(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Welsh legislative consent sought.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, at the heart of this Bill are measures aimed at ensuring that victims are treated with dignity, compassion and respect throughout the justice process. This legislation represents a significant step forward in strengthening the rights of victims and improving the efficiency and fairness of our courts in a fair and proportionate way.
A number of noble Lords have spoken to me about some of the provisions in the Bill, and I am grateful to them for their measured and constructive approach. I had hoped to be able to answer some of their questions in advance of this debate; in the end, time constraints meant that this did not prove possible, but I shall do my best to address some of them during this short speech. That said, as ever with issues about the justice system, I and the Government welcome the opportunity to work with Members of your Lordships’ House, from all parties and none, to ensure that we get these provisions right.
I begin by addressing the issue of defendants who refuse to leave their cell in order to attend their sentencing hearing. This happens too often and causes great distress to victims and their families, many of whom have sat through a difficult trial. The sentencing hearing provides an important opportunity to tell the defendant exactly how the crime has affected them, usually done through a victim personal statement. For many, it is important to be able to look the defendant in the eye as the sentence is passed, so when the defendant chooses not to attend court, that can feel like the final insult. The Government agree with victims and their families that defendants should not have that choice.
Judges have always had the power to order defendants to attend their sentencing hearing but, if the defendant refused, the judge was very restricted as to what she or he was able to do. The Bill will change that by putting the power on a statutory footing. I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the families of Jan Mustafa, Henriett Szucs, Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Sabina Nessa and Zara Aleena. Their courage and tireless campaigning have brought about this change, and for that we thank them.
On the specific provisions, first, the Bill makes clear that reasonable force may be used to get the defendant to court, but that has to be balanced against the risk to prison and security staff so there are three issues that the judge will take into account: necessity, reasonableness and proportionality. Secondly, in addition to the use of reasonable force, judges will have the power to impose up to two years’ imprisonment in addition to the sentence for the offence and/or an unlimited fine. Thirdly, concerns were raised that, because many of these defendants will be receiving very long sentences, an additional period of imprisonment might not have much effect. To meet that concern, Crown Court judges will also be given the power to impose meaningful sanctions that will have an impact on how the defendant serves their time in prison. If defendants attend court but are disruptive or disrespectful, and as a result have to be removed from the hearing, the judge will be able to impose the same penalties. This Government are clear: victims’ and their families’ voices matter, and defendants should be sentenced with those voices ringing in their ears. The Bill will help to ensure that happens.
I turn to the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility. Protecting children is an absolute priority for this Government, and these provisions are part of a wider exercise to ensure that the interests of children remain paramount in all proceedings. Having children is a privilege but also a responsibility, and the justice system must always ensure that these children are right at the centre of what we do. As part of that, the Bill provides that where a parent has been convicted of a serious offence involving child sexual abuse and has been sentenced to four or more years’ imprisonment, there will be an automatic restriction preventing them exercising parental responsibility for their own children. This measure will protect the children of child sex offenders, whose convictions will provide clear evidence that they pose a risk to children, including their own.
The Bill will also restrict the exercise of parental responsibility for children of rapists where their crimes have led to the conception and birth of the child in question. There will be two routes. First, where the Crown Court is satisfied to the criminal standard that the child was conceived as a result of the rape, this mandatory restriction must be imposed at the time the defendant is sentenced.
Secondly, where rape has occurred as part of wider domestic abuse, and the court is satisfied that the child may have been conceived as a result of that rape, but cannot be sure, the court must refer the case to the family court via the local authority. This sends a clear message that we will protect all children conceived and born as a result of rape, no matter the circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked me when we met about the number of offenders this will capture. Our belief is that up to 20 offenders will be affected by this measure each year.
Thirdly, non-disclosure agreements—NDAs—should not be used to silence victims or cover up crimes. The Bill will make sure that they cannot be used in this way. It makes it clear that NDAs will not be legally enforceable to the extent that they seek to prevent victims —or those who reasonably believe they are victims—from disclosing information about relevant criminal behaviour. In addition, we want to make sure that victims can provide the full context and circumstances when speaking about crimes. The Bill will also ensure that such a victim will be able to speak about how the other party reacted both to the criminal conduct itself and the victim speaking out about it.
Of course, we recognise there may be situations where both parties genuinely wish to have the closure offered by an NDA. To accommodate that, the measure includes two powers. The first will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to set out the criteria for an excepted NDA. Such NDAs would not be voided under the measure. The second power allows the Secretary of State to specify that speaking about the crime to some people, for specific purposes or in certain situations, will always be allowed, even if an excepted NDA exists. For example, a victim who wanted to speak to a victim support service in order to get support may be able to do so, despite being party to an excepted NDA.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, asked me about some of the exceptions set out in the clause. I am sorry that I was not able to answer their questions in advance of Second Reading, but I will do my best to do so now. The measure will not apply to a narrow cohort of specified agreements. This is in the interests of national security. Unlike with excepted NDAs, victims of crime who sign such agreements will not always be able to make the disclosures specified by the Secretary of State in regulations made under the second power because the relevant bodies have their own appropriate arrangements for ensuring that victims and direct witnesses of crime can speak up and seek support.
