Alex Davies-Jones MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 May 2025 · Coroner Services: West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  My condolences to you on your loss, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) on securing this important debate. I thank him for his emotive speech, and all hon. Members who contributed, representing the views of bereaved families, sometimes including their own. It is appreciated and they have done so dutifully. The House will be aware that although the Ministry of Justice is responsible for coronial law and policy in England and Wales, it does not have operational oversight of the coronial system. Coroner services are not centralised as part of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, and are instead administered and funded through the relevant local authorities for each coroner area. The chief coroner provides judicial leadership for coroners. I take this opportunity, as other Members have, to express my thanks to all coroners, their officers and their staff, as well as the chief coroner and her team for their tireless and expert commitment to their work. We are all extremely grateful to them for the vital service they provide to the bereaved and to the justice system. Coroners are independent judicial office holders. They are specialist death investigation judges and part of the wider death investigation, certification and registration system. Their statutory duty is to investigate any death of which they become aware if they suspect that it was violent or unnatural in its cause, its cause was unknown, or it occurred in custody or other state detention. They also have an ancillary duty to ensure that, in appropriate cases, action to prevent future death is identified via prevention of future deaths reports. The needs of the bereaved, particularly where there are faith concerns in respect of a death, should remain central to the coroner process. Both the Lord Chancellor, as a west midlands MP, and I are very aware of local concerns about coroner provision for communities that require swift burial or cremation. Clearly, decisions about the release of the body, including whether to hold a post-mortem examination, are independent judicial decisions for the coroner. However, I know that in many jurisdictions, including in the west midlands, families have experienced real delays. Sometimes, that is because the coroner needed to gather further evidence to support the investigation. I fully understand that, regardless of the reason, delays can cause real distress for bereaved families, particularly when faith requirements are dependent on the timely release of a loved one’s body. We are working hard to cut delays wherever possible and to ensure that families are properly communicated with and supported throughout the process, particularly so that we can ensure that any religious ceremonies or faith requirements can be met, as they should. There are already a range of measures in place to help guide coroners as to best practice in terms of early decision making once a death has been reported, in order to ensure that families can be given certainty as soon as possible. The chief coroner has issued detailed practical guidance for coroners in dealing with requests for urgent consideration of a death and early release of a deceased body, including on religious grounds. The guidance sets out that legal framework and states: “Coroners should pay appropriate respect to those wishes, within the framework of their legal duties and in the context of other responsibilities.” In addition, the chief coroner has issued guidance on the use of post-mortem imaging, including CT scanning, and on pathology more generally, which emphasises that the family should be kept fully informed throughout. I regularly meet the chief coroner to ensure that we have a shared understanding of the issues with the coroner system, including this one. I am also happy to engage with representatives of faith communities to understand their concerns and to meet hon. Members to discuss the matter further. As the House will know, the Justice Committee undertook an inquiry into the coroner service in 2021, with a follow-up in 2023-24. The Government responded to the Committee’s letter of May 2024, summarising their findings in December 2024. That letter has been published by the Committee. It is right that our focus should be on ensuring that the bereaved are at the heart of the process. I hope the House will find it helpful if I set out a number of steps that the Government are taking to address the issues raised by the Justice Committee, other stakeholders and hon. Members. After just a few months in office, in September 2024 this Government implemented the statutory medical examiner system in England and Wales. It represents the most fundamental change to the end-to-end process of death certification and registration in recent times. The new system means that every death is subject either to the scrutiny of a medical examiner or to a coroner’s investigation, thereby fulfilling the long-standing ambition of successive Governments to introduce a robust system whereby all deaths, without exception, are subject to an independent review. Medical examiners and coroners have distinct roles. The new arrangements will ensure that cases are managed in the right part of the system and that only those deaths that require a judicial investigation are referred to the coroner. That will enable better focusing of coronial resource, which in turn is expected to support the reduction of inquest backlogs and delays. I hope we are already seeing the evidence of that. Just last week, the Ministry of Justice’s coroner statistics were published: 174,900 deaths were reported to coroners in 2024—the lowest level since 1995 and down 10% compared to 2023. That is because, following the creation of the new system, only those who genuinely need to go to the coroner will do so. In addition, 81,200 post-mortem examinations were ordered by coroners in 2024—a 6% fall compared to 2023.

• 13 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New clause 50 seeks the automatic removal of parental responsibility where a parent has been convicted of a serious sexual offence against a child. To begin with, I wish to be clear that child sexual abuse is an abhorrent crime that leaves a lasting impact on victims and their families, and those affected have my deepest sympathies. The shadow Minister’s motivation in tabling the amendment is laudable—protecting children and vulnerable adults is a top priority for this Government—but there are several compelling reasons why we cannot support it.

