhaps I should switch the question back: for how many years have we already been importing oil and gas? That gets us to the fundamental point. The Conservatives want to pretend that in July last year, we switched to being a net importer of oil and gas. That is not what happened. The right hon. Gentleman’s party oversaw that transition over many, many years. I recognise that, to some degree, given the geology of the basin, there would not have been different decisions taken if we had been in government, but what we could have done differently was ensure that the transition was happening, and delivered the economic opportunities that come along with what comes next, and that is what we will do. \p Lizzi Collinge: Does the Minister share my concerns about Reform and the Conservatives denying the reality of climate change, and denying that the best way to protect people’s jobs, including energy jobs, is to follow the green jobs plan? Does he agree that nuclear, including as Heysham 1 and 2 in my constituency—and, if I get my way, new nuclear at Heysham—is vital to the clean energy jobs plan? \p Michael Shanks: I was going to say that that might be a note of consensus across the House, but I remembered that the SNP has an ideological objection to nuclear in Scotland, so it will not benefit from the economic opportunities that come from thousands of well-paid, skilled and trade-unionised jobs in nuclear. We believe that there is a long-term future for nuclear, which is why we announced funding for Sizewell C, concluded the small modular reactor programme, and have been working with the US Government to bring forward private funding partnerships to build the latest technology in the UK. That comes with thousands of jobs, will help us to deliver on energy security long into the future, and helps to tackle the climate crisis. This party believes that the climate crisis is an existential threat, and we should do everything that we can to tackle it. \p Richard Tice: Thousands more jobs are at risk, alongside the thousands of families and jobs at risk at the Lindsey oil refinery in Lincolnshire, all because of this Government’s policies on net stupid zero, yet the Minister talks warmly about the growth prospects for Petrofac. To grow, we need an industry; to have an industry, we need more oil and gas licences. Will the Minister change course and allow exploration and more licences to produce oil and gas in the North sea? \p Michael Shanks: I am not sure that there was a hugely coherent argument there. The hon. Gentleman seems to say that the future might be in clean energy jobs, but he says, “They might not be delivered fast enough, so we should not bother doing it.” We think there is an important long-term future in delivering clean energy, including in his constituency, where many supply chain jobs will be delivered, and he is against that economic investment. He should explain to his constituents and to the wider country why Reform wants to make this country more energy-dependent, not less energy-dependent, and why it is against the economic opportunities that our proposals bring. Even if we disagree on the climate crisis—which I find staggering, given all the evidence; I accept that he might be burying his head in the sand—we should at least agree that there is a huge economic opportunity, and an opportunity to maintain our energy security. \p Alice Macdonald: I recently visited the Bacton gas terminal in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), which is on the North sea coast. It already provides up to one third of our nation’s gas supply, and is ideally placed to be a carbon capture and hydrogen hub. The Minister has just talked about jobs; I want those jobs in my area. Will he recognise the vital role that the east of England plays, back Bacton’s plans to ensure its low-carbon future, and help to secure good, local jobs? \p Michael Shanks: My hon. Friend is right to highlight that this is a huge opportunity, which the previous Government talked about a lot but did not actually move forward on delivering. In the spending review, there were significant amounts of investment to move forward with the carbon capture clusters, and we have followed that up with specific investments over the past few months. I have been privileged to visit some of the sites and see the potential for maintaining existing jobs in industry while building the jobs of the future in carbon capture. We are hugely positive about the future vision for carbon capture across the country, as a way to tackle our emissions, help us get to net zero, and create good industrial jobs. \p Martin Vickers: I thank the Minister for the engagement we have had over the future of Lindsey oil refinery in my constituency. Can he give any indication of what support the Government might give, and when a final decision might be taken? Will he at least acknowledge that new licences in the North sea would offer job opportunities for those people whose jobs are at risk? \p Michael Shanks: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the engagement we have had on this issue. Obviously, the failure of the company that was previously running  the Prax Lindsey oil refinery has had a really significant impact. We have been working to make sure that the process that the official receiver is going through is concluded as soon as possible. It is for the receiver to decide who the potential buyers are; it is looking at a shortlist of credible candidates, but given the nature of the insolvency, it is not for the Government to decide what is built next on that site.

Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s second point, I genuinely do not think that the licensing question will decide the future of jobs for that site. We want to build up an industry for the future on that site, with long-term, sustainable jobs, and all the evidence we have seen about managing the future of the North sea basin suggests that that while oil and gas will be important for many years to come, that is not the long-term future for the North sea. \p Matt Rodda: It is very important to increase the number of skilled jobs in renewables and in hydrogen. I welcome the Minister’s mention of the Government’s clean jobs plan; can he say more about that plan, and in particular about training and development for younger staff, as well as retraining for existing staff? \p Michael Shanks: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and particularly for mentioning retraining. We see huge opportunities for people who are in the middle of careers to transfer into the energy system. Just in the past few weeks, we have been looking at a scheme to support veterans who are leaving the armed forces in getting jobs building infrastructure. There are huge opportunities in that sector if we can capitalise on the clean energy transition.

We also need to invest in the future of the next generation of workers. In England, we are looking at technical training colleges to make that happen. Funding goes to the Scottish Government to do that in Scotland and, of course, to the Welsh Government as well. The future of our energy system is clean energy; we want to make sure that we have the jobs and training opportunities that go with it, so that the people of our country get an economic advantage, as well as the country getting the energy security. \p Ellie Chowns: Today’s Petrofac news has nothing to do with UK oil and gas policy. This is a company with a long history of financial challenges and mismanagement; it was fined millions for bribery, lost £6 billion in value since 2012, and has now lost a contract with the Netherlands. Does the Minister agree that any attempt to claim otherwise is blatant political point scoring by the Tories and others with a head-in-the-sand climate denial agenda, and is a distraction from what really matters, which is ensuring that every worker whose job is affected by today’s news is properly supported? \p Michael Shanks: I agree with the hon. Lady on the wider point, which is that—as I outlined in my opening answer—Petrofac has not had its troubles to seek. She has outlined a number of those troubles, but I reiterate that the UK arm of that business is successful and growing. We want to make sure that that continues—that there is a buyer, or another solution, so that it can continue long into the future. Others will seek to politicise this news for the sake of their own political narratives, but it is incumbent on all of us to send as positive a  message as we can to the workers, suppliers and customers of Petrofac—the message that the UK arm continues to operate as normal, and that we want that to continue. \p Graham Stuart: Every month, 1,000-plus people lose their jobs in North sea oil and gas. Contrary to the case that the Minister presents, the industry says that this declining basin still has 4 billion additional barrels that could be extracted, if only there were new licences. He tells the House that that oil and gas will be needed for decades to come, yet he cuts off all new supply, mortally damaging the whole supply chain, of which Petrofac is part. The Minister cannot deny responsibility, and he needs to persuade the Chancellor—if not his Secretary of State, who is probably beyond persuasion—that we need to move to a practical policy that includes new licences. We need to optimise this, because green and fossil fuels do not need to be in tension; we want the transition, but we must keep those jobs for now. \p Michael Shanks: First, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s recognition—which we seldom hear from his party’s Front Benchers these days—that this is a transition, and that we want the economic opportunities of oil and gas and those of renewables. It is a delight to hear him say that; his Front Benchers should say so more often and talk up the phenomenal renewables industry, which the Conservatives should take a bit of credit for. Over the past 14 years, they built up so much of that industry across the country, but they have turned away from that now.

Turning to the licensing point, I cannot remember at what stage the right hon. Gentleman was in the Government, but of course, the previous Government said that they would not issue new licences. Later, they briefly did; then they recognised that that was the wrong policy—I think it was the Liz Truss years in which they changed around. A tiny fraction of the licences that have been issued have ever resulted in extraction from the North sea. We will manage existing licences for their lifespan, and will take a pragmatic view on the future of the North sea, which we will announce in the coming weeks, but the long-term future of the North sea does not lie in oil and gas; it lies in renewables, carbon capture and hydrogen. \p Angus MacDonald: Does the Minister really consider this a just transition? We have thousands of contractors arriving in the highlands. They stay in workers’ camps, and very few legacy houses are agreed. The companies are not employing local people, and this is all in an area with the greatest fuel poverty in Britain. \p Michael Shanks: We know that winter has come when the hon. Gentleman turns up in his lovely knitted jumpers; it is a pleasure to see them back again. He and I have had a number of conversations on this issue, and I recognise how seriously he takes it. There have been some good moves recently to look at the legacy left behind, particularly housing. This is about building housing that suits the workforce, but can be left behind for communities afterwards. We need a lot of work in partnership with the Scottish Government, who have responsibility for housing policy, to make sure that the opportunities are taken forward. The Minister for energy consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde  and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), will say much more in due course about our plan for warm homes. That will result in significant spending in Scotland, but that will be in the hands of the Scottish Government, who have cut this budget time and again. I hope that they will change their ways, and will help the hon. Gentleman’s constituents to have warmer homes this winter. \p Desmond Swayne: Has the Minister made any estimate of the likely impact on Petrofac and similar enterprises of the extension of the energy profits levy? \p Michael Shanks: As I have said in a number of answers, the UK arm of Petrofac is a successful and growing business. Its holding company went into administration today due to a number of factors, including the loss of an international contract. It is nothing to do with our policy in the North sea. \p Mark Pritchard: I say to our colleagues on the Green green Benches that of course climate change exists. We need green investment, green jobs and the green transition, but is there not a fundamental flaw at the heart of the Government’s policy, which is that it is ideologically driven? Have we not learned anything from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine about energy security, energy sovereignty and energy independence? I put it to the Minister, with the greatest respect, that in the medium to long term, if we continue down this track too quickly, without a stable transition for workers and the energy sector, the Government could end up undermining the UK’s national security. \p Michael Shanks: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for how he has put the question. Energy security is at the heart of what we are trying to do, because our exposure to fossil fuels is what led to some of the most significant price spikes in all our constituents’ bills—spikes that they still face today. Our continued exposure to the impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—even though none of that Russian gas now reaches us—is because of the international markets; they drive this forward. The only way to take back control of our energy is by building the clean power system of the future, and the pace of that transition is absolutely right. We are driving forward momentum, to make sure that the investment comes forward to create jobs in the economy right now. That has been successful; there has been £50 billion of private investment just in the past year. My view is that 10 or 20 years ago, both under the previous Labour Government and under the Conservative Government, we should have recognised that a transition was under way and put in place a credible plan for protecting the jobs. That was not done, but we are determined to do it, so that the transition for oil and gas workers is into good, well-paid jobs in renewables, carbon capture, hydrogen and other technologies, and we have a genuinely just and prosperous transition. \p Llinos Medi: Job losses in the North sea come from the lack of a strategic energy transition plan. The same applies to nuclear in Wales, where the lack of a plan for Wylfa has seen nuclear jobs  in Ynys Môn fall to a record low. Does the Minister agree that future-proofing our energy industries against job losses and rising costs requires a clear strategy and timely decisions from this Government? \p Michael Shanks: The hon. Lady rightly takes every opportunity to ask me about the range of energy issues in her constituency, and I thank her for that. We have concluded the small modular reactor programme that we inherited from the previous Government, with Rolls-Royce winning that competition. The future of nuclear will be taken forward with Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C and the future of the SMR programme, but also with private sector investment in the US-UK partnership, which will build it. The decision on where the SMRs will be is under consideration by my noble Friend, the Minister for nuclear, and we will have more to say about that in due course. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: This Government like to tell people that growth is their first priority, but growth requires abundant and cheap energy. Does the Minister recognise that the only things they are growing by cutting the oil and gas industry are domestic prices, business prices and the number of job losses in the industry? \p Michael Shanks: No, I do not. The clean power that we are trying to build will enable us to ensure that we remove gas as the price setter on our system. At present, gas sets the price 80% of the time, although it is often clean power that is powering the country. That is a problem that we have to end, so that all our constituents—but also businesses—benefit from cheaper power. The cheapest form of electricity that we can build at the moment is solar. I know that the hon. Lady objects to a number of those schemes in her own constituency, as she is perfectly entitled to do, but I would say to Conservative Members that if we want to build a power system that brings down bills, we have to support the infrastructure that goes with it. \p Neil Shastri-Hurst: Sadly, this is not an isolated case; regrettably, it is a pattern of decline that we are seeing under this Government. Can the Minister tell us how many companies must go under before the Government realise that Great Britain cannot build a resilient and secure energy system by shutting down the energy industry? \p Michael Shanks: Let me just challenge the premise of that question once again. Petrofac’s UK arm has not gone under; it is working today as it did yesterday and the day before and the day before that, and as it will the day after. It is a successful, growing business, and we have a responsibility to talk up the industry to ensure that it has a viable, long-term future. In the next few days we will continue to work intensively with the company to make that happen, but we do have a responsibility not to undermine a successful business, which is what the UK arm of Petrofac is. The company that went into administration today is the topco of Petrofac, which has no employees. \p Richard Foord: The United Kingdom’s electricity price is set by gas 98% of the time. By contrast, the electricity price in the European  Union is set by gas less than 40% of the time. If the electricity price in the UK were set by the price of clean energy more often, would the UK not be a more attractive destination for investment in energy generation? [Interruption.] \p Michael Shanks: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, although I think I heard a “no” from the Opposition Front Bench in response to his question. The only way in which we can deliver long-term energy security is to get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuels. The future is in clean energy: we see that across Europe, where nuclear and renewables are driving down the cost of electricity, but also insulating countries from the price spikes that we have seen as a result of, for instance, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We are too exposed to gas at the moment, which is why our electricity prices are high, even though for much of the day our power is being generated by clean energy, which is considerably cheaper. Clean energy is the economic opportunity of the 21st century. It is how we deliver our energy security, how we tackle the climate crisis, and how we bring down bills for people now and in the long term. \p Lewis Cocking: While Labour continues down the path of net zero, the UK now imports more than 40% of its total energy needs from overseas. Given that the UK is the second most expensive country in the world for household electricity, will the Minister issue new oil and gas licences so that we can get oil and gas out of the North sea to support jobs and help energy companies to cut fuel costs for people right across these isles? \p Michael Shanks: I do not know whether the footnote to the hon. Gentleman’s question says this, but even if we were to issue new licences, what we extracted from the North sea would be traded on the international market and we would pay the price that is traded on the international market. I would like to understand the hon. Gentleman’s logic in respect of how that would help us to bring down bills; it is not the case. Let me be clear about this: the long-term future of our energy system is a mix of nuclear and renewables. Removing ourselves from the volatility of fossil fuels is the only way forward, but it is also an economic opportunity for his constituents and those of Members on both sides of the House. We will build this infrastructure here with a proper industrial strategy to create the jobs of the future. \p Gregory Stafford: Can the Minister explain to my constituents how banning new drilling for oil and gas while importing gas   from other countries at a higher cost will bring their bills down by £300, and can he say when that will happen by? \p Michael Shanks: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and indeed to anyone’s constituents, that over the past few years they have been paying the price for what happens as a result of our exposure to fossil fuels. The last Government had to spend tens of billions of pounds on reducing people’s bills because of that exposure. The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten about that, but I can tell him that his constituents will not have, because they are still paying the price for it. This Government are determined not to make the same mistake again. The Opposition are willing to go back to the fossil fuel casino again and again and hope that it gives them a better hand, but we are going to build the clean power system of the future and bring down bills for good. \p Jim Shannon: I have a number of constituents who depend on the North sea oil and gas industry for their employment. The Minister will be aware that if a buyer is not found, the knock-on effect will not be limited to those families facing redundancy, but will affect our nation’s energy security. Does the Minister accept that the uncertainty of Government support has had an effect on the future sustainability of the industry, and that we should be realistic and acknowledge that the Government need to continue to invest in the industry until we approach that far-off time when, just perhaps, we do not need oil and gas? \p Michael Shanks: I always welcome the hon. Gentleman’s contributions in our many debates on energy, both here and in Westminster Hall. He is right that the impact of job losses goes well beyond the individuals, although I reiterate that in this case there have been no job losses in the UK; Petrofac continues to be successful, and it is in all our interests to make sure that remains the case.

On the hon. Gentleman’s wider question, I know that the impact is felt on supply chain jobs in his constituency and across the country. That is why we need to build up the new energy infrastructure here as well. For too long, all those offshore wind platforms that were towed into British waters gave jobs to other countries, instead of creating jobs here in the UK. We are determined to do something different. We are driving forward investment in the supply chains to make sure that there is a viable future for his constituents and for those across the country. \p David Lammy: I would like to make a statement on the release in error of Hadush Kebatu from HMP Chelmsford last Friday morning.

As the House will be aware, Mr Kebatu was apprehended by the Metropolitan police on Sunday morning in the Finsbury Park area of my constituency. He is back where he belongs: behind bars. I thank the Metropolitan police, Essex police and the British Transport police for their swift action to return him to custody, and the public who helped to locate Kebatu after the police appeal. I can tell the House that he will now be transported for deportation back to Ethiopia as quickly as possible. However, that does not change the fact that Mr Kebatu’s victims are rightly outraged about what has happened. I am livid on their behalf, and on behalf of the public. This was a mistake that should not have happened. The victims expect better, the public expect better, and this Government expect better from a critical public service, which plays a vital role in our first duty: to keep the British people safe and free from harm.

On Friday 24 October, Mr Kebatu was scheduled to be transferred from HMP Chelmsford to an immigration removal centre, from which he was to be deported. Due to what appears to have been human error, he was instead released into the community at 10.25 am. Shortly after 12 pm, concerns were raised about the release to the duty governor, and, following checks, staff were dispatched to locate him. When it became clear that he was no longer in the vicinity of the prison, Essex police were notified and a manhunt began.

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service instigated an immediate investigation, and I have asked for the initial findings to be with me this week. The House will appreciate that, in the meantime, there is a limit on what I can say. Members will be aware that there are national security considerations within a case like this. I will update the House in the appropriate way as soon as I can. What I can say today is that there must be, and there will be, accountability for what has happened.

When I was first informed of the release in error, I spoke immediately to the duty governor at HMP Chelmsford and senior HMPPS leaders in order to understand what was known and to seek assurances about the immediate measures being taken. I tasked my officials with working through the night and co-ordinated a response with the Home Office and the police, and I put on the record my thanks to the Home Secretary for her engagement over the weekend. I also chaired three operational meetings with the police, and on Sunday I was able to travel to Wood Green police station, just outside my constituency, to personally thank the police officers who caught Kebatu.

I have been clear from the outset that a mistake of this nature is unacceptable. We must get to the bottom of what happened and take immediate action to try to prevent similar releases in error in order to protect the public from harm. First, on Friday I instructed the chief executive officer of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to carry out an urgent review to look at the checks that take place when a prisoner is released, and to identify immediate changes that could be made to the  process, in order to mitigate the risks of release in error. As a result, HMPPS has taken steps to make these processes more robust. There will now be more direct senior accountability for ensuring that protocols and checks are correctly applied, including a clear checklist for governors to determine that every step has been followed the evening before any release takes place. These are the strongest release checks that have ever been in place. They will apply to every release from custody and are effective immediately.

Secondly, any foreign national offender being removed through the early removal scheme—the scheme through which Kebatu was supposed to be removed from the country—can now be discharged only when the duty governor is physically present, and there will be no ERS removals from HMP Chelmsford for the rest of this week.

Thirdly, I am today announcing that there will be an independent investigation by Dame Lynne Owens—I spoke to her yesterday. She is a former deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan police and a former director general of the National Crime Agency. She will fully establish the facts of Kebatu’s release and whether staff had sufficient experience, training and technology. She will also talk to the victims in this case to understand the effect that this incident had on them. Her report will highlight points of failure and make recommendations to help prevent further releases in error, which have been rising year on year since 2021—from an average of nine per month in 2023 to 17 per month in the period spanning January to June 2024.

I am clear that a single release in error is one too many, which is why we have launched this independent investigation. I can tell the House that it will have the same status as those into other prison incidents, including the awful attack on three prison officers at HMP Frankland in April and the escape of Daniel Khalife from HMP Wandsworth in 2023, under the last Government.

Releases in error are a symptom of the system that we inherited from the Conservative party. Jails were full—almost to breaking point—and there was the threat of a total collapse in law and order. The fact is that we were left with prisons reeling from historic funding reductions: a 24% real-terms cut between 2010 and 2015, and 30% cuts in staffing. Today, we have been left with over 50% of frontline prison officers having less than five years’ experience. When the system has been brought to its knees, it is little wonder that errors like this happen.

We must also be honest about how the previous Government’s approach to this crisis—piecemeal, complex emergency releases in the hope that the system would not collapse—has added a level of complexity and pressure that makes errors more likely. This Government have been transparent about the difficult decisions necessary to fix the mess for good so that prisons can keep us safe and future Governments need not find emergency solutions to free up capacity.

This Government have brought forward the Sentencing Bill, which is currently making its way through this House. It will ensure that we have a suitable criminal justice system, and one that can deliver punishment that works, cuts crime and keeps the public safe. This Government are also building 14,000 additional prison places, so that we have the capacity to lock up the most dangerous offenders. This is the largest prison expansion since the Victorian era, and let us be clear that there will  be more people in prison at the end of this Parliament than there ever have been before. We have already built 2,500 additional prison places in just over a year, compared with the 500 added overall to the prison estate under the Tories.

We are deporting more foreign criminals than the last Government. We changed the law last month to speed up the early removal scheme—which, to be fair, the shadow Justice Secretary called for—so that most foreign prisoners can now be deported after serving 30% of their custodial sentence, rather than the previous 50%. Through the Sentencing Bill, we will go even further to deport foreign criminals as soon as possible after sentencing. I can confirm that, in the year to July 2025, we sent 5,179 foreign national offenders back to their countries of origin, which is a 14% increase on the previous 12 months. This frees up desperately needed prison places and saves the taxpayer the £54,000 per year it costs to hold an individual offender.

This context sets out the scale of the challenge, but I am clear that releases in error are not simply a fact of life. The public will not accept that and neither do the Government. We will get to the bottom of what happened in this case, and we will take whatever steps necessary to tackle the spike in releases in error, so that we can uphold the first duty of every Government, which is to keep the public safe from harm. I commend this statement to the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the shadow Secretary of State. \p Robert Jenrick: Dear, oh dear, where to begin? This Justice Secretary could not deport the only small boat migrant who wanted—no, who tried—to be deported. Having been mistakenly released, Hadush Kebatu came back to prison asking to be deported not once, not twice, but five times, but he was turned away. The only illegal migrants this Government are stopping are those who actually want to leave the UK. His officials, briefing the press, called it “the mother of all—”. Yeah, they are not wrong, are they? Calamity Lammy strikes again. It is a national embarrassment.

Today the Justice Secretary feigns anger at what has happened. He says he is “livid” that Kebatu was mistakenly let out, but under his plans to abolish short prison sentences, which he forced through the Commons last week, Kebatu would never have even stepped foot in prison in the first place. Let us get it straight: we had the spectacle of the Metropolitan police scouring London to find a man the Justice Secretary is simultaneously legislating to avoid sending to prison. What an absolute farce! I must commend the Justice Secretary’s performance: it is truly BAFTA-worthy. He has perfected the art of performative outrage to a tee.

On Wednesday—[Interruption.] They may be laughing, but let me finish this point. On Wednesday, the Justice Secretary will force every one of his MPs to vote again on the Sentencing Bill, which will see hundreds of sex offenders just like Kebatu avoid prison altogether—sick men who destroy the lives of young girls, who steal their childhoods from them. They will be free to roam your communities to steal the childhoods of your constituents. I will tell you who will be livid then: the British public will be livid and they will know who is to blame.

The Justice Secretary says he has launched an inquiry into what has happened, but he should be able to provide some basic questions to the House now. With respect to the prison in question, HMP Chelmsford, there is clearly a very significant problem. In a previous internal audit at Chelmsford, officials had marked their own homework as “good”, yet inspectors rated it as of “serious concern”. What is the Justice Secretary going to do now to address the way in which problems in our prisons are covered up routinely or wished away?

On the inquiry itself, you will not be surprised to hear that I am—how shall I put this?—sceptical about this Government’s ability to conduct inquiries with any competence. Why are they limiting themselves to this particular security farce and not the other glaring errors, such as the doubling of drone sightings above prisons, the soaring assaults on prison officers or the rampant extremism we are now seeing in our jails?

Shocking as this accidental release is, it is not a one-off blunder. It has come to be the norm under this Government, as the number of prisoners mistakenly let out early has more than doubled. Will the Justice Secretary tell the House how many of the 262 prisoners let out mistakenly in the year to March were violent or sexual offenders? And how many are still at large? There are now record numbers of foreign nationals clogging up our prisons—more than under the last Government. How many of those 262 prisoners accidentally released are migrants, like Kebatu, who were awaiting deportation?

Can the Justice Secretary give the House his cast-iron assurance that this man will be deported from our country by the end of the week, as he promised on the news on Sunday? If he fails, will he take responsibility and resign? Lastly, on Tuesday the Justice Secretary blocked my amendment to release the migrant crime data. Does he now finally acknowledge that there is a link between the small boats and crime in this country? Will he call the small boats out for what they are: a national security emergency?

This man should never have been in our country in the first place. That is the truth. He should have been detained. He should have been deported. Instead, he was put up in a hotel in Epping and allowed to prey on schoolgirls. Now we learn that some Labour officials privately concede that they were wrong to scrap the Rwanda plan. Be in no doubt: from start to finish, the Kebatu fiasco was a creation entirely of Labour’s own making. So, I say to the Justice Secretary, there is no point coming to the House today professing to be livid at the consequences of your own policies. The British people, they can see straight through you. \p David Lammy: This is a serious issue and that is why there will be a full independent investigation.