During the development of the clause, extensive engagement was undertaken with relevant government departments about which bodies an exemption should apply to. An exemption for agreements entered into by the National Crime Agency in the interests of national security was not considered necessary. Legislation that binds the Crown does not ordinarily apply to the sovereign unless there is a specific policy justification for it to do so. For the purposes of this measure, the Government do not consider that there is a specific policy justification for the measure to apply to agreements entered into by the sovereign personally.
Fourthly, we will be strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. I start by paying tribute to the late Baroness Newlove, who will be greatly missed in your Lordships’ House. All of us have a great deal for which to thank her. The Bill will enable the Victims’ Commissioner to hold the system to account more effectively, which we hope and expect will boost the confidence of victims. The Victims’ Commissioner will have a number of new tools, which we intend should be used to achieve systemic change.
First, for the first time, the commissioner will be able to exercise their functions in relation to individual cases where such a case raises public policy issues that go beyond that particular case and are likely to be of relevance to other victims and witnesses.
Secondly, local authorities and social housing providers will have a duty to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner in relation to anti-social behaviour. As a result, the commissioner will be able to get the information they need to identify systemic issues, make informed recommendations and examine how the system responds to anti-social behaviour.
Thirdly, the Bill will place a new duty on the Victims’ Commissioner to produce an independent assessment as to how public agencies are meeting their duties under the victims’ code. The report will be provided to Ministers, who will then be required to consider it as part of preparing their own report on code compliance under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.
Some of your Lordships have raised with me at meetings whether the commissioner will have sufficient resources to take on this additional work. We have worked closely with the Victims’ Commissioner’s office to understand the impact of the measures, and we have identified a small additional resource requirement amounting to £150,000 a year. That is outlined in our impact assessment. This will be accounted for as the measure is commenced and implemented.
The victim contact scheme plays a critical role in communicating information about the release of offenders to be given to those who need it most, but the legislation governing it is more than 20 years old. This Bill will simplify and update the current system. It will bring victims currently served by different operational schemes into the single victim contact scheme. As we implement this measure, we will make sure that the updated scheme works for the victims it is designed to serve. The Bill will also provide all victims with one clear route to request information about an offender.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, asked about interactions with clinicians’ obligations. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, raised issues about when an offender is detained under the Mental Health (Discrimination) Act 2013. We will consider how best to support victim liaison officers and hospital managers to provide this information to victims where it is appropriate to do so. This requirement reflects current practice, where the release of information must comply with data protection legislation and the convention rights. We also would not provide information that would put either the offender or the victim at risk for any reason. Where information is not disclosed, victims can seek a review through existing independent HMPPS complaints processes or make a complaint to the relevant NHS service provider. If they are unhappy with the outcome, victims can escalate their complaint directly to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
For mentally disordered offenders, this includes information about discharge, leave and any other information as appropriate. Furthermore, the Bill will allow victims to request information about an offender, which will be delivered via a new dedicated helpline. This means that eligible victims of mentally disordered offenders will receive information on request. Our intention is to ensure that those who are eligible receive the right information about offenders at the right time. In addition, but outwith this Bill, we will consult on a new victims’ code in due course.
I turn to prosecutors. I declare not so much an interest as experience in this area, as I worked for the Crown Prosecution Service for five years. I am sure that all will agree it is essential that we ensure that the CPS can recruit and retain sufficient qualified Crown prosecutors. Having inadequate numbers means that important decisions about, for example, who to charge with offences, choice of charge and evidence requests to be made from the police cannot take place in a timely way.
In England and Wales, there are the members of the two well-known branches of the legal profession, namely solicitors and barristers. What is less widely known is that there are other routes by which a person may qualify as a lawyer. The biggest of these is CILEX, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives. At present, as the law currently stands, it is difficult for the CPS to appoint lawyers other than solicitors or barristers to work as Crown prosecutors. This Bill will remove those barriers, by enabling further suitably qualified and experienced legal professionals to be appointed to these important roles.
A number of noble Lords have raised with me whether this will involve lowering standards, and I am happy to reassure your Lordships that it will not. At present, the law requires Crown prosecutors to have what is known as the general qualification. The general qualification requires the lawyer in question to have very wide rights of audience, namely in all proceedings in the senior courts, in the county courts or magistrates’ courts. In practice, not all these rights are necessary for their role as a Crown prosecutor, so the Bill will remove that requirement. What will remain is that Crown prosecutors from whichever professional background must have the necessary rights of audience and authorisation under the Legal Services Act 2007 to appear in the courts relevant to their role, and they will have to meet the necessary CPS competency standards to conduct prosecutions at the appropriate level. The CPS will retain full discretion over whom to appoint.
