Alex Davies-Jones MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome what the Leader of the House said about the defence investment plan. Militec Ltd is a small but mighty company in Mountain Ash, in my constituency, that has served our armed forces and police forces for almost 30 years, yet it is on the verge of collapse because of the much-delayed defence investment plan. Hopefully we will have the plan soon, but can we have a debate in Government time on the impact of the delayed defence investment plan on our small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of the economy and the defence sector in the UK?

• 22 Jun 2026 · UK Politics: Pro-Israel Influence · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members and the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Let us be clear: scrutinising foreign influence is not, in itself, a problem. Any healthy democracy should look hard at lobbying, donations, pressure groups and influence campaigns wherever they come from. That is not and should not be in question, but it is exactly my concern about how this debate is framed. They should be scrutinised wherever they come from. If this is about foreign influence in general, let us have that conversation properly; if it is about transparency in lobbying, let us have that conversation, too; but if the concerns keep landing on Israel specifically, more than they do on other countries, as has been mentioned, it is worth pausing and asking why that might be. There is something deeply uncomfortable about the idea that, out of nearly 200 countries, it is the world’s only Jewish state that needs a special parliamentary inquiry into hidden influence. I gently note that this type of framing has a very long history, and it is not always an easy one. Jewish people have, at different points over the centuries, faced accusations of secretly controlling Governments, finance or politicians from behind the scenes. I have heard versions of those accusations, sometimes about me personally. I am not suggesting that everyone who supports this debate has that intention, but it is worth being honest about the fact that the framing echoes something older, more sinister and more troubling. Given that more than 100,000 people have signed this petition, I hope that the Minister considers including something educational in his response, just so that people have the full context. I also push back on the idea that Israel somehow escapes scrutiny in this House. As the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) said, it is one of the countries we debate the most regularly. Whether it is on military action, settlements, Gaza, sanctions, trade, arms exports or the recognition of Palestine, I have criticised Israeli Government policy myself. That is exactly how it should be. We should feel free to criticise any Government’s actions—British, American or otherwise. Criticism is healthy. Where there is genuine evidence of wrongdoing, it should of course be looked into, as it would be for any country. I just ask that we hold to the same standard on Israel as we would for anywhere else, rather than treating it as a special case. Most of us are in this job because we believe in something—our values, our constituents, our party—or simply honest disagreements with one another. I know that I cannot be bought and I never will be, so I ask that we try to avoid both naivety and overreaction here. Let us support the principle of transparency being consistently applied to every country in the same way, and let us be mindful, so we do not end up unintentionally leaning on older, uncomfortable and wrong narratives.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  When Government Ministers decide to have disappearing messages on their phones as standard, or when Ministers decide to omit certain information because it seems beneficial, is there any wonder that public trust in Government and in politicians is so low? When the institutions that are meant to protect and support the public seemingly defend perpetrators of abuse instead, things need to change. So will the Leader of the House please grant a debate in Government time on the urgent and, frankly, long overdue need for a legal duty of candour and on morality and integrity in public life?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an important contribution about the effort, time and amount of documentation involved. She has also spoken about the cost and suggested a number of things that the money could have paid for. Does she agree that one thing could have been an inquiry? That is what the victims and survivors are calling for, and reams of information could have been included in that that would not necessarily have been included in this Humble Address, as they would not necessarily be relevant to the appointment of Mandelson as the ambassador to the US.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  I think what has struck me most about this whole affair is not what has been said, but what has been missing. Over the past week, we have seen endless coverage of private messages, political embarrassment and Westminster intrigue. We have heard discussions about powerful people, powerful networks and powerful reputations. However, amid all this, we have heard far too little about the victims. For all the headlines that have been generated by this story, the people whose lives were devastated by Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse have too often been reduced to a footnote, and that should concern every single one of us. Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the disclosures is not simply who Ministers were meeting, but who they were not. While significant effort appears to have gone into cultivating relationships with influential figures in the tech world, victims were left feeling unheard and overlooked. That is the wrong way around. I sought to use my position in Government to advocate for victims, but when we are forced to fight tooth and nail simply to have those voices heard, something is not working as it should. That is why I took the difficult but necessary decision to resign. But stepping down does not mean stepping back and that is why I will now voice Lisa’s words: “My name is Lisa Phillips. I am a survivor of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s global paedophile trafficking and abuse network. I respectfully ask that MP Alex Davies-Jones be permitted to speak on my behalf and be my voice in Parliament today, when so many survivors’ voices still go unheard. I met Prince