• 13 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Again, I thank the hon. Member for the new clause, which would extend existing offences relating to sexual activity between certain family members to first cousins. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 currently makes it a criminal offence for a person aged 16 or over to sexually penetrate an adult family member where they are related as a parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. The rationale for the offence in relation to sexual relations between family members generally is the fundamental breach of trust involved in particular family members engaging in sexual activity with other family members. It is also important to acknowledge that criminal offences help to ensure that patterns of abuse established in childhood are not allowed to continue into adulthood. If the intention of the new clause, as the shadow Minister stated, is to prevent marriage between first cousins, this Bill is the wrong vehicle for that. The Marriage Act 1949 deals with prohibited degrees of relationship for marriage. It is therefore the case that under this new clause, although sexual penetration between first cousins would become a criminal offence in certain circumstances, first cousins would still be legally able to marry. Marriage will always be one of our most important institutions, and we must, and are, considering any recommendations to change wedding law carefully, including in relation to cousin marriage. I acknowledge that the new clause does not seek to criminalise continued sexual relations between first cousins where the sexual relationship started before the Bill is passed. However, the practical reality is that many first cousins would be permitted to continue having sex, while for others it would become criminal behaviour. The new clause also seeks to make it a specific criminal offence for a person to sexually touch a child who is their first cousin, or to incite a child who is their first cousin to engage in sexual activity, where the child is under 18 and the perpetrator does not reasonably believe that they are 18 or over. Regardless of the new clause, it is already an offence for anyone, of any age, to engage in sexual activity with children under the age of 16, even if that child purports to give their consent. These are serious sexual offences, and they are treated as such across the criminal justice system. We consider the existing protections for children under 16 to be sufficient. Therefore, for the reasons I have set out, I ask the hon. Member for Stockton West to withdraw the new clause. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 13 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The new clause seeks to make the starting punishment for child murder a whole life order. I thank the shadow Minister for his commitment to tackling crimes involving children and reiterate the offer made at the last sitting by the Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley, that if he seriously wishes to address these crimes and all the others we have debated throughout the Committee’s sittings, we stand willing to work with any Member across the House to make that a reality. As yet, no acceptance of that offer has come forward. I share the desire, as many do, to ensure that those responsible for these terrible crimes are punished properly. The murder of the most vulnerable in our society causes extreme grief and devastation for loved ones who are left behind. Those affected have my deepest sympathies. It may be helpful if I set out in what circumstances the murderer of a child would currently receive a whole life order. Everyone convicted of the murder of a child will receive a life sentence. That means they will only be released, after serving their minimum term, if the Parole Board is satisfied that their detention is no longer necessary for the protection of the public. Even if released—and I say “if”—the offender will remain on licence for the rest of their life, subject to recall to prison if they breach the conditions of their licence. When a life sentence is imposed, the court must determine the minimum period to be served in custody for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. When sentencing adult offenders, the starting points are 15, 25 or 30 years, or a whole life order. Judges must then consider relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and adjust the minimum term accordingly. Whole life orders are the most severe form of punishment that the courts can impose. These sentences have no tariffs and no possibility of Parole Board release. As such, they are reserved for the most heinous cases of murder. As of 31 December 2024, there are 69 offenders serving whole life orders in our prisons. There are certain instances of child murder that are regarded as so heinous that they are normally subject to a whole life order starting point. Currently, a whole life order will normally be the appropriate starting point for the murder of a child if it involved the abduction of the child, sexual or sadistic motivation, or a substantial degree of premeditation or planning. Some instances of child murder may also fall within other circumstances where a whole life order is normally the appropriate starting point. Those additional circumstances apply to murders involving victims of any age—for example, a murder done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause, or a murder committed by someone already convicted of murder. The court may also impose a whole life order for murders where it considers that the seriousness of the offence is exceptionally high, even if it does not fall within one of the categories of case specified as normally warranting a whole life order starting point. There are several reasons why we cannot support the new clause. It is important to recognise that cases involving the murder of a child can be incredibly complex and it is therefore right that we do not introduce legislation that treats them all the same. Given their severity, whole life orders must be reserved for the most serious cases, and it is right that in other cases judges retain broader discretion to impose the appropriate minimum term in accordance with the statutory framework. However, the Government recognise that there are serious concerns regarding homicide law and sentencing, which do need addressing. The Lord Chancellor recently announced a Law Commission review of homicide law and sentencing. The review will consider the law relating to homicide offences, including full and partial defences to those offences, and the existing sentencing framework for murder, as set out in schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020. Any changes to schedule 21, including to whole life orders, will therefore be considered in the context of the Law Commission’s review. The Law Commission planned to begin its work on the review earlier this year, and we understand that it will publish a timeline of that work shortly. It would not be right to anticipate the recommendations of the commission by introducing legislation on murder sentencing prior to the publication of its review. Instead, its findings should be considered independently and in their totality. I thank the shadow Minister again for his commitment to punishing offenders that commit crimes against children. However, as I hope I have made clear, crimes against children are complex and need all due consideration in sentencing by the independent judiciary. I therefore urge him to withdraw his new clause. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 13 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I understand that the purpose of the new clause is to create a statutory aggravating factor in sentencing for any individual who has financially benefited from the creation, distribution, possession or publication of any specified child sexual abuse offence. While I wholeheartedly agree with the spirit of the proposed measure, I must inform the shadow Minister that Sentencing Council guidelines already provide for courts to lengthen sentences where an offender has financially benefited from a sexual offence committed against a child. Sentencing guidelines are developed by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales. All sentencing courts must follow any sentencing guidelines that are relevant to the offender’s case, unless it is in the interests of justice not to do so. The overarching sentencing guidelines include “Commission of the offence for financial gain” and “High level of profit from the offence” as aggravating factors that courts can apply to any relevant offence. The sentencing guidelines for sexual offences also include “Commercial exploitation and/or motivation” as a high culpability factor, increasing the starting point that the courts apply when deciding on a sentence. The new clause risks introducing confusion in the application of existing provisions. Furthermore, by specifying the offences to which the factor applies, it could inadvertently narrow the range of cases in which financial gain is considered an aggravating factor. For those reasons, I urge the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.

• 12 May 2025 · British Nationals Murdered Abroad: Support for Families · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the Sprays’ experience. It is their lived experience and the experiences of other bereaved families that fuel me and give me that information to conduct my role as the victims Minister. I wholeheartedly welcome that correspondence and information. In addition to the FCDO support that I have set out, the Homicide Service is commissioned by the Ministry of Justice to provide specialist practical, emotional, peer and advocacy support to families after a murder, whether it happened here or abroad. For homicides that occur overseas, that includes funding to contribute to the cost of repatriation to the UK, for the family to travel to the country in question, and for the interpretation and translation of documents, among other services. Crucially, this support is tailored to each family’s circumstances and is available for as long as it is needed, so that families are not left to navigate these challenges alone.