This will widen the pool of eligible prosecutors, and support greater flexibility in staffing. The hope is that, in the longer term, this will shorten waiting times for prosecutorial decisions to be made. The measure supports, in a proportionate way, the intention underlying the manifesto commitment. Rather than giving more powers to associate prosecutors, these measures will increase the pool of prospective Crown prosecutors.
On private prosecutions, once again I declare that I have experience in this area, having been a partner in a firm of solicitors and head of a department that brought a number of private prosecutions. I was also one of the founding members of the Private Prosecutors’ Association and was heavily involved in the drafting of the code of practice and conduct for private prosecutors. The Government are committed to reforming the private prosecution system, so that it is fairer and has the necessary safeguards in place. While that will require more extensive and long-term change, the Bill is taking the first step as part of that plan for reform.
A number of your Lordships raised the question of whether this reform would have a chilling effect on private prosecutions. That is not the intention underlying these measures; the Government agree that private prosecutions play an important role in our justice system.
When a private prosecutor applies to the court for their costs to be paid by the public purse, there are no fixed rates. This is not satisfactory for two reasons: first, costs determinations can be protracted, taking up valuable court time; and, secondly, there is a lack of certainty for those who would like to consider bringing a private prosecution as to the amount that they may be able to recover. That is why the Bill will give the Lord Chancellor the power to make regulations which set the rates at which private prosecutors can recover their costs from central funds. This will save court time when it is required to determine cost orders, reduce the number of appeals and give private prosecutors a better degree of certainty. We believe that it will ensure the best use of public funds.
This measure is purely an enabling power. I am aware that reservations have been expressed about the effect of setting the rates too low. I have been assured that there will be extensive engagement with stakeholders, and a full consultation will be held before any regulations are introduced. The defendant’s costs order will not be the starting point, and I will be monitoring closely the progress of the consultation. This engagement will help us determine the most appropriate rates, including whether higher rates should be preserved for some more complex private prosecutions. In doing so, we will retain the central aim of this measure, which is to safeguard the right of an individual to bring private prosecutions, while making the best use of public funds.
I now turn to the measures on the unduly lenient sentence scheme. As many will know, when the Attorney General believes that the original sentence does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence, the scheme provides a power for the case to be referred to the Court of Appeal. There is a strict 28-day statutory time limit, which mirrors the time limit defendants have in which to appeal their sentence. In a not insubstantial number of cases, they are not brought to the attention of the Attorney-General until the end of the period, sometimes on the 28th day. This has proved problematic for the Attorney-General, because it makes it difficult to be able to give the case proper consideration in the time remaining. The 28-day period will remain unaltered, but the Bill will give the Attorney-General 14 days to consider any request that has been made within the second half of the window. We believe that this is a proportionate response, respecting the need for fairness to all victims and balancing that with the need for certainty and sentencing.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, asked me about the unduly lenient sentence scheme and engagement and the shorter window for victims. Many noble Lords may be aware of the commitment made in the other place by my honourable friend the Victims Minister. She has committed to looking at the length of the time limit as this Bill progresses, and I, too, am happy to make that commitment in your Lordships’ House—namely, to listen to and consider any thoughts that noble Lords may have as to the length of the time limit for the ULS scheme. In doing so, I remind your Lordships that the unduly lenient sentence scheme is not a mechanism to provide an appeal for victims or members of the public; rather, it is a legal safeguard that exists to correct sentences that fall outside the reasonable parameters for the sentence in question.
Finally, the Bill introduces a modest but important amendment to magistrates’ court sentencing powers in respect of six specific offences. As your Lordships will know, this Government have increased magistrates’ sentencing powers from six to 12 months’ imprisonment for all offences that are triable either way, other than these six. For technical reasons, all these six require primary legislation to make the magistrates’ court sentencing powers consistent with those of all other either-way offences; doing this will reduce the risk of confusion or error in sentencing.
This Bill is about ensuring trust and confidence in our justice system—one that is fair, efficient and takes the needs of victims into account—and it reflects our commitment to ensuring that courts meet the demands both of today and of tomorrow.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, this Bill has been laid before us in the name of victims, so we must grasp the opportunity to ensure that the Bill fully lives up to its name. The Bill strengthens the measures proposed in the predecessor Bill, which fell before the last election and was lost. I thank all those groups and organisations that have made valuable contributions so far.
The first important matter that I address is the attendance of convicted persons at their sentencing hearing. If the courts cannot compel attendance by criminals, justice is undermined; it is vital that the courts have power both to compel attendance, by reasonable force if necessary, and to punish criminals who resist or fail to attend their sentencing hearings. I shall expand on that in a moment.