Andrew on Epstein island on the night I was sexually assaulted by Jeffrey Epstein. Like many of my survivor sisters, I was trafficked and abused over a number of years. I am seeking answers not only about Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, but also about the powerful men who enabled, protected, or benefited from this abuse and trafficking. This debate is about accountability. Jeffrey Epstein’s powerful network made many victims and survivors feel unable to come forward. When powerful people protect or turn a blind eye to abuse, justice becomes harder to achieve. That must change. Many UK survivors came forward to the Metropolitan police, yet they too were left without the answers and accountability they deserved. As a survivor, I struggle to understand why Prime Minister Keir Starmer appointed Peter Mandelson when his association with Jeffrey Epstein had long been publicly known. For survivors, this raises serious questions about whether the lessons of the Epstein scandal have truly been learned. I have repeatedly requested the opportunity to meet with the Prime Minister, but those requests have been ignored. Must I now wait for the next Prime Minister to acknowledge me and my survivor sisters? With respect, Prime Minister, your apology alone means little without meaningful action, so I ask you directly, Prime Minister: do you, and the Government you lead, support a full public inquiry into Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and those who enabled, protected, participated in, or benefited from their crimes, including those on British soil? The answer is simple: yes or no. Regards, Lisa Phillips.” The least Lisa, and the many other British brave survivors, deserve is an answer, yet they are being met with silence. Lisa’s testimony reminds us all that this debate cannot be confined to any one individual. It is about a culture: a culture where power protects power, and where influence and connections can matter more than accountability. The disclosures made available to the House paint a troubling picture: a picture of senior figures discussing how to build relationships with powerful tech billionaires and silicon valley elites; and a picture of a Government seemingly preoccupied with winning over the likes of Elon Musk and maintaining close relationships with figures such as Sam Altman. That raises an important question: what was the priority? At precisely the same time as those Ministers were discussing how to secure the approval of tech oligarchs, Ministers such as myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), along with campaigners, safeguarding experts and survivors, were all calling for stronger action on online harm. We were calling for action on violent pornography, action on misogynistic content, and action to better protect children online. Yet too often our voices were ignored, sidelined or dismissed. As people who have spent much of our careers campaigning to tackle violence against women and girls, my hon. Friend and I found that deeply frustrating to say the least. The role of Government should not be to seek approval from the world’s most powerful technology companies; it should be to stand up for the people we are sent here to serve. When people look at these disclosures, they see a Government who appeared more interested in cultivating relationships with tech elites than listening to the warnings about harms being experienced by women, girls and young people every single day. That matters. The public increasingly feel that there is one set of rules for the powerful and another for everyone else. They see the same names, the same networks, the same circle of influence and the same men, and they see powerful institutions closing ranks when difficult questions are asked. That perception damages trust. What concerns me almost as much as the disclosures themselves, however, is how they came into the public domain in the first place. It was not because the Government chose transparency or Ministers proactively provided answers, but because Parliament forced the issue—because Members in this place demanded scrutiny and this House insisted on accountability. That takes us to a much bigger question: why is transparency so often dragged out of institutions rather than being freely given? Why do victims, campaigners and Parliament so often have to fight for information that should be freely available from the outset? Perhaps the most striking contradiction of all concerns transparency. While this Government have spoken passionately about the importance of openness, accountability and a duty of candour, the disclosures raise serious questions about whether those principles were being lived as well as preached. The public are entitled to ask how confidence and transparency can be maintained when disappearing messages were being used at the highest level of Government. They are entitled to ask why survivors have appeared to struggle to secure the same level of access and attention that was afforded to some of the most powerful figures in global technology. They are entitled to ask whether the voices that mattered most were truly being heard. When victims and survivors feel ignored while those with wealth, influence and power are actively courted, something has gone badly wrong. That is not the culture that the public expect from Government, and it is certainly not the culture that victims deserve. That is why this debate—this whole issue—should strengthen our resolve to deliver a genuine duty of candour. Not a slogan, a soundbite, or something invoked only when convenient, but a genuine legal and moral obligation on those exercising power to tell the truth, to preserve information, to be transparent, and to place accountability ahead of any self-protection. Too often in this country, transparency is not volunteered; it is extracted—painfully. It comes only after leaks and investigations, and after victims’ families, campaigners and parliamentarians fight for information that should have been available from the outset, sometimes for decades. The disclosures before us did not emerge because the Government chose openness; they emerged because Parliament forced scrutiny through Standing Order No. 24. That should concern every Member of this House, because if transparency depends on being forced, then we do not yet have a culture of candour. Until we confront that honestly, we will continue to fail the very people that this House exists to serve—not with words but action; not with promises, but accountability.