• 12 May 2025 · British Nationals Murdered Abroad: Support for Families · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the hon. Member’s comments. It is crucial that we consult organisations such as Murdered Abroad when looking at the new victims code. It is important that we consult all organisations supporting victims and survivors as we look at what else is missing from the code and how best we can provide that support. That said, I should make it clear that we do not necessarily believe that the victims code is the right place to make provision for victims of overseas crimes. The code sets out the minimum standards of service that victims should receive when involved in cases dealt with in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. It is therefore designed around the laws and procedures that we have here in our jurisdiction and our criminal justice system, much of which will not be applicable in cases involving crimes overseas. It is therefore not the right vehicle to make provision for victims where the offence is investigated and prosecuted abroad, as consular support overseas relies on the responses of agencies in that specific country where the crime occurred. I commit to the hon. Member for Maidenhead and the House that, following the new code, my Department will work with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the FCDO, the Victims’ Commissioner and Murdered Abroad, taking into account the lived experience of others, to explore how we can make clearer what support exists for families affected by homicide abroad and what more we can do to support them. We know how traumatic and isolating it can be to lose a loved one to violence in a foreign country. No family should face that kind of devastation alone, and our hearts go out to families who have gone, and are going, through it. When it does happen, those families deserve compassion, clarity and proper support. We are working to improve access to the help available and to ensure that those who need support know how to find it. I hope the hon. Member for Maidenhead is reassured by the measures I have set out and the steps we are taking to strengthen the support on offer even further. Question put and agreed to.

• 12 May 2025 · British Nationals Murdered Abroad: Support for Families · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. It should be the appropriate protocol for the police to be informed first of an incident in a country, with the families informed by the police in that country or by the police in our country via Interpol, as I said. But, in today’s modern age, sadly that is not always the case. It is not fair to the families that they find out second or third hand. An appropriate protocol should be in place. That should be how it happens. Sadly, we know that is not always the case. The Osman family did not receive, and did not know that they could receive, a trained family liaison officer in Wales, and they were largely ignored by Spanish police. When they visited Spain shortly afterwards, they had to describe the situation on a mobile phone using Google Translate—we have heard that about similar cases—and there was extensive miscommunication throughout the ordeal between the family and external authorities, costing valuable investigation time and prolonging their agony. There were many other issues with obtaining Nathan’s case file and coroner’s report, which the family believe contain a number of discrepancies. No one should have to endure what they went through. Losing a young family member in such horrific circumstances is a pain that few of us can truly understand, and they were retraumatised through various errors and miscommunications. In the pictures and videos shared with my team by the family, it is easy to see what a dedicated father Nathan was to his young children and how much he is still loved and missed every day. I thank Alannah, Lee, Liz and Jonathan for sharing Nathan’s story with me, and I thank hon. Members for sharing their stories with me this evening. I am sure the whole House will join me in sharing all our condolences with everyone impacted.

• 12 May 2025 · British Nationals Murdered Abroad: Support for Families · Hansard source

  More

  May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) on securing this very important debate and on his thoughtful and compassionate contribution? He has used his voice this evening for the voiceless, and I thank him for doing so. Losing a loved one to murder is devastating, but when that tragedy happens overseas, the pain is only compounded by distance, unfamiliar legal systems and the complexity of navigating bureaucracy while trying to grieve. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman that families going through something so traumatic should never have to face it alone. They should be able to access support to help them cope and recover. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman and this House that bereaved families in England and Wales can access support, even if the crime took place abroad. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office leads on providing support to families bereaved through murder or manslaughter overseas. The specialist murder and manslaughter team in the FCDO’s consular assistance department provides emotional support to bereaved families and helps them to navigate challenging investigative and judicial processes in foreign countries. That includes when a death occurred in an event designated by the UK Government as an act of terrorism. Families can receive updates on an investigation or trial, guidance about local legal processes, and help finding support services in the country where the incident happened. While the FCDO cannot intervene in another country’s justice system, it does all it can to ensure that families are kept informed and treated with compassion. I do appreciate, however, that the experience of families in legal systems abroad, as we have heard from hon. Members, can be deeply painful at a time when they are already experiencing immense grief. This evening, I want to pay tribute to my constituent Nathan Osman, who tragically lost his life in Benidorm on 28 September last year. His family, including his sister Alannah, brother Lee and parents Liz and Jonathan, have given their consent to speak about Nathan today. My team and I have been supporting them for several months as they fight tirelessly for justice. Alannah was initially contacted by the Spanish authorities on the day of Nathan’s death. The exchange of information was brief and unclear, with Alannah confirming her name only to be told, “Brother found dead, bottom of cliff.” They were told to contact the British embassy two days later and left with no additional information. The Spanish police initially—like in the case of Dr Ding, mentioned by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone)—ruled Nathan’s death as accidental and closed his case with little investigation or support. It was only thanks to the family’s research and investigation, with help from my team—specifically from Rebecca Lewis—that enough information was collated to reopen that case. I hope that will bring closure for the Osman family. While South Wales police did their best to support the family during the immediate aftermath of Nathan’s death, they had no direct contact with the Spanish authorities or Interpol to clarify if the translated information that the family had received was correct and accurate.

• 12 May 2025 · British Nationals Murdered Abroad: Support for Families · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that contribution, and I am so sorry to hear of his constituent’s experiences. It is exactly that type of experience that is fuelling me to find out what more we can do to support the families of those murdered abroad. I think a drop-in would be welcome, and I welcome correspondence from Members across the House on their experiences. I also appeal to families across England and Wales to let me hear about their experiences directly so that I can work with charities such as Murdered Abroad and the Victims’ Commissioner to see what more we can do for them. We have a memorandum of understanding in place on murder, manslaughter and infanticide abroad between the FCDO, UK policing and His Majesty’s coroner. This sets out clearly the support that is available when a British national is murdered overseas and the deceased has been repatriated to England or Wales. It clearly defines the roles of each signatory, setting out a shared commitment to working together in support of bereaved families. In some cases, this includes assigning a family liaison officer to bereaved families in the UK, although I appreciate that this is at the discretion of the local police force. At local level in England and Wales, police and crime commissioners also have the power to commission services for all victims of crime, including supporting victims where the crime has been committed overseas. However, as I have already outlined, we recognise that for many families in this difficult position, it is not always clear what support is available or how to access it. That is why, as we develop the new victims code provided for in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, we are considering what further information can be included to better signpost help for those affected by crimes overseas. I intend to consult on the new code with all new Members and the public in due course.