Next, I turn to those guilty of child sex offences. We welcome the provision that parental responsibility is now to be restricted for child sex offenders who have committed offences against any child, not just their own child or children. It is also paramount that victims are given more information about the release dates for their offenders and are kept informed about their whereabouts and the risks, if any, that they may pose to their safety. That is particularly necessary, because it was revealed that 91 prisoners may have been released by mistake between 1 April and 31 October this year.
We are pleased with the provisions to address non-disclosure agreements, but we will need more time to consider the detail of the proposed exemptions, and we look forward to hearing about those.
The Bill before us has some shortcomings, and we must address these if we are to make the most of this opportunity and of precious parliamentary time. For example, we on these Benches believe that courts should order offenders to pay compensation that truly reflects the victim’s financial loss when penalties are imposed. More broadly, there have been justified calls for greater transparency, following the crimes and subsequent cover-up of grooming gangs across the nation. These calls will grow louder and more urgent as victims demand justice, and we need more transparency.
I turn first to the provisions for unduly lenient sentences. The current deadline for applications to the scheme for a review of sentence is 28 days from the date when sentence is passed. In the months before her untimely death, the former Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, my much-missed noble friend the late Lady Newlove, highlighted that victims are often unaware of this deadline because the prosecution has not brought it to their attention. The Government’s election manifesto committed to
“ensuring victims can access the information and support they need”.
That is why we recommended an extension of the time for an application to be made from 28 days to 56 days. This will give victims more time to process an application. In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service should be obliged to notify victims that the scheme exists—they have to know about it if they are to do something—and to provide information, within 10 working days of a sentence being passed, explaining the application process and the relevant deadlines for making victim impact statements.
Many victim impact statements have faced difficulties. Victims must be able fully to express in their personal statements the impact that crimes have had on them. Victims deserve a platform, but such statements are evidence in the case and as such are subject to strict rules. We accept that what they say must not be contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech—they must not make allegations of untried criminal conduct or be offensive or inappropriately provocative—but victims must have their voices heard. At the heart of these calls is a call for greater transparency in the system: transparency about the courses of action available to victims after sentence, and allowing victims themselves to explain their suffering without inappropriate censorship. We must take this opportunity to help enhance trust in the courts and the process, and to bring accuracy to our public discourse.
At present, we do not know enough about the backgrounds of those who commit offences. Too often, the public is left to speculate. In the other place, the Opposition tabled an amendment to set the record straight. It would require courts to collect data on sentenced offenders in relation to a number of factors: nationality; sex at birth and, where applicable, country of birth; method of entry into the United Kingdom; and visa route, visa status and asylum status. The Government should then publish these statistics every three months. This will ensure that both policymakers and the British public have an accurate debate and can reach informed decisions when it comes to criminal justice, integration and border control.
There are clear and legitimate concerns about integration and social cohesion. It is imperative that the Government do not dismiss these or overlook them. Accurate data is important. Its absence allows misleading statements to be made, sometimes deliberately and malevolently, but even if innocently made, they can have a damaging effect. We implore the House to take this opportunity to make a profound impact on our current policies through this Bill.
As for the implementation of the Bill as it stands, there are also practical issues which the Government must consider. How exactly will offenders be compelled to attend sentencing, when prison officers already find themselves ill-equipped to handle violent or disruptive offenders? What provisions will be put in place? Officers should be enabled to use reasonable force, so long as it is not disproportionate. This must include the power to restrain and to quieten disruptive offenders during hearings. As for child sex offenders, now that sex offences against any child will result in a restricted parental responsibility order, what provisions will the Government take to ensure that the family courts are not overwhelmed by appeals once the Bill passes into law?
We fear that, until these questions are addressed, the Bill will not fulfil its aims, nor be satisfactory for the victims in whose name the Bill is being put forward. We support the aims of the Bill, but there remain real gaps and real missed opportunities. We are fortunate enough in this House to have the chance to correct them. We must prove our worth by making necessary changes in the interests of victims and the public, so that there is trust in the system as a whole. Only then can we deliver real justice for victims, improve confidence and improve trust in our courts and the justice system. We need to be able to enjoy informed debates across our political life. I look forward to engaging constructively with the Government and with noble Lords across the House to help the Bill live up to its name.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear introduction to the Bill this afternoon. The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the principles behind the Victims and Courts Bill: strengthening support for victims, strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner and improving the court system. The current system is not just under severe stress; it is close to collapse. There are important changes that we believe need to be made for the courts service to be fit for purpose in this current era.