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Sexual Assault Survivors: Isle of Wight · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the shadow Minister’s question. She will know that this Government are putting victims back at the heart of our criminal justice system by investing the biggest ever settlement—over half a billion pounds—in victim support services for the next three years. I had the privilege of meeting the victims she mentioned. Of course, they remain at the forefront of my mind and the Government’s mind, which is why we are working with them and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure a joined-up approach to take their concerns seriously without prejudicing any sub judice issues that may come about.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Sexual Assault Survivors: Isle of Wight · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is a tireless champion for tackling violence against women and girls. Ensuring that victims receive the right, timely support is central to the Government’s strategy to tackle these heinous crimes. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that. I will ensure that we have a joined-up approach with the Department of Health and Social Care to better understand the experiences of women and girls on the Isle of Wight who need help.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Sexual Assault Survivors: Isle of Wight · Hansard source

  More

  No one, regardless of where they live, should ever experience such heinous crimes. The Government are absolutely committed to supporting all victims and survivors. My Department, through the Hampshire police and crime commissioner, provides my hon. Friend’s local area with core grant funding to support victims of all crime types, including sexual assault. In addition, we provide ringfenced funding for domestic and sexual abuse services.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  Our cross-Government violence against women and girls strategy, published on 18 December, sets out our strategic direction and concrete actions to prevent violence and abuse, pursue perpetrators and support victims, delivering our unprecedented commitment to halve the levels of violence against women and girls within a decade.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her question. I had the privilege of meeting the Katie Trust last week to discuss that precise issue, and later today I am meeting Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse and Dr Anna Hopkins to look at what more we can do. The hon. Member will know that the Law Commission is reviewing the law of homicide to look at precisely the issue she raises. That work is ongoing, and the Government will examine the recommendations when they come forward.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which builds on another question that I previously answered. We need to take a holistic approach to tackling violence against women and girls, which means involving every Government Department. I am really pleased that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology was present at the roundtable hosted by the Deputy Prime Minister last week, which looked at how best to support men and boys and at how we can tackle the issue she raises. This is about working with Ofcom to look at what more we can do to support the regulator and to prevent algorithms from pushing harmful content to our men and boys, but it is also about supporting teachers in the workplace to ensure that they feel safe and can escalate issues as they occur.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee for raising this issue. It is a horrific statistic that she cites, but sadly it is not uncommon across all professions, including comedy and music. Our violence against women and girls strategy is holistic, so that we can take a whole-society approach to tackling the issue that she raises, which includes changing the culture going forward. I have been pleased to work with a brilliant organisation called No Stage for Abusers, which looks specifically at this issue. I would be happy to work with my hon. Friend and the Women and Equalities Committee to see what more we can do to support self-employed women and to tackle the harassment that they face in the workplace.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome that really important question from the hon. Gentleman, and he is right to address this issue. A core part of our violence against women and girls strategy is tackling the online proliferation of harmful narratives that are being pushed on our young men and boys. Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister and I hosted a roundtable across Government, with the Secretary of State for Education present, to look at how best we can support our men and boys in a positive way to provide them with opportunities going forward, so that they are not being pushed the message that they are to blame and are toxic. I want to be very clear that “toxic masculinity” does not mean that all men are toxic—that is a really important point to make.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Lady for raising that issue. I had hoped to drop in to the event that she hosted yesterday in Parliament to meet Jean directly. Ministerial responsibilities meant that I was unable to do so, but I will commit today to meeting her and Jean to discuss this matter. The right hon. Lady will know that the Law Commission is looking specifically at desecration of a body; that work is ongoing. The Government will look carefully at the report to see what more we can do. I know that this is an issue, and I will happily meet her and Jean.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for supporting her constituents so diligently, and for raising this matter with me today. The Government are committed to ensuring that victims of domestic abuse can access the support that they need to get safe accommodation to rebuild their lives. Under part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, local authorities in England are required to assess the need for safe accommodation and commission specialist support for victims and their children. To support that delivery, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will provide nearly £500 million over the next three years for accommodation for domestic abuse victims who are homeless and eligible for that accommodation. Offenders released from prison are subject to licence requirement conditions, and my hon. Friend’s constituent should be receiving support from her victim liaison officer.