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to make it very clear to hon. Members that I have immense sympathy for the sentiments behind all the new clauses in this group. All of us in the House wish to make society a safer place for women and girls. Indeed, this Government were elected with a commitment to halving violence against women and girls. I am sure we all agree that the fight against the proliferation of extreme pornography and access to harmful material is one step to achieving that goal, so before I respond to new clauses 5 to 7 and 51, I want to share a few thanks. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for tabling new clauses 5 to 7 and for tirelessly campaigning to raise awareness of online harm. I also thank the hon. Member for Stockton West for tabling new clause 51. Importantly, I thank Baroness Bertin, whose independent report on pornography provides us with invaluable insight into pornography and online harm, which the Government continue to consider carefully. All the new clauses shed light on serious issues, and I welcome their being brought to the fore today. New clause 5 aims to equalise the treatment of pornography regulation online and offline, by making legal but harmful content prohibited online. It seeks to give effect to a recommendation made by Baroness Bertin in her review, which makes the case for parity in the regulation of pornography online and offline. She recommends achieving that through either a new pornography code under the Online Safety Act 2023, or a publication offence, which would render illegal a variety of currently legal pornography content. That approach is similar to what new clause 5 aims to do. Before I respond to the new clause, I will set out the current legislative framework. Both online and offline pornography is subject to criminal and regulatory legislation and enforcement. The Video Recordings Act 1984 makes it an offence to distribute pornography in a physical media format that has not been classified by the British Board of Film Classification. The BBFC will not classify any content in breach of criminal law or certain other types of pornography. Section 368E of the Communications Act 2003 builds on that framework by prohibiting on-demand programme services, such as ITVX or Prime Video, from showing “prohibited material”, which includes any video that has been refused classification certification by the BBFC and any material that would be refused a classification certificate if it were considered by the BBFC. That is enforced by Ofcom as a regulatory matter. In addition, the Online Safety Act treats certain pornography or related material offences as priority offences, which means that user-to-user services must take proactive measures to remove extreme pornography, intimate image abuse and child sex abuse material from their platforms. The Act also places a duty on user-to-user service providers to take steps to prevent such material from appearing online in the first place. Those provisions apply to services even if the companies providing them are outside the UK, if they have links to the UK. The criminal law also prohibits the possession of extreme pornography and the publication of obscene material, either online or offline. The Obscene Publications Act 1959 extends to the publication of obscene material other than pornography. The Video Recordings Act 1984, the Licensing Act 2003 and section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 criminalise the simple possession of extreme pornographic images. New clause 5 would make the publication, or facilitation of publication, of such content online a criminal offence, with regulatory enforcement of the new criminal regime where the person publishing the content is an online platform. The criminal offence created by the new clause would rely on the definition in section 368E of the Communications Act 2003, which requires a judgment to be made about whether the BBFC would classify content that has not been subject to the classification process. Creating this style of criminal offence would require a clearer and more certain definition of such content, as any individual would need to be able to clearly understand what conduct may result in their conviction. Extensive further work would be needed to consider and define what currently legal online pornography cannot be published with sufficient certainty to ensure that any offence was enforceable and workable as intended. New clause 6 also attempts to give effect to the recommendations made by Baroness Bertin in her review of pornography. It seeks to create additional requirements for websites hosting pornographic material to verify that all individuals featured were over 18 before the content was created, consented to the publication of the material, and are able to withdraw that consent at any time. It would further regulate the online pornography sector and create a new criminal offence for individuals who publish or facilitate the publishing of content online, where the age and valid consent of the individuals featured have not been verified. The underlying conduct depicted if a person is under 18 or non-consenting would include child sexual abuse, sexual assault, non-consensual intimate image abuse and potentially modern slavery offences. The existing criminal law prohibits the creation, distribution and possession of child sexual abuse material, and the possession of extreme pornographic material, which includes non-consensual penetrative sexual acts. The law on the distribution of indecent images of children is very clear. Under the Protection of Children Act 1978, the UK has a strict prohibition on the taking, making, circulation and possession with a view to distribution of any indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child under 18, and these offences carry a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. Section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 also makes the simple possession of indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children an offence, which carries a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment. In addition, all published material is subject to the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. No pedestrian or other road user should ever feel unsafe. Their safety is a priority for this Government and I know that such sentiments will be shared across the House. Like all other road users, cyclists are required to comply with road traffic law in the interests of the safety of other road users, and that is reflected in the highway code. There are already existing offences within the Road Traffic Act 1988 to prohibit dangerous and careless cycling, which carry a maximum penalty of £2,500 and a £1,000 fine respectively. In rare, tragic cases that have occurred in recent years, where there has been a death or serious injury caused by a cyclist, the drawbacks of relying on the current offences—notably, the Offences against the Person Act 1861—have been clear. Unlike the penalties available for motoring offences that have the same tragic outcome, that offence carries a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment. The Government do not believe that those current penalties are appropriate in cases where a cyclist’s behaviour is dangerous or careless and results in the death or serious injury of another person. Therefore, new clause 87 introduces new offences of causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless cycling, making our streets safer for pedestrians and other road users. Those causing death by dangerous cycling or careless cycling will face a maximum penalty of life imprisonment or five years’ imprisonment respectively. Those who cause serious injury will face a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment or two years’ imprisonment respectively. Government amendment 82 extends these new offences to England, Wales and Scotland. These penalties ensure that there is parity across the existing framework of motoring-related offences. All road users, whether they are drivers or cyclists, whose behaviour results in the death or serious injury of another road user will face the same penalties. To be clear, it is not our intention to discourage cycling; it is one of this Government’s broader objectives to promote cycling for its health, economic and environmental benefits. However, while the majority of cyclists are responsible and cycle safely, there are rare instances where victims have been seriously or fatally injured by irresponsible and dangerous cyclist behaviour. As a result, these offences will ensure that people who cause serious or fatal harm because of their reckless cycling behaviour are subject to appropriate punishment. Before commending these measures to the Committee, I pay personal tribute to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and to Matthew Briggs, who have campaigned tirelessly for these changes. I had the privilege of meeting Matthew Briggs. We discussed the need for this new offence, and how the devastating impact of the death of his wife Kim in 2016, due to a reckless cyclist, shows the need to create these new offences. For that reason, I commend these measures to the Committee.