Because we do have some concerns and proposals to improve the Bill, some echoing amendments to it were laid by our Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Commons. I suspect that we will be discussing in minute detail the technicalities of improving systems for victims, as we did with the Crime and Policing Bill, the Sentencing Bill—currently going through your Lordships’ House—and the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. That Act was saved in the wash-up in the run-up to the 2024 general election, but most of it was not commenced, other than the infected blood compensation arrangements. I wondered whether this was the legislation the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, was referring to, and I apologise if I have that wrong. But it was saved, and I have a question for the Minister, which I will come to in a minute.
We do not often hear enough about what victims, survivors or complainants—however they may choose to describe themselves—face, and how long it takes to recover. That is why I am so grateful that the many victims, NGOs and charities keep their voices in front of us.
The definition of a victim in Section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act is someone who suffers
“harm as a direct result of … being subjected to criminal conduct, or … one or more of the circumstances mentioned”
in a subsection. The key thing for me is exactly what “harm” entails. In the Act,
“‘harm’ includes physical, mental or emotional harm and economic loss”,
and
“‘criminal conduct’ means conduct which constitutes an offence”.
That is a good definition, a helpful starting point and a reminder to us that victims will have suffered physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss, or been the victims of criminal conduct. Neither this nor the previous Government have commenced this section of the Victims and Prisoners Act, which remains disappointing. Do the Government intend to bring in this section of that Act?
In Section 1(4)(a) of the Victims and Prisoners Act, the clinical description of harm covers a wide range of experience. For example, harm can lie dormant in victims for many years, as with children sexually abused when young. We know it can take decades before they face up to what has happened, and that period, however long it is, can be mental agony, as well as physically distressing. Adults abused as children often say that their life remains irreparably changed by the experience. For some victims, the chance to see their perpetrator in the dock, and convicted, can be cathartic; but, for too many, the mental and physical anguish of this type of severe crime on and to a person just means that that experience continues to live on long after the court hearing.
We on these Benches’ starting point is that we have long called for more support for victims and survivors of crime. This Government are saying many of the right things and tomorrow, or on Thursday, we will see the strategy for VAWG, which is much welcomed and will be a key pillar in that support.
However, over the course of the last 18 months, we have seen that many good and worthy principles have not been followed through with priority or, worse, that there has been a lack of money to deliver the change that is actually needed. So I ask the Minister, will the Government guarantee to deliver the resources in order to make the ideas and words in the Bill and in the VAWG strategy, when it comes, happen?
Above all, there must be strategic and consistent planning and funding of the victim support service, for, without that, the service will not have victims at the heart of it, and it is likely that it will remain inconsistent across the country.
We welcome the strengthening of the Victims’ Commissioner role and the restriction of parental responsibility in certain heinous cases.
The areas of the Bill that we have particular concern with include an extension to the victim contact scheme to include victims of offenders sentenced to less than 12 months for violent and sexual offences; victims of coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking or harassment; and bereaved families in cases of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving. Access to free court transcripts for victims of criminal offences is increasingly important. This is broader than the original pilot and early proposals, but we believe it would be the right thing to introduce.
Other areas of concern include the provision of support for victims of online and technology-enabled crimes and the application of the victims’ code in respect of victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad. We have laid amendments on this subject in the past. The families of those killed deserve access to the same victim support back home in the UK as those whose family members were killed in the UK.
The Liberal Democrats have long sought to get restorative justice implemented broadly across the criminal justice system. When delivered with care and willingness on both the victim’s and the offender’s side, it can make a real difference to both parties. We laid amendments in the Commons on a victim’s right to referral and a duty to report on the use of restorative justice services, and we want to continue to make progress on this.
The government proposal to increase the period in which the Attorney-General may receive a request to challenge an unduly lenient sentence to 28 days, and the extra 14 days if submitted in the second half of the 28-day period, in our view remains too short. We supported the Official Opposition in some of their amendments in the Commons. Critically, it is unworkable unless a victim is notified when a sentence has been given, because the window to apply to the Attorney-General is too tight. I note, with regret, that the Minister said that the ULS was not an appeal mechanism for a victim. But many victims, on the rare occasion it might be used, should have access to it. One reason for that is that, too often, victims are encouraged by the CPS and the police not to be present at the end of a trial of the perpetrator, and they often miss the sentencing. Shockingly, too many are not even told about the unduly lenient sentencing arrangements and, within a very short number of days, cannot even submit a request to the Attorney-General. I have been laying amendments and proposing changes to the ULS scheme for some years now. We will continue to do so in your Lordships’ House on the Bill.
While the court proposals are in the main sensible, we remain concerned that there are very limited proposals to tackle the courts backlog. The announcements by David Lammy MP in relation to reducing the number of cases in front a jury has not helped. This Monday, 60 courts sat empty because of a lack of judges, barristers or other experts needed for court hearings.