• 29 Apr 2026 · Violence against Women and Girls · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for making that fundamentally important point in the Chamber. I, too, am horrified at the horrific racially motivated sexual attacks that seem to be increasing at the moment. This Government are committed to tackling all forms of hate crime. Violence and abuse directed at women and girls because of their race is totally unacceptable and heinous. Where attacks are racially motivated, police can pursue them as racially aggravated offences, which attract tougher and higher sentences. These offences often include assault, harassment and criminal damage, and I am proudly working with some brilliant organisations, such as Southall Black Sisters, Karma Nirvana and Hibiscus, as part of our strategy to halve the level of violence against women and girls.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session. This motion is purely procedural, to allow the Bill to be carried over to the next Session and for the remaining stages to take place following the King’s Speech. The Government remain absolutely committed to delivering this Bill. As the House will be aware, it was introduced into this place on 16 September 2025, with its Commons Committee stage taking place in November and December last year. I want to thank again all the Bill Committee members from across the House for their work on this fundamentally important Bill. This motion will allow the Commons remaining stages to take place at the start of the next Session before the Bill moves on to the other place. The Bill is a product of the decades of campaigning from families affected by state-related deaths and tragedies. We have heard from a range of campaigns, from families and from those affected, on the desperate need for change to ensure that when things go wrong, public authorities will act with candour and transparency, and in the public interest.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue regarding the Chinook disaster. I recently had the privilege of meeting the bereaved families of the Chinook disaster, and I want to pay tribute to them and their tenacious campaigning to uncover the truth of what happened to their loved ones. I am deeply pleased that the Prime Minister agreed to meet those families last week at Prime Minister’s questions, and we look forward to working with them and all the other campaigners as the Bill progresses through the House to ensure that anyone affected by a state cover-up or a tragedy where the state is represented should have the truth available to them. That is a fundamental feature of this Bill and one we wholeheartedly believe in. It is because of those families and their lived experience that the Government took the decision to delay the Bill to allow more time to get it right—to address the issues that were raised directly with us by the families while not compromising our ability to protect national security and safeguard the national interest. In the past few months, we have been working intensively with the security services, Hillsborough Law Now and the Intelligence and Security Committee to find a way forward on this issue. But that has meant, sadly, that there was not sufficient time to complete the Bill’s passage in this Session. The Government have therefore tabled this motion to allow the Bill to continue parliamentary passage in the next Session. I am aware that this Bill is of high interest and importance to many Members of this House, the public and, indeed, members of the other place, and many are very eager to see this Bill on the statute books. I want to stress that I share that eagerness. I want to make it clear that the Government remain resolutely committed to delivering this vital legislation. We are determined to get this right. We are continuing to work closely with campaigners and families, and if this motion is agreed this evening, we will bring the Bill back to complete Commons remaining stages, with new Government amendments, at the start of the next Session.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate for their continued support for what is, as they have said, a fundamentally important landmark Bill. It is for the 97, but also for all of victims of all the tragedies who have had to suffer and endure continued pain and trauma as a result of state cover-ups and the preventing of the truth from being sought. I can answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders): the Bill will come back as soon as possible. It is a Bill for the families, and we continue to work with them daily to ensure that we get this right. The Government’s first priority is national security, and we will not compromise on that, but we are determined to get this right. We are also committed to ensuring that there are no carve-outs, and there will be no carve-out for the security services—I make that commitment again at this Dispatch Box. They will be covered by the legally binding duty of candour and the new criminal offences in the Bill, and it is important for us to continue to work together to find the way through. As I have said, we are continuing to work with the campaigners, with the security services, with other Departments and with the Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure that we find a way forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) spoke powerfully the words of Charlotte Hennessy and Margaret Aspinall, and I want to put it on record that I love working with her too. As I have said, this is a Bill for the families, and earlier today I had the privilege of meeting Jenni Hicks again. I will meet her on Thursday as well, along with Debbie Matthews, and I speak regularly with Charlotte Hennessy, Margaret Aspinall and many of the other families to ensure that we are consulting them and keeping them informed and updated on the Bill’s progress. I will continue to endeavour to do that, to the best of my abilities. I also want to place on record the Government’s disgust at the briefings, the leaking, and the way in which some of this is playing out in the media. The Government do not condone that. The Government are determined and committed to get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible. Whatever is being briefed to the media is not the Government’s position, and we remain resolute in working collegiately with the campaigners to find a way forward. My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker)—those tenacious campaigners—have stated very clearly this evening that there should and will be no carve-out, and that the Bill should serve as a legacy to the 97. It is far too important for us not to keep our promise, and I can say to my hon. Friends again that I commit myself to working with them and everyone else in the House to get the Bill right. We will bring it back as soon as possible, but we will do so only once we have full agreement with the families that this is the Hillsborough law, so that it can be on the statute book, it can be that legacy, and it can be that fundamental reframing of the relationship between the state and families. I commend the motion to the House. Question put and agreed to.