The shadow Justice Secretary—I will give him this—is smooth. But as my mother would have said, if he was chocolate he would lick himself. He should hang his head in shame. The crisis in our prisons that we face today is because of 14 years of failure under his Government. As they were packing their bags to leave office—he knows this—there were temporary release failures under his watch. They presided over 17 mistaken releases per month.

This did not happen overnight, and it was not inevitable; it was due to the choices made by the right hon. Gentleman’s party over 14 years of chaos. The Conservatives said  that they were the Government of security and safety, but again and again they oversaw rising instances of violent crime and crumbling courts and prisons. They promised 20,000 extra prison places, and they managed only an extra 500—500 in 14 years. They promised to remove more foreign national offenders from our prisons, and they failed. They promised investment and expansion in the prison system, but budgets stalled. They promised investment in the police, but we saw police numbers cut by 20,000. They promised increases in access to justice, but we did not see that; instead, we saw almost the collapse of legal aid. Under the right hon. Gentleman’s watch, violence, self-harm and drug abuse went up in our prisons while prison officer numbers were cut, yet he has the brass neck to come here and give the impression that this problem started just 14 months ago.

Let me just pause there. William Fernandez, a sexual predator, was released in error in March 2021. After he was let out of prison, he raped a 16-year-old and sexually assaulted another young woman. Was there an independent investigation? No, not from the Conservatives. When Rayon Newby, another man who was mistakenly released from a category B prison, was released in error in March 2023, was there an independent investigation under the right hon. Gentleman’s watch? No, there was not. When Lauras Matiusovas was released in error in December 2021, was there any independent investigation? There was none at all. The right hon. Gentleman has some brass neck.

I have asked Lynne Owens to look at this incident and to do so in eight weeks, and we will of course come back to the House when that is done. All of what the right hon. Gentleman has said—looking at what happened over this period of time—will be subject to that review.

The right hon. Gentleman also says that the sentencing review will let out more foreign nationals, but he is wrong. We have actually brought down the threshold, so that someone can now be deported with just a suspended sentence. He knows that. If he reads clause 42 of the Sentencing Bill, he will understand that properly. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Chair of the Justice Committee. \p Andrew Slaughter: Given the pressure on prison front desks and the complexity of rules for release, this was an accident waiting to happen. One thing that might bring down the number of releases in error is the digitising of prisoner records. On visits to prisons, Justice Committee members are often horrified to find staff relying on handwritten files. While some parts of the justice system are entertaining artificial intelligence, why are our prisons still run on pen and paper systems? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend raises an important point. As he knows, there is to this day largely no wi-fi or anything like that available on our prison sites, in part because of concerns over the use of technology by prisoners. For that reason, prisons use a paper-based system, which will always be subject to some human error. In the context of this continued early release scheme being done on the quiet under the previous Government, and indeed because of the changes that  we are making in the Sentencing Bill, it is right that we have a proper look at this. I discussed this matter with Lynne Owens when we spoke yesterday. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: We Liberal Democrats are relieved that Kebatu has been recaptured after what must have been a terrifying few days for his victims, and we echo the Justice Secretary’s remarks thanking Essex police, the Metropolitan police and British Transport police. However, Kebatu’s recapture does not excuse the serious mistakes that caused his release to happen in the first place—it is totally unacceptable that the safety of the public was ever put at risk.

HMP Chelmsford is a remand prison that regularly deals with prisoners coming and going, and it should therefore be highly capable of handling situations like this. Yet we know from His Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons that there are deep-seated inadequacies at Chelmsford, including inexperienced staff and a lack of adequate training, identified especially in pre-release documents. At the same time, we have seen worrying trends nationally in mistaken prisoner releases, with 262 prisoners released by accident in 2025, up from 115 the previous year.

We Liberal Democrats recognise that the Government inherited a mess when it comes to prisons, but they should have taken serious steps to address the shortfalls and staffing issues in prisons, which are now clearly putting the public at risk. What steps are the Secretary of State’s Government taking to address work culture and training issues in our prisons, especially prisons such as HMP Chelmsford where concerns had already been raised?

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of an independent investigation, following repeated calls by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), whose constituents were put at risk, but will he confirm what consequences those found at fault will face? Also, pending the outcome of the investigation, does he agree that anyone responsible should face the sack? Does he believe that the new safeguards he is putting in place will prevent this from ever happening again?

Finally, Kebatu’s victims will have spent the weekend incredibly distressed. What support was provided to those victims and their families over the weekend when they were aware of the perpetrator being at large, and will that support continue? \p David Lammy: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for the tone of her remarks. She is right that what happened was entirely unacceptable, and understandably the victims of Kebatu’s crimes and their families would have been very anxious over the course of the weekend. The public at large would also have been very anxious, particularly women and children. She is right that there are issues in our prisons; 50% of our prison staff are effectively new on the job as a result of what we inherited from the Conservatives. It is important that we give them the appropriate support and training over this period.

The hon. Lady knows, because I have said it from the Dispatch Box, that it is our intention to grow the number of prison places—14,000 places by 2031—and build  new prisons. In that context, it is also important that we grow the number of officers and support them. The hon. Lady knows too the importance of probation in this context, and the £700 million we have allocated to support our Probation Service at this time is really important. She will recognise that, in a system that releases 57,000 prisoners every year, many prisoners are released appropriately under licence. Some of them are reporting to probation or at home or for tags, and many of them—a proportion that has gone up—are reporting for early removal. For all those reasons it is important that Lynne Owens gets to the bottom of what happened in this circumstance. \p Matt Bishop: On the weekend we heard Conservative Members talking about the Labour party releasing this prisoner early. That is a rather silly comment, as the Labour party did not release anybody. Does the Secretary of State agree that what has caused, created and contributed to the problems that have enabled these mistakes to happen has not come from the 14 months we have been in power but from the 14 years of austerity and cuts that the Conservatives oversaw? \p David Lammy: As a statement of fact, the Conservatives recognise that the inheritance we had in this context was poor. The public want to ensure that whoever is in government keeps them safe and that people are not being released from prison in the wrong way. That is why it is important that there is a full and independent investigation into this incident and that the system learns lessons from it. I listed previous cases where there was no full or independent investigation. We could have learned from these cases earlier if the Conservatives had acted. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Father of the House. \p Edward Leigh: The crisis of small boats crossing the channel is utterly debilitating and is alienating millions of people from the whole political process. Imagine how the whole atmosphere would have lightened if the Government had come here today and said, “This sort of farce cannot continue. We will get out of any convention, and from midnight tonight if you land illegally on these shores, you will be detained and deported immediately back to where you have come from.”

I want to ask about a particular constituency point. Such is the crisis around how to house these people that there are reports today in The Times and other newspapers that the Government are thinking of opening disused military sites and are looking at two or three in particular. The Government gave a solemn promise that they would not use RAF Scampton to house illegal migrants. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that solemn promise still stands? \p David Lammy: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the Housing Secretary this morning talking about how we are looking at military sites. We are looking at a number of them intently. I am afraid that I am unable to give him reassurance in relation to his constituency because I have not got the list in front of me, but I will ensure that the appropriate Minister makes contact with him. \p Warinder Juss: It is deeply concerning that a dangerous criminal was released on to the streets—that should not have happened—but I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his honest assessment of what happened and for acknowledging that it was wrong. Does he agree that we are dealing with 14 years of Tory neglect with overcrowded and understaffed prisons, and that when things go wrong—as they have done—it is essential that we take swift and decisive action so that the public’s trust in the justice system is maintained, and that that is exactly what we are doing now? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The truth is that, under this Government in our first year in office, more than 5,100 foreign national offenders were removed from this country. We have removed 2,500 more from prison than in recent times. Under the last Government, there were 800 releases in error and no full independent investigation. That is the truth. It is on this watch that we are going to change that. \p Marie Goldman: The trial, sentencing and mistaken release of Hadush Kebatu all took place in the heart of my constituency, and it is entirely unacceptable. First, I thank Essex police, British Transport police and the Metropolitan police, as well as the public for their vigilance, for ensuring that he was apprehended and will now be deported. I welcome the announcement of an independent investigation, but the Government must ensure that any recommendations are implemented in full without delay and not just left to gather dust on a bookshelf. On prison leadership, does the Justice Secretary agree that scapegoating a single prison officer for systemic failure is unacceptable and that if leaders—including prison governors—are found to be at fault, they should resign? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I know that this case has been shocking for her constituents and that the reports and scenes of this prisoner wandering around Chelmsford will have been incredibly disturbing; particularly so for the victims of the crime. I know that she has spoken to the Prisons Minister—I grateful that she reached out as she did—and I think that she has spoken to the governor as well.

We have suspended the officer involved pending an investigation—that must be right and proper—but I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that, having asked Dame Lynne Owens to look at this case closely, we will of course take seriously her recommendations. I will ensure that the House can fully scrutinise those recommendations when they come forward. \p Kim Johnson: The case of Kebatu has exposed deep failings in our prison system as a result—as we have heard—of 14 years of failure by the previous Tory Government. Those failings were made worse by chronic staff shortages.

The immediate, reckless skilled visa rule change risks forcing hundreds of experienced overseas officers out of the service overnight. At HMP Liverpool, 40% of staff could be affected. Will the Secretary of State explain how stripping our prisons of trained staff will make them safer or help prevent further failures like those seen in Mr Kebatu’s case? \p David Lammy: I want to reassure my hon. Friend that the Prisons Minister is talking to Home Office colleagues about these very issues at this time. \p Neil Hudson: My thoughts are with the victims of this sex offender’s crimes, including the 14-year-old Epping schoolgirl. They and their families want answers as to how this major breach could have happened. The Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary have said that they were “appalled” and “livid”. Well, that is great—so is everyone—but Ministers are not commentators; they are in charge and ultimately they are accountable. This issue has not gone away for the people of Epping. The twice-weekly protests continue. No one wants our town to be repeatedly the lead story in the news, but the events of recent days have again raised community anxiety and distress. Will the Government now get a grip on this issue, address the illegal immigration crisis that has spun out of control on their watch, and do the right and safe thing and close the Bell hotel immediately? \p David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman was right, at the beginning of his question, to centre the victims of these crimes and their anxiety, and to hold that dear. That is why the first thing I said to Lynne Owens was that she should reach out to those victims and hear from them as she went about her work. I know Epping very well, and I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents know that the crisis that we inherited began under the last Government. Their discontent with asylum and immigration—the inability of the last Government to deal with the gangs and the collapse of the Rwanda scheme—and the outrage of asylum hotels all began under the last Government, and he knows that as well as I do. \p Chris Webb: I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to the House today to address this serious issue. Many of my constituents raised it with me over the weekend. I notice that not a single Member from Reform is here, especially not the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). I am assuming that she is still running scared after her horrific racist remarks over the weekend. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the deportation of Kebatu will proceed unhindered and without delay— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to ponder his words. I suggest that he withdraws the remark that he has just made about another hon. Member. \p Chris Webb: On your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw that remark. To finish my question, will the Secretary of State ensure that there is a swift plan, so that when mistakes are made we can ensure that public trust in the justice system is retained? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right, and it is hugely important to put this in the context not only of the victims, who will have been anxious, but of the inheritance of the backlog in our courts that is preventing people from getting justice. He is also right to reference the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby, who I see is not in her seat despite her very inflammatory statements over the weekend. \p Ashley Fox: It is outrageous that Kebatu was not deported at the end of his sentence. What is worse is that the number of prisoners released by mistake has more than doubled under this Government. If the Justice Secretary is determined to release thousands more prisoners early, how confident is he that this mistake will not be repeated again and again on his watch? \p David Lammy: There is actually a point of agreement between the two main parties: that foreign national offenders who commit crimes should be deported as quickly as possible. We are attempting to do that with the Sentencing Bill. The shadow Justice Secretary has raised that matter, and it is one point, at least, of agreement. I am serious about getting to grips with the early release issue and am serious when I say, and the hon. Member knows this, that this story began before we came to office. It is why one of our most senior police officers will be looking at this issue and, of course, we will take all her recommendations seriously. It is hugely important that the public sees the system working and that they feel safe. \p Paul Waugh: Hadush Kebatu is clearly a depraved individual and a dangerous pervert who should be booted out of the country without delay. But my constituents are sick and tired of having to foot the bill for the cost of housing foreign national offenders in British jails. Will the Home Secretary therefore reassure them that the Sentencing Bill will make it much easier to deport those individuals and ensure that they are in foreign jails where they belong, rather than clogging up our prisons? \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is exactly right. It costs £54,000 a year to have any individual in prison in our country—that is a lot of money. That is why it is important that we reduce the period that they are in our country, and that once they have been convicted and served 30% of their time, we can deport them back to where they come from. That is, of course, where Kebatu should be and what he should experience over the course of the next few days. \p Richard Foord: The breakout from prison of Hadush Kebatu sounds less like “The Great Escape” and more like “Fawlty Towers”. It has helped bring to light that 262 prisoners were released by mistake last year and 115 the year before. On mistaken releases, what assurance can the Justice Secretary offer that the responsible contractors or subcontractors will be subject to the sort of financial penalties that motivate them to prevent further mistakes from happening? \p David Lammy: I am not sure in this circumstance that this was subcontracted. The hon. Member will understand that when we look at the 56,000 or so prisoners who are released from prison, many are being released into the hands of probation and asked to report to a probation office. Some are released for time served. There are housing and employment assessment needs. Many are tagged at home. He is right on what is behind his question. For some reason, Kebatu found himself in the wrong stream because for foreign national offenders, it is an immigration removal centre and it is off on a plane, and that is what should have happened. \p Jessica Asato: I welcome the fact that Dame Lynne Owens will be speaking to the victims of Kebatu to understand the impact on them, but will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm whether the previous Government made any steps to speak with victims affected by prison release errors that happened on their watch due to the system being starved of funding? \p David Lammy: There were many cases of early prisoner release. As I said before, whether it was William Fernandez in March 2021, Rayon Newby in March 2023 or Lauras Matiusovas in December 2021, there were no independent investigations under the last Government. Very little was said or, it would seem, learned even though 800 prisoners were released early. This story goes back a long way. It is in part because of the scheme set up under the last Government, which was revised four times in the run-up to the general election, and it is why we must take a thorough look and reassure the public. \p Simon Hoare: The Justice Secretary will know that police operational independence, free from political interference, is crucial and is enshrined in the police protocol. Yet, on page three of the statement which the Secretary of State just gave, he told us—I checked against delivery—that over the weekend he

“chaired three operational meetings with the police”.

What has changed? \p David Lammy: The hon. Gentleman has tremendous experience in this Chamber, and I think he would think it was extremely lackadaisical if the Justice Secretary did not seek an operational update from the police over the course of the weekend, when this was at the top of the news cycle and of huge anxiety. Of course, operational matters are for the police, but I am hugely grateful, as I said to Mark Rowley this morning, and I was very pleased that local officers in the London borough of Haringey were able to detain Kebatu, which is why I went up to Wood Green to thank them personally for what they had done. \p Jonathan Davies: The erroneous release of this individual was an appalling error. I am grateful that he has been caught and that the Justice Secretary will take steps to get to the bottom of what went wrong in this case. I will be grateful if he comes back to the House in due course to report on his findings.

When they started last year, this Government inherited an appalling situation in respect of the prison estate, with prisons fit to bursting and short of staff. Perhaps that is why the general election came when it did, rather than in the autumn, because there would have had to have been a prisoner release scheme under the previous Government later that year.

I am sick of people coming to my constituency surgeries who have been victims of crime but feel that justice is not being done. I urge my right hon. Friend to redouble his efforts to build up the number of prison places, but also to take steps to ensure that, certainly at lower levels of crime, people do not get into crime in the first place, because that is how we will save money in the long run. \p David Lammy: My hon. Friend is right to mention the end of the early supervised licence scheme that was set up by the last Government and revised four times, and under which 10,000 people were released. It was effectively done on the quiet, in a chaotic way, and that is when we began to see the spike. It is not about making partisan or political points, but the truth is that we all know that the prison system that we inherited was in a dire situation. We now need to get a grip where mistakes are being made, which is why the officer involved has been suspended under investigation, the checks and balances in place are now the toughest we have had, we are asking duty governors to look at cases the night before, particularly in relation to foreign national offenders, and we have Dame Lynne Owens doing a further investigation. \p Liz Saville-Roberts: I put on the record my role as the co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. Everyone here will want to make sure that this kind of outrageous error never happens again. The chief inspector of prisons warned today of a “systematic problem” of increased releases in error, citing “very busy people, often quite inexperienced, with huge caseloads”. He also warned that prisons are dependent on west African officers whom we might now lose thanks to the changes to visa thresholds that are expected to cause “an enormously damaging effect” on some prisons. With that in mind—because the Government have control over it—will the Justice Secretary press the Home Office to look again at how changes to the skilled workers visa are directly causing prison staff shortages and worsening prison performance? \p David Lammy: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for putting on the record the challenge we have with junior staff. I am very grateful for the work in our prison system of those staff, who are much beloved, who have come from west Africa, largely Nigeria, to support the system for a period of time. I recognise the challenges that the right hon. Lady articulates and, of course, as she would expect, all such matters are under discussion. \p Christopher Vince: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and I thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) for starting his question with a recognition that the situation really affects the victims of this terrible crime. We all need to recognise the devastating effect on the families and those who are victims of crime when the person who committed those crimes is released in this way. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give to residents in my constituency that this Government will finally get on the front foot when it comes to this issue and tackle it? \p David Lammy: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend; he has just returned from paternity leave. I know his constituency of Harlow very well—I think it has one of the highest proportions of Spurs supporters in the country—and I know that folk will have taken this very seriously. I want to reassure them that we have asked one of our best senior police officers to lead the review, and we have put in place immediate checks in the system that are the toughest that have ever been in place for release. Of course the officer involved has had to be suspended pending that full investigation, and the Prison Service itself has immediately begun its own investigation and will report to me later this week. \p Julian Lewis: Mr Kebatu came to this country by small boat, allegedly because he was seeking asylum against oppression in Ethiopia. At his trial, however, he changed his mind and decided he would rather be back in Ethiopia. What bothers me about the state of our immigration system is that if, after he has been punished in Ethiopia, he hops on another small boat and comes back again and says that he is seeking asylum because, as a result of his conviction for sexual crimes, he faces disapproval and possibly persecution in Ethiopia, we would have to go through this farce all over again, wouldn’t we? \p David Lammy: I recognise the concern that may well be on the minds of the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and indeed mine, but the biometric system that we have in place should alleviate that of course. The right hon. Gentleman is right that Mr Kebatu said in the trial that he wanted to go back to Ethiopia, and that is where he now belongs. \p Siân Berry: The Secretary of State rightly talks about prisons reeling from historic funding and staffing cuts, yet he admits that other current Ministers have added to this problem by changing the visa rules in July, which will force many overseas prison officers out of the country. He just called them “much beloved” staff and just said that he recognises the challenges, so will he confirm that he has asked the Home Secretary to look again at her visa changes for these prison officers? \p David Lammy: It is my job to ensure that we have the right amount of prison officers in the system and that they are supported to do their job. Of course the hon. Lady would expect that that is a No. 1 priority for the Department: the right number of prison officers to do the job, recognising that many of them now have little experience as a result of the changes that were made under the last Government, but also the right number of probation staff, and we are doing both. \p Wendy Morton: Kebatu’s accidental release is beyond belief; it is a national embarrassment. But what I have found really disturbing has been sitting here on the Back Benches watching the Justice Secretary laugh at some of the responses. I find that wholly unpalatable and am left wondering what the victims must be thinking. When will he resign? \p David Lammy: I have a lot of respect for the right hon. Lady. I just remind her that I am not sure that the shadow Justice Secretary mentioned the victims once in his contribution this afternoon. \p Jim Allister: I think we all know that it is the notoriety of the Kebatu case which has brought the Justice Secretary to the House today, but we also know that there were 262 such wrongful releases in 2024-25. How many independent investigations were held into any of those and with what result, and how have we got to the point where, on average, we have five wrongful releases per week? Shouldn’t action have been taken long ago? \p David Lammy: I agree that action should have been taken long ago when this story began under the last Government. That action is beginning now. \p Lewis Cocking: The fundamental responsibility of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, but—from the mistaken release of a dangerous foreign sex offender to scrapping future prison sentences for over half of offenders—which side is Labour on? Is it on the side of the hard-working, law-abiding British public, or the criminals who target and exploit them? \p David Lammy: After the horrific legacy left by the last Government, I think that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be pleased that we are increasing the number of prison places, that we are reversing some of the cuts made under last Government, that the Sentencing Bill is passing through Parliament and that we have come forward with a courts Bill. Those measures are all to deal with the chaos that we inherited in our justice system. I have got to tell the hon. Gentleman: his question is really rich when it was his party that cut 20,000 police officers in our country. \p Mark Pritchard: May I say to the Justice Secretary that referring to the last Government’s record is wearing a bit thin? This Government have been in power for over 12 months, so what he says is not going to wash with the British public. May I also say to him that I think he does his calm better than he does his livid?

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), I think he paraphrased his own statement, but his statement clearly says:

“Over the weekend, I chaired three operational meetings with the police.”

Hon. Members will know that we can attend strategy meetings, but we never interfere with operational matters. The House, members of the public and police officers deserve clarity about that. He also said:

“Members will be aware that there are national security considerations within a case like this.”

We are talking about a criminal conviction made in open court, so what are those national security implications?

Finally—so he knows that I have not been too tough on him today—I commend his decision to appoint Dame Lynne Owens; she is a first-class public servant. \p David Lammy: Despite the nature of the right hon. Gentleman’s questioning, he and I are actually friends. I think it was important that the police were able to give me an operational update, and I thank the Metropolitan police, Essex police and the British Transport police for their work, which I am sure his constituents value. I am sorry that he does not want me to mention the record of the last Government, but I have a feeling that when he was sitting on the Government Benches, he was hugely disappointed with their record on crime and on the justice system. \p Gagan Mohindra: As the House will be aware, I was once an Epping Forest district councillor and an Essex county councillor, so I know both Epping and Chelmsford. Given the high-profile nature of this case, public confidence is at an all-time low. Did the Justice Secretary consider his position? If not, why not? \p David Lammy: I really think that is a ridiculous question. The hon. Gentleman knows that the answer is no. What I considered carefully was what my predecessors were  up to in the last Government to allow the spike and do nothing about it. When I looked at the cases—particularly the case involving someone who was let out and went on to commit a sexual assault—I wondered why no independent investigations were set up then. \p Paul Kohler: As the Justice Secretary admits, there is a staffing crisis in our prisons that his Government inherited from the brass-necked Tories. Over a third of prison officers now have less than two years’ experience. With too many officers leaving the profession and too few joining, is it any wonder that mistakes like this happen increasingly frequently? While the Ministry of Justice has sought to address the prison officer shortfall by recruiting overseas, the Home Office, as we have heard, is undermining those actions by raising the payment threshold for the skilled worker visa. I have a simple question. Is the Justice Secretary asking the Home Office to add prison officers to the skills shortage list—yes or no? \p David Lammy: As I have said, it is right and proper that the Home Office has a thorough regime for skilled workers, and I support it in that endeavour. It is also important that we have the bank of prison officers that we need, and it is my job to ensure that we have that, whether they are able to come from abroad or—as the vast majority do—from our own country. \p Luke Evans: There are almost a dozen pages in the statement and the Secretary of State has taken questions for almost an hour, but there is one word that I have not heard: “sorry”. That is really important, particularly for the 14-year-old victim and her father. The Justice Secretary has said a number of times that he has personally reached out and thanked the police. Has he personally reached out to the victims? Has he tried to speak to them? Has he tried to say sorry? \p David Lammy: Of course I am sorry—sorry that any victim of crime had the anxious weekend that they had. It was important for me to ensure that police liaison   were in touch with them, and I am grateful to Essex police for doing that. It is also important to me that Lynne Owens is able to speak to them so that their concerns are reflected in her full and final report. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: How many of those released in error under this Labour Government are still at large? \p David Lammy: As the hon. Lady would expect, a number of people are released under different regimes: some will be released at home and will, hopefully, lead productive lives; others will be back in prison; and some are recalled under licence. All that will be examined by the independent, full investigation. \p Jim Shannon: The fact of the matter is that some 262 prisoners were freed in error in the year to March, which is almost an epidemic. That is compared with 115 in the previous year—a increase of 128%, according to data from the Ministry of Justice. The Justice Secretary knows that I have absolute respect for him, but does he accept that this is absolutely shameful? It exemplifies the changes needed in our justice system: to restore justice, and to remind people that the penalty for crime is to lose their way of life and their rights. Those who commit crime should not simply to be placed in a holding cell to tap their fingers and wait while serving a fraction of their sentence, hoping that they are one of the growing number simply to be sent home without being rehabilitated; rather, they should be detained in the system. \p David Lammy: I associate myself with all the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman. He is completely right; this is totally, totally unacceptable. People who commit crimes deserve to be punished. I think the public also want them to be rehabilitated—it has got to be punishment that works—and to be released in an appropriate fashion into the community or sent back to their country in the appropriate way. We have to ensure that the system gets that right every single time. \p Dawn Butler: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Saturday, the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) said:

“It drives me mad when I see adverts full of black people, full of Asian people”.

The hon. Member also said:

“It doesn’t reflect our society”.

As the MP for Brent East, one of the most diverse constituencies in the UK, let me say that you can be black or brown and be British, so I am completely offended by that comment. It is a racist comment.