There is little empirical evidence, proof or pilot, that shows that reducing juries alone will ease pressure on the courts system. The real problems are the poor buildings, court closures and legal aid cuts that penalise barristers and solicitors. A long-term commitment for investment is needed, with both restored funding to legal aid and capital investment in the courts of the future.
These are some of the key issues that need to be addressed in the Bill, but they are set in the context of giving a broad welcome to most of the Bill, while wanting to strengthen it.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I join in welcoming the Bill. The Long Title states that it is to
“make provision about the experience of victims within the criminal justice system”.
In that context, it is strange to be considering such a Bill in the absence of Lady Newlove. A good test of what can be achieved by the Bill will be whether she would have approved of it. I am sure we all hope that our final product would meet with her approval.
I will focus on two topics: the power to order an offender to attend court for sentencing and the proposed restrictions on parental responsibility. The problem of convicted criminals in serious cases who refuse to attend court for a sentencing hearing is relatively new, but regrettably it has not gone away, and the Government are now right to deal with it by involving deterrent measures.
Sentencing judges are well used to dealing with attention-seeking misbehaviour by some offenders, but the Bill gives a clearer framework for the powers available to the judge, not just when the offender fails or refuses to attend, but when he does attend and interrupts the hearing or otherwise misbehaves and has to be removed.
A sentencing hearing is important, because it is when the offender is made publicly accountable for his criminal action and has to confront the disapproval of society for what he has done, and to hear the evidence of the impact on the victim and the victim’s family. A refusal to attend adds insult to injury and highlights the lack of any remorse. It was in one such case rightly described by the judge as “spineless”.
Clearly, when a very long sentence is inevitable, a relatively short additional sentence may not persuade such a defendant with little or nothing to lose to co-operate or to behave. There is a limit to what can be expected of prison or custody officers in manhandling a resistant offender into the dock. There can in those cases be a risk of making a bad situation look worse. However, clarification in the Bill that reasonable force may be used if necessary and proportionate is welcome.
The important point of these new provisions is that victims can be reassured that they will be heard and that offenders will know that if they think about not attending there will be consequences, not just in the longer term with a further sentence that may have little or no real meaning, but in the short term with the new prison sanctions order.
Turning to Clauses 3 and 4, it is clearly right and necessary to introduce an effective mechanism to curtail any exercise of parental responsibility by fathers who commit sexual offences against a child. That must mean a sexual offence against any child, not just a child for whom the man may have had parental responsibility: that is what I now understand the Bill to intend, as the Minister has been good enough to confirm. I welcome that confirmation, because paragraph 176 of the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill suggests that it might still be restricted to offences against the children for whom the man holds parental responsibility. I understand that not to be correct.
I suspect that none of us has any reservations about the essential principles underlying these proposals. The chair of the Bar Council has said:
“Parental responsibility should not be regarded as an inalienable right which is retained regardless of parental behaviour and actions … Restricting parental responsibility for perpetrators of child sex offences is a strong protective measure for those left behind after acts of violence and abuse within a family”.
I suggest that this should also apply to any such serious sexual acts committed outside the family context which are wholly incompatible with the retention of parental responsibility.
Without getting too involved in the details of the current law, it is important to appreciate that not all fathers automatically have parental responsibility. If not married to the mother, a father would acquire it only with her agreement for him to be registered and named as the father on the birth certificate, or by later agreement or order. It is also important to appreciate that the family court can and does already terminate, suspend or restrict parental responsibility when there is a risk of significant harm to the child or siblings, and when the father’s conduct and retention of parental responsibility have become an intolerable concern to the mother. But there have been cases in which obstructive fathers, out of malice or lack of insight or empathy, force a mother into protracted and costly litigation to protect the children and herself, as their mother, and to remove the need for her to involve the father in decision-making about their future care and upbringing.
At least, in the cases covered by this Bill, a more summary mechanism will be made available. The Bill builds on Section 18 of the 2024 Act—Jade’s law, which is not yet in force. It will prevent the exercise of parental responsibility but without actually altogether terminating parental responsibility. Clause 3 requires a sentence of at least four years before it operates. That leaves the cases of those with lesser sentences remaining to be dealt with in the family court, as now. I accept that there is a need to draw lines so as to make best use of the resources, expertise and powers of both courts without overburdening either, but where lines are drawn may need more exploration during the passage of the Bill.
I will briefly raise some other procedural and evidential points. First, has consideration been given to any mechanism to restrict applications for, or the exercise of, parental responsibility during what is now likely to be a long period between the initial charge and the final sentencing? Is that to be left to bail conditions or to the family court on a separate application by the mother or a local authority, or could the Crown Court now be given power to make an interim order?
Secondly, assuming that the Crown Court will be making orders covering all children for whom the defendant has parental responsibility without later review by the family court, how will the Crown Court get reliable information about who those children are and about their status and circumstances, particularly if the defendant is unwilling or unable to assist and the court has no access to existing court orders concerning those children? Regrettably, some men have selective memories about their offspring. How will the mothers of those children be identified, located and then informed about what the Crown Court is doing or may have done?