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the tone in which the Opposition spokesperson has presented his comments and the fact that he shares our concern about the need for these new measures. Judges will of course have all relevant information in balancing the need for open justice with the need to protect firearms officers in these specific instances. The measures recognise the exceptional circumstances of defendants in such cases and create a presumption of anonymity. The starting point for the courts will be that anonymity should be granted in such cases, unless it is contrary to justice to do so. Let me add that open justice and the freedom of the press to report on these cases continue to be important principles of our justice system, and this legislation will respect those key principles. A court may already order anonymity measures or reporting restrictions in a case where it judges that disclosure of a defendant’s identity would give rise to a real and immediate risk to life. The measure is being introduced in recognition of the unique responsibilities that firearms officers have, as I have said, and the potential risks associated with their identification during court proceedings. It is really important that judges and the courts get the balance right here, but this measure is absolutely necessary. Question put and agreed to. New clause 91 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 92 Anonymity for authorised firearms officers appealing convictions for qualifying offences “(1) This section applies where a person (‘D’) is convicted of a qualifying offence in proceedings in a court in England and Wales, or proceedings (anywhere) before a service court. (2) The court by or before which D is convicted may, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so— (a) cause any or all of the information mentioned in section (Anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences)(3)(a)(i) to (iii) to be withheld from the public in proceedings before the court; (b) give a reporting direction in respect of D (see section (Authorised firearms officers: reporting directions)); (c) make an anonymity order in respect of D (see (Authorised firearms officers: anonymity orders)). (3) Any reporting direction given, or anonymity order made, under subsection (2) ceases to have effect at the end of the appeal period unless, before the end of that period, D brings an appeal against the conviction. (4) Where, before the end of the appeal period, D brings an appeal against the conviction, the court dealing with the appeal may, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so— (a) cause any or all of the information mentioned in section (Anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences)(3)(a)(i) to (iii) to be withheld from the public in proceedings before the court; (b) give a reporting direction in respect of D; (c) make an anonymity order in respect of D. (5) The court dealing with the appeal must at the earliest opportunity determine the issue of whether to exercise any or all of the powers under subsection (4). (6) Any reporting direction given, or anonymity order made, under subsection (2) ceases to have effect upon the making of the determination mentioned in subsection (5) (whether or not the court dealing with the appeal gives a direction or makes an order). (7) Any reporting direction given, or anonymity order made, under subsection (4) ceases to have effect if the appeal against conviction is abandoned or dismissed. (8) In this section— ‘appeal period’ in relation to a person convicted of a qualifying offence, means the period allowed for bringing an appeal against that conviction, disregarding the possibility of an appeal out of time with permission; ‘qualifying offence’ has the meaning given by section (Anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences)(2). (9) This section does not apply where the proceedings in which D was convicted were begun before the coming into force of section (Anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences).”— (Alex Davies-Jones.) This new clause, which is related to NC91, provides courts with a power to preserve the anonymity of authorised firearms officers convicted of an offence relating to the discharge of their firearm in the course of their duties, pending any appeal against that conviction. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 93 Authorised firearms officers: reporting directions “(1) A reporting direction, in relation to a person (‘D’) charged with (or convicted of) a qualifying offence, is a direction that no matter relating to D may be included in any publication if it is likely to lead members of the public to identify D as a person who is, or was, alleged to have committed (or who has been convicted of) the offence. (2) The matters relating to D in relation to which the restrictions imposed by a reporting direction apply (if their inclusion in any publication is likely to have the result mentioned in subsection (1)) include in particular— (a) D’s name, (b) D’s address, (c) the identity of any place at which D works, and (d) any still or moving image of D. (3) A relevant court may by direction (‘an excepting direction’) dispense, to any extent specified in the excepting direction, with the restrictions imposed by a reporting direction if satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. (4) An excepting direction— (a) may be given at the time the reporting direction is given or subsequently; (b) may be varied or revoked by a relevant court. (5) A reporting direction has effect— (a) for a fixed period specified in the direction, or (b) indefinitely, but this is subject to subsection (5)(b) of section (Anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences) and subsections (3), (6) and (7) of section (Anonymity for authorised firearms officers appealing convictions for qualifying offences). (6) A reporting direction may be revoked if a relevant court is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. (7) In this section— ‘publication’ has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (see section 63 of that Act); ‘qualifying offence’ has the meaning given by section (Anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences)(2); ‘relevant court’, in relation to a reporting direction, means— (a) the court that gave the direction, (b) the court (if different) that is currently dealing, or that last dealt, with the proceedings in which the direction was given, or (c) any court dealing with an appeal (including an appeal by way of case stated) arising out of the proceedings in which the direction was given or with any further appeal.”— (Alex Davies-Jones.) This new clause, which supplements NC91 and NC92, makes provision about reporting directions that may be given under either of those new clauses. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 94 Authorised firearms officers: anonymity orders “(1) An anonymity order, in relation to a person (‘D’) charged with (or convicted of) a qualifying offence, is an order made by a court that requires specified measures to be taken in relation to D to ensure that the identity of D is withheld from the public in proceedings before the court. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the kinds of measures that may be required to be taken in relation to D include measures for securing one or more of the following— (a) that identifying details relating to D be withheld from the public in proceedings before the court; (b) that D is screened to any specified extent; (c) that D’s voice is subjected to modulation to any specified extent. (3) An anonymity order may not require— (a) D to be screened to such an extent that D cannot be seen by— (i) the judge or other members of the court (if any), or (ii) the jury (if there is one); (b) D’s voice to be modulated to such an extent that D’s natural voice cannot be heard by any persons within paragraph (a)(i) or (ii). (4) The court that made an anonymity order may vary or discharge the order if satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so. (5) In this section— ‘qualifying offence’ has the meaning given by section (Anonymity for authorised firearms officers charged with qualifying offences)(2); ‘specified’ means specified in the anonymity order concerned.” — (Alex Davies-Jones.) This new clause, which supplements NC91 and NC92, makes provision about anonymity orders that may be made under either of those new clauses. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 5 Pornographic content: online harmful content “(1) A person commits an offence if they publish or allow or facilitate the publishing of pornographic content online which meets the criteria for harmful material under section 368E(3)(a) and section 368E(3)(b) of the Communications Act 2003. (2) An individual guilty of an offence is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both); (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both. (3) A person who is a UK national commits an offence under this section regardless of where the offence takes place. (4) A person who is not a UK national commits an offence under this section if any part of the offence takes place in the UK. (5) The platform on which material that violates the provisions in this section is published can be fined up to £18 million or 10 percent of their qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater. (6) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, make regulations appointing one or more public bodies (the appointed body) to monitor and enforce compliance by online platforms with this section. (7) Regulations made under subsection 6 may provide the appointed body appointed by the Secretary of State with the powers, contained in sections 144 and 146 of the Online Safety Act 2023, to apply to the court for a Service Restriction Order or Access Restriction Order (or both). (8) The appointed body must, within six months of being appointed by the Secretary of State, lay before Parliament a strategy for monitoring, and enforcing, compliance with the provisions in this section. (9) The appointed body must lay before Parliament an annual report, outlining the enforcement activity undertaken in relation to this section.”— (Matt Vickers.) This new clause extends safeguarding requirements for pornography distributed offline to pornography distributed online, making it an offence to publish online harmful material under section 368E(3)(a) and section 368E(3)(b) of the Communications Act 2003. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Currently, in criminal courts, adult defendants do not have a general right to anonymity, which reflects the principle of open justice. However, judges may impose reporting restrictions where the disclosure of identifying information could hinder the administration of justice, or impact fair trial rights. Armed police officers perform a unique and dangerous role. They are trained to use lethal force on behalf of the state to protect the lives of our citizens. Their work requires them to confront situations that demand split-second decisions that can have profound legal and personal ramifications. They respond to major crimes involving high-risk individuals, often linked to organised crime groups. That inherently dangerous role naturally increases the risk of retribution for both officers and their families, which was a risk highlighted by the police accountability review. The Government’s plan to introduce the measures set out in new clauses 91 to 94 was originally announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 23 October. The proposed new clauses address specific concerns raised during the police accountability review, and following the trial of Sergeant Martyn Blake. They will help deliver our commitment to rebuild the confidence of police officers in their vital work to keep the public safe. Proposed new clause 91 creates a presumption of anonymity for firearms officers who are charged with offences related to the discharge of their weapon during their official duties. That presumption does not extend to other police officers who use force in their duties or to firearms officers if force is used in the line of duty that does not involve discharging a firearm. The starting point for the court will be that anonymity should be granted in these cases, and that such anonymity will remain in place until the defendant is sentenced. New clause 91 requires that the court must withhold identifying details from the public during proceedings and give a “reporting direction”. The terms of the reporting direction are set out in new clause 93 and prevent the publication of any material that may lead to the identification of the defendant. New clause 91 also gives the courts statutory powers to ensure that the defendant’s identity is protected in the courtroom, if it is “in the interests of justice to do so”. New clause 94 sets out the types of measures that can be used, such as screens or voice modulation. It will be for the court to decide whether these are required. Judicial discretion is preserved under the new provisions, which enable courts to disclose identifying details or lift reporting restrictions, where considered necessary, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the overall interests of justice. New clause 92 provides courts with the statutory authority to extend in-court anonymity measures and reporting restrictions beyond sentencing, should the defendant wish to appeal their conviction. However, it does not establish a presumption, nor does it apply if a firearms officer convicted of an offence seeks only to appeal their sentence. When a firearms officer is convicted, their right to anonymity ceases at the point of sentencing. However, the court may order that anonymity continues pending the outcome of an appeal. If the conviction is upheld on appeal, the right to anonymity will cease upon the finalisation of that appeal. Conversely, when an officer is exonerated, their right to anonymity will continue, allowing them to resume their professional and personal lives without fear of stigma or threats to their safety. Ensuring national safety and security is a top priority for this Government and the role of firearms officers is essential to achieving that. They serve in their difficult and demanding role voluntarily and we cannot expect them to perform their duties effectively without providing adequate safeguards to protect them and their families. Amendment 83 provides for the new clauses to come into force two months after the Bill is passed. I commend the new clauses, and the amendment, to the Committee.

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I personally thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne for his tireless commitment to, and campaigning on, tackling domestic abuse. He is right to highlight the need to identify and track domestic offenders better in our justice system. It is a crucial issue. I welcome this important discussion and the many conversations that I have had with him in my ministerial office about how best to collaborate to achieve this. New clause 12 seeks to introduce a new label, “domestic abuse aggravated”, which will apply to any offence where the offender and victim are personally connected and both aged 16 or over. Offences ranging from assault to fraud would be designated as domestic abuse aggravated where they met the statutory definition of domestic abuse. We recognise the intent behind the new clause and are deeply sympathetic to it; we agree that better categorisation and management of domestic abuse offenders is crucial. However, there are a number of important considerations that need to be carefully worked through to ensure that any new approach is effective and workable, and that it will actually help victims. There are significant questions that need to be answered if we are to ensure that any reform strengthens, rather than complicates, our response to domestic abuse. While the new clause introduces a new label, it does not set out a clear mechanism for how the designation would be applied in practice. As proposed, it creates a category of domestic abuse offender by virtue of their offence, but does not set out legal or operational implications for charging or sentencing. Without clarity about its function, there is a risk that the provision will introduce unnecessary complexity in the legal framework, in particular through how it operates alongside the Sentencing Council’s existing guidelines, in which domestic abuse is already recognised as an aggravating factor. Courts therefore already consider imposing tougher sentences when an offence occurs in a domestic setting. Despite those concerns, the hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, and one that I have discussed at length with the hon. Member for Eastbourne. I assure both hon. Members that work is under way across Government on how we can better identify domestic abuse offenders. This is a complex issue, and it is right that we take the time to ensure that any changes are robust and deliver meaningful improvements, but we are on the case. The hon. Member for Eastbourne can rest assured that the Government are actively considering the issue. I would be glad to work with him—I extend that invitation to any Member of the House—on identifying the most effective way forward. While we do not believe the new clause is the right solution at this time, we welcome ongoing discussions on how best to improve the categorisation and tracking of domestic abuse offenders within the justice system. For those reasons, I ask that new clause 12 be withdrawn.

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes.

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I would be happy to do so, but first I must say how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset and to the hon. Member for Stockton West for setting out the rationale behind these new clauses. New clause 13 seeks to extend the scope of the 2023 Act to include the theft of GPS equipment. Such equipment is often used in agricultural and commercial settings. We know the significant impact of thefts of agricultural machinery, in particular all-terrain vehicles, on individuals and businesses in rural areas, and the disruption to essential farming when these thefts occur. That is why we are committed to implementing the 2023 Act to help prevent the theft and resale of high-value equipment. We intend to introduce the necessary secondary legislation later this year, and we will be publishing the Government’s response to the call for evidence soon to confirm the scope of that legislation.

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West for tabling new clause 33. It might be helpful for hon. Members if I briefly explain how the Criminal Damage Act 1971 works. The Act criminalises a range of activities, but the offence we are focused on today is the act of destroying or damaging property belonging to another without lawful excuse. “Lawful excuse” is not defined. However, section 5(2)(a) makes it clear that if the defendant honestly believes that the person who was entitled to consent to the destruction or damage has given consent, or would have consented if they knew of the circumstances, the defendant has a lawful excuse. For example, it could be said that someone has a lawful excuse if the owner of a car would have consented to their damaging it to help a person who was trapped in it to get out. Additionally, under section 5(2)(b) of the 1971 Act, if the defendant damages property to protect their own or someone else’s property, and they honestly believe both that the property needs immediate protection and that their actions are reasonable, they have a lawful excuse. Section 5(3), to which the new clause relates, specifies that it does not matter whether a person’s belief is reasonable or justified. It just needs to be honest, even if it is an honest belief induced by intoxication, stupidity or forgetfulness. The new clause seeks to change the law so that where a defendant seeks to rely on belief in consent, or belief in the necessity of protecting property as a lawful excuse for criminal damage, their belief must be “reasonable” as well as honest. This would narrow the application of the defence, and we consider doing so unnecessary. The law is already designed to strike the right balance and ensure that a wide variety of factors are taken into account, without widening the law too far. For example, if a defendant tries to argue that a person would have consented to the damage of their property if they had known the circumstances, they need to demonstrate how that relates specifically to the damage caused. Some assessment of the wider context will be necessary to determine whether someone has a lawful excuse. Recent cases involving damage to property following protests have also interpreted the operation of this defence narrowly. For example, acting in furtherance of a protest cannot be used as a lawful excuse where the damage caused is more than minimal for public property. We cannot see any evidence or rationale that suggests that the defence is being used in spurious contexts or abused in any way. Of course, if the hon. Member has specific evidence or examples, we would, of course, consider them. Until then, there is no justification or need to restrict the operation of the defence further. For that reason, I urge him to withdraw the new clause. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Policing Minister assures me that that figure for the number of cuts being made by the Met police is not correct. We are happy to debate that. I and this Government are still sufficiently certain that the legislation is robust in this area. We can debate the means that we have to tackle that but, as I have stated, this Government are funding more police resources to ensure that those who commit these crimes are being sought. In an earlier sitting of the Committee, we debated why it is so important to clarify and get right provisions for shop theft, so that the police have adequate equipment and resources to go after the perpetrators. These thefts are illegal but, for whatever reason, the crimes are not being pursued. We are determined to ensure, through our safer streets mission, that that problem is tackled, but the legislation that we have in place is robust. Regarding the courts and the justice system, the Government do consider that the courts are already considering the impacts of such crimes when sentencing. The addition of the measures in the proposed new clauses would add unnecessary complications to the sentencing framework. Moreover, sentencing in individual cases should as far as possible be at the discretion of our independent judiciary, to ensure that sentences are fair, impartial and proportionate. Finally, as I have already set out, any changes to the sentencing framework should take into account the sentencing review’s recommendations, which are due to be published shortly. On new clause 98, I understand the frustration that many individuals feel when they see stolen equipment being sold at car boot sales and other informal markets. I reassure the shadow Minister that the Government take this issue seriously. However, we cannot support the clause in the absence of further policy work and engagement with relevant authorities to explore the best way to ensure that stolen equipment is not sold in informal market settings or at car boot sales. Overall, I am sympathetic to the spirit of the new clauses, but I do not believe them to be necessary at this time. I reassure the Committee that this Government are fully committed to implementing the Equipment Theft (Prevention) Act 2023 to tackle the theft and resale of equipment.

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, we are happy to meet with Shoaib Awan to discuss this, and yes, we have a commitment to looking at the situation more widely and at the issue directly. As someone who loves a car boot sale, I am keen to explore the question further. I ask the shadow Minister to be patient for a little while longer as we finalise our plans for the implementation of the 2023 Act, and as we look into the issues in more detail to get the policy work right. On that basis, I ask hon. Members not to press their new clauses.

• 8 May 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill (Fourteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome that comment from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I and this Government recognise that theft is a crime, and that victims are immensely impacted by it—we heard earlier about the hon. Member’s own circumstances—but the legislation is adequate. As I have already said, we have robust legislation to tackle these crimes. What has been apparent over the last 14 years is a decimation of our public services, including our policing, which has meant that police do not have the resources that they need to investigate these crimes effectively. I am glad to say that this Government are changing that by recruiting and funding more police officers, including for the Met police, to ensure that we have the police to go after these criminals.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) for securing this important debate. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part; the strength of feeling is palpable, and I have heard them all. I was deeply moved by hon. Members’ personal stories about being victims of crime and the impact it had on them. I thank them all for their courage in speaking out about their experiences so eloquently. Doing so is powerful, and it illustrates their views on the criminal injuries compensation scheme and on the experience of applying for compensation. I commend their desire to see improvements to the scheme and its operation. I also echo the thanks from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield to the brilliant staff who operate the scheme so tirelessly for the work they do every single day to support victims of crime. I have a long-standing commitment to supporting victims of crime. Since I took on responsibility for this scheme, I have been struck by the bravery of victims of crime who speak out about what they have been through and how it has affected them. Sometimes I am contacted directly by victims, and sometimes I am contacted by Members of this House. Other times, I listen to and learn from high-profile figures, including the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, and the organisations that work so tirelessly to support victims. Whatever the medium for conveying individual stories, I am constantly reminded of the importance and responsibility of my role as the Minister responsible for victims and for violence against women and girls. This debate has added to my awareness and sense of purpose when it comes to doing all I can to support victims. The criminal injuries compensation scheme has a long history, with the first non-statutory scheme launching in 1964. It has changed over time, including when it became a statutory scheme in 1996. However, its purpose has remained constant: to recognise the harm experienced by victims injured as a result of violent crime. The scheme is a last resort for compensation, where someone cannot obtain compensation from the perpetrator directly or via a civil claim. Through the scheme, we meet domestic and international obligations. The scheme for Great Britain remains one of the most generous in Europe and the world. It pays compensation for physical, sexual and mental injuries and also for things associated with those injuries, such as loss of earnings and special expenses. It also provides compensation to families bereaved by violent crime, to acknowledge their loss and provide support to dependants. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield said, the previous Government announced a review of the scheme in 2018. They held their first consultation in 2020. This was wide ranging, looking at various aspects across the whole scheme. There was a second consultation in 2022 on the scheme’s unspent convictions eligibility rule. The third and final consultation was in 2023 and considered the scheme’s scope and time limits. The second and third consultations of course included consideration of the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, often referred to as IICSA. The last Government did not respond to any of the three consultations before the election was announced last year. One of my key priorities when I became Minister was to consider how to conclude the previous Government’s review. I saw how many individuals and organisations had taken the time—and, in many cases, expended a great deal of emotional energy—to respond thoughtfully to the issues considered in the consultations. They deserved to know the outcome following their contributions. At the forefront of my mind as I considered how to respond to the consultations were the IICSA findings and recommendations. There is no doubt that sexual abuse and exploitation of children are the most heinous crimes. It takes a great deal of strength for victims to come forward, seek justice by reporting the crime to the police, and access support and compensation to aid their recovery. Earlier this month, I published my response to the 2022 and 2023 consultations, which concerned the IICSA recommendations. As has been mentioned, I also wrote to the Justice Committee about the 2020 consultation, concluding that consultation and informing the Committee of my decision not to publish a substantive response to it. My conclusion was not to amend the scheme at the present time. I have made no secret of the fact that that was a difficult decision to reach. In the same way that I have listened to and learned from hon. Members today, I learned from the respondents to the consultations. I understand and hear their calls for change, and I am considering how we can best support victims with whatever they need through an improved and effective service. Although my decision was difficult, it was the right one for the scheme and the victims of violent crime it supports. I fully appreciate the basis for IICSA’s recommendations that the scheme be amended and expanded for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation. I also acknowledge that many of the consultation respondents called for change in the way that IICSA recommended. However, it is my belief that all victims can feel a need for their suffering to be recognised, no matter the nature of the violent crime that harmed them. That belief aligns with the core principle of the scheme: that it is universal. That ensures that all victims can equally access the scheme. We cannot have one rule for certain victims and one for others, who have experienced other, often deeply damaging, crimes. Payments are based on injury or bereavement arising from violent crimes, regardless of the nature of the crime. That is why I decided not to amend the scheme as IICSA recommended. Importantly, the scheme continues to be subject to scrutiny. The Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales recently proposed reform of the scheme’s time limits in her report on court backlogs. I responded to the report on 25 April, and I am considering the report of the Women and Equalities Committee, which recommended that the scheme be expanded to enable victims of non-consensual intimate image abuse to access compensation. That leads me to explain a bit more about why I decided not to respond substantively to the 2020 consultation, which covered all aspects of the scheme as a whole. I appreciate that my decision means that the many people who responded to the consultation will not see change as a result of their contributions, and that the concerns they expressed will not be answered. The key reason for my decision is that the landscape in which the scheme sits has changed significantly since 2020. The questions were asked in a totally different context. Government provision and support for victims has developed, and at the same time demand for that support in all its forms has grown substantively. To put it simply, the context has moved on. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield and others spoke eloquently about their experience several years ago, but I am hopeful that some of those challenges would not arise today. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which administers the scheme, has worked hard since 2020 to improve its service. For instance, all applications can now be made online, so there is no longer the need for the onerous paperwork that hon. Members described. All its staff have undertaken trauma-informed training, and it now has dedicated caseworkers for the most complex cases. It also runs awareness training sessions for stakeholders who support victims, including the police, ISVAs and independent domestic violence advisers. All those measures help to improve victims’ experience when applying for compensation. There are of course other challenges, as we have heard today, and I assure hon. Members that we are not resting on our laurels. We are committed to continuously reviewing and responding to feedback from stakeholders. CICA undertakes user research, cross-agency work and outreach activity. That facilitates sharing experiences, learning and collaboration to improve its service. I also always welcome feedback from hon. Members, their constituents and victims about the service. We are working hard for victims more generally. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 aims to improve victims’ experience of the criminal justice system. It makes it clear that victims require services under the victims code, and it strengthens agencies’ accountability for its delivery. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and others asked how we raise awareness and ensure people know about the right to access compensation. The victims code includes the right to be told about compensation. We are now implementing the reforms in the Act, and we aim to consult on a revised victims code in due course. We await the report of Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts, where we should be making it easier for victims to seek civil remedies directly from perpetrators.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome my hon. Friend’s suggestion, which we can of course consider. We will be consulting on a new victims code in due course. The Victims’ Commissioner meets me regularly to talk about compliance with the victims code and how we hold agencies accountable for their failure to uphold it, so that can be considered. As well as compensation, the Ministry of Justice provides funding for vital victim and witness support services, including community-based services, in addition to the funding that we give police and crime commissioners to allocate on the basis of their assessment of local need. Across Government the financial situation is difficult, and we await the outcome of the spending review, but the Government will be considering how we can best provide the support that the victims of crime need and deserve. As a proud Welsh MP, I reassure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that I am due to meet my counterparts in the devolved nations very soon to discuss how we can best support victims of crime wherever they reside in these isles. I reassure hon. Members that they have all been heard today, in the same way that I have heard the respondents to the consultation. Their message to me is that we need change, with less consultation and less talk, because we need action. Listening to their experiences, views and suggestions will help me to consider how we can best improve the system, make it effective and workable, and provide victims with the justice that they long for and deserve. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield for his contribution to this important debate and for all his work in supporting victims of crime.