Madam Deputy Speaker, can you imagine the constituents of that MP going to see her, knowing that she is a racist? These comments appear to be in breach of the MPs’ code of conduct, in particular the seven principles of public life— \p Judith Cummins: Order. Can the hon. Lady please reflect on her language and withdraw the remark about another hon. Member in this place? \p Dawn Butler: Madam Deputy Speaker, the comment that I referred to is absolutely a racist comment. Can we not call out that comment in this House? It is in breach of the Nolan principles for MPs. I want to know if you can help me in ensuring that— \p Judith Cummins: Order. For clarity’s sake, the issue is the calling of a Member of this House a racist. \p Dawn Butler: Madam Deputy Speaker, let me just quote again what the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby said:

“It drives me mad when I see adverts full of black people, full of Asian people…It doesn’t reflect our society”.

Madam Deputy Speaker, that is a racist comment, and it is against the Nolan principles. How can we ensure that Members of Parliament— \p Judith Cummins: Order. It is not about the comment that the hon. Member is referring to; it is the fact that she called the Member in question a racist that is an issue. Can she please reflect on her remarks, in which she has called a Member of this House a racist, and stick to the comments being racist instead? It may be that the hon. Member considers that to be dancing on the head of a pin, but it is important that we all act with respect and set an example to the country. \p Dawn Butler: This is giving me déjà vu. I appreciate that in this House, we are not supposed to be disrespectful and call Members of Parliament what they actually are. Ultimately, the comment is a racist comment. It is quite strange that I am unable to call out the Member for being a racist, after she has made a racist comment. \p Judith Cummins: Order. I am having to say this time and again—can you please consider withdrawing the comment about a Member of this House being a racist? \p Dawn Butler: Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to be thrown out of Parliament—again—so I will withdraw the fact that I am referring to the Member of Parliament as a racist because of her racist comments. \p Judith Cummins: Has the hon. Member informed the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby that she intended to refer to her in the Chamber? \p Dawn Butler: I have. \p Judith Cummins: The Chair is not responsible for comments made by individual Members outside of this place. If the hon. Member considers that there has been a breach of the code of conduct, the proper procedure is to complain to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. \p Kim Johnson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My point of order relates to the same person, but it is a different point.

I rise to raise a matter of both parliamentary courtesy and political accountability. I have been informed that last week, the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) held a political meeting in my constituency without giving me any prior notification. I have informed the hon. Member that I would be raising this as a point of order. Although there is no formal rule preventing Members from visiting other constituencies, it is a fundamental convention of this House that MPs respect the local representation of their colleagues and notify them before seeking to engage with their constituents.

They know that they are not welcome—coming into my constituency, stirring up hate and division. To ignore this convention of the House is discourteous; to do so in a city like mine, with a very long and proud history of diversity, is politically provocative. I call on the House to recognise that such actions undermine the norms of mutual respect between Members and disregard the right of constituents to be represented by their elected MP. The people of Liverpool Riverside do not welcome this opportunistic political activity. Madam Deputy Speaker, do you agree that this matter requires urgent attention, and can you reaffirm the principle that parliamentary conventions and respect for local representation must be upheld by all Members? \p Judith Cummins: I thank the hon. Member for her point of order, and for confirming that she notified the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby in advance of making it. Mr Speaker has always been clear that Members intending to visit a colleague’s constituency, except for purely private purposes, must inform that colleague in advance. \p Simon Hoare: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) is absolutely right to draw the attention of the House to the Nolan principles of public life. Keeping a weather eye on those principles falls within the auspices of my Select Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and of course this year is an important anniversary of the Nolan principles.

Given the fact that it is an important anniversary, and given that the Government have pulled together a whole variety of propriety and ethics under one body, might it now be appropriate for the authorities of this  place to reissue those principles to all Members, and to re-emphasise that they are as enduring and relevant today as they were when Lord Nolan first penned them and that if we all abided by them fully all the time, political and public life might be a little better? \p Judith Cummins: I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. It is a very interesting idea. The principles are set out in the code of conduct, but I will ensure that Mr Speaker is aware of his comments. \p Judith Cummins: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Bus Services Act 2025

Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Act 2025

Renters’ Rights Act 2025

Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill 2025

General Cemetery Act 2025. \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee \p UNKNOWN: “For section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (disclosures by victims that cannot be precluded by agreement) substitute—

“17 Disclosures by victims that cannot be precluded by agreement

(1) Any provision in an agreement is void in so far as it purports to preclude a victim, or a person who reasonably believes they are a victim, from making—

(a) an allegation of, or a disclosure of information relating to, relevant criminal conduct, or

(b) an allegation, or a disclosure of information, relating to the response of any other party to the agreement to—

(i) relevant criminal conduct, or

(ii) the making of an allegation or disclosure within paragraph (a).

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to provision in an agreement (an “excepted agreement”) that satisfies such conditions as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations.

(3) But the Secretary of State may by regulations provide that any provision in an excepted agreement is void in so far as it purports to preclude the victim, or the person who reasonably believes they are a victim, from making an allegation or disclosure within subsection (1)(a) or (b)—

(a) to a specified description of person;

(b) for a specified purpose;

(c) in specified circumstances.

(4) Nothing in this section affects the operation of any other enactment or rule of law by virtue of which provision in an agreement may be void.

(5) Subject to subsections (6), (7) and (8), this section binds the Crown.

(6) This section does not apply to provision in an agreement entered into by His Majesty in his private capacity (within the meaning of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947).

(7) This section does not apply to provision in an agreement entered into by the Crown for the purposes of—

(a) the Security Service;

(b) the Secret Intelligence Service;

(c) the Government Communications Headquarters.

(8) This section does not apply to provision in an agreement which—

(a) is between the Crown and a member or former member of the special forces, and

(b) governs the disclosure by the member or former member of any information relating to the work of the special forces.

(9) In this section—

“relevant criminal conduct” means conduct by virtue of which the person making the allegation or disclosure is, or reasonably believes they are, a victim (see section 1(1) and (2) of this Act);

“special forces” means those units of the armed forces of the Crown the maintenance of whose capabilities is the responsibility of the Director of Special Forces or which are for the time being subject to the operational command of that Director;

“specified” means specified in the regulations.”—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

This new clause substitutes section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which allows victims of criminal conduct to make disclosures in connection with that conduct. Under the new section 17, there will be no requirement that disclosure be made to certain persons in order to be permitted.

Brought up, and read the First time. \p Alex Davies-Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. \p Judith Cummins: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 14—Restriction of parental responsibility for child conceived as a result of rape.

New clause 1—Child sexual abuse victims and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme—

(1) The Secretary of State must amend the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme to—

(a) widen eligibility for compensation to all victims of child sexual abuse, including online-facilitated sexual abuse;

(b) ensure applicants with unspent convictions are not automatically excluded where offences are linked to the circumstances of their sexual abuse as a child; and

(c) increase the time limit for applications for compensation from victims of child sexual abuse to seven years from—

(i) the date the offence was reported to the police; or

(ii) the age of 18, where the offence was reported while the victim was a child.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a new draft of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme within six months of this section coming into force.”

This new clause would widen eligibility for compensation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme to all victims of child sexual abuse.

New clause 2—Sentencing: duty when giving custodial sentence to offender who has a child—

(1) At the time of passing a custodial sentence by a judge or magistrate the relevant court must instruct HM Courts and Tribunals Service (“HMCTS”) to determine whether an offender has—

(a) a dependent child,

(b) parental responsibility for a child, or

(c) a child living in their household.

(2) As soon as reasonably practicable after establishing whether an offender has responsibility for or contact with a child as under subsection (1), HMCTS must notify the relevant local authority and relevant agencies where a child lives with such information about the sentenced individual as the Secretary of State sees fit, which must include—

(a) offence type,

(b) sentence length, and

(c) the offender’s registered home address and date of birth.

(3) In this Section—

“local authority” has the same meaning as in the Children Act 2004 (see section 65);

“relevant agency” in relation to a local authority area in England, means a person who exercises functions in that area in relation to children.”

This new clause would introduce a duty on courts to ascertain whether an offender has responsibility for, or contact with a child at the time of passing a custodial sentence and for the courts to notify relevant local safeguarding teams details of the sentence passed by a judge or magistrate.

New clause 4—Victim personal statements—

(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue revised guidance on the content of victim personal statements.

(2) The revised guidance issued under subsection (1) must stipulate that when making a victim personal statement, a victim shall be able to say anything they wish about the defendant, provided it is not contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech, makes allegations of untried criminal conduct or is disorderly language.

(3) The court must disregard any prejudicial comments made during a victim personal statement.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how to make victim personal statements less restrictive and clarify what can be included.

New clause 5—Duty to collect and publish data upon sentencing—

(1) At the time of passing a sentence by a judge or magistrate the relevant court must provide to HM Courts and Tribunals Service (“HMCTS”) the following information regarding the sentence passed—

(a) offence type,

(b) sentence length,

(c) such information about the sentenced individual as the Secretary of State sees fit, which must include—

(i) nationality,

(ii) method of entry to the United Kingdom,

(iii) visa route,

(iv) visa status,

(v) asylum status,

(vi) country of birth, and

(vii) biological sex.

(2) HMCTS must collect and collate the information on the basis set out in subsection (1) on sentences passed in the courts.

(3) Once every three months, the Secretary of State must publish statistics based on the information collected by HMCTS under subsection (2).”

New clause 6—Court transcripts of sentencing remarks—

(1) All sentencing remarks made in the Crown Court must be published within two sitting days of being delivered.

(2) All publications must be freely available to all members of the public.”

New clause 7—Extension of Victim Contact Scheme—

(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that the Victim Contact Scheme is made available to—

(a) victims of offenders sentenced to less than 12 months for violent and sexual offences,

(b) victims in cases involving coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking, or harassment, and

(c) bereaved families in manslaughter or death by dangerous driving cases.

(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that information under the Victim Contact Scheme is communicated in a timely and trauma-informed manner.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish data each year on uptake and accessibility of the Victim Contact Scheme.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to extend the Victim Contact Scheme to certain categories of victim. It would also ensure information is provided in a timely, trauma-informed way and require annual reporting on the Scheme’s uptake and accessibility.

New clause 8—Access to free court transcripts for victims—

(1) Victims of criminal offences shall be entitled to receive, without charge, court transcripts of—

(a) sentencing remarks,

(b) judicial summings-up,

(c) bail decisions and conditions relevant to their case.

(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that such transcripts are provided within 14 days of a request.

(3) The duty under subsection (1) shall apply irrespective of whether the victim gave evidence in the case.”

This new clause would give victims a right to receive, free of charge, court transcripts of sentencing remarks, judicial summings-up, and bail decisions relevant to their case. It requires that transcripts be provided within 14 days of a request and clarifies that this right applies whether or not the victim gave evidence in the case.

New clause 9—Victims of online and technology-enabled crimes—

(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, commission the Victims’ Commissioner to undertake a review of the support provided to victims of online or technology-enabled offences including, but not limited to—

(a) harassment and threats;

(b) deepfake image generation; and

(c) the premeditated filming and online sharing of violent attacks where the intent is to humiliate or cause distress.

(2) The review should consider the effectiveness of—

(a) the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales;

(b) any guidance on the treatment of victims in the criminal justice system; and

(c) support provided to victims by the criminal justice agencies.

(3) The Victims’ Commissioner must publish a report making recommendations to the Secretary of State within 12 months of the start of the review.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake and publish a review of the support provided to victims of online or technology-enabled offences.

New clause 10—Duty to commission support services for victims of abuse and exploitation—

(1) This section applies in respect of victims of offences relating to—

(a) domestic abuse,

(b) sexual violence, or

(c) child criminal exploitation.

(2) It is the duty of relevant authorities to commission sufficient and specific services for victims under subsection (1) in accordance with the Victims Code of Practice for England and Wales.

(3) Victim is defined as outlined in Section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.

(4) The services commissioned and provided for under subsection (2) must include, but are not limited to—

(a) specialist services for adult victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence,

(b) specialist services for child victims of exploitation, sexual abuse and domestic abuse,

(c) specialist advocacy and community-based services for victims with specific needs including (but not limited to)—

(i) child victims,

(ii) Deaf and disabled victims,

(iii) Black and minoritised victims, and

(iv) LGBTQ+ victims,

in compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty.

(5) In this section—

“child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given in the Crime and Policing Act 2025;

“relevant authorities” has the meaning given in section 13 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2025.”

New clause 11—Duty to commission support services for caregivers of victims of abuse and exploitation—

(1) This section applies in respect of victims of offences relating to—

(a) domestic abuse,

(b) sexual violence, or

(c) child criminal exploitation,

where the victim—

(i) at the time of the offence, was under the age of 18, or

(ii) is an adult at risk of harm.

(2) It is the duty of relevant authorities to commission sufficient and specific services for the parent, guardian or person who has responsibility for the victim under subsection (1) for the purpose of securing the rights of the victim under the Victims Code of Practice for England and Wales.

(3) Victim is defined as outlined in Section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.

(4) The services commissioned and provided under subsection (2) must be—

(a) appropriate to the needs of the caregiver in supporting the victim,

(b) trauma-informed and culturally competent, and

(c) accessible without unreasonable delay or procedural burden.

(5) In exercising their duty under this section, relevant authorities must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

(6) The Secretary of State must publish such guidance within six months of the passing of this Act, following consultation with relevant stakeholders including—

(a) victim support organisations,

(b) organisations representing children and vulnerable adults, and

(c) persons with lived-experience of the effects of sexual or violent offences.

(7) In this section—

“child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given in the Crime and Policing Act 2025,

“adult at risk of harm” means a person aged 18 or over who—

(a) has needs for care and support,

(b) is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect, and

(c) as a result of those needs is unable to protect themselves against the abuse or neglect or the risk of it, and

“relevant authorities” has the meaning given in section 13 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2025.”

New clause 12—Application of the Victims’ Code in respect of victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad—

(1) The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 2, insert—

“2A Application of the victims’ code in respect of victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad

(1) This section applies in respect of victims as defined under section 1(2)(c) who are a close relative of a British National resident in England and Wales, who was the victim of—

(a) murder;

(b) manslaughter; or

(c) infanticide,

committed outside the UK.

(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations issue an appendix to the victims’ code, setting out how the code applies to victims in the circumstances set out in subsection (1).

(3) The appendix must set out the services to be provided to victims as defined under subsection (1) by those persons based in England and Wales appearing to the Secretary of State to have functions of a public nature relating to—

(a) victims, or

(b) any aspect of the criminal justice system.

(4) The appendix must make provision for services based in England and Wales which reflect the principles that victims require—

(a) information to help them understand the criminal justice process;

(b) access to services within England and Wales which provide them with emotional and practical support (including, where appropriate, specialist services);

(c) in circumstances where the criminal justice process is engaged in England and Wales, the opportunity to make their views heard in the criminal justice process; and

(d) the ability to challenge decisions which have a direct impact on them.

(5) In setting out the services to be provided to victims under this section, the Secretary of State must specify the following:

(a) how such services will be provided with accessible information;

(b) how they access emotional and practical support.””

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to create an appendix to the Victims’ Code which outlines how the code applies to victims whose close relative was the victim of murder, manslaughter or infanticide outside the UK.

New clause 15—Right to referral to restorative justice services—

(1) A victim of an offence has the right, at any stage following the commission of the offence, to receive from a relevant criminal justice body—

(a) information about the availability and purpose of restorative justice services; and

(b) a meaningful referral to restorative justice services, where those services are available.

(2) A referral under subsection (1) must be made—

(a) as soon as is reasonably practicable after the offender is identified; and

(b) at subsequent appropriate stages of the criminal justice process (including pre-charge, post-charge, and post-conviction) or if requested by the victim.

(3) In exercising the right under this section, a victim must at all times give informed consent, and participation in any restorative justice process shall be voluntary.

(4) A relevant criminal justice body must maintain a record (in such form as may be prescribed by regulations) of—

(a) the times when referrals under subsection (1) are made; and

(b) statistical information on how many victims accept, decline, or do not respond to referrals.

(5) For the purposes of this section, “relevant criminal justice body” includes (but is not limited to) the—

(a) police;

(b) Crown Prosecution Service;

(c) His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service;

(d) courts; and

(e) Commissioned victim service providers.

(6) The victims’ code must include provision consistent with this section for—

(a) the form, timing, and content of information to be given to victims about restorative justice;

(b) mechanisms and standards for referral and re-referral; and

(c) oversight and review of compliance with this section.

(7) In this section “restorative justice services” means services facilitating a process through which a victim and offender (or their representatives) may, with appropriate support, voluntarily engage to deal with the harm arising from the offence by means of a facilitated dialogue or meeting such as conferencing, or indirect exchanges of communication via trained practitioners.”

This new clause seeks to strengthen victims’ statutory rights to access restorative justice services.

New clause 16—Duty to report on the use of restorative justice services—

(1) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the use of restorative justice services by victims in England and Wales.

(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the level of use of restorative justice services;

(b) recommendations for increasing the use of restorative justice services; and

(c) any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the assessment before Parliament.

(4) In this section “restorative justice services” means services facilitating a process through which a victim and offender (or their representatives) may, with appropriate support, voluntarily engage to deal with the harm arising from the offence by means such as mediation, conferencing, or reparation, under standards of safety and fairness.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the level of use of restorative justice services, and make recommendations for increasing their use.

New clause 17—The Victims’ Code: right to veto licence conditions relating to an offender’s release—

The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, revise the Victims’ Code to ensure that a victim of a serious or violent offence has a right of veto over licence conditions relating to the release of an offender from prison, including temporary release, which fails to reasonably prevent an offender travelling to specific locations and provide adequate protections to the victim.”

This new clause gives victims of a serious or violent offence a right of veto over licence conditions relating to the release of an offender from prison.

New clause 18—Victim navigators—

(1) The Secretary of State must, with six months of the passing of this Act, make provision for each police force in England and Wales to have access to one or more independent victim navigators.

(2) The purpose of an independent victim navigator under subsection (1) is to—

(a) liaise between the police force and potential victims of offences relating to slavery or human trafficking; and

(b) assist in the provision of specialist advice for either the police force or the potential victims.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide further guidance on the functions of independent victim navigators.

(4) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”

This new clause seeks to introduce provisions for Independent Victim Navigators to be in operation on a national level in England and Wales, acting as a liaison between the police and potential victim of slavery or human trafficking in accessing the appropriate support.

New clause 19—Requirement for Strategic Planning and Funding of Victim Support Services—

(1) Each local authority and relevant authority must prepare and maintain a victim support strategy setting out how they will meet the needs of individuals affected by—

(a) offences related to domestic or family-related abuse,

(b) sexual offences, and

(c) offences related to child criminal exploitation,

in accordance with their rights under the victims’ code.

(2) Strategies prepared under subsection (1) must include—

(a) identification of gaps in existing services,

(b) specific plans to fund and deliver services for adults and children,

(c) measures to ensure accessibility for victims with particular needs, including (but not limited to) those who are disabled, deaf, from racially minoritised communities, or LGBTQ+.

(3) Any body subject to a duty under subsection (1) must report annually to the Secretary of State on progress in implementing their victim support strategy, including outcomes for service users.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

“victim” has the meaning given in section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024;

“child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given in the Crime and Policing Act 2025; and

“relevant authority” has the meaning given in section 13 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2025.”

This new clause would require local authorities and other relevant bodies to prepare victim support strategies for meeting the needs of victims of offences relating to domestic or family-related abuse, sexual offences, or child criminal exploitation.

New clause 20—Duty to report on availability of support services for carers of victims—

(1) Relevant authorities must prepare an annual report on the availability, accessibility, and adequacy of support services for carers of victims affected by—

(a) offences related to domestic or family-related abuse,

(b) sexual offences, and

(c) offences related to child criminal exploitation,

provided for the purpose of securing the rights of the victim under the victims’ code.

(2) A report produced under subsection (1) must include—

(a) an assessment of gaps in existing services for carers,

(b) the types of support available, including emotional, practical, and advocacy services,

(c) measures in place to ensure accessibility for carers with specific needs, including those who are disabled, blind, deaf, from racially minoritised communities, or LGBTQ+, and

(d) planned actions to improve service provision where gaps are identified.

(3) Relevant authorities with a duty under subsection (1) must publish the report and submit a copy to the Secretary of State no later than six months after the end of each financial year.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

“carer” means any individual providing unpaid support to a victim as defined in section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024,

“child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given in the Crime and Policing Act 2025, and

“relevant authority” has the meaning given in section 13 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2025.”

This new clause would require relevant authorities to prepare an annual report on the availability, accessibility, and adequacy of support services for carers of individuals victims affected by offences relating to domestic or family-related abuse, sexual offences, or child criminal exploitation.

New clause 21—Duty of the Secretary of State to make a statement following publication of reviews or reports relating to the experience of victims in the criminal justice system—

(1) This section applies where any review, report, or inquiry—

(a) is commissioned, conducted, or sponsored (in whole or in part) by the Secretary of State or the Victims’ Commissioner, and

(b) relates to the experience of victims in the criminal justice system.

(2) Within two weeks of the date of publication, the Secretary of State must make a statement to both Houses of Parliament setting out—

(a) the principal findings and recommendations of the review, report, or inquiry, and

(b) the Government’s initial response, including any intended actions or further consideration to be undertaken.

(3) The statement under subsection (2) must be made by oral statement unless exceptional circumstances make a written ministerial statement more appropriate.

(4) For the purposes of this section a review, report, or inquiry may be statutory or non-statutory.

(5) The Secretary of State must publish guidance on the operation of this section within three months of the passing of this Act.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State for Justice to make a statement to Parliament within two weeks of the publication of any review, report, or inquiry relating to the experience of victims in the criminal justice system, including those commissioned or conducted by the Victims’ Commissioner. The statement must summarise the findings and set out the Government’s initial response.

Amendment 8, in clause 3, page 6, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert

“for a serious sexual offence committed against a child.”

This amendment would extend the provision of restricting parental responsibility where a parent is sentenced for a serious sexual offence committed against a child, regardless of whether it is their child or on the length of sentence handed down.

Amendment 1, page 6, line 1, leave out

“of 4 years or more”.

This amendment would ensure that where a person is sent to prison because of a sexual offence the court would be under a duty to make a prohibited steps order.

Government amendment 10.

Amendment 2, page 6, line 2, leave out

“for whom the offender has parental responsibility.”

This amendment would ensure the court was under a duty to make a prohibited steps order where anyone is sent to prison because of a sexual offence against a child, whether or not that child was one for which they had parental responsibility.

Amendment 3, page 6, line 20, leave out from “section” to end of line 25 and insert—

“ceases to have effect if the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal.

(5A) A prohibited steps order made under this section does not cease to have effect if the sentence is reduced, on appeal, so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of 4 years or more.”

This amendment would ensure that a prohibited steps order would cease to have effect if the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal. It would also require that a prohibited steps order remain in effect where a sentence is reduced on appeal so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of four years or more.

Government amendments 11 to 21.

Amendment 4, in clause 11, page 12, line 21, at end insert—

“(aa) in that sub-paragraph omit “28” and insert “56””

This amendment increases the window for applying to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme from 28 days to 56 days.

Amendment 5, page 12, line 23, after “(2)” insert—

“unless an application is made by a victim, or their deceased victim’s next of kin, in which case notice of an application shall be given within one year.”

This amendment increases the window for applying to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme to one year for a victim of a crime or a deceased victim’s next of kin.

Amendment 6, page 12, line 29, leave out “28” and insert “56”.

This amendment is contingent on Amendment 4.

Amendment 7, page 12, line 39, at end insert—

“(5) In accordance with the provision under sub-paragraph (1) the Crown Prosecution Service must write to the victim, or a deceased victim’s next of kin, within 10 working days of the sentence being delivered to make them aware of their ability to apply for a review of sentencing.”

This amendment is contingent on Amendment 5. It would require the CPS to write to a victim, or a deceased victim’s next of kin, within 10 working days of a sentence being delivered to make them aware of their ability to apply for a review. \p Alex Davies-Jones: It is truly an honour to open this debate and to bring the Victims and Courts Bill before the House. This Bill is about people—victims who have suffered unimaginable trauma and their families—and ensuring that they receive justice. It is about restoring faith in a justice system that can often feel cold and confusing, and it delivers on this Government’s driving mission for safer streets, making sure that victims are supported, that offenders are held to account, and that justice is delivered swiftly and fairly.

The deep-rooted issues in our criminal justice system need no repeating here. The House knows that the system requires large-scale reform after years of neglect. There is a long road ahead, but this Bill takes an important step forward. At its core are victims’ experiences. This Government are bringing forward real, tangible measures to ensure that victims’ voices are heard, their needs are recognised, and their rights are respected. The Bill will strengthen our courts, improving efficiency and fairness across the system. These are much-needed changes, and I am deeply grateful to hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House for their time and their insight in considering the measures, and to all the organisations, advocates and survivors who have shared their experiences and helped us shape this legislation.

I am sure that the House will therefore join me in paying tribute to the families of Jan Mustafa, Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa, and I welcome to this place Ayse Hussein, Cheryl Korbel and Antonia Elverson, who are in the Public Gallery today. I also thank Jebina Islam, Farah Naz, the Justice for Victims group—which includes Susan and Jeremy Everard, Glenn and Becky Youens, Katie Brett, Paula Hudgell and Ayse Hussein—and the Bethan family for their courage and strength in campaigning amid immense grief for their loved ones.

Three Government amendments on Report will further strengthen the Bill, delivering clearer, stronger protection for victims, and I will turn to them briefly now. I again thank all those who have worked so constructively with me and officials in the Ministry of Justice to discuss their issues and concerns.