Finally, as to children who have been or may have been conceived as a result of rape, it may be difficult at the time of sentencing to ascertain whether the child was in fact so conceived, if there was a pre-existing relationship between the couple continuing at least until the rape. The difficulty no doubt already exists if the Criminal Court has to decide whether the mother’s enforced pregnancy was an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes in rape cases.
Broadly, however, in cases of uncertainty, I welcome the measures in the new Section 10F. This requires the Crown Court to notify the local authority, which will have to assess the likely co-operation or otherwise of the mother and any possible need for orders from the family court. This may require further fact-finding. In this regard, I consider that the Bill goes as far as it needs to in such situations. Subject to those comments, most of the Bill’s provisions are welcome.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I was at St Thomas’ at 8 am and will return to Guy’s at 8 am tomorrow re my lack of balance, but I was determined to speak on this important Bill. I have informed the clerks that I will do so sitting down.
I welcome the Bill warmly and applaud the work of my noble friend the Minister and her team. I consider this House to be so lucky to have somebody of such relevant experience leading this work. The Bill marks a really important step forward in rebuilding our much-shaken justice system—a system to serve victims, who in recent years have so often been failed. Imagine if the victim was your daughter, cousin, granddaughter or niece.
As my noble friend clearly said, the justice system must serve victims rather than subjecting them to further trauma on top of what they have already suffered. The Bill strengthens victims’ rights, forcing offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. Where was the justice for Louise, Hannah and Carol Hunt when Clifford was a no-show at sentencing? Those who refuse to comply will be liable to an additional custodial penalty of up to 24 months and restriction of social visits and removal of privileges—in my view, quite rightly so.
I also welcome the protection of children of sex offenders, and that NDAs should not prevent victims disclosing relevant information. Because of this important Bill, cowardly offenders who try to avoid facing the consequences of their actions for victims and insult victims’ families will no longer be able to get away with it. I ask my noble friend the Minister: given that one of the sanctions for non-attendance at sentencing is an additional prison sentence, will that have an impact on prison capacity? I welcome the Bill and look forward to further discussion with all noble Lords.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, in her place, and I wish her a very speedy recovery. I also congratulate her on her precision and the brevity of her remarks. I wish I was going to be as brief as she has been.
Lord Garnier (Con)
So does my noble and learned friend; that is a free drink that he is not going to get.
Unusually for a modern criminal justice Bill, which was ably introduced by the Minister, this is, relatively speaking, a remarkably short one. It has only 18 clauses. It is rather spoiled, however, as there are 53 pages of schedules. I dream of the day when any Government decides to stop producing criminal justice Bills of voluminous length, but there we are.
I understand the political and moral basis for the provisions about defendants who refuse to appear in court to be sentenced. I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on that. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Sandhurst’s scepticism about whether they will work in practice. We will see how those arguments develop in Committee.
I do, however, welcome the proposals with regard to the ULS scheme. I had to operate it myself as a law officer when the Minister was at the Crown Prosecution Service. I think it is fair to say that we suffered together in that struggle. There will be more to say in Committee about the NDA provisions, which amend the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.
This afternoon, I want to address a point about overseas victims not mentioned in the Bill. I spoke about this on 7 February 2024, on the fourth day in Committee on the then Victims and Prisoners Bill. I make no apology for doing so again, and I will table the same amendment to this Bill that I tabled to that Bill. In introducing these remarks, I refer to my interest as a barrister whose practice includes corporate crime cases.
Multinational companies have been fined more than £1.5 billion over the past 10 years or so after investigations by the Serious Fraud Office into corruption abroad. But only 1.4% of those fines—about £20 million—has been used to compensate victim countries or communities abroad. In my view, this needs to change.
Much of this corruption occurs in African countries that are already suffering terrible economic hardship, food and energy crises, and inflation. They are in dire need of economic support to repair the damage caused by corruption.
United Kingdom Governments have been vocal in their support for compensating foreign state victims of corruption. But the action actually taken to compensate foreign states tells a different story and leaves us open to charges of hypocrisy. Most corruption cases brought before the English courts involve foreign jurisdictions. We step in as the world’s policeman, investigating and prosecuting crimes that take place in other countries, but keep all the fines for ourselves. This is important because corruption causes insidious damage to the poor —and the not so poor—particularly in emerging markets. The United Nations says that it
“impedes international trade and investment; undermines sustainable development; threatens democracy and deprives citizens of vital public resources”.
The African Union estimated in 2015 that 25% of the continent’s gross domestic product was lost to corruption. Every company convicted of overseas corruption in this jurisdiction should be ordered to compensate the communities it has harmed. That would be both just and effective. Compensation should come through investment in programmes targeted at decreasing corruption and benefiting local communities; for example, by building and resourcing more schools and hospitals.
At first glance, English law encourages compensation. It is required to take precedence over all other financial sanctions—so far, so good. But, as with many noble ambitions, problems lurk in the detail. Compensation is ordered in criminal cases only where the loss is straightforward to assess, even though the trial judge is usually of High Court or senior Crown Court level and will deal with complex issues every day.
For example, in 2022, in a case in which I appeared for a victim state, Glencore pleaded guilty to widespread corruption in the oil markets of several African states. Although it was ordered to pay £281 million, not a single penny has gone back to the communities where the corruption happened, largely because it was held that the compensation would be too complicated to quantify. The Airbus deferred prosecution agreement tells a similar story. The company was required to pay €991 million to the United Kingdom in fines, but compensation to the numerous Asian countries where the corruption took place formed no part of the agreement.
The process for compensating overseas state victims—and particularly overseas state victims—needs simplification so that real money can be returned to them. An answer perhaps lies in incentivising the corporations that commit the crimes to pay compensation voluntarily on the understanding that it would not increase the total amount, including penalties and costs, that they would have to pay. The company could be given further incentive by receiving a discount on the fine it would still be required to pay to the United Kingdom Treasury, or an increase in the fine if it refuses or fails to make redress.
The required changes are, I suggest, straightforward and would cost the taxpayer nothing. It could create a standard measure of compensation, which would ensure consistency and transparency, as well as avoiding the difficulty of calculating a specific amount of loss or damage in each case. The compensation figure could equal whichever is the higher of the profit made by the company from its corrupt conduct or the amount of the bribes it paid to obtain the profits. This already happens when companies are sentenced, save that all the money goes to the Treasury. The defendant company would pay nothing more, but at least some of the money would benefit the victim state or the communities harmed within it.
Of course, it would be naive to think that compensation paid to a foreign state could never lead to further corruption. That is clearly a risk. To address this, defendant companies would be encouraged or required to enter into an agreement with the relevant state, which would include obligations to comply with United Nations guidance on the treatment of compensation funds and to identify projects for which the funds would be used, possibly with the involvement of a local non-governmental organisation.
To encourage states to enter into these types of agreements, corporations would be permitted to donate the compensation funds, for example, to the World Bank or International Monetary Fund for projects in the region instead, or to pay down a country’s debt, if an agreement cannot otherwise be reached.
The benefit of this approach is that, unlike at present, where there is no disadvantage in doing nothing, it puts the onus on the defendant companies to take restorative action—something that will appeal to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It also addresses the difficulties in quantifying losses by creating a simple approach that gives companies early sight of the amount that they will have to pay.
The Bill is, I am sure, full of wonderful provisions, but it does lack this wonderful diamond which needs to be added to the ring around the Minister’s finger— I do not know how far I can go with that one. But let us do this. We can then hold our heads high and enhance our national reputation in the fight against international corruption. This is not a matter of party politics. It is a matter of simple justice.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her persuasive introduction to the Bill and hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, is soon dancing around the Chamber again.
I start before the beginning of the Bill. The Long Title tells us that, among other things, it is to make provision
“about procedure and the administration of criminal justice”.
There is a lot going at the moment in relation to the administration of criminal justice, including the first part of Sir Brian Leveson’s review and the Government’s recent response. I have been asked—no doubt other noble Lords have as well—whether the Government might use this Bill to introduce the major reforms they are proposing. I am in no position to give any assurances, although I have said that there would be a hell of a row if this House, with all its expertise and strong views, did not have the opportunity of a Second Reading debate if the Commons, the elected Chamber, was excluded from initial debate and scrutiny. The Minister is already shaking her head—that is now in Hansard. I was going to say that I trust that she will give us an assurance on this. I raised it because if it is around as gossip, it needs answering.
There is much to welcome in the Bill, but our role as a revising Chamber does mean that many of our comments may come over as opposition or criticism. I hope not to sound too much like Scrooge. When I heard that there was to be a victims’ helpline, I was interested in what it might cover and hoped that it would be more than a signposting exercise pointing victims to where they might get help. However, it is not that. The victim contact scheme may suggest more than it is to provide. Many victims need support as witnesses. I am aware of the issue of coaching or the suggestion that a victim witness, however he or she wishes to describe themselves, has been coached. The postponement of support and treatment for some badly affected victims is another argument for dealing with delays in the courts. A victim’s experience—I hate “journey”—does not end with the verdict, so there must be support before and following a trial, often for a long period, as a survivor.
This Bill is part of a Rubik’s cube of criminal justice legislation. This Second Reading comes not just during public debate about juries but partway through the Sentencing Bill, when the issue of resources for non-custodial sentences and for purposeful activity in custody is being discussed. Resources to support victