Alex Davies-Jones

My hon. Friend is right. This is called the Victims and Courts Bill because it is a Bill for victims, built by victims and, sadly, by their experiences of how the criminal justice system has not supported them and has failed them. It is important for us to build on the Bill and ensure that we get it right and that it is workable, effective and delivers for victims in their everyday lives, as well as for future victims who will sadly be created by crime committed here or overseas. Let me return to the victims of homicide abroad. In January this year, the Government published guidance that brings together clear and accessible information for families about the services that can support them. We have clarified the roles and responsibilities in further documentation online, which sets out exactly how the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Ministry of Justice and the chief coroner and the coroner service will work together when a British national is a victim of murder or manslaughter abroad. While every case is considered on its individual circumstances, this document seeks to ensure a consistent level of service for bereaved families. Throughout the debates on this topic, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised and we are committed to addressing them. To improve the consistency of support offered by consular services, the FCDO has committed itself to reviewing and refreshing its training provision for all consular staff. We need to improve access to translated documents, and the Ministry of Justice will review how translation is provided in the course of delivering the new homicide service contract in 2027. To ensure there is an independent view of the approach taken by agencies that support this cohort, the FCDO’s senior official for global consular services will meet either the Victims’ Commissioner or a representative when particular issues arise that merit further discussion. I thank the Victims’ Commissioner, and her predecessor, for continuing to engage with the FCDO and other agencies to advocate for families. While we remain committed to strengthening support for families bereaved by homicide abroad, Lords amendment 2 confuses the purpose of the code in terms of its intended application to crimes capable of prosecution in England and Wales. It also risks creating obligations on agencies that are impossible to deliver, given that many of these cases will be handled overseas and therefore be entirely outside their control. Instead, we are determined to address directly the concerns faced by bereaved families. Lords amendments 4 and 7 would remove clause 12 from the Bill, which means that the Lord Chancellor would not have the power to set the rates of private prosecution costs recoverable from central funds. The Government therefore cannot support those amendments. Retaining the current arrangements for private prosecutions would preserve a system that is inconsistent and places an unnecessary burden on the courts. Currently, when private prosecutors apply for their costs to be paid from central funds, there is no prescribed rate. The court, or the Legal Aid Agency acting on its behalf, must work out in each individual case what level of reimbursement is “reasonably sufficient”. That lack of clarity leads to unnecessary disputes, appeals and delays in an already delayed court process. By introducing transparent, consistent rates, we will give prosecutors clarity and certainty about what they will be paid, thereby reducing the need for cost appeals. Valuable court time is taken up by the determination of costs because of the lack of prescribed rates, which imposes an unnecessary burden on the courts. It is important to stress again that the majority of private prosecutions never result in a claim from central funds, and will be entirely unaffected by this measure. Most private prosecutors act responsibly, apply the code tests properly and pursue cases in the public interest. However, we cannot ignore the evidence that, in a small number of cases, the near certainty of recovering large costs from central funds may cause the pursuit of private prosecutions that are disproportionate or an unsuitable remedy to the presenting legal issues. We have seen examples in which the costs claimed bear little resemblance to the scale or seriousness of the case, such as a £90,000 claim in a fraud prosecution when the loss was only £5,000. That is not what the system was intended for. Let me make it clear that clause 12 does not set any rates, and does not alter the long-established right to bring a private prosecution. That right remains protected under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and will not be affected. Before any rates are set, there will be extensive engagement with stakeholders and a full public consultation. The Government remain open-minded about where the rates should ultimately be set, but the rates will reflect the complexity and seriousness of cases and will be shaped by the evidence that we gather. A number of respected charities bring private prosecutions to protect the public and pursue wrongdoing, but it is important to note that charities represent only about 10% to 15% of private prosecutions that result in claims on central funds, and that they will continue to be able to bring private prosecutions. Nothing in the clause alters the fundamental right to bring a private prosecution: that right is long-standing and preserved in statute, and the Government have no intention of changing it. Clause 12 is a measured and necessary first step towards reform. It will bring clarity to an unclear system, improve efficiency, reduce unnecessary burdens on the courts, and help to ensure that taxpayers’ money is used responsibly. It will do all that while safeguarding access to justice and maintaining, fully and unequivocally, the fundamental right to bring a private prosecution.