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Public Office (Accountability) Bill (Carry-over) · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. He is fundamentally correct that the Bill is about much more than just the duty of candour. This is about rebuilding the trust between the public and the state. It is about ensuring that there is accountability, transparency, openness and parity, and that the state remembers who it is that we are meant to serve. This is not just about the Hillsborough law, although this legislation will hopefully bear that name; it is about all those campaigns that have suffered as a result of state cover-ups and tragedies. It is really important that we recognise all those campaigning under the umbrella of the Hillsborough Law Now campaign. At inquiries, inquests and investigations, public authorities and officials will be put under powerful obligations to help investigations to find the truth. They will all be legally required to provide information and evidence with candour, proactively and without favour to any of their own positions. Public servants will also be placed under a new professional duty of candour, which will be set out in each organisation’s mandatory code of ethics. This will ensure that individuals act with integrity and honesty at all times in their day-to-day work. The families made it clear to us that when it becomes apparent that someone has sought to evade accountability or prevent the truth from being uncovered—whether through dishonesty and deliberately withholding information, or through the perpetuation of false narratives—there must be clear accountability and appropriate sanctions. The Bill will provide this through a new criminal offence of breaching the duty of candour and a new criminal offence of misleading the public. It will also provide non-means-tested legal aid for bereaved families at inquests where a public authority is an interested person, and place a duty on all public authorities to ensure that their use of lawyers is proportionate. It represents an important milestone in rebalancing the system, ensuring that the bereaved, grieving families are supported to participate in the inquest process where the state is represented, introducing the parity of arms that we have heard so much about. It also helps to ensure proper standards of conduct by public authorities at an inquest or inquiry. Drawing on experiences shared with us by the families, the Bill will introduce measures placing a duty on all public authorities, and those that represent them, to act in line with statutory guidance and to support families’ participation in the process. Where there are concerns regarding the conduct of public authorities or their legal teams, the Bill grants the power to the coroner or the inquiry chair to raise those concerns with the appropriate senior individual level of public authority. The Bill also abolishes the current common law offences of misconduct in public office following the Law Commission recommendations in its 2020 report. In its place will be two new statutory offences: the breach of duty to prevent death or serious injury, and seriously improper acts. By putting these offences on the statute book, we are making it clear what types of behaviour are covered by this offence and who exactly it applies to. This is a landmark Bill. It will transform the way that public authorities and officials interact with official investigations and will act as a catalyst for the radical change in culture across the public sector that we so desperately need. It will deliver the largest expansion of civil legal aid in a generation and a move away from that culture of cover up and distrust in the state. The Bill was due to return to the Commons for remaining stages in January. However, as many in this House will be aware, concerns were raised on how the duty of candour and assistance would apply to the intelligence and security services. The Government brought forward several amendments to strengthen the Bill in this area. However, it became clear from our conversations with families and stakeholders that they had concerns about how the accompanying safeguards we proposed might work in practice. We have always been clear that this is a Bill for and by the families, and where they have concerns, we will always listen.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He will know that my family have also faced tragedy and bereavement at the hands of the IRA. My cousin was killed on Horse Guards Parade serving this country by a serving member of the IRA, and that issue has plagued my family for decades and still hurts to this very day. I have spoken about that tragedy and bereavement in the Chamber before. He will know that the victims code is still open for consultation until the end of this month, and I urge anyone who has such feelings of pain to feed into that to enable us to make the code better for victims. The Policing Minister will have heard his views and the views of other victims on how we can support victims of terrorism. I have met families bereaved by terrorism to work with them on what more we can do, and they will be feeding into the victims code. That brings me on to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) about the victims code. I have spoken before about ensuring that those bereaved by homicide abroad have rights under the code; although it is not necessarily the right place, we have listened to them and ensured that there is a specific measure for them in the draft consultation. We are working with the FCDO and the Home Office to ensure that that can be strengthened so that support is available for them. The review will be published in 2027. It will be robust and comprehensive, and will put families at the centre, so that we can improve the support available to them where it is needed. On court transcripts, I thank Liberal Democrat and Labour Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for all the work they have done on ensuring that victims have access to court transcripts that relate to their cases. As the Minister set out in the other place last week, the Government are acutely aware of the need to consider what further action we can take to support victims to access information on court proceedings relating to their case, particularly in cases that do not result in a conviction. The Government are also fully committed to strengthening transparency. That is why I am pleased to restate that the Government are commencing a study on AI transcription in the criminal courts. That will look at how AI transcription could lead to producing court transcripts more quickly and at a lower cost for victims. The findings of that study have the potential to reduce fees and improve access to court transcripts. This will mean that further reform will be underpinned by confidence in accuracy, as well as appropriate safeguards, and that it will deliver for victims. I will now move on to the remaining topics for discussion. The Government have agreed with the sentiment of the amendments to the unduly lenient sentence scheme but, as I have said previously, we needed to return to those to ensure that they were workable and effective and would bring the change necessary, following direct engagement with victims and bereaved families. That is what we have done, and I am pleased to confirm that we have now tabled two amendments to the ULS scheme that will deliver what victims have been calling for.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 4B and 4C.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  With the leave of the House, I will close this really important and special debate. It moves us another step closer to this Bill becoming a much-needed law for all victims, and I sincerely thank all hon. Members who have spoken, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers), and for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley), the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). This is a really important Bill. It shows the best of Parliament when we all come together on an issue that is beyond party politics to do what we were elected to this place to do—to speak for the people we represent, make life better for those who come after us, and create a legacy for those who have sadly had to endure hardship and pain that we will hopefully never have to feel. I thank the Minister in the other place for guiding this Bill through its stages, and for undertaking such extensive engagement with all hon. Members, here and in the other place, throughout its passage. Let me answer some of the questions put forward today. Discussions are ongoing about who will have the statutory duty to notify victims and bereaved families about the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and I will ensure that I update the House on how we progress those discussions. We do not need to put that into law, but we will engage fully with the Crown Prosecution Service, the Home Office, the Victims’ Commissioner and the bereaved families to ensure that we get this right, that full accountability is there, and that there will be scrutiny of the application of the duty under the victims code. I am working with the Victims’ Commissioner to ensure that that is robust. I assure the shadow Minister that that will be followed robustly, and I will ensure that we engage with him on that duty as it develops. I assure the shadow Minister that the consultation on rates will be followed in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines, and we will consult with the appropriate stakeholders. This will not be a tick-box exercise—it will be thoroughly responded to—and the House will be informed of that consultation. As the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood stated, this is just part of the commitment that the Government are making to victims about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. We still await the findings of the Law Commission, and I again make the commitment at this Dispatch Box that I made to Tracey Hanson and Katie Brett: I will meet them, once the Law Commission completes its work, to discuss the findings and what more we can do as a Government going forward to ensure that we get parity for victims in the criminal justice system. This is just one step forward, and we will continue to work with all stakeholders on the Bill. I have been crystal clear that this is the Victims and Courts Bill, and soon it will be the Victims and Courts law. It will become an Act for all victims. It will be a law for Josh, for Sasha, for Olivia, for Jan, for Sabina, for Zara and for all the victims who have been failed by the criminal justice system. This Bill will become an Act for all of them, and their legacy. I will ensure that the importance of having a consistent approach regarding the law’s name is fed back to all Government Departments, because this is a law for all the victims and campaigners who have engaged with the Government and it is important that they are all recognised.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. This Bill goes beyond party politics; this is a Bill, as I have said, for victims. It has been a sincere pleasure to work across political divides to get this right for victims, who are rightly at the heart of the Bill. I have always stated that I will work with anyone from any party if they have any measure that could make the criminal justice system a better place for victims, so that we start to put victims at its heart. The Bill does exactly that: it takes a step towards putting victims back at the heart of the criminal justice system, where they fundamentally belong.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I was not inadvertently misleading the House; if he looks at the details of Lords amendment 5C, he will see that that is not what it does. The amendment does not simply extend the time limit—it does much more—and it does not extend the time limit for everyone. As I will explain in my comments, this amendment is for the families and for the victims directly. It is not for everyone, as was proposed by the Opposition. This amendment does not just do what the Opposition’s amendment would have done, as Tracey Hanson said in her own words; it does much more with respect to its application, and it is for the bereaved families and victims directly. There is also a statutory duty in this group of amendments to directly inform victims and their families about the ULS scheme, so that they are aware of it in the first place.