New clause 14 and amendments 12 to 21 restrict the exercise of parental responsibility for perpetrators of rape, where their crime has resulted in the birth of a child.  These amendments will protect children, but will also help shield the victim from their perpetrator interfering in their lives, because those who commit this horrific crime should clearly never be able to use parental rights to control or torment their victim. I take a moment to pay tribute to a woman who I am proud to call my colleague and even prouder to call my friend. Many in this House will already have deep admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), and I place on record that this change is hers. It is for her, her children and those just like them up and down the country—the people to whom she has dedicated her life to fighting tirelessly for. \p Christopher Vince: I add my personal admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), who has been a fantastic champion for this new clause. Her predecessor in the House was called the beast of Bolsover, but I think she is the brave of Bolsover, because every time she speaks in this House she is incredibly brave, and I pay tribute to her. \p Alex Davies-Jones: I echo those sentiments entirely It has genuinely been my privilege to hear her story, and to work with her to ensure that this measure stops rapists taking an active role in a child’s life when that child was conceived as a result of rape. I cannot imagine the enormous complexity that mothers such as her face in this situation, and I am in awe of her bravery and that of so many others. This measure will ensure that rapists cannot take active steps in a child’s life when that child has been conceived as a result of the crime for which they have been convicted.

In order to protect as many children as possible, our measure features a two-track process. When the Crown court is satisfied that a child was conceived as a result of rape, it must make a prohibited steps order restricting the offender’s parental responsibility, unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so. We recognise that rape can occur within an abusive relationship, and that this may make it difficult to prove at a criminal trial that it led to the child’s conception. When that is the case, but the court considers that the rape may have led to the conception of the child, it will refer the matter to the family court via the local authority. This two-track process sends a clear message that we will protect all children born of rape, no matter what the circumstances.

The Government recognise the clear risk that serious child sex offenders pose to their children, which is why we tabled amendment 10, which will expand clause 3 of the Bill. It means that when someone is sentenced to four or more years for serious child sexual abuse, against any child, the courts will automatically restrict their parental responsibility. The process will remain the same: at the point when an offender is sentenced, the Crown court will be required to make a prohibited steps order restricting the offender’s exercise of parental responsibility for all children for whom they hold it. For offenders to be in scope of the amendment, they will have demonstrated that they are unable to protect children and to consider their welfare. That is why it includes all serious child sexual abuse offences against all children. Unlike the last Government’s plans in the Criminal Justice Bill, this proposal is not limited to offences of child rape. What is more, unlike the last Government, this Government will actually deliver on it. We are taking  this important step today to protect even more children by preventing these individuals from taking active steps in their children’s lives.

We have recognised the strength of feeling on this issue, and I am grateful to Members—especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, whom I have already mentioned, but also my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and Baroness Harman. They have been unwavering in their advocacy for the protection of children. Safeguarding children is of the utmost importance to this Government, and amendment 10 ensures that we are doing just that. \p Louise Haigh: My hon. Friend has just mentioned some pioneering women in the House who have campaigned on this very issue for a number of years, but today’s amendment stands on the shoulders of the brave victims and survivors who have spoken out for so long. It will correct a historic injustice whereby, while children are protected from convicted sex offenders and paedophiles, their own children are not, through no fault of their own. This Government are now taking steps to ensure that children and their parents are protected from these vile sex offenders. \p Alex Davies-Jones: My right hon. Friend is right. The Bill is a testament to those brave victims and survivors who have spoken out about this injustice, and it is this Government who are correcting that. My right hon. Friend also said that the amendment stands on the shoulders of brave, brilliant women in this place who have come before us and are still here, and it is apt for me to pay tribute to her as well, because new clause 13, concerning the misuse of nondisclosure agreements, is a testament to her brilliant campaigning.

The Government are very clear about the fact that NDAs must not be used to silence victims or witnesses of crime. Victims must be free to tell their truth, to seek help, and to warn others. New clause 13 will void NDAs to the extent that they seek to prevent a victim or a direct witness from speaking about criminal conduct to anyone, and for any purpose. It will also protect disclosures about how the other party responded to the conduct or allegation, so that victims are not prevented from sharing the full context of their experience. It builds on the Employment Rights Bill, which addresses the use of NDAs in cases of workplace harassment and discrimination. It will bind the Crown, but will not apply to a narrow cohort of specified agreements for national security reasons. It includes regulation-making powers to define “excepted NDAs”, where both parties genuinely wish to retain confidentiality, and to ensure that certain disclosures will always be permitted. Once commenced, this measure will replace section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which allows limited disclosures to certain bodies. Together with the Employment Rights Bill, we are taking the necessary steps to ensure that NDAs cannot be misused to silence victims or obstruct justice.

Let me now briefly address a number of other concerns that have been raised and led to the tabling of amendments. I will not pre-empt what will be said later today, and I will give Members the time to make their cases. However, I again thank those in all parts of the House for engaging with me and setting out their concerns.

New clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), would place a statutory duty on the Crown court and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to determine whether an offender has parental responsibility for a child following sentencing. The new clause is well intentioned, but it risks creating practical difficulties. Determining whether a person holds parental responsibility, has dependent children or has children living in their household may require interpretation of family court orders, birth records or informal care-giving arrangements. These are matters for the family court; imposing such a duty on the Crown court risks delaying sentencing. This Government gave a manifesto commitment to identify and provide support for children affected by parental imprisonment, and the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Education are working together to determine the best way to deliver on that commitment and ensure that every child gets the support that it needs.

The right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) have tabled amendments to remove the four-year custodial threshold that applies to clause 3, and to expand the number of cases in which the clause will apply. This is not simply about when parental responsibility should be restricted; it is about when that restriction should happen automatically. We need to be mindful that this is a very novel proposal. Removing the threshold would add a very large number of cases to what is an untested approach. More cases will also mean more applications to the family court, and it is important we do not overwhelm the court and create delays that would put the vulnerable children already in the system at further risk.

We want to be sure that there are no adverse consequences for those children and their families who are already in the family court. That is why we have sought to keep these measures narrow, so that we can understand exactly how they are working in practice and what the impacts are. As I said on Second Reading and in Committee, this is just the beginning. As part of the implementation of these measures, we will seek to understand how they operate in practice and ensure that there are clear routes through the family court for the restriction of the parental responsibility of any perpetrator who does not fall into this category.

The right hon. Member for Newark has tabled amendments on the unduly lenient sentencing scheme. Parliament intended the scheme to be an exceptional power, and I recognise the importance of finality in sentencing to avoid ongoing uncertainty for victims, those convicted, and society more broadly about the sentence to be served. However, I also recognise the exceptionally difficult circumstances for victims and their families in making a referral to the Attorney General within the 28-day limit.

The Law Commission is carrying out a review of criminal appeals, and held a public consultation that sought views from a range of individuals on reforms to the ULS scheme, including extending the time limit and offences in scope. The Government will , of course, carefully consider the review’s final recommendations, but I can assure Members on both sides of the House that I have heard the strength of feeling on the ULS scheme. The amendments that have been tabled on the matter raise important issues, and I will continue to look at the issue carefully as the Bill progresses towards the other place. On that, I make a commitment.

The right hon. Member for Newark has also tabled an amendment on victim personal statements, a topic on which I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) for his dedicated campaigning. Victim personal statements can be an incredibly powerful way for victims and their families to tell the court how the crime has impacted them, and for the court to directly hear evidence about the harm caused when considering its sentencing of the offender. This is the victim’s voice in the courtroom.

It is important to understand that these statements are evidence submitted to the court to assist it in determining sentences. As evidence they are subject to strict rules, which the court applies to ensure that the criminal justice process works fairly and effectively. That is why the content is limited to explaining the impact of the crime. \p Marie Rimmer: This takes me back to speaking with the family and father of young Violet-Grace, who was killed in 2017, at four years old, by someone who was going 80 mph in a 30 mph zone and then went missing. During the court case some years later, the family wanted to read out their victim statement fully in court. The defendant’s barrister objected, and the judge accepted that objection.

The Crown Prosecution Service barrister gave the parents a copy of their victim statement, highlighted with everything they could not say. They went out of the courtroom to alter their statement. This was a young couple with a younger child. What happened to Violet-Grace, and the impact on her mother’s life, was just horrendous. The parents went into that court and were made to feel like the criminals. They felt like the defendants. They felt that they were doing wrong. They were asking, “What can we say? What can we not say?”

The father texted me this morning and said, “Thank you, Marie. After all these years, I can see some light in the future. We don’t want other people to suffer this.” I do hope that this measure goes through, and that we can get something for this family, who now have another little girl. I thank this Government for getting round to it, because Bills and Acts have been going through, and it has been so terribly traumatic. The whole town feels for the parents. On behalf of Violet-Grace’s parents, thank you so much. \p Alex Davies-Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the case of Violet-Grace. She has been a tireless campaigner and supporter of the family for many years. I have had the privilege of meeting the Youens family several times and hearing directly how they were affected by their experience with their victim impact statement and the limitations placed on them as to what they could say in court. It essentially silenced them, and meant that their pain was not heard by the perpetrator. I am committed to working with them and the other Families for Justice campaigners. I have had extensive conversations with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and with many other hon. Members across this House, on looking for a way forward to ensure that victims’ voices are best represented in sentencing.

We do not need legislation for that. In fact, legislation could potentially make things worse through retraumatising victims by making them give two separate statements or by limiting—even further—in statute the parameters of what can be said. I do not want to limit or silence any victims; I want to work with them to ensure that there is universality, that there is support for them when completing their victim impact statements, and that the guidance is there so that everyone knows exactly what can be said in that impact statement. It is vital that we give victims a voice, and I am determined to achieve that.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft will speak to her amendment on placing a duty on certain authorities to commission specific support services for victims—and caregivers of victims—of abuse and exploitation. Again, this measure is well intentioned, but we do not agree that it is helpful to place a statutory obligation on certain authorities to commission certain support services.

The Ministry of Justice already provides grant funding to police and crime commissioners that is used to commission support services for victims of abuse and exploitation. That includes ringfenced funding for sexual violence and domestic abuse services. It is for the PCCs to determine what support is best for their local areas. However, I remain committed to working with my hon. Friend and others to ensure that victims get the best support.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has tabled an amendment that seeks to reform the criminal injuries compensation scheme in relation to compensating victims of child sexual abuse. This Government are, of course, absolutely committed to supporting victims. However, we believe that reforming the scheme in a way that benefits only victims of child sexual abuse—or any other single crime type—would undermine its principle of universality.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham—as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), and all those who attended the Westminster Hall debate earlier this year—will know the strength of feeling about the criminal injuries compensation scheme: it is not working, and it needs reform. I am committed to working with them and others, including victims and survivors, to ensure that that reform is not piecemeal and to look at how we can make it the most effective and sustainable scheme, to provide compensation to victims.

The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) will no doubt speak to his amendment on support for families bereaved by homicide abroad. Bereaved families will, in many instances, need support tailored to their cases. We have heard that these families need more clarity about that offer from UK agencies, what the homicide service even is, and how to access it. That is why we are working with Departments across Government, agencies, and the Victims’ Commissioner to produce a clear, accessible guide to support families bereaved by homicide abroad. I am grateful to the charity Murdered Abroad for working alongside us to ensure that that guidance delivers on its aims, and that we help those families who are stuck in limbo.

I will close by emphasising again the importance of this Bill. It is a foundation for a better justice system—one that provides even greater protection for victims and that delivers swifter and more efficient justice. It will not  solve every issue we face overnight, but it is a strong, determined step forward: a signal that this Government stand shoulder to shoulder with victims.

Again, I sincerely thank Members on all sides of the House for their engagement with this Bill. We work together in this place, and it is at its best when we come together for the sake of victims and survivors. I look forward to hearing the debate and responding to all of the views—I am looking forward to a really healthy debate. For now, I commend the Government amendments and new clauses to the House. \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: The cornerstone of our justice system should always be the support and protection of victims and survivors—ensuring that those who have suffered at the hands of others can go on to live a life without fear, and not be defined by the actions of those who harmed them. That is achieved by putting victims’ and survivors’ needs at the heart of the justice process, and ensuring that justice is served—and seen to be served—swiftly, through properly funded support. Both protection and rehabilitation must also be robust and effective.

All of that has underpinned many of the issues that victims and survivors currently face—the things that fill our local surgery appointments and our inboxes, often with harrowing accounts of system failures that continue to compound their trauma. We recognise that this Labour Government is having to untangle that mess: the court backlogs that delay justice; prison overcrowding; criminals released on to the streets without warning; and the hollowing out of support services that victims rely on.

We in the Liberal Democrats therefore welcome the intention of this Bill, and its many measures aimed at ensuring that victims are listened to and that their experiences in the system improve. In particular, we welcome the measures compelling offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. For many victims, that is seeing justice done—an important aspect of the process—a moment of closure or, for some, the beginning of their recovery. It is something that, more often than not, they have waited far too long to see. Offenders being seen to face the consequences of their actions is vital for many victims’ journeys.

We also welcome the provisions, both in the Bill and in the Government’s amendments, to restrict parental responsibility in instances of rape or sexual assault against a child, including when a child is conceived after a rape and when an offender has parental responsibility for any child. I give credit to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for being a tireless advocate for this and for being so brave in sharing her personal story.

That change is something that my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) also called for in Committee, and it has been a long-standing campaign for families and victims across the country. It is reassuring that the Justice Secretary and the Minister for Victims have heard their calls, picked this up and made it an important part of the Bill.

We are also really pleased to hear about the victims helpline, which could provide valuable support for so many, although we remain concerned about the sufficiency of the resources behind that to make the service genuinely effective. I would appreciate further clarity from the Minister on the resources being made available for the helpline.

Likewise, the extension of the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers is a constructive move. Empowering them to work on behalf of victims when a case is in the public interest is important for improving the experiences of victims and witnesses and, most importantly, for learning lessons for the future, which successive Governments have not been very good at doing.

We also believe that there are gaps in the provisions of this Bill that could be improved on. These have formed the bases for our amendments, but I am pleased to hear the Minister say that this is not the end of the journey, and we are laying out where we would like to see the Bill go. To that end, new clause 7 seeks to extend the victim contact scheme to repair some of the gaps in provision. Ensuring that victims have information about offenders, and about how they can apply for licence conditions, provide statements to parole hearings and appeal decisions, is vital for many victims’ journeys after a crime and for their feeling of safety. We therefore believe that the scheme should be extended to victims of offenders serving less than 12 months for violent or sexual offences, to victims in cases involving coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking or harassment, and to bereaved families in cases of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving.

New clause 8 would ensure that victims of criminal offences are entitled to free court transcripts, which should be universal to ensure transparency and an accessible method of processing court cases for all those involved in the criminal justice system, given that so much that happens in a court trial feels like a foreign language to so many accessing it, who need to process it afterwards. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) has done exemplary work on this topic and that the issue has support across the House, notably in an amendment tabled by the Conservatives, despite their decision to ignore it during the decade in which they were in charge of the Ministry of Justice. The roll-out of free court transcripts for victims of rape is a welcome step, but it should not be the end of our ambition to ensure that all victims can have this important document following a trial.

New clause 21 would require the Secretary of State for Justice to make a statement to the House within two weeks of the publication of any review, report or inquiry into the experiences of victims, including those produced by the Victims’ Commissioner. When things go wrong in serious national cases where hundreds, or perhaps thousands, have been let down by the justice system, it is vital that the country sees acknowledgment, apology and action from the relevant authorities, including the Government. This new clause would give hon. Members from across the country the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s response in all instances.

New clause 19 would specifically mandate local authorities to prepare strategies for victim support, to ensure that there are no postcode lotteries in support services relating to domestic abuse, sexual offences and child exploitation. New clause 20 would require relevant authorities to prepare an annual report on the availability and adequacy of support services for carers of victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault. These services are essential for victims finding pathways to moving on from horrific crimes. \p John Milne: This Bill’s support for domestic abuse survivors is very welcome, but it is only half the story. In Horsham, one of my constituents  arrived at court to see her abuser stand trial, only to be told at the courthouse door that the case had been pulled due to a lack of capacity. That trial was delayed for two years, by which time her abuser had breached two restraining orders. Does my hon. Friend agree that unless we see concrete measures to improve capacity above and beyond the recent increase in sitting days, this Bill cannot fulfil its promise to the public? \p Jessica Brown-Fuller: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the impact that court delays have on victims. I think it is an opinion shared across the House that it is totally unacceptable when a victim arrives to have their day in court and then gets sent away. The reason that we have a lot of legislation coming through at the moment is because the Government are trying to address the issue from multiple different angles, and I hope to see ambition in this area.

I will briefly highlight the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), who tabled new clause 12. It would require necessary updates to the victims code for relatives of victims of murder or manslaughter abroad, who currently sit outside the victims code. Although this affects around 80 families annually, the toll on them from falling out of scope and receiving little to no support, or from not knowing where to go to get support, is unacceptable.

As has been outlined, we Liberal Democrats are concerned about gaps in this Bill and believe that more can be done to support victims and survivors, but we recognise the ambition behind it. We urge the Government to take on board our amendments to better protect victims and survivors. \p Kerry McCarthy: In the interests of time, I will focus only on new clause 2, which stands in my name, though I also support new clauses 1, 10 and 11, and I very much welcome Government new clause 14. I thank the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) for originally tabling new clause 2. His subsequent elevation to the shadow Cabinet means that he has had to withdraw his name.

On 21 May 2024, I introduced the Children (Parental Imprisonment) Bill—with immaculate timing, as it turned out, as the general election was called the next day. I was delighted that despite the lateness of the hour I managed to have a quick word with somebody from the Leader of the Opposition’s office, and a commitment to identify and support such children made it into the Labour election manifesto. I would rather the commitment in the manifesto had not quite been framed in the way it was, which was about breaking the cycle of reoffending. That is certainly one factor, but to focus solely on it risks adding to the stigma and shame that is often felt by children in this situation. However, the important thing was that the commitment was there.

At the time, we did not know how many children had a parent in prison, as most figures were based on out-of-date research or unreliable estimates, but we saw the publication of an official estimate 13 days after Labour were elected. I know that we were quick off the mark as a new Government, but that work was the result of lots of lobbying and campaigning that we had managed  to get the previous Government to agree to. They set up something called the Better Outcomes through Linked Data project. Through that, we now know that around 190,000 children are affected by parental imprisonment each year—a huge number—but that is still only a ballpark figure. It does not tell us where in the country these children are, who is looking after them, whether they are getting support, what trauma they are going through and, in far too many cases, how long they have been coping completely on their own.

My Bill called on the Government to set up a statutory mechanism so that at the point when an adult is sentenced to imprisonment, efforts are made to find out whether they have any children at home, and if so, whether those children are being taken care of. That is what new clause 2 also seeks to achieve. I have to say that I was a little disappointed by the Minister’s reply, because it rather misses the point of what we are trying to do with this new clause. It has nothing to do with making a judgment about who has parental responsibility or not. The new clause says that the court should look at whether the offender has a dependent child, parental responsibility or a child living in their household. It talks about

“responsibility for or contact with”,

so there is no legal decision that needs to be made as to whether that parent is the sole carer or responsible for the child; it is about whether there is a child in the picture.

I very much believe that the Minister is passionate about this issue, and I know she has met representatives of the excellent charity Children Heard and Seen. I know she wants to act, but 16 months on from the general election, there are still no timelines for when identification and support will be brought forward for these invisible children. I want to make it very clear that this is about the welfare of children; it is not about prisoners. There is important work to be done on the rehabilitation of prisoners, and we are fortunate to have an excellent Prisons Minister who totally gets that. Research has shown that maintaining family ties for prisoners is very much part of that rehabilitation, but that is not what we are talking about today. I am concerned with the welfare of the children and specific child-focused support for those with a family member in prison, regardless of whether they have contact with that parent or not. We should not conflate the two, and I am concerned that the MOJ does so, which is in part because its responsibilities and funding streams are all focused on prisons and prisoners, whereas in the Department for Education there is a risk that these children get lost in the mix among other children who are suffering adverse childhood experiences.

In their responses to me, Ministers have highlighted the “Working Together to Safeguard Children” multi-agency working statutory guidance, published under the last Government in 2023. This guidance says that prisons need arrangements in place that take prisoners’ children’s needs into account. It recommends that on the first night of a prisoner’s sentence, they are to be

“supported to make suitable care arrangements for any dependent children”,

with the involvement of children’s social care services where needed. It advises the Prison Service to ask all prisoners during their custody screening whether they have caring responsibilities for children under the age of 18.

The inclusion of that in the guidance was positive, but it does not address the fact that some prisoners deliberately avoid revealing that they have children at home. Children Heard and Seen, the charity I mentioned, reports that some parents are scared of their children being taken away by social services, so much so that they do not tell anyone about their children. Furthermore, the prisoner in question might not have caring responsibilities. They might not even any longer have contact with the child. They might have been convicted of domestic violence against the child’s mother, or convicted of sexual abuse or offences against the child themselves, but their imprisonment is still important in terms of the trauma, stigma and shame that the child will be going through. I have heard of so many cases where children of sex offenders have had their homes targeted. They have been driven out of where they live, they have been humiliated at school, and they have had to move town and change their names because of what their imprisoned parent—usually the father—has done.

The Government’s “Keeping children safe in education” statutory guidance for schools and colleges, which was published in September, rightly notes that children with family members in prison are at a higher

“risk of poor outcomes including poverty, stigma, isolation and poor mental health.”

It signposts to the National Information Centre on Children of Offenders as a source of support for school staff helping children with a parent in prison, but the guidance has not been properly maintained for years. Many of the resources it redirects to no longer work, but families and professionals are still being referred there. On the MOJ side, the Government published a multidisciplinary training offer tender for professionals on the impact of parental imprisonment, but this tender was taken down and the Department will not clarify why or when it will go back up. In the meantime, children are still being left without support.

Given that all prisoners have contacts with His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, there is a missed opportunity for early identification of such children. This new clause would not necessarily pick up all of them, but it would be a really good step forward. New clause 2 would go further than current guidance by instructing courts to determine whether prisoners have children, to ensure they are protected. This could include using official data and working more closely with councils or local authorities, as well as speaking to the offender directly about how a child will be looked after. It could also involve working with schools.

The new clause would present another opportunity for prisoners, before they enter the prison estate, to report that there are children at home. The more opportunities that prisoners are given to do that, the more likely they are to tell officials. I was particularly struck by one of the accounts I heard, in which a woman had been in prison for about four months before revealing—she was having a counselling session or something—that she had children of school age who were left behind at home by themselves. The new clause could also bring forward a structure and process for having those conversations to reassure prisoners that informing the authorities about any child at home is the right thing to do for their children. Statutory guidance is non-binding official advice and cannot carry the force of the law, but the new clause would instruct the relevant agencies to  go further in their legal duty to protect children. As I have said, it will not catch all children, but it would be a major step forward. Will the Minister say in her response how, if we are not going to do it this way, we are going to do it? \p Joshua Reynolds: I wish to speak to my new clause 12. Each year hundreds of families get a knock on the door from the police who must deliver the worst news that a family can ever hear: the news that one of their closest relatives has been murdered. However, about 80 families each year receive the news that a family member has been murdered while abroad. That can be via a police officer, but the news often comes from a newspaper, or from a journalist who has found out and has reached out to the family directly. In many cases when British citizens are murdered abroad their families are left to deal with unimaginable grief for their loved one, all while facing the full weight of an unfamiliar, bureaucratic and different system, and they do that alone. They have to navigate foreign legal procedures, untranslated documents and distant court proceedings with patchy, inconsistent support from their Government, all at a time of trauma, vulnerability and mourning.

This is where new clause 12 come in. It seeks to add an appendix to the victims code so that this group of bereaved families, who currently fall through the cracks in our system, will no longer do so. The principle underpinning this Bill is clear: victims deserve to be at the heart of our criminal justice system. They deserve information, support and the opportunity to be heard. These are not privileges; they are fundamental rights. Yet there is a cruel anomaly: if a British citizen is murdered on British soil, their family receives structured statutory support through victim liaison officers, aid, court procedures and counselling services, but if the same British citizen is murdered abroad—while on holiday, working away or studying in another country—their family is so often left to navigate an overwhelming maze of foreign bureaucracy, often in a language they do not speak, with inconsistent and inadequate information from the Government, who should be standing behind them.

Ruth’s sister Faye was killed in 2019 while in Nigeria, where she was working for a non-governmental organisation. She was shot alongside her boyfriend in a double homicide. Ruth and her family were left to deal with an overwhelming number of agencies without proper support to understand who had responsibility for what, with limited communication and poor casework consistency from the British authorities. Vital information, such as the arrest and subsequent death of a suspect in custody, which the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office knew about, took years to reach Ruth and her family. They have still not obtained a full and accurate account of what occurred on the night of Faye’s murder.

Alison and Paul’s son Danny was murdered in Amsterdam in 2022, aged just 22. Alison and Paul have explained how navigating the lengthy and complex Dutch judicial procedures in a foreign language, while having to arrange matters such as repatriation without any support, was an immense challenge. They have described being in a state of turmoil and trauma, and are uncertain how they managed to endure the circumstances. They have outlined how the stress took a significant toll on both them and their daughter.

Theresa’s husband Stephen was killed in a violent attack by a gang while on holiday in Spain in 2009. His two teenage sons sustained permanent injuries in the attack. Stephen’s body was repatriated to the UK and was held by the coroner in a mortuary for eight years before the inquest was held. The inquest concluded with a verdict of unlawful killing, at which time the body was released to his wife and children—eight years after his death. Stephen’s family received no support from the UK for repatriation, travel and understanding the trial in a foreign country and in a foreign language. Stephen’s wife, Theresa, recounted how she and her family had been living through a nightmare—not only of having to navigate the complex judicial system in Spain, but of feeling retraumatised by the lack of support they received.

Andrew’s son was murdered abroad when he was 18 years old. He says that, despite the FCDO having a duty to care for UK citizens, the family received minimal support. The FCDO provided poor and inconsistent communication, leaving the family without clear updates at critical stages. The family was forced to navigate a foreign judicial system with no help in understanding procedures, local laws or rights, which added to their distress and confusion. They received no structured aftercare or follow-up support, despite the psychological impact of such cases.

These horrible incidents are not isolated. They show a broken system that fails British families at their most vulnerable moments. New clause 12 aims to address this by adding an appendix to the victims code setting out how the code applies to close relatives of British citizens murdered abroad. It states that the appendix must provide specific guidance explaining how families affected by murders abroad can access support, including clear information about foreign justice processes, which are often complex and distressing for bereaved families, in unfamiliar legal systems. This can include dedicated liaison officers, translation services and guidance on how to deal with foreign authorities. I have spoken to far too many families who were pointed to Google Translate for death certificates and descriptions of judicial processes in foreign languages. That is simply not good enough in our country. Under the new clause, families would also be entitled to emotional and practical support, including specialist bereavement counselling. Some police services across the country do this really well, but others do not do it at all.

Let me be clear about what this amendment does not do. It does not seek to interfere with foreign judicial systems, and it does not place unrealistic expectations on the FCDO. What it does is establish as a baseline a statutory framework that ensures bereaved families have access to the same quality of support and information here at home as any other victim of homicide would receive. The Murdered Abroad campaign is made up of bereaved families who have turned their grief into a really powerful call for change. They are not asking for any special treatment. They are asking for the same structured statutory support that families would receive if tragedy strikes on British soil. The families who suffer these specific horrors should not be forgotten because the crime goes beyond our shores; a British life lost is a British life no matter where in the world it happens. Compassion in the face of tragedy is not optional but a duty, and new   clause 12 provides a way to fulfil that duty. I thank right hon. and hon. Members who have supported it, and I ask everybody to vote for it this evening. \p Natalie Fleet: I will speak to Government new clause 14. It means that rapists will no longer have access to children conceived by their crime. It puts the right of survivors above the rights of criminals. It protects mummies and their precious babies. It is not okay that it took so long for the law to change—to keep up with common sense—but to get this change the Government fought to get us on these Benches and into government, bringing with us our real-life experience and that of our community, supported by Ministers, right up to the Prime Minister, determined to tackle violence against women and girls.

Ten babies are born every day in the UK as a result of rape. For too long, we have told ourselves that rape only happens in faraway countries, that it is a recent crime that arrives on boats. Before that, rapes only happened when a woman was dragged down an alley by a stranger, or when a vulnerable girl was targeted by a gang. No, rape is happening here and now, just as much as it always has. It is in our communities. It is happening to our women, by our men.

If a quarter of women are raped or sexually assaulted most of the time by men they know, this means that women we know are being raped by men we know. Some of these rapes will result in pregnancy. Until we start to believe that and accept that, nothing will change. Women will continue to live in fear of not being believed, so scared that instead of being able to speak up they hide their trauma in plain sight. That has to stop now and we all have a role to play, but it starts with politicians no longer failing women by, at best, not using their power to protect them, or, at worst, seeking to weaponise their trauma.

Regardless of our class, age or background, rape has always been part of our story as women. It is a part the Government are hearing, not shying away from and not ignoring because it is too difficult. Instead, the Government are choosing to use the law to acknowledge that this is happening: protecting victims without retraumatising; automatically removing parental responsibility where there is a conviction of rape; and also saying that we believe you, even without conviction, giving a court the power to take action where it sees that this is a child probably conceived from rape.

Laws like this do not change without a fight. This law is changing because we have a Prime Minister who took time to sit with me and listen to the voices of victims, and vowed to do something about it. It is because of people like Baroness Harman, the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls, the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary, the Minister for Courts and Legal Services, and Members from all across the House listening and helping me navigate to find a solution, with the Minister for Victims leading the change.

As the 690th woman MP, statistically the 172nd to be raped and one of the few to use this Chamber to speak out, my message is to victims and survivors everywhere: I know that speaking out is tough. Until you find your   voice I will keep telling your stories, because sharing our truth is the only way that we will ever see change like this and force shame to change sides. So,

“Courage calls to courage everywhere”.

If you are one of the women affected by this law change, I ask that you to tell somebody you love and trust. I want you to give them the opportunity to readily believe you and embrace their chance to support you.

I want to end with the words of a brave mummy, who remains anonymous to keep herself and her child safe. She said:

“They won’t do it. They will let me down. They won’t believe me. They’ll see that what happened was my fault, that I asked for it, that it was my behaviour that caused this. That the worst thing imaginable happened and I only have myself to blame. That the rape grew inside me until I had to part with it by giving birth, a birth I have repeated nightmares about. It’s been so tough raising my child as a loving mother, even though I struggle with the fact that that child exists. If you change the law today, that will be incredible. It means I can use the law to keep me and my baby safe. It might even mean I can finally report it.”

I will be thinking of her—her incredible bravery and her wonderful child—as I walk through the Lobby to vote for this Bill tonight. \p Hon. Members:: Hear, hear. \p Paul Kohler: My new clauses 15 and 16 concern restorative justice. They are supported by the charities Why Me?, for whom I am an ambassador, and Calm Mediation, as well as the Restorative Justice Council and others who work every day with victims and offenders. I thank hon. Members from my own party and from the Labour and Conservative Benches, who asked me to add their names in support.

The need for these clauses could not be clearer. After years of Conservative failure, our justice system stands at breaking point, with unacceptable delays. Our courts are clogged, witnesses drift away or begin to forget, and our prisons are stretched beyond breaking point. The Tories have left us with a legacy of neglect, and the people who suffer most are the victims, whose voices are too frequently ignored. We must do more to put the victim at the heart of the criminal justice process, rather than simply as one of the pieces of evidence to be heard in court. Victims are more than just witnesses to the crime, but too often that is their only role in court proceedings.

Increasingly, when we talk about justice for victims, the debate collapses into retributive justice, as if all victims want is to lock the door and throw away the key. Even David Gauke, the most liberal Lord Chancellor in my political lifetime, in his recent and mostly excellent sentencing review falls into this error with a chapter on victims focusing keeping them better informed about their sometimes unrealistic expectations concerning the severity of punishment. His review, like today’s Bill, makes no mention of restorative justice, which should be at the heart of giving victims access to justice. Victims of crime do not want retribution but closure, and giving them the opportunity to enter into a process that allows them to share their feelings concerning the crime with others, often culminating in a meeting with the perpetrator, has repeatedly been shown to achieve just that. \p Kieran Mullan: Does the hon. Member accept that, actually, there are some victims of very, very serious crimes who do not want a meeting and a resolution, but want to see a very serious offender spend a long time in prison? \p Paul Kohler: Well, of course, restorative justice is not right for every victim. I have said to the hon. Member that it is right for many victims, including myself. I do not begin to understand why he finds that a difficult point to understand.

As I know from personal experience, when my wife, eldest daughter and I met one of the attackers who subjected me to a murderous attack in my home and terrorised my family, restorative justice is not about forgiveness, although that often happens as a by-product, but in giving the victim time and space to move on from the crime. My daughter, who moved out of the family home following the attack, moved back in after the restorative justice meeting. It allowed her to demythologise the perpetrator: no longer a monster, but a deeply flawed human being who she could look straight in the eye and cast from her nightmares.

That meeting transformed our family and her life. Yet for far too many victims, restorative justice remains out of reach. Sadly, only one in 20 adult victims with a known offender are routinely told about it. That is why new clause 15 is so crucial: it would create a statutory right to a meaningful referral to restorative justice services; not a token leaflet or tick-box exercise, but a proper referral made as soon as reasonably practicable once the offender is identified, and offered subsequently at appropriate times during the criminal justice process. I emphasise again that participation would always be voluntary, but every victim would have the right to be informed and supported to decide for themselves—what is wrong with that?

The Government may argue that they are considering strengthening the victims code; indeed, clause 8 enhances the Victims’ Commissioner’s reporting. That is welcome, but not enough. The commissioner can report only on what exists. New clause 15 would ensure that there is something meaningful to measure: a statutory right to referral. Without it, access to restorative justice will remain inconsistent and uncertain.

While new clause 15 would establish a meaningful statutory right, new clause 16 would ensure a meaningful review process by requiring the Secretary of State to report on the uptake of restorative justice and to make recommendations to improve access. If the Government truly value restorative justice, let them prove it with evidence—let Parliament see the data and the plan to expand its use. The reporting duty would complement the commissioner’s powers while they review compliance with the code. The new clause goes further, reporting on usage, barriers and ways to increase participation. Together, they create both the right and the oversight that victims deserve.

These new clauses carry no cost implications. It is about co-ordination, not cash. The infrastructure already exists; what it is missing is the statutory backbone to ensure that every victim, wherever they live, has equal access to restorative justice.

Let us not forget that while restorative justice is all about putting the victims at the heart of the criminal justice process, it also has the proven added advantage  of cutting rates of recidivism. The Government often speak about tackling the causes of reoffending—employment, housing, addiction—but restorative justice tackles the psychology of criminality. It changes behaviour by confronting offenders with the human consequences of their actions—not every offender, of course, but a significant number.

If the Government truly stand with victims and want to cut reoffending, they must not simply make meek promises to review the code or commission another pilot; they must make access to restorative justice meaningful and real. They must support new clauses 15 and 16—if not today, then in the other place—and allow restorative justice to do what punishment alone cannot: heal the victim, reform the offender and mend the system on which we all depend. \p Anneliese Midgley: Before I begin, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) for her bravery and for the remarkable work she has done in her short time in this place, including on this Bill with new clause 14. I am so proud to be on these Benches with her.

I am going to speak to a measure at the heart of the Bill today. Attendance at sentencing hearings will compel convicted criminals to attend those hearings and provide the strongest of consequences when they refuse. This law is for Olivia Pratt-Korbel and other victims.

In August 2024, two of the most remarkable women I have ever met walked into my first MP surgery. They were my constituents Cheryl Korbel and Antonia Elverson, who are with us in the Gallery today. Cheryl is Olivia’s mum, and Antonia is Cheryl’s cousin. On 22 August 2022, Olivia, a little girl—just nine years old—was murdered by a stranger in her own home. The murderer, Thomas Cashman, fired a bullet through the door of Olivia’s home, which passed through the wrist of her mum, Cheryl, before hitting Olivia in the chest and ending her life. Cheryl fought with her heart and soul to save her baby.

No mother should have to go through such unimaginable pain. While nothing in this world can bring Olivia back and nothing can hold back a grief so great, looking the person responsible in the eye and telling them to their face the cost of their crime, and the effect it has had on the lives of their loved ones, can give victims just a small semblance of justice and closure. But Cheryl never had that chance. Under our current justice system, the ball is in the criminal’s court—criminals can choose to opt out of attending their sentencing, which is exactly what Olivia’s murderer did. Cashman chose to remain in his cell, refusing to face the court to hear Cheryl’s words or look her in the eye. It was the act of a coward.

However, instead of collapsing under this weight, Cheryl fought back. She and her family have campaigned with their all so that no other family will suffer what they have suffered. That is why I read out Cheryl’s victim impact statement in full on Second Reading. They were the words that the murderer and coward Thomas Cashman refused to hear. I wanted the words of Cheryl Korbel committed to this House so that they would be on the record in this place forever. I wanted her words to ring out in this Chamber for all the world to hear, as they should have done in Cashman’s ears that day.

Cashman’s refusal to turn up shone a spotlight on what is wrong with this system, and I want to thank the Government, the Minister for Victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), the former Justice Secretary, and the Prime Minister for listening and acting on Cheryl and Antonia’s wishes. They have put victims where they belong: in the driving seat of our justice system. This injustice has gone on for far too long, and that stops now. That is down to them.

This is a law for Olivia; it is her legacy. It is Cheryl’s legacy, too. It is a law and a legacy for all the families who have campaigned. I am delighted that these provisions have united support across this House, and I am confident that they will do so in the other place. Let us back this Bill, pass it and make it law at speed so that no victim’s voice is ever shut out of justice again. \p Saqib Bhatti: What a privilege it is to follow those powerful speeches from the hon. Members for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet). They are clearly two very formidable parliamentarians, and it is a privilege to be in the same debate as them.

I stand today to speak on behalf of my constituent Bethan and her parents, who are in the Gallery today. I am going to do that rare thing on the Opposition Benches of thanking the Government for making changes to restrict the parental responsibility of convicted sexual offenders. It is hugely important and clearly the right thing to do. When Bethan, whose story was covered by the BBC, learned that her ex-husband had been convicted of some of the most serious child sex offences imaginable, she also learned that he retained access to her child. I am sure it is not lost on parliamentarians across this House that in those instances, for those paedophiles and sexual offenders, that access is the last bit of coercive and toxic control that they retain.

In the previous Parliament, when Baroness Harman and the Minister for Violence Against Women and Girls, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), pushed for a new clause on this matter in the Criminal Justice Bill, I had the privilege of watching with my constituents from up in the Gallery. Sadly, that Bill did not make it through the parliamentary wash-up, so the work was not completed at that time.

Bethan’s family had to spend £30,000—not a resource accessible to all—of their own money to get their case through the family courts. They have gone on this journey so that more victims—parents and mothers—can take advantage of this legislation and be protected even if they do not have that resource. I speak to be the voice of Bethan and her family. Although I will not take up much of the House’s time, they wanted me to place on the record their gratitude to Baroness Harman and to Alex Chalk, the former Secretary of State for Justice, who stayed in touch with them while there was work to be done. I am pleased we have got to Report stage. They also wanted me to place on the record their thanks to Laura Farris, to both Ministers present, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley, and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and to the Justice Secretary, because they really have protected vulnerable mothers and innocent children and spared them from excruciating distress.

While I do place on record my gratitude, it would be remiss of me not to ask a couple of questions on behalf of Bethan and her parents. They have queried the restriction to four-year sentences and the sexual harm prevention orders, which kick in with a two-and-a-half-year sentence. Could the Minister provide clarity on that? The measure refers to the children of sex offenders and the restriction of parental rights, but I do not think it refers to future children. [Interruption.] I see the Minister nodding her head. Perhaps she will state that on record for clarity.

Today I have the very easy task of being the voice of Bethan and her parents in saying thank you. This Bill is a really important measure to pass. \p Lauren Edwards: I really welcome this Bill, which delivers long-overdue reforms to protect victims and goes a long way to rebuilding confidence in our judicial system. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for their powerful contributions to the debate.

I also thank the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) for tabling new clause 12, relating to UK citizens who are murdered abroad. The previous Conservative Government failed to address this issue in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, so I thank him for raising this important issue once again. As he has explained, the lack of any statutory support for the families of British nationals murdered abroad is a glaring gap in our legal system. Families who find themselves in this deeply distressing circumstance must deal not only with their immense grief but with difficult practical issues, such as navigating a foreign legal system—often with language barriers—and unfamiliar police forces and judiciaries.

New clause 12 would address that anomaly by creating an appendix to the victims code that sets out how it applies to close relatives of British nationals resident in England and Wales who are the victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide committed abroad. The hon. Member for Maidenhead is right that families in those awful circumstances need more support and are being failed by the current system. At the very minimum, they deserve the same recognition and support under the law as those whose tragedies occur within the UK. Currently they are only able to access discretionary support that may be given by local chief constables, Government Departments and national services, such as the National Homicide Service and the victim contact scheme.

That is not good enough. We need statutory rights for families in these circumstances to be treated and supported as victims themselves. Rather than just an appendix to the victims code, we need a framework that is more bespoke, offering tailored help to families who need to navigate a particularly difficult set of circumstances. That could include help with the repatriation of their loved one or keeping them informed about the police investigation or court process that may be happening on the other side of the world, often in a different language.

Although I wholeheartedly agree with the principle behind new clause 12, I cannot support it. I think we need to go further, with both Justice Ministers and Foreign Office Ministers working together on a specific framework to support UK families who have lost loved  ones while abroad. I am afraid I also cannot support the new clause because, by my reading, subsection (1) to proposed new section 2A is too narrowly drawn. I am currently supporting the family of a constituent from Strood who has died in suspicious circumstances abroad in India. They have struggled to get the right support from the Foreign Office and came to me in desperation as they did not know where else to go for help. Kent police has been helping them through its missing persons unit, as distressingly the first they knew of anything having happened to their father was when they were sent a video of his cremation, received at 3 am UK time. However, there are obvious limits to what Kent police can do in this situation.

As there is currently not even a murder or manslaughter investigation, since it is unclear what happened, the family would not be covered under subsection (1) to proposed new section 2A, despite needing the same support as families in those situations who the hon. Member for Maidenhead is nobly trying to help. Rather than pushing new clause 12 to a vote, I urge the hon. Member to join me in welcoming the Minister’s opening comments about action in this space and calling for her to commit to working with her Foreign Office equivalent to design a specific framework that will give statutory rights not only to the families of UK residents who are the victim of murder, manslaughter or infanticide but to the families of those who have died in suspicious circumstances. That way, everyone who is facing this difficult set of circumstances can get the support that they need. \p Andrew George: I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this raft of very important changes. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards). I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) to address the points raised—I am not qualified—but I imagine that the purpose of new clause 12 is to make technical changes so that the measures are even more effective, which, clearly, we would all support. In any case, my understanding is that it would require the Secretary of State to bring forward such changes rather than stipulating what those changes are in detail.

Like others, I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) on a very impressive and powerful speech. I know that the Minister congratulated her in advance on the campaign she has run. Equally, the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) made a very powerful speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead made strong cases as well.

I repeat the reminder of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) that the primary purpose—this is certainly what I have always said—of custodial sentences must be public protection. It is on that issue that I wish to concentrate. My remarks are entirely informed by a case I have been pursuing on behalf of my constituent Tina Nash. The Minister is aware of this, because I have corresponded with her on the subject. Tina was horrifically attacked by her former partner in 2011 for a 12-hour period until she managed to escape. In that time she was battered and had her eyes gouged out and her jaw and nose broken. It was an appalling beating that she was lucky to survive—and a survivor she is.

The following year her former partner was jailed for life with a minimum term of six years. However, earlier this year he was moved to a category D prison, with open conditions. My constituent was not consulted about this and was only informed about it after the decision had been taken. Bearing in mind that she is blind, it is understandable that she fears that, if she went out shopping, he could be in her company without her knowledge. She is incredibly scared as a result of the decision. She had no say in it, and nor was she consulted.

I tabled new clause 17 to urge the Government to accept that victims have a right to a veto in reasonable circumstances for their own protection—not in all circumstances and not in every condition, but we should certainly ensure that they are properly consulted. As a result of this experience, I think there are a number of other failings in the system that require the Government to ensure belt-and-braces support for victims throughout the process.

Tina wanted to pursue this matter with the Parole Board, but it did not respond to her until my intervention, and then there was an offer of a meeting. That is not good enough. It should not be down to a Member of Parliament to force a response. She was given the support of the victim contact scheme, which I will come to in a moment.

My constituent was given the opportunity to complain—the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman provided her with a complaint form—but months after she had completed the complaint, she was informed that the ombudsman had assumed she was the prisoner, not the victim. Can that level of incompetence or her treatment throughout the process be believed? She was treated appallingly, while the process wasted her time and stressed her out. Her complaint was rejected as outside the PPO’s remit—that fact was not initially communicated to her—which caused her enormous distress and confusion. Despite circumstances in which she was blinded by her perpetrator, she still somehow has to navigate and overcome all these processes and problems. Of course, the PPO apologised for its error, but with a lack of empathy for my constituent in an officious response that directed her to the Victims’ Commissioner.

I turn to Tina’s interfacing with the victim liaison officer and the victim contact scheme. This week, I received further communication from her in which she said that she has been attempting to seek support from the service and made inquiries about the restorative options that might be available, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. I thought it was incredibly brave of her even to consider that in such circumstances, but she was prepared at least to explore what that would mean, how she would go about it and so on.

Tina got a response from her victim contact officer. In her message to me, she said: “He shouted at me that [the perpetrator] is scared of me. So they are now trying to make me feel like I am the perpetrator and [the perpetrator] is the victim…and they have to protect him.”

That is from the victim contact scheme, which is there to support the victim, not to defend the perpetrator—what is going on? She continued:

“So I have removed myself from the victim contact scheme. I do not trust them…I am not being supported.”

That simply is not good enough. What is happening to the system to allow such circumstances to arise?

Hon. Members might think that my new clause, which would entitle victims to a veto, is an unreasonable request, but something has to be done. Tina has been appallingly let down by the system. If a victim who has gone through all that is treated in such a manner, we really do need to strengthen the system and not allow it to continue as it is. She has been told that her perpetrator is now remorseful and contrite about the whole thing, but I wonder whether psychopathy of people of that nature is fully understood. They can be as violent as that, and they can also act up and persuade professionals that they are remorseful. I think it is theatrical contrition and insincere repentance, and I worry that the system is vulnerable to such people. I urge the Minister to look again at this area and ensure that victims and survivors are properly supported. \p Matt Bishop: When I served in the police force, my work often ended when we put perpetrators behind bars, or sometimes when I stood in court to give evidence, but the victims’ ordeals do not end there. Many reached out to me long after my role was done to tell me they still felt unheard and unprotected, and that justice for them was never truly served.

Too many survivors live in fear, with victims checking over their shoulders and altering their routines, wondering when the person who hurt them might walk free and attack them again. That is no way for anybody to live in society, and that is precisely why I welcome provisions in the Bill such as expanding the victim contact scheme, which will give victims vital reassurances, protecting them from being blindsided by their offender’s release and helping them reclaim a sense of safety.

I am particularly pleased about Government new clause 14—many hon. Members have spoken about it passionately—which would see the presumption of parental access suspended for parents who commit crimes against children, because one child lost due to a criminal parent being granted unsupervised contact is one child too many. No one should ever have to risk their child’s safety because of a system that puts rights before reason.

Ordering offenders to attend their sentences is another critical step in that process and the next process as part of the Bill. Victims deserve the chance to look those responsible in the eye, to be heard and to begin their healing. Perpetrators must face the full weight and impact of their crimes. There must be no more hiding from the consequences of what they have done.

On that point, I must highlight the work of the Justice for Victims group: an organisation of families who have turned their pain into purpose. I have had the privilege of meeting them on several occasions. Sasha Marsden was 16 when she was raped and stabbed more than 100 times by her killer. Tony Hudgell lost his lower legs as a result of child cruelty by his own parents. Sarah Everard was abducted by a serving police officer while walking home, raped and murdered, and her body was disposed of. At just four years old, Violet-Grace Youens  was killed by a dangerous driver in a stolen car driving at 80 mph in a 30 mph zone. The perpetrator spent barely more time in prison than Violet was alive. Last, but not least, of this group, Jan Mustafa was killed by a serial sex offender who stored her body in a freezer alongside another murder victim, Henriett.

The families of those victims are just a few of many who have been let down by the justice system’s treatment of victims in one way or another over time. One victim told me that their victim impact statement was so heavily edited by defence lawyers that they barely recognised their own words. How can anyone find closure when their voice is silenced in that way? It is not right. That is why I have spoken about this in depth several times to my hon. Friend the Minister, and why I welcome the outcomes that she has brought forward.

It is also why I have campaigned so much to see real reform of victim personal statements. No family should ever have to water down their grief or pain just to spare the feelings of the person who caused it. Victims deserve to be heard in their own words honestly and fully. Offenders must also be made to hear every word to confront the true devastation they have caused. That principle ties in directly with the provisions of the Bill. Yes, offenders should be compelled to attend their sentencing, but they should also be compelled to listen to how their crimes have impacted victims and their families. There should be no place to hide for perpetrators and no reason for victims to edit or soften their voices to fit the comfort of those who harmed them.

Justice for Victims is also calling for clarity on terminology. Life sentences do not mean life, so we should stop pretending that they do. Justice for Victims is also right to call for clarity in life sentences, with life meaning behind bars for life. Yes, we have whole-life sentences, but it does no favours when life sentences—not whole-life sentences—can be equivalent to, I think, 12 years. The public deserve honesty and victims deserve truth.

Additionally, there must be changes to the time limit for victims’ families to appeal offenders’ sentences. Katie Brett, who is Sasha’s sister, said that victims and families currently have only “28 days to appeal” unduly lenient sentences, normally at a time when they are

“grieving and traumatised. But criminals are allowed to appeal after this in ‘exceptional circumstances.’ Why don’t victims and their families get this right?”

That question cuts to the heart of this debate. Victims and families deserve fairness and they deserve to be heard.

These are not radical reforms. They are small, practical, compassionate steps that will make a profound difference to people’s lives. I wholeheartedly support the Bill and the progress it represents, but I urge the Government to go even further to deliver real justice for victims and survivors, and to ensure that no one who has already suffered once is ever failed by this system ever again. \p Jessica Asato: I want to start by thanking the Minister for accepting the principle behind amendment 9, which I have now withdrawn, and for introducing a new amendment to restrict parental responsibility for serious child sexual abusers who offend against children who are not their own, building on the Government’s welcome step of restricting it for those who do. This represents a real step forward for child  safety, and I pay tribute to the collaborative spirit of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and to the many Members across the House who supported the amendment, alongside Fair Hearing and the many victims who have fought so hard for this change. I also want to put on the record my support for new clauses 1, 2 and 18, and to give my heartfelt love to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and her eloquent bravery.

I would like to speak to new clauses 10 and 11, which stand in my name, although I will not be pushing them to a vote. These twin new clauses seek to place statutory duties on the relevant authorities to commission specialist services for victims of abuse and exploitation and those who care for them. The Government have already committed, in their tackling child sexual abuse progress update earlier this year, to increase access to support for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, and the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which reported three years ago last week, recommended a national guarantee of support for victims of sexual abuse.

New clause 10, which is supported by Women’s Aid, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardo’s, Action for Children, Catch 22, the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, SafeLives, Respect and the Independent Domestic Abuse Services, as well as 49 of my colleagues across the parties, seeks to make this a reality by ending the postcode lottery that victims face and ensuring that we have adequately funded specialist services for whoever might need them. \p Pam Cox: Does my hon. Friend agree that community-based services supporting the victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, such as Next Chapter, the Centre of Action on Rape and Abuse—CARA—and Restitute in Essex, do vital work that should be backed by multi-year settlements and enhanced commissioning arrangements in the east of England and beyond? \p Jessica Asato: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and pay tribute to the services in her local area. We all have many such specialist services, and I am sure that we will want to pay tribute to them this evening.

The Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse estimates that there are 55,000 adults and children in England and Wales on waiting lists for support following child sexual abuse, and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner has found that over a quarter of domestic abuse services are having to turn away children who are victims of abuse. It is a stain on this country that fewer than half of domestic abuse victims are able to access the community-based support that they deserve. I expect that the public would be astonished to know that there is no automatic right to specialist support after a terrible, traumatic crime such as rape or domestic abuse. Even though the victims code specifies that people have a right as a victim to be referred to specialist services, this is not an actionable right. Victims cannot sue anyone if it is not upheld.

The sad reality is that specialist services are on their knees. Twenty-three child sexual abuse support services have closed in the past 18 months due to financial pressures. Just the week before last, Jewish Sexual Abuse Support was forced to close due to cuts, which have had  a particular impact on small by-and-for organisations. Its chief executive, Erica Marks, gave the stark warning that we could

“expect to see more community sexual violence organisations fail”.

That is unacceptable if we want to halve violence against women and girls. By-and-for services such as hers are the backbone of our response to victims of abuse. They help to reach some of the most excluded in our society. Losing the vital, lifesaving support provided by organisations such as JSAS and others will not make victims safer.

We know that there are many pressures on the public purse, but there is a financial case to be made for investing in these support services. A 2021 report for the Home Office estimated that the economic and social cost of contact child sexual abuse alone was £10.1 billion. That is money that we lose in economic output and in huge costs to the NHS, the police and the criminal justice system. The cost of domestic abuse, which affects 2.4 million adults a year and accounts for one in five homicides, is estimated by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner to cost £85 billion per year. That is £47 billion more than the budgets of the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice combined. To do nothing will not save us money. It will only ensure that costs spiral, loading pressure on all our public services and reducing our economic productivity.

We know that, without support, victims are less likely to stay the course of a criminal justice process, less likely to recover from the trauma of their experience, less likely to be able to go back into work, and more likely to remain vulnerable to future exploitation and abuse. Specialist services are those that employ dedicated workers who are trained to understand, for example, the dynamics of coercive and controlling behaviour. They are those that recognise that rape and domestic abuse are largely gendered crimes. They recognise that children are not just an adjunct to adults and that, just as they have paediatricians, children need their own child-centred response. By-and-for services also go further. They are experts in honour-based abuse and the weaponisation of immigration status, the needs of disabled or older victims and the dynamics of same-sex relationships. Crucially, they are independent from the statutory sector. They champion the victim first and advocate for the support they need without fear or favour.

In the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, a statutory duty was placed on commissioners to secure accommodation-based support, such as refuges for domestic abuse victims. While the roll-out has not been perfect in practice, it has at least placed a duty on local authorities to maintain provision at local level. No such duty exists for community-based support for domestic abuse victims, despite the community being where nearly 70% of victims access support. In a concession at the end of consideration of the Domestic Abuse Bill, the previous Government promised a consultation on a statutory duty for community-based provision. That never happened. It was a casualty of the changing list of Justice Secretaries who did not keep their promises. It falls to this Labour Government to resurrect that promise.

We must also recognise those who pick up the pieces after the unimaginable happens to their loved ones, such as someone discovering that their partner has abused their child, or grandparents stepping in to care for children after perpetrators of domestic abuse drive their partner to destitution. One in 20 adults are closely related to a victim of serious assault. According to analysis from researchers at the Violence and Society Centre, people related to victims of violence are four times more likely to feel unsafe in their neighbourhood and twice as likely to have depression or an anxiety disorder than people not related to victims of violence. They themselves face unique challenges, including stress, guilt, trauma and depression. These are all things that parents and carers must balance while dealing with the practical, everyday challenges they face while navigating the legal system, co-ordinating with agencies, understanding safeguarding procedures and trying to access therapy for those they care for. \p Emily Darlington: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for her fantastic speech. I recently met some kinship carers who with very little support often take on family members who have suffered terrible trauma and abuse. They do not understand the child’s trauma and they do not understand how best to support them. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to get the best results for child victims, we need to think about how we extend support to kinship carers, so that they can support those children who have been through the worst of times? \p Jessica Asato: I absolutely agree that kinship carers, parents and partners are different from those of the primary victim, and they need support in their own right. When we fail those third-party victims, we fail the primary victim, too. We allow them to disengage from the legal process, and we deprive them of the wraparound support they need when they are at their most vulnerable.

New clause 11 is supported by the organisations Restitute, We Stand, Acts Fast and Ivison Trust, and a version of it was first laid by Baroness Sal Brinton in the other place in a Bill last year. It would place a statutory duty on commissioners to ensure that appropriate independent services are available for the parent, guardian or person responsible for the care of a victim who is under 18 at the time of the offence, or who is an adult at risk of harm. Once again, that should already be happening—it is supposedly a right in the victims code. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse recommended that support for non-abusing parents and carers should be statutory. New clause 11 would bring that crucial recommendation to fruition. Families should not have to wait years; they want action now. As with victim services, severe funding shortages fail to make the ambition set out in the code a reality.

Together, new clauses 10 and 11 would ensure that if any one of us here, or someone we cared for, were abused or exploited, we or they would be supported. It is an ambition long supported that must now be met with action. I look forward to working with the Minister and colleagues across the House on saving our specialist services and saving victims and their families, and I will be pleased to vote for the Bill tonight. \p Sarah Champion: I rise to speak to new clause 1 in my name. It would ensure the implementation of recommendation 18 from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. Survivors of child sexual abuse have been let down for years by a national compensation scheme. Too often their applications are delayed or denied, not because the legitimacy of their abuse is in any question, but because of loopholes set by the very organisation that was established to support them: the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

The many limitations of the scheme were considered during IICSA, which resulted in a clear recommendation to remove the unfair barriers set by CICA, but in April Ministers rejected that recommendation. My new clause 1 would overturn that decision. It has commanded the support of 27 Members from across the House and the backing of 29 charities and experts. They include the Marie Collins Foundation and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, which have campaigned passionately on this issue. In opening, the Minister said that she wants a universal scheme without hierarchy, but unfortunately that is not the case at the moment.

My amendment would widen the eligibility of the scheme to include those who have been victims of online-facilitated child sexual abuse. The recent Casey audit found that 40% of the 100,000 recorded child sexual abuse offences last year took place online, so that is around 40,000 children who will struggle to access compensation because their abuse is not considered by CICA “violent” enough to qualify. As IICSA rightly concluded, that rule

“does not take account of the extent of the harm and damage”

of online abuse, such as the ongoing fear that images of sexual abuse will remain available online indefinitely. By continuing to leave online abuse out of scope, CICA reinforces the risk that online sexual abuse is perceived somehow as less serious or less deserving of redress, but nothing could be further from the truth.

New clause 1 also seeks to increase the time limit for applications so that survivors have seven years from the date the offence was reported to the police, or from the age of 18 if the offence was reported while they were a child. The scheme currently has just a two-year time limit, but the average time it takes for a survivor of child abuse to come forward is 24 years to 27 years. There are many reasons for that, and we have heard some in the Chamber today: trauma, fear and shame, not to mention the length of time to go through the court process. The Minister knows this, which is why she and the other Justice Ministers rightly abolished the three-year time limit for civil claims by survivors of child sexual abuse, in line with IICSA recommendation 15.

However, the decision means that survivors face a strange paradox: no time limit for them to take legal action against their abusers, but tight restrictions if they wish to seek compensation for that same abuse. The Government have argued that there is discretion in the scheme to allow applications after the time limit has expired. That is indeed true. However, the proportion of resolved cases accepted after the time limit has fallen each year between 2020 and 2024. In 2020, 87.3% of applications received outside the time limit were resolved. By 2024, that was down to 66.9%. By contrast, the compensation model in Quebec allows seven years for all   types of crime except for domestic abuse, child sexual abuse and sexual violence, which have no time limit at all. Surely that is the model we should be following.

Finally, new clause 1 would prevent survivors of child abuse from being affected by a rule that blocks or reduces compensation for victims with unspent convictions. APIL shared with me the case of a woman who was sexually abused by her father. She had suffered with her mental health as a consequence and was hospitalised. While in hospital, she threatened to kill herself with a letter opener. The hospital called the police, and she was convicted of possessing a knife. Because of that conviction, she was then refused the compensation by CICA that had been originally offered to her. That is why new clause 1 would ensure applicants with unspent convictions are not automatically excluded where offences are linked to circumstances of their sexual abuse as a child.

Anti-slavery charities have also been in touch to explain how this particular rule impacts on victims of trafficking who try to access the compensation scheme. It is not unusual for victims of slavery or, indeed, child or criminal exploitation to be forced into criminality by their exploiters. Those convictions, however, commonly lead to immense difficulty for those victims to then access compensation—something that victims of modern slavery, for example, ought to be entitled to under article 15 of the European convention on action against trafficking.

The criminal injuries compensation scheme is supposed to be a support scheme of last resort. Sadly, for many survivors, it is not even that. In the long term, CICA needs a complete overhaul. In the short term, however, survivors are keen to see the swift implementation of recommendation 18, because in doing so this House and this Government can send a powerful message that their abuse is recognised, that their future is prioritised and that meaningful change is under way. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: I want to speak in support of new clauses 10 and 11, which would place a duty on authorities to guarantee support for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and child criminal exploitation, as well as their care-givers. I am proud to support a Government who are committed to halving violence against women and girls and who just last week announced some of the most significant steps towards supporting victims of abuse, including denying rapists access to children born of rape and an end to the presumption of contact in the family courts—not just words but action. I support calls for meaningful action today.

Victims are not only dealing with the trauma of what has happened to them. For many, the thought of the court case risks retraumatizing them. Given the backlog in our courts—a backlog left by previous Governments—victims are waiting months and sometimes years before cases are heard. That wait takes a huge emotional toll. We have to address the fear of the process if we are to meet our target of halving violence against women and girls. We have to support victims throughout the process. I urge the Government to build a system that gives victims the confidence to come forward knowing that they will not be left to cope alone.

Children who experience abuse face unique and lasting harms. Without the right specialist support, the devastating impact of childhood trauma can echo through a lifetime. Additionally, caregivers are often also traumatised. Without further support, they not only do not get the support they need but are not as able to provide the love and stability that the child they are helping needs.

I am proud of the Government’s work so far to strengthen the victims code and improve how the victims of these horrendous crimes are treated. But we can build on that by making sure that, wherever someone lives, they can rely on the right specialist services to help them to cope with the trauma, manage the emotional strain of the trial and rebuild their lives after it. Together, the measures in the Bill recognise that victims and their families need wraparound support, not piecemeal provision.

Calder Valley is fortunate to have deputy mayor for policing Alison Lowe, who puts violence against women and girls at the centre of her work. Organisations such as Staying Safe and Victim Support West Yorkshire provide lifelines to victims of domestic abuse and crime, and Calderdale WomenCentre offers holistic support. But too often these services are stretched and reliant on short-term grants and support, wounded by a decade of austerity, and without the statutory footing that guarantees their future.

There is a postcode lottery. We must deliver change by placing a duty on authorities to commission specialist services everywhere, so that victims and their caregivers can rely on consistent support across the board. The victims of these crimes deserve more than just words and sympathy: they deserve a system that stands with them and provides the support they need. I hope this Government will deliver practical steps that will deliver the changes we need. \p Marie Tidball: Being a parent is a privilege, not a right. I rise to speak to Government new clause 14, on the restriction of parental responsibility for a child conceived as a result of rape. It will appear on the face of this Bill because of the fierce campaigning force of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet)—my friend and my hero. Her law change, to be engraved in the Government’s Bill, puts the needs of survivors above the needs of rapists, casting in law a shield for women who have had a child as a result of rape, and for their babies. Those rapists will no longer be able to retraumatise the mothers, nor to demand access to or endanger the children.

If anyone says politics does not make a difference, I say, “Look at my hon. Friend, who shared her own experience of being groomed and abused and having a child as a result.” Her extraordinary strength raised that beautiful baby girl. That strength meant that she did so alongside becoming a Member of this House and, within her first year as a parliamentarian, will today change the law to protect a generation of women, girls and children. This is the difference that politics in the hands of Members like my hon. Friend makes for our communities and our country: protecting women and children from vile sex offenders. It is a non-negotiable priority, central to our Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade.

This matters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, 10 babies a day are currently born as a result of rape. Yet we still do not know the true scale of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of known domestically abusive parents. We do know that 60% of cases in the family courts involve domestic abuse, and that 40,000 children will have experienced domestic abuse in the private law Children Act cases that were received by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service in the nine months from April 2024.

My formidable constituent, Claire Throssell MBE, lost her two beautiful boys 11 years ago, at the hands of her known domestically abusive ex-husband, while they were on a five-hour court-permitted contact visit. He lured them into the attic of their home with the promise of a train set, and set fires around their house. Claire promised her boys that she would ensure their voices were heard by campaigning to repeal the presumption of contact, the legal principle brought about by the Children and Families Act 2014, amending the Children Act 1989. The principle means that the courts always prioritise having both parents in a child’s life over the child’s safety, including when there is a known history of domestic abuse.

There have been 67 deaths at the hands of known domestic abusers since Women’s Aid started to report on this issue just 30 years ago. Five previous Conservative Governments—look at the empty Benches opposite—did nothing, despite the Conservative Government in 2020 leading the harm panel report, an expert review of domestic abuse and the family courts; despite that report recommending that the presumption of contact should be urgently reviewed; and despite Women’s Aid research finding there have been 19 more child deaths at the hands of known domestic abusers since Jack and Paul died. No response was published for four years under those Conservative Governments. Where are Conservative Members today?

I first met Claire at a remembrance event at my old school—the same school that her eldest son Jack went to. I knew of the tragic deaths of her sons, but hearing from her what happened was heartbreaking. I promised her that if I was elected as her Member of Parliament, I would help to fulfil her promise to her boys. Last week, I took Claire to No. 10 Downing Street to meet the Prime Minister—the sixth Prime Minister since her beautiful boys died, but the first to promise Claire that he will deliver Jack and Paul’s law. Last week, on the 11th anniversary of the boys’ deaths, he announced in this Chamber that our Government will repeal the presumption of contact.

The Prime Minister’s promise made it clear that the repeal of the presumption of contact will form part of a broader package of family court reforms aimed at better protecting children involved in private law proceedings. That is truly decisive action by our Government to change the law to protect generations of children where the Conservatives failed to do so. The reforms will ensure that decisions about child arrangements put the child at the centre of decision making and are based on a robust assessment of the potential risks, particularly when domestic abuse is present.

Our message is clear: the safety of children is paramount. We will stop at nothing to make sure that they are protected in our courts, prioritising children’s safety and wellbeing and their right to grow up free from harm.  The changes will reinforce new clause 14 and the exceptional work set out in the Bill by putting children at the centre of the family courts.

I am proud that our Labour Government is packed full of brilliant women who stood behind Claire Throssell, Natalie Fleet and I to ensure that our Government fulfil her promise to her boys. Those women include the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services, the Minister for Victims, the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, and my hon. Friends the Members for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) and for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle). I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) for his work and allyship.

Repealing the presumption of contact is urgent. Will the Minister confirm that it will be repealed as soon as the parliamentary time allows, thereby fulfilling the promise that the Prime Minister made to Claire Throssell last week? Expediting the repeal of the provision in the statute book will ensure that no more towns like mine will grieve, and it will ensure that Jack and Paul’s law is at the heart of our family justice system, where it belongs. I commend the Bill to the House. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Caroline Nokes: Order. I am very conscious that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) made an impassioned and moving speech, but I remind Members that we must refer to her as the hon. Member for Bolsover. \p Adam Thompson: I will speak in favour of new clauses 13 and 14 and the expansion to clause 3. I served with some colleagues in Committee, but may I begin by thanking all Members who have contributed tonight? We have had a series of impassioned speeches from across the House, and I particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for their powerful contributions.

The amendments we are discussing this evening are a significant step forward in protecting victims of serious violence and they will help thousands of people. They will help to ensure the safety of victims of serious sexual abuse and victims of crime who have signed a non-disclosure agreement, and, crucially, these amendments will also protect children.

New clause 14 will ensure the protection of children born of rape. On Second Reading, I spoke of a constituent who had had a child as a result of an abusive relationship. She told me of the extreme difficulties she had been facing as she had passed through a long and complex custody battle. She asked me if we, as politicians, could look again at parental rights in the context of abusive relationships. I am very pleased that new clause 14 will protect children born in such circumstances. No longer will children born of rape, or their mothers, be forced to have a relationship with a rapist. Currently, mothers in some cases must co-parent with a rapist. Women should not be forced to include their rapist in decisions on their child’s healthcare, schooling, or any other aspects of a child’s life. Children should not have to be raised by rapists.

Mothers who have a child born of rape should be safe in the knowledge that having a child will not tie them to their rapist. Automatic restriction of parental responsibility will ensure that mothers and children are safer. Rapists should not have the automatic right to interfere with their victims’ lives. This clause frees families from the stress and pain of applying to court by ensuring that this restriction is immediate.

The expansion to clause 3 similarly ensures that any person convicted of serious sex offences against any child has their parental rights removed. The safety of children is the utmost priority, and expanding this measure from those who have abused their own child to those who have seriously abused any child will ensure the safety of the children the perpetrator is closest to. Paedophiles should have no right to look after any child.

I am also pleased to see that new clause 13 will allow us to clamp down on the misuse of non-disclosure agreements, which are used to hide instances where a crime has occurred. Victims of crime should not have to worry about who they speak to regarding the crime of which they are a victim, and non-disclosure agreements should not be used to silence victims of crimes, nor should they stop witnesses coming forward. This change will mean that victims and direct witnesses of crime can speak to their friends, their family and their support system, but they can also speak to their employers and, if necessary, to journalists. I very much welcome the closing of this loophole, which allows criminals to scare victims into not sharing their experiences. The law must not protect those who seek to silence victims.

These amendments will allow us to take significant steps towards the Government’s aim of halving violence towards women and girls. But more than that, these amendments serve to give victims of serious violent crime justice. \p Kieran Mullan: I rise to speak in support of new clause 4 and the other amendments in my name and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) and other members of the His Majesty’s Opposition.

I know the Minister will join me in beginning by thanking all the witnesses who came and gave evidence to us in Committee on the behalf of victims, including Dame Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner; Baroness Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner; Katie Kempen from Victim Support; Rebecca Bryant from Resolve; Suky Baker from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust; Andrea Simon from the End Violence Against Women coalition; Farah Nazeer from Women’s Aid; Glenn Youens and Paula Hudgell from Justice for Victims; and Mark Brooks OBE from the ManKind Initiative. We all benefited greatly from their evidence and the victims’ perspective they gave.

It was clear that many of the witnesses and Members from both sides of the House were of one view about many of the positive aspects of this Bill. For example, the improved powers for the Victims’ Commissioner are welcome and they will give new strength to their arm in raising issues and securing change on behalf of victims. The streamlining and expansion of the victim contact scheme will help victims be better informed about key information about their offender post-conviction.  Other important measures were considered in Committee, and I am pleased to say that, while at the time the Government were committed to their approach, they have since shifted to some degree, which I will go on to cover.

We welcome the Government’s new clause 14 on parental responsibility for a child conceived of rape, creating a duty on the court to make a prohibited steps order restricting the parental responsibility of a person convicted of rape where a child has been conceived as a result of that offence. This is an important measure that strengthens the protection available to victims and ensures that offenders cannot continue to wield control over their victims through their children. I join Members on both sides of the House in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), who spoke very powerfully in relation to that and has been a committed campaigner, and other Members have been mentioned who have supported her in securing that change. For too long, victims of rape have faced the unthinkable prospect of having to engage with their attacker over matters concerning their child’s wellbeing.

On the changing Government position on clause 3 on parental responsibility, witnesses and others in Committee made it clear that the initial proposal fell far short of what was required, so we welcome Government amendment 10 widening the duty on the Crown court to make an order restricting parental responsibility where a person is sentenced to four years or more for a serious sexual offence against a child—in relation to all children rather than just a child of their own. Several Members have worked towards this amendment, but I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), along with the previous Justice Secretary the right hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and—I do not expect they are still in the Gallery—the constituents of my hon. Friend who raised this case in such a high-profile way.

The Minister will know there have been different clauses: one that was first put forward by the Conservatives in government; the initial clause from the current Government; and this further clause. The Minister will also know that our further clause would remove the four-year requirement and have it apply more widely to any sexual offence. My hon. Friend put forward yet another way that we might better prescribe those subject to these measures beyond those convicted of offences with a sentence of four years or more. Although I appreciate that this is a novel measure, if it proves effective in practice we would welcome the opportunity to revisit it in future and see how we might better frame it to protect children.

On amendments 4 to 7 in relation to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, the current scheme allows certain sentences to be referred to the Attorney General’s Office if they are thought to be too lenient. That is an important safeguard in our justice system. I have made use of it, as have other Members and members of the public as well, but too many victims and families simply do not know the scheme exists, and even when they do, the time limits are far too tight for it to work in practice. Currently, people only have 28 days from the date of a sentence to ask for review; that is four short weeks at what is often one of the most traumatic and confusing times in   their lives. For families who have just been through a difficult and emotional trial, 28 days is no time at all to understand the process, get advice and decide whether to ask for a review.

Our amendments would make a number of reasonable and practical changes to help fix that. They would extend the deadline from 28 to 56 days, giving the wider public the same time limit that the Government are giving themselves in this Bill; the Government are extending the length of appeal for themselves, but not for victims. We would also allow up to one year for the next of kin or a victim to apply in cases where they are affected or they have lost a loved one. It would also place a duty on the CPS to write to victims or their families after sentencing to tell them about the scheme and how it works. Far too often, families never hear about the scheme or hear about it after the deadline has passed.

In recent weeks, I met with Karen Garland from the Marie Collins Foundation, who has been supporting a lady called Lauren who lodged an application in time to the Government for the scheme, only to be barred from making use of it because the CPS made a mistake about the time she had to further appeal it. So on a purely technical basis, she was prevented from lodging a valid appeal and there was no way for her to get that looked at. There was an attempt to ask the sentencing judge to look at it again but, with respect to that sentencing judge, asking the same judge who had passed the sentence to look at that sentence again is not what the ULS is intended to achieve.

Campaigners have done incredible work to highlight the issue. They include Katie Brett, who others have mentioned, who launched a petition in memory of her sister, Sasha—I will not repeat the awful circumstances of her sister’s death, which the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) powerfully highlighted—and Ayse Hussein, who campaigns on behalf of her cousin Jan Mustafa. They are both part of Justice for Victims, and I also recently met Tracey Hanson, who founded the Josh Hanson Trust after the murder of her son. They have all shown courage and determination in calling for change, and they speak for many families who feel let down by the system.

The Government have said that they will wait for the outcome of a wider review of criminal appeals before taking action. However, I want Members to be clear that the provisional view of that review is that the ULS should not be changed and that it is fine as it is. We have no timetable for when that review will be published or when the Government will respond to it, but we have a Bill in front of us that would allow us to make such changes, so now is the time to do that.

The Minister talked about certainty in sentencing, but victims have to sit and wait knowing that the criminal can appeal at any time—in exceptional circumstances, criminals can appeal years later—so there is no certainty in the existing system. We want to even that out for the public. We should not forget that behind every case is a family who have been through unimaginable pain. The Minister must be sympathetic to our measured and proportionate proposals, and we should vote them through tonight.

Turning to new clause 4, victim impact statements, which are made by victims and sometimes their family members in court, allow victims and their families to explain in their own words how a crime has affected  their lives. They are an important part of the justice process and one of the few chances that victims have to be heard directly by the court. However, there are real concerns about the restrictions placed on what victims are allowed to say in these statements. Many victims and their family members have said that they were told to remove parts of their statements or to avoid expressing their true feelings. That is deeply unfair and undermines the purpose of the statement. I understand the formality of the proceedings, but the current approach often strips away the honesty and the points that victims would like to make.

We have heard about families who have been through this. As others have mentioned, Sarah Everard’s parents, Susan and Jeremy, talked about their difficulties. While they understand the advice that they were given and thought that they were well supported in the court and by the court process, they think that the system did not allow them to say what they would have liked. Glenn and Becky Youens, who I have spoken to frequently, wanted to talk about the death of their daughter, Violet-Grace, at the hands of appalling criminals, but again they were restricted.

There will be things that the judge cannot take into consideration. However, we need to allow the judge to make clear what points of law will or will not be considered, and what things the victims may wish to say, in order to have their hearing and to get their say, that the judge will not technically take into account in sentencing, without putting it back on victims and saying that we cannot change the system because of the law. For example, if the victim wants to say what sentence the perpetrator should get, what is wrong with that? In these sorts of circumstance, it is perfectly reasonable that any person in court would want to be able to say that. Are we really saying that the judge cannot hear that and then set it aside? \p Alex Davies-Jones: The shadow Minister is right that there are certain things that victims should be able to say in their victim impact statement—we agree on that—but there are things that are clearly not in the remit of what should be openly discussed in a sentencing hearing. They include information pertaining to the offender’s family, for example. Victims may want to reference that in their victim impact statements, but for the safety of those other family members, they should not be mentioned. It is right that we have strict guidance, and I am willing to work with him and other hon. Members to ensure that the victims have a voice in this. \p Kieran Mullan: We have been clear that victims do not have carte blanche—they cannot say literally whatever they like—but our proposed new clause allows the Government to set what those things will or will not be more clearly in law. That puts the onus back on the judge to disregard things that will not be of relevance to the sentencing. I think that is a perfectly reasonable way to organise things. \p Alex Davies-Jones: The shadow Minister has just outlined exactly why it would be wrong to put this into statute. The issue of victim impact statements is not black and white—there is a large grey area—which is why having a specific list of what can and cannot be put in place is not the right approach. We do not need legislation on this, but we do need proper guidance and training to support victims and families so they can have their say in a sentencing hearing. \p Kieran Mullan: With non-exhaustive lists, parts of which are in legislation and parts of which are not, we can agree the things that are vital for people to be able to say, while other things could be determined through guidance. However, legislation is needed because, as the Minister pointed out, there are fundamental things about the definition of a victim personal statement that we think are wrong. That will need to be changed in legislation to give people freedom to comment on those issues. We can go on to decide how the judge might handle that.

I commend my friend the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) for his work on new clause 4. I met Eve Henderson, from the charity Murdered Abroad, who has long campaigned for better recognition and support for the families of British nationals who have lost loved ones to murder, manslaughter and infanticide overseas. Far too often, those families find themselves in a position of deep grief, while also having to navigate complex and unfamiliar foreign legal systems with little or no support from home. They can be left without clear information, a voice in proceedings or access to the services that victims of crime in this country are entitled to expect. To correct that injustice, the new clause would set out explicitly how the victims code applies in such circumstances, guaranteeing access to practical and emotional support, clear information about processes and the ability to challenge decisions.

The contribution by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) was unusual. As the consistent Government message against the measure has been that the original proposals were too broad, the hon. Lady has thought carefully and brought forward proposals that are narrow, so disagreeing with the Government objection. I will assume that is her sincere reason for objecting to the measure, and that it is nothing to do with the fact that the Whips have told Labour Members they cannot vote for it.

To conclude, there are a range of measures that we support. We welcome their progress in the House, even when they are imperfect. However, the amendments we have proposed about the unduly lenient sentence scheme and victim impact statements are the right measures at the right time. I trust the Minister’s sincerity when she says that she wants to work on those issues, but I do not trust her Government and their ability to deliver on what they say that they will. MPs have been asked by their constituents to back the amendments and I hope that they do—there is no reason not to. I ask all MPs to support our amendments tonight. \p Alex Davies-Jones: I rise to close what has been an excellent debate on the Victims and Courts Bill. As I said in my opening remarks, this House is at its best when we come together and rise above party politics, to put the interests of our constituents first, and that is exactly what we have done. I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for the collaborative way in which they have engaged in the debate, as has been seen throughout the passage of the Bill. The Bill is about people: victims and survivors. The Bill has been created and drafted with them at its heart. It is about putting them back at the forefront of the justice system, where they belong, because without them we would have no justice system.

Turning to the amendments that have been proposed, I join the shadow Minister in thanking all the witnesses who gave evidence to the Bill Committee. They really  helped to shape the Bill. It is because of their contribution and the strength of feeling of victims, as well as of right hon. and hon. Members in this place and the other place, that we have gone further in extending the measures in the Bill. When I and the Government hear the strength of feeling in the House, we are afraid to act. That is why I have committed at this Dispatch Box to going further again, looking at the unduly lenient sentence scheme and victim impact statements. It is right that the Law Commission is currently looking at the unduly lenient sentence scheme but, as I said in my opening remarks, I will be monitoring that closely as the Bill progresses in the other place. We are looking at how we can best support victims, so that they have representation when they feel that justice has not been fully served.

The shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti)—I had the pleasure of meeting with his constituent—raised the four-year time limit. This is a novel measure, and I am grateful to Opposition Front Benchers for their support and for recognising that this is just the beginning. We will not fail to go further, following how this is implemented and the potential consequences for the family courts. This is just the start and if it works, the Government will act and go further, but we need to test this properly.

The hon. Member also asked whether the Bill will capture future children. I can confirm from the Dispatch Box that it will cover all children who exist at the time of sentencing for whom the perpetrator has parental responsibility. We cannot bind future children or children yet to be born. However, necessary safeguards will be in place through the family courts. Should that perpetrator come out of prison and go on to have other children, and should they be at risk, the normal route to strip parental responsibility in the family courts will still exist. Unfortunately, we are unable to bind future, hypothetical children, but this Bill will cover any children who exist at the point of sentencing for whom the perpetrator has parental responsibility. \p Sam Carling: I really welcome this Government’s move to restrict the access of abusers to their children, in order to protect them. All too often, however, victims who are members of tightly knit, small religious groups are pressured to interact with their abuser when they get out of prison. Some religious leaders and organisations that I am aware of commonly tell victims that God has forgiven their abusers and they therefore need to do so as well. In some cases, I have seen those victims be ostracised or shunned if they refuse to engage. Does the Minister agree that the Government need to think about how we can seek to resolve that cultural problem in small religious groups? \p Alex Davies-Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that thoughtful intervention, and he is right. We need to get this right for all victims of all crimes—that includes intersectionality and vulnerable victims.

That point speaks to the heart of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) in relation to by-and-for services and specialist support services. She mentioned Jewish support charities, and I am meeting Jewish Women’s Aid tomorrow to  talk about how we can better support them. She is right that this has to be holistic and comprehensive, because one size does not fit all when it comes to victims of these crimes. \p Saqib Bhatti: I place on record once again my gratitude to the Minister for the time that she gave to meet with Bethan and her parents on this serious issue. The change that came about really does restore many people’s faith in what we do. \p Alex Davies-Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his time and for his support in providing help to Bethan and her parents. Meeting them and hearing their story was a privilege, and it is in their name that we have gone further today in this Bill. It is for them and for all victims and survivors that we stand here to do more. As other Members have said this evening, the difference that being in government makes is that we can actually do those changes.

Let me come to some of the other amendments tabled. I welcome the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), to her place—this is the first time in the Chamber that we have had the opportunity to discuss issues of justice. I had a fantastic, collaborative relationship with her predecessor, and I look forward to continuing that as we work on these issues. She mentioned specifically the resource available for the helpline that will be set up to allow victims a direct route to provide information about their case, which is essential. We, too, are conscious of resources, and we will continue to monitor and refine the resource required for the helpline. Where possible, we will of course act if there is demand. We feel that currently resource there is needed, as is set out in the impact statement, but we will keep that under review and will not hesitate to act in the fiscal environment given.

The hon. Member for Chichester also mentioned new clause 7, about extending eligibility for the victim contact scheme. She will know that we have extended that eligibility in the Bill. Again, we will keep that under review if there is a need to expand it further and look at how we can best support victims.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) mentioned the right to know in relation the victim contact scheme and the victims code. We will launch a consultation later this year on victim rights and the victims code, looking at exactly what should be in there and how best we can support victims. I encourage all victims, survivors and Members to feed into that. He knows that the door remains open for me to meet his constituent Tina Nash to discuss her issues at first hand and see how I can better support her and other vulnerable victims who are disabled throughout the process. \p Andrew George: I have discussed this issue with the Minister, and she knows about it because we have also corresponded on it. I know that my constituent would be enormously grateful to have an opportunity to meet her, and I am very grateful for her response. \p Alex Davies-Jones: I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman and his constituent in due course to discuss the failings in the criminal justice system that led to her experience. No victim should go through what she did, and I stand ready to support her and improve the situation.

Let me turn to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), which I touched on in my opening remarks. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards), the Opposition Front Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and others in this Chamber spoke to that amendment. I know that many Members will have had horrifying casework in which families are stuck trying to differentiate between a language barrier and a different jurisdiction or legal system, all while trying to get answers on what has happened to their loved one. That is unacceptable.

I remain of the view that the victims code is not the right place for these victims to have that framework, because the victims code is based on the justice system in England and Wales. It does not apply, and it is not right. However, I am committed, and I have already met with the Minister in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), to discuss the FCDO and the MOJ working together on how best we can support victims, and working with the Victims’ Commissioner and the charity Murdered Abroad on creating the dedicated framework and guidance on what victims in this country can expect. \p Lola McEvoy: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way in a crucial part of her speech. In the work that she is doing, I implore her to remember my constituent, whose sister Rita Roberts was brutally murdered in 1992 and not formally identified until 2023. Rita has still not had justice, as she was murdered abroad, and her family are desperate for any support that the Minister can give. \p Alex Davies-Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case. It is a horrific case that I know all too well, because the previous Member for Cardiff West, who is now in the other place, raised it previously and sought to support Rita’s family. I will seek to support them in any way I can and will work with the FCDO, because justice delayed is justice denied for anyone, regardless of where they are. I make the commitment to the hon. Member for Maidenhead that we will find the right way forward to support these families, but I do not believe that his amendment is the right one, so I implore him to withdraw it.

I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who is right: these are invisible children and we must do more to protect them. This is not just about identifying them and their parents, who are the perpetrators; it is about supporting those children and better identifying them, and I make that commitment to her. She asked me directly about how we are going to do this. The Minister responsible for sentencing and the Children’s Minister have met to discuss this issue and held a roundtable with organisations to look at the best way of doing this, and I will impress on them my hon. Friend’s desire for them to move quickly and involve her in how best to bring this forward.

I will discuss the amendments on restorative justice tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). I encourage all Members of this place to go and see the play “Punch”, which is outstanding—it is probably the best example of restorative justice that anyone can see. Restorative justice is not right for every victim and will  not work for everyone; it needs consent from both the victim and the perpetrator. It will not be right for every crime, but in certain crimes it is appropriate and can provide better victim outcomes and lower reoffending rates. The Prisons Minister and the new Secretary of State are passionate believers in that. We are looking closely at this issue as a Department and will continue to work with the hon. Gentleman to see how best we can bring out restorative justice programmes across the Ministry of Justice.

I come to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop). I think we have already discussed his commitment to these victims and families for justice, and I pay tribute to him. I am committed to working further on the unduly lenient sentencing scheme to ensure that victims have the right to redress and to complain in an appropriate time, and that the victim impact statements are fit for purpose and represent that victim’s voice. For Katie Brett, the Youens family and all those who feel that they have been silenced, I make that commitment today. We also need that clarity in sentencing and transparency on what a sentence actually is, and I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friends the Members for Lowestoft and for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) talked about the need for vital support services, and they are right. Without the vital support services that support victims and survivors, we do not have victims and survivors engaged in a criminal justice system. There needs to be a multi-year settlement—my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft mentioned that as well—to ensure that they are sustainable, effective and there to support victims.

Those organisations know that we are currently going through the financial allocations process in the Ministry of Justice. We are due to complete that process very soon, because I know that these vital organisations need certainty as to the sustainability of their future, and I have committed to them that I will provide it soon. I also hear their calls for more support for child victims. Again, that is something I will be looking at as part of the consultation on the victims code later this year, because although we have identified that children can be victims in their own right, there is little to support them, and they deserve support too. I am committed to working with my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft and other hon. Members to get this right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and I have spoken many times about the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Change in this area cannot be piecemeal; we need proper change if victims are to be supported, if they are to have redress, and if they are to have the recognition that they so vitally need—that something has happened to them, and that they are a victim. As my hon. Friend mentioned, there is discretion in the scheme. There are many reasons for that, but she is right that the scheme does not work. We have heard that time and again, and I am committed to working with her to determine what scheme should be in place to support victims and survivors. I want to hear from them directly, and I am also keen to hear from Quebec—which my hon. Friend mentioned—about how the scheme there operates. If we can learn about best practice internationally, we should do so. But most importantly, we need an effective and sustainable redress scheme for victims of violent crime.

Finally, I wish to pay tribute, as others have done, to my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) and for Lowestoft, and to every single Member in this place who has stood up and discussed the need for change through this Bill. They have spoken from their hearts. They have spoken with bravery and with lived experience about what is needed to support victims and survivors. Never let anyone tell you that having a Labour Government does not make a difference. What is the difference? It is delivering for victims—deeds, not words. That is what we are doing in this Chamber this evening. We are making that difference, delivering for Claire Throssell, Jan Mustafa, Sabina Nessa, Olivia Pratt-Korbel, and the countless other victims who have been failed by the criminal justice system. That is the difference a Labour Government makes. I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 13 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “After section 10D of the Children Act 1989 (review of orders made under section 10C) (inserted by section 3) insert—

“10E Duty to make prohibited steps order following rape

(1) This section applies where the Crown Court—

(a) sentences a person (‘the offender’) for an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape), and

(b) is satisfied that a child (‘the child’) for whom the offender has parental responsibility was conceived as a result of the rape.

(2) The Crown Court must make a prohibited steps order when sentencing the offender.

(3) The order must—

(a) specify that no step of any kind which could be taken by a parent in meeting their parental responsibility for a child may be taken by the offender with respect to the child without the consent of the High Court or the family court, and

(b) be made to have effect until the order is varied or discharged by the High Court or the family court.

(4) But the Crown Court must not make a prohibited steps order under this section if—

(a) making the order is prohibited by section 29(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002,

(b) a prohibited steps order is already in force that meets the requirements in subsection (3), or

(c) it appears to the Crown Court that it would not be in the interests of justice to do so.

(5) A prohibited steps order made under this section does not cease to have effect if the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal, but see section 10G.

(6) Sections 1, 7 and 11 do not apply where the Crown Court proceeds under this section.

(7) A prohibited steps order made under this section is to be treated for the purposes of section 31F(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (proceedings and decisions) as if it were made by the family court.

(8) The Crown Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings in connection with the enforcement of a prohibited steps order made under this section.

(9) A reference in this Act to an order under this section includes, so far as the context permits, an order varying or discharging it.

10F Duty to apply to court where child may have been conceived as a result of rape

(1) This section applies where—

(a) the Crown Court sentences a person (‘the offender’) for an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape),

(b) the Crown Court is satisfied that there is a child (‘the child’) for whom the offender has parental responsibility,

(c) the Crown Court considers that the child may have been conceived as a result of the rape, and

(d) section 10E does not apply.

(2) The Crown Court must notify the local authority that is the relevant local authority at the time the offender is sentenced (if any) of the matters set out in subsection (1).

(3) The notification under subsection (2) must be given before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day after the day on which the offender is sentenced.

(4) Before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day after the day on which the Crown Court notifies the local authority under subsection (2), the local authority must make enquiries into whether—

(a) the victim of the rape, or

(b) if the victim is deceased, any person with parental responsibility for the child other than the offender,

consents to an application being made to the court (see section 92(7)) for the court to determine whether to make a section 8 order.

(5) If consent is given, the local authority must make that application as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any event before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day after the day on which the consent is given.

(6) Subsections (4) and (5) do not apply if the local authority is satisfied that the court would not have jurisdiction to make a section 8 order (see sections 2 and 3 of the Family Law Act 1986).

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the periods specified in subsections (3), (4) and (5).

(8) In this section, ‘relevant local authority’ means—

(a) where the child is ordinarily resident within the area of a local authority in England or Wales, that local authority;

(b) where the child does not fall within paragraph (a) but is present within the area of a local authority in England or Wales, that local authority.

10G Review of orders made under section 10E or following an application under section 10F

(1) This section applies where—

(a) either—

(i) a prohibited steps order has been made under section 10E, or

(ii) an order under Part II has been made following an application under section 10F, and

(b) the offender is acquitted of the offence following an appeal.

(2) The local authority that is the relevant local authority at the time the verdict of acquittal is entered (if any) must make an application to the court (see section 92(7)) to review the order.

(3) An application under this section must be made as soon as is reasonably practicable and in any event before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day after the day on which the verdict of acquittal was entered.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the period specified in subsection (3).

(5) In this section, ‘relevant local authority’ means—

(a) where the child with respect to whom the order was made is ordinarily resident within the area of a local authority in England or Wales, that local authority;

(b) where the child with respect to whom the order was made does not fall within paragraph (a) but is present within the area of a local authority in England or Wales, that local authority.””—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

This new clause, to be inserted after clause 3, requires the Crown Court to restrict the parental responsibility of a person convicted of rape where a child was conceived as a result. If it is unclear whether the child was so conceived, the local authority must apply to the family court.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue revised guidance on the content of victim personal statements.

(2) The revised guidance issued under subsection (1) must stipulate that when making a victim personal statement, a victim shall be able to say anything they wish about the defendant, provided it is not contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech, makes allegations of untried criminal conduct or is disorderly language.

(3) The court must disregard any prejudicial comments made during a victim personal statement.”—(Dr Mullan.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how to make victim personal statements less restrictive and clarify what can be included.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 337.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that the Victim Contact Scheme is made available to—

(a) victims of offenders sentenced to less than 12 months for violent and sexual offences,

(b) victims in cases involving coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking, or harassment, and

(c) bereaved families in manslaughter or death by dangerous driving cases.

(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that information under the Victim Contact Scheme is communicated in a timely and trauma-informed manner.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish data each year on uptake and accessibility of the Victim Contact Scheme.”—(Jess Brown-Fuller.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to extend the Victim Contact Scheme to certain categories of victim. It would also ensure information is provided in a timely, trauma-informed way and require annual reporting on the Scheme’s uptake and accessibility.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 323.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 2, insert—

‘2A Application of the victims’ code in respect of victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad

(1) This section applies in respect of victims as defined under section 1(2)(c) who are a close relative of a British National resident in England and Wales, who was the victim of—

(a) murder;

(b) manslaughter; or

(c) infanticide,

committed outside the UK.

(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations issue an appendix to the victims’ code, setting out how the code applies to victims in the circumstances set out in subsection (1).

(3) The appendix must set out the services to be provided to victims as defined under subsection (1) by those persons based in England and Wales appearing to the Secretary of State to have functions of a public nature relating to—

(a) victims, or

(b) any aspect of the criminal justice system.

(4) The appendix must make provision for services based in England and Wales which reflect the principles that victims require—

(a) information to help them understand the criminal justice process;

(b) access to services within England and Wales which provide them with emotional and practical support (including, where appropriate, specialist services);

(c) in circumstances where the criminal justice process is engaged in England and Wales, the opportunity to make their views heard in the criminal justice process; and

(d) the ability to challenge decisions which have a direct impact on them.

(5) In setting out the services to be provided to victims under this section, the Secretary of State must specify the following:

(a) how such services will be provided with accessible information;

(b) how they access emotional and practical support.’” —(Mr Joshua Reynolds.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to create an appendix to the Victims’ Code which outlines how the code applies to victims whose close relative was the victim of murder, manslaughter or infanticide outside the UK.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 322.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 10, page 6, line 2, leave out “for whom the offender has parental responsibility” and insert

“, and

(b) the offender has parental responsibility for at least one child.””

This would require the court to make an order restricting parental responsibility in all cases where an offender is sentenced to a relevant sentence for a serious sexual offence against a child. The duty would no longer be limited to cases where the offender had parental responsibility for the victim.

Amendment 11, page 7, line 11, after “reduced” insert “(if any)”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

This amendment clarifies that the obligation to apply for a review of a prohibited steps order under section 10D of the Children Act 1989 (inserted by clause 3) does not apply if there is no relevant local authority. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 12, page 7, line 33, leave out “(2)” and insert “(1A)”.

This amendment is consequential on NC14 and Amendment 13.

Amendment 13, page 7, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) In section 8(3), after “10A” insert “, 10C or 10E”.”

This amendment provides that proceedings in the Crown Court under sections 10C (inserted by clause 3) or 10E (inserted by amendment NC14) of the Children Act 1989 will not constitute “family proceedings” for the purposes of that Act.

Amendment 14, page 7, line 35, leave out “or 10C” and insert “, 10C or 10E”.

This amendment is consequential on NC14.

Amendment 15, page 8, line 4, at end insert—

“(3A) In section 10B, in subsection (2), after “made” insert “(if any)”.”

This amendment clarifies that the obligation to apply for a review of a prohibited steps order under section 10B of the Children Act 1989 does not apply if there is no relevant local authority.

Amendment 16, page 8, line 7, leave out “or 10C” and insert “, 10C or 10E”.

This amendment is consequential on NC14.

Amendment 17, page 8, line 10, leave out “or 10C” and insert “, 10C or 10E”.

This amendment is consequential on NC14.

Amendment 18, page 8, line 10, at end insert—

“(b) after subsection (14) insert—

“(14A) The reference in subsection (14) and section 91A(5)(a)(iii) to the disposal of an application includes an application under the following provisions—

section 10B,

section 10D,

section 10F, or

section 10G.””

This amendment confirms that the family court has the power to make an order under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989 restraining the making of further applications pursuant to an application under the listed provisions.

Amendment 19, page 8, line 12, leave out “after “10B(6)” insert “10C(11) or 10D(4)”” and insert “for “section 10B(6)” substitute “—

section 10B(6),

section 10C(11),

section 10D(4),

section 10F(7), or

section 10G(4).””

This amendment is consequential on NC14.

Amendment 20, page 8, line 14, leave out “or 10C” and insert “, 10C or 10E”.

This amendment is consequential on NC14.

Amendment 21, Clause 4, page 8, line 17, leave out “and 10C” and insert “, 10C and 10E”.—(Alex Davies-Jones.)

This amendment is consequential on NC14. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 5, page 12, line 23, after “(2)” insert

“unless an application is made by a victim, or their deceased victim’s next of kin, in which case notice of an application shall be given within one year.”—(Dr Mullan.)

This amendment increases the window for applying to the Unduly Lenient Sentences Scheme to one year for a victim of a crime or a deceased victim’s next of kin.

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 153, Noes 332.

Question accordingly negatived.

Third Reading \p Alex Davies-Jones: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I begin by placing on the record my thanks to the Whips, the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee and all the brilliant, dedicated officials at the Ministry of Justice who have worked so hard to bring this legislation forward. Particular thanks go to Rachel Bennion, Hayley Newell and Cassie Blower. I also pay tribute to London Victims Commissioner Claire Waxman and Victims Commissioner Baroness Newlove in the other place, as well as Domestic Abuse   Commissioner Dame Nicole Jacobs. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their thoughtful contributions so far. They have all helped to shape this Bill, which will strengthen our justice system and make it one that is more responsive to victims, tackles delays in our criminal courts and delivers swifter and fairer justice.

When the Government took office in July last year, we inherited a justice system in utter crisis, with record and rising backlogs in the criminal courts delaying justice for too many people and victims more likely to be an afterthought than an important, integral part of the process. Reform of the system is essential, and this legislation will mark that significant step forward, but I have been clear that this is just the beginning.

The Bill at its core is about transforming the experience of victims throughout the criminal justice system. It will introduce measures to ensure that victims are heard, supported and treated with the dignity they deserve, and it will improve the efficiency and fairness of our courts. \p Andrew Slaughter: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on piloting the Bill through the House? It is an excellent piece of legislation that will make a real difference to victims. But, as she said, it is just a start. Will she and the Department rededicate themselves to bringing down that Crown court backlog? Speedy justice is what victims want. \p Alex Davies-Jones: Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee for holding our feet to the fire as a Government to ensure that we bear down on that backlog. The Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), is ensuring that we deliver for victims by bringing down that backlog, with record investment in our court system, record sitting days and looking at the reforms brought forward and the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson in his once-in-a-generation review. It is only when we get on top of that court backlog that justice can be delivered and victims will feel it has been done.

The Bill is a key part of the Government’s plan for change. It will deliver on many of our manifesto commitments to support and protect victims, restore confidence in our justice system and implement that swifter and fairer justice. I urge all hon. Members on both sides of the House to support its passage into law. I proudly commend the Bill to the House. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Kieran Mullan: It is my pleasure to speak on Third Reading of the Victims and Courts Bill. Victims and their families should be at the heart of our justice system. The main goal of the justice system—as well as keeping the public safe—should be to deliver exactly that: justice for victims and their families. All too often, for many years, it has not done that as often as it could. The Bill has presented us with a number of ways in which we can at least improve how the system works by doing more to make life easier for victims and their families, helping to respond to their needs and doing more to give them a voice.

The Bill has brought forward measures to support families and children by restricting the responsibility of parents who are not fit to have a presumption of parental responsibility. It will also see an expanded role and powers for the Victims’ Commissioner. I have seen at first hand the effectiveness of that office under Baroness Newlove and I am sure that her successor will make great use of those new tools. The new measures around the victim contact scheme will also help victims feel like they know what is happening with the criminals who have harmed them, with access to information they have a right to.

I am disappointed, however, that the Government and Labour MPs have refused to accept two clear routes forward to further weight the justice system towards victims and their families. The Opposition’s proposed changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme and the victim personal statement had widespread support from across victims’ advocates, including Justice for Victims, the Victims’ Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and Victim Support. Hon. Members will know that had such a wide coalition come forward with proposals for sensible reform when Labour Members were in opposition, they would not have hesitated to back them. There is simply no good excuse for their having voted against them tonight.

The Bill is important and brings forward a range of important measures, so, as I am sure the Minister would expect, we will not oppose it. I pay tribute again to the victims and victims’ organisations. Most of the measures in the Bill started with them. I hope that Labour MPs will reflect on the measures they are still resisting and, in future stages, reconsider their decisions to vote against them. Those measures would improve the Bill, improve our justice system and help future victims avoid some of the experiences that have forced victims and their families into being campaigners. They do not want to be campaigners; they feel that they have to be. The measures that the Opposition proposed with their support were aimed at stopping other people in future from having to be campaigners.

But let us be clear: these measures and the Bill do not sit in isolation. I said at the outset that victims want justice. For the worst offenders, that means being properly punished by being sent to prison for a long time. I suggest to the Minister and Labour MPs that all the victims these measures are aimed to help, and all the people and campaign groups they speak to in support of these measures, will be appalled that at the same time that the Government are giving this, they are taking away with the other hand in a truly appalling way. Many of the campaigns and measures relate to violence and sexual offences, yet this week the Government will ask MPs to vote through clauses that will allow thousands of violent and sexual offenders out of prison earlier—[Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that that is not true, but more than 60% of rapists sent to prison will get out of prison earlier. Today, we had a discussion of the appalling, mistaken release of Hadush Kebatu. He was convicted of sexual assault. More than 85% of offenders sent to prison— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. Mr Mullan, we have to make sure that your speech is in scope of this Bill. I assume that you are coming to a sharp conclusion. \p Kieran Mullan: It is in scope, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we are talking about measures that apply— \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. If I have confirmed that it is not in scope for Third Reading, then it is not in scope. Conclude swiftly! \p Kieran Mullan: As I have said, many of the measures in the Bill are welcome, but we have to be extremely mindful that what we are doing in other proceedings in this House do not fatally undermine them and end up leaving victims feeling worse off after the positive measures that the Bill has brought forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed. \p Nusrat Ghani: With the leave of the

House, I will put motions 2 to 5 together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Companies (Directors’ Report) (Payment Reporting) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 17 July, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Definition of Relevant Land) (Amendment) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 8 September, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Financial Services (Overseas Recognition Regime Designations) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 15 July, be approved. \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Control of Mercury (Enforcement) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 17 July, be approved.—(Deirdre Costigan.)

Question agreed to. \p Nusrat Ghani: We have a substantial number of motions to move so, with the leave of the House, I will take them collectively.

Ordered, \p UNKNOWN: That Gregor Poynton and Rosie Wrighting be discharged from the Business and Trade Committee and Daniel Aldridge and Justin Madders be added. \p UNKNOWN: That James Frith, Tom Rutland and Paul Waugh be discharged from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and Vicky Foxcroft, Anneliese Midgley and Jeff Smith be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Andrew Pakes be discharged from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and Terry Jermy be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Blair McDougall be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Fleur Anderson be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Jake Richards, Shaun Davies and Conor Rand be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Lewis Atkinson, Peter Prinsley and Jo White be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Naushabah Khan and Joe Powell be discharged from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee and Sean Woodcock and Andrew Cooper be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Alice MacDonald be discharged from the International Development Committee and Janet Daby be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Mike Tapp be discharged from the Justice Committee and Tony Vaughan be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Nesil Caliskan and Luke Charters be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Catherine McKinnell and Tristan Osborne be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Steve Race and Jon Pearce be discharged from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and Samantha Niblett and Daniel Zeichner be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Catherine Atkinson be discharged from the Transport Committee and Jacob Collier be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Lola McEvoy, Jeevun Sandher and Rachel Blake be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Jim Dickson, Luke Murphy and Catherine West be added. \p UNKNOWN: That Kirith Entwistle, Natalie Fleet and Catherine Fookes be discharged from the Women and Equalities Committee and Kevin McKenna, Kim Leadbeater and Nadia Whittome be added. \p UNKNOWN: That David Pinto-Duschinsky, Gill German and Frank McNally be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Lee Barron, David Baines and Rushanara Ali be added.—(Jessica Morden, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.) \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Deirdre Costigan.) \p Simon Hoare: There are many issues that will divide this House and many issues that will divide society, but one thing that probably unites all of us, and indeed society, is that we have a legitimate expectation of decent and respectful treatment for our dead. I do not think that is asking too much. The vast majority of funeral directors, crematoria and hospital morgues treat the deceased with the decency and respect that we would expect and hope for ourselves.

Most of the apples operating in the funeral barrels, if I can put it like that, are good ones, but we all know that there are rotten apples in every barrel. It has long been recognised that this is a sector that operates in good faith and on a belief—often misplaced—that our expectations of the decency and respect to be shown to the deceased will prevail in all circumstances. I am not suggesting that Governments have shied away from this, pretending to turn a blind eye, as it were, but probably in the general scheme of things, until some recent high-profile incidents, they have not really thought to think about it, in the presumption that everything works well and as we would expect.

We will all remember the Fuller inquiry and the interim report that came out from that. When I was the Local Government Minister, the then junior Minister at the Ministry of Justice, Mike Freer, and I worked closely on this. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), with whom I worked closely some months back on a constituency case of hers. I am delighted to see her in her place, knowing the keen interest she has taken on behalf of her constituents.

I asked the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Ministry of Justice, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), on 22 January what changes were being proposed to licensing, or to bring in licensing, in the funeral home sector. The reply was—let me put it this way—benign. His written reply said it was a

“complex and sensitive matter that demands careful consideration to ensure a response that effectively safeguards the public.”

On the latter bit, we can all agree. It being a “complex and sensitive matter” is true. I would argue that it has already had that “careful consideration”. When one considers all the retail outlets and others—be they tattoo parlours, nail bars, cafés, burger bars, hairdressers, beauty salons and the like—that are regulated and inspected, it does seem strange that the funeral sector is effectively left to its own devices.

I know that sometimes Government and Members of Parliament press for licensing, regulation or binding codes of conduct very much against the will of the sector and find themselves in this great tussle. But the Association of Green Funeral Directors, the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors and the National Association of Funeral Directors—I just want to pause to pay warm and fulsome tribute to the latter two for how they helped Mike Freer and me when we were Ministers trying to grapple with this when the  situation was boiling up. Those three organisations, together with the Co-op, represent somewhere between 75% and 85% of funeral operators in this country. They are all desperate for either a licensing regime or an inspection regime.

Society is effectively saying to the trade bodies, which have a bit of muscle but no teeth, that they should impose standards of operation across the whole of the sector. I think the country at large would welcome regulation and inspection, and the trade bodies, which represent between three quarters and 85% of operators, are also clamouring for that. \p Helen Maguire: The hon. Member sheds a light on an area that I have only just come to, and that was through a piece of casework. It was absolutely devastating to receive a piece of casework about abysmal funeral services, which included the mis-selling of a plot in a local cemetery, extortionate funeral costs and countless issues with a private funeral company. Does he agree that it is unacceptable that private cemeteries are almost entirely unregulated and are governed by burial Acts from the 1800s, which frankly are wildly out of date? \p Simon Hoare: I do agree. In many respects, the only bit of legislation on which we can rest a serious prosecution is the Burial Act 1857, which deals with the corpse post internment. It is silent on the corpse’s treatment from the point of death through to the point of either internment or cremation. There is an enormous vacuum in the rules and regulations that I think most fair-minded people would say needs to be filled. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. This is the second Adjournment debate of his in which I have been involved in the last six months. He brings to the House subjects that are pertinent not just to North Dorset but to every constituency across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such an intimate and essential service for people at the most vulnerable times of their lives must be of the highest standard? We have wonderful funeral companies such as Clarke’s and Adair’s in my Strangford constituency, but we sometimes hear dreadful stories of horrific service. The fact that we regulate nail salons but not funeral services indicates that we need to consider ensuring a minimum level of service protection, and that the Government, and the Minister in particular, should at the very least instil some form of accountability into the process. \p Simon Hoare: I fundamentally agree with what the hon. Gentleman said, as would the lion’s share of operators, because they are acutely aware of a crisis of public confidence in the sector’s ability to deliver. \p Mark Sewards: The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech on an incredibly difficult topic. Next month, I am bringing two mums from Leeds down to meet the Victims Minister. They tragically lost their babies in different circumstances, but both went to the same funeral director, who did horrific things with their babies’ bodies. The police found nothing actionable because there is no regulation of the funeral industry. That needs to change. The hon. Gentleman talks about the public’s reaction, so does he  agree that the more cases that come to light, the more the public realise what is possible in the funeral sector right now and the louder their calls for regulation will grow? I urge the Minister to recognise the urgent need to address this issue. \p Simon Hoare: I am very sorry to hear what the hon. Gentleman has relayed; I know that the whole House will send prayers, thoughts and sympathies to his constituents. What a terrible thing to be dealing with in what are already tragically sad circumstances. He is right to urge the Minister to give a turbocharged and energised response.

As a society, our relationship with funerals is changing. We have become, as we know, a more secular society, so we are looking for other ways to deal with funeral services, rather than the traditional church service and so on. The covid pandemic certainly expedited the—I do not necessarily use this term in a disparaging sense—cheaper, faster and more streamlined approach to dealing with the deceased.

Funerals have become very expensive, when done well, because funeral directors have costs that need to be met, which is why we have seen this great rash of adverts. Anyone who watches any daytime commercial television will know that those over 55 are well insured—I qualify by a year. I am told there are plenty of machines for those who have difficulty getting out of a chair or a bed, and they can press a button and spring up and out like Zebedee. And there are 101 different funeral plan providers who will meet people’s needs very cheaply indeed.

There is little or no doubt that the lion’s share of operators are legit, above board, doing their best and doing it well, but the absence of regulation means that, if we so wished, the Minister and I could set up a funeral directors. We do not need a licence. \p Robbie Moore: On that point, will my hon. Friend give way? \p Simon Hoare: Let me just continue.

The Minister and I would not need a licence and we would not be inspected; all we would have to do is put up a sign saying “Funeral Directors” with the hours of operation on it. That cannot be right. It cannot be right that when a funeral director is running out of credit with their local crematorium they can transport a corpse from one end of the country to the other without any paperwork. If my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and others involved in livestock farming wanted to move one of their sheep from A to B, they know as well as I do about the vast amount of paperwork the Ministry requires to allow that to happen, and that is because we want traceability—that is what we need, and we need traceability in this sector as well. \p Robbie Moore: My hon. Friend makes the point that many of our constituents across the country do not realise that anybody could set up and run a funeral director service. Sam Gallagher, one of the directors of Gallagher Family Funeral Directors in Keighley, wrote to me to advocate, quite rightly, that the Government should look at bringing in regulation or, at the very least, requiring that funeral directors must be a member of a trade association in order to operate. Currently we  have neither, and I am sure that my hon. Friend, in summing up, will encourage the Minister to offer some warm words that we will be going in the direction of having that regulation put in place. \p Simon Hoare: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a great strength to be a member of the trade association, because it gives an imprimatur of quality to the families choosing a funeral director, just as customers would choose a CORGI-registered boiler fitter or FENSA for windows. As the trade associations themselves have made clear, however, they can only exhort. They can help people by advising on what best practice looks and feels like, what a good customer experience is and so forth, but people can still trade as a funeral director without being a member of the trade association, and if the trade association kicks them out, they can still trade as a funeral director, because being a funeral director is not concomitant on being a member of the trade association. So there is all this opt-in, opt-out, and of course the best will always join the professional bodies that give them the imprimatur of quality, whereas it is the dodgy geezers—the people trying to do it on the fly—who will not, and they will always be part of the bottom end of the market. \p James Asser: I have in my constituency a very well-established funeral director that operates in a large area and has been around since the Victorian era, and many other Members will have similar firms in their areas. The hon. Gentleman has talked about the trade bodies. Does he agree that such long-established family firms have a role to play in any future regulation as their experience and respect will add to the weight of the regulation? \p Simon Hoare: I entirely agree, and I make this point again for the Minister’s benefit: he will not be trying to push water uphill in pushing for a regulatory and/or licensing regime. The good guys and girls want it to happen because it would give certainty.

I can share with the House—I hope it is not breaching a confidence—that when I was dealing with a high-profile incident, which I cannot reference per se as it is sub judice, one of the concerns we wrestled with was what would happen if public confidence collapsed so much that our hospital morgues became effectively logjammed. People would not be prepared to release their loved one to a funeral director because they had lost all faith in the sector as a whole. That would be a deeply worrying situation for anybody, and that is why the trade bodies are pushing so hard and so energetically to deploy their expertise as best they can in the current circumstances, but also to push Government to agree. \p Ben Lake: rose— \p Tessa Munt: rose— \p Simon Hoare: I want to draw my remarks to a close, but not before I have given way to the hon. Gentleman. \p Ben Lake: I am grateful to my friend the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for bringing forward this important debate. I agree wholeheartedly with the arguments that he has made, as do many of the funeral directors in my constituency. I impress on him and the  Minister that those funeral directors want a licensing regime. As the hon. Member has explained so eloquently, the trade bodies can only do so much, but a licensing regime would ensure a minimum standard, and we could all hope that the rest would try to excel and become members of the trade bodies in due course. \p Simon Hoare: I agree fundamentally; it would be “the rising tide that floats all ships” argument. I will give way briefly to the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), and then I have a couple of suggestions for the Minister. \p Tessa Munt: My constituents would be really shocked to discover the lack of clarity in this matter. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as part of the licensing regime, anyone undertaking a funeral service in the community should be clear about where bodies are kept and the various arrangements that are in play? I have heard some fairly dreadful things about arrangements for those who have passed away. \p Simon Hoare: I agree. In so many choices that we make, the consumer now rightly demands the highest of standards. People want to ensure that the departure of their loved one from the world is as dignified, graceful, calm and respectful as it possibly can be. \p Tessa Munt: rose— \p Simon Hoare: The hon. Lady is scowling at me in such a friendly way that of course I will give way. \p Tessa Munt: Funeral directors deal with people at the most vulnerable time in their lives. It is not the time when somebody asks, “What is happening? Where is my loved one’s body? What are you going to do next?” All of that detail is assumed. When people are so vulnerable, they are highly unlikely to ask the questions that they really should ask, and that they would certainly ask if they were buying any other product or service. \p Simon Hoare: The hon. Lady has hit upon the key word—assumed. Why would people think to think anything else? Funeral directors have chosen their profession—it is not like there is a conscript army of funeral directors, press-ganged into dealing with the deceased—so people presume and assume that the highest standards and quality will be deployed.

The hon. Lady is right that most of our constituents would be shocked that it is only section 25 of the Burial Act 1857 that makes it an offence to remove buried remains without a licence from the Secretary of State or, in relation to consecrated ground, without the permission of the Church of England, according to the rites of the Church. There is, however, a common-law offence of preventing a lawful and decent burial, where a person conceals the death of another person. That is not the same as not giving somebody a dignified burial. The death has not been concealed, because it has been registered—they have a death certificate—but it is what is done to the deceased thereafter that is important.

Let me make some points to the Minister—he may well need to respond in writing, rather than give a detailed answer from the Dispatch Box. He will have heard from Members from across the House, and he  will know from conversations that he may have had with trade bodies and others, that there is a strong and growing appetite for licensing and inspection. The default position, as I understand it, is with the Human Tissue Authority, and some changes to its terms of reference would be required, which might be a good place to start.

There was a mixed reaction from across the local government family, but I still think that our local councils know the granularity of their jurisdictions. They will often be running the crematoria and the graveyards, and they will have official relationships with the funeral directors. They also have a long track record of inspection of premises. I am certain that when local government was given the duty to inspect licensed premises and facilities serving food, they said, “We have no experience in this”, but they very quickly picked it up.

I know that the trade bodies stand ready to work alongside and with local authorities, as they were going to do before the general election, to say, “This is what best practice looks like. Come and see our leading members and get a feel for this. We will then accompany you on inspection so that you get a feel about what to look for, the right questions to ask, and so on.” It was going to be an evolution in partnership between the quality operators and the Government. I think any and all of us would support anything—there is certainly a clear role for the Human Tissue Authority, but I urge the Minister not to rule out at this stage active and engaged involvement from the local government sector.

There is also a beefed-up supervisory role for the Financial Conduct Authority. We are all familiar with the TV advertising and other advertising, which I referenced, that says, “Pay a couple of quid a month and build up your funeral kitty. Your loved ones don’t have to worry about it.” I am aware of a few cases whereby people have gone in on a weekly or monthly basis with cash, paid it in good faith and been given a piece of paper. They have been given no receipt, the funeral director has not been registered, and the scheme has not been registered with the Financial Conduct Authority—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) will remember that she had that with a number of her constituents.

Let me share with the House that such people are not the wealthy or affluent, who can say, “I can afford to write off the £2,500 or £3,000 I have put in.” These are people on limited, low incomes and limited means who are trying to defray the costs for their family by doing the right thing. We then find that all they have is a piece of paper in their own bank book or ledger, in which they might write things saying, “This is what I have paid in. Go and talk to Mr Whoever—they are my funeral director of choice.” Guess what? That person has done a moonlight flit; they have disappeared, and there is no record. We have never heard of them. They say, “Oh no, your mother only paid in £4.20, then she did not make any payments.” Nobody stands as the guarantor of last resort. That money is just lost and written off.

If only frightfully well-to-do people were affected, we would be sympathetic with them, but I suggest that the people affected are being proactively preyed on in areas of the country where there is not a vast amount of cash to go around. People are trying to do their best to ensure that their funeral is as cost-effective and problem-free as possible for their surviving relatives, and that it gives them dignity in their choice of being cremated or interred.

The Treasury needs to step up to this issue as well. We know that the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 was amended by order in 2021, but it does not quite seem to be doing the trick. There is a problem when any issue requires interdepartmental solutions. We have the Treasury and financial regulation on one side, and there is the potential for Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government involvement on the other. There is also the Ministry of Justice as the sponsoring Department for death—not necessarily the best thing to put on a ministerial strapline, but the Minister is the Minister for death, as far as the MOJ is concerned. Who takes the lead? Who pushes it forward? Who convenes? Who gets it right?

This issue cannot be ignored. I say with the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who I am privileged enough to count as a friend, that this is a complex and sensitive issue, and we are going to need to take our time. The canon of evidence on the need for progress is very clear and compelling. I suggest that the time for consultation and consideration has passed. The time is now for joined-up Government, energetic thinking and speedy delivery, which will give comfort and confidence to each and every constituent.

Apart from taxes, we know that there is only one other certain thing in this life: we have a span on this Earth, and it is not an infinite resource. We are all going to have to use one of these services at some point, so it is in the interests of the whole country to get this right. The Minister is jolly lucky, because the trade bodies and others are willing him on. They want to see this happen and are ready to act in quick lockstep in order to deliver it.

As the House has reflected in this evening’s debate, and as I hope the Minister will have picked up on, doing nothing and hoping for the best—hoping that somehow or another, by a process of osmosis, the bad actors disappear and the good actors rise to the fore and are the sole operators within this sphere—is, I am afraid, for the birds. I urge any right hon. or hon. Member to talk to any of their constituents, at a surgery or an event, and ask, “The funeral sector is regulated, isn’t it?” They will answer, “Of course it is.” “It’s licensed, isn’t it?” “Yes, of course it is.” When you tell them it is not, there is a look of total and utter astonishment. That situation cannot continue.

I suggest that the Minister could bring forward whatever legislation he needs, and it would probably pass this House in a couple of weeks. As the Minister has heard from across the House, this is now an urgent and pressing issue. I look forward to his reply, but more importantly, I look forward to seeing any legislation that he brings forward in order to enact a remedy that is long overdue. \p Zubir Ahmed: I thank the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for bringing forward this debate and for the manner in which he has done so, with just the right blend of humour and seriousness. In the spirit of humour, I thank him for his invitation to go into business with him as a funeral director. I think I must decline that invitation, on the basis that as a practising surgeon, it might raise some issues of conflict in my practice.

It really is an honour to respond to the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Government. I completely understand his strength of feeling on this issue, and from all the contributions made by hon. Members from across this House, I know that he is not alone. Many colleagues and their constituents have written to the Government, rightly appalled by recent scandals that have shone a spotlight on the current arrangements and lack of regulation in the funeral sector. Many hon. Members’ constituents have conducted themselves with great dignity at a time when that dignity was not afforded to their dearly departed loved ones. People deserve dignity in death, and families deserve the comfort of knowing that their loved ones have been safely laid to rest.

All of us know, or will come to know, bereavement. Everyone deals with grief in different ways, but for many people, funerals can be comforting as well as cathartic—an occasion to lay a loved one’s remains to rest and celebrate the gift of their life. On these occasions, we put our trust in the commitment and professionalism of a funeral director. We trust them to not only support us through one of the most difficult and distressing times in our life, but treat our loved ones laid to rest with the utmost respect. Every deceased person deserves at least as much dignity in death as they had in life, and to receive the highest standard of care from those entrusted with looking after them. It is important to remember that, as the hon. Member for North Dorset mentioned, the vast majority of funeral directors operate with professionalism and integrity. As he has noted, though, there have recently been a number of distressing incidents in which the conduct of a small number of funeral directors and those involved in dealing with the deceased have fallen far, far short of the standards that we, as a respectable society, can tolerate.

Before I turn to the recommendations of phase 2 of the independent inquiry into the issues raised by the David Fuller case, I want to remind the House of the background to that case. As colleagues may remember, the unspeakable crimes of David Fuller took place in a hospital while he was a maintenance supervisor, first at Kent and Sussex hospital and later at Tunbridge Wells hospital. He was arrested in December 2020 for the 1987 murders of two women, Wendy Knell and Caroline Pierce. When police searched his house, they found images and videos of him committing unspeakable offences on a large number of deceased women and girls in hospital mortuary settings between 2005 and 2020.

In 2021, the previous Government established an independent inquiry to investigate how a member of staff was able to carry out such evil and unlawful acts at mortuaries in those hospitals, going unnoticed. Crimes such as these are rare, but that will come as little consolation to the victims. We owe it to the victims and their families to learn the lessons from the Fuller inquiry and to do everything we can to prevent other families from going through similar heartbreak. I take this opportunity to thank Sir Jonathan Michael and his whole inquiry team for their work. This is the first time that the security and dignity of people after death has been considered within all settings and on a major scale in England.

Turning to the inquiry findings, phase 1 of the inquiry focused on the crimes that Fuller committed in those mortuaries in Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells. The report, published in 2023, identified failures of management,  governance and regulation and a lack of curiosity, enabling Fuller’s crimes to be repeated time and again. As a result of incidents in the funeral sector, the inquiry was asked by the previous Administration, as the hon. Member for North Dorset has already alluded to, to expedite its examination of the funeral sector.

On 15 October 2024, the inquiry published an interim report recommending regulation of that sector. On 15 July, the inquiry published its phase 2 final report, which looked at the care of the deceased in both hospital and, importantly, non-hospital settings. The report made 75 detailed recommendations in total, with the majority focusing on access, dignity, security and wider processes and procedures to protect deceased individuals. A smaller number of recommendations focused on independent hospitals, medical education, hospices, ambulance services, care homes, the funeral sector and, of course, faith organisations, making specific recommendations to improve the care of the deceased. The inquiry’s overarching recommendation is that statutory regulation should be in place to protect the security and dignity of people after death, whichever setting or institution they are in. Sir Jonathan specifically recommended the introduction of an independent statutory regulatory regime for funeral directors.

There are currently specific issues in Hull, which are subject to court proceedings that have not completed, so I will not comment on them specifically, except to say that I am grateful for the support and work of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), who is sitting next to me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). I pay tribute to the Hessle Road community and to Tristan and Claire, constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice, for how they have campaigned. They have been dignified and campaigning so hard after the distressing incidents relating to their grandmother.

The Government have committed to providing an interim update before the end of this year, followed by a full response in summer 2026. I acknowledge the challenge  of the hon. Member for North Dorset that multiple trade bodies are willing to step up and work with the Government to find a workable framework that meets the needs of the mid-21st century, not the mid-19th.

The recommendations from phase 1 of the inquiry relating to the trust where Fuller committed his horrendous crimes sit largely within the remit of my Department. The trust set out its progress in February 2024 and has implemented all the inquiry’s recommendations.

The phase 2 recommendations are more complex, and do not solely sit with the Department of Health and Social Care, as the levers of action sit across Government. The recommendations focus on service-level improvements and wider regulation, including of the funeral sector, as has been touched upon in today’s debate. Those need a co-ordinated and urgent approach across Departments to determine which recommendations should be prioritised by which Department. The hon. Gentleman has my assurance of a collaborative, cross-departmental approach to get this right soon for the deceased and their loved ones.

The hon. Gentleman has put forward many proposals and challenges, including changing the Human Tissue Act 2004, which can be cumbersome. He has also put forward suggestions on the use of local government services to regulate the funeral sector, and I will make sure that the relevant Minister writes to him regarding the feasibility of that. He has similarly put forward proposals to use the Financial Conduct Authority to stop rogue funeral directors operating and exploiting vulnerable groups. It will be my pleasure to ask my colleagues in the Treasury to write to him regarding the feasibility of such interventions.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important debate forward this evening and for the views expressed by Members across this House as the Government continue to consider our response to the Fuller inquiry, including the issue of regulation. This House has my assurance that we will continue to try to work at pace and cross-departmentally to bring dignity to the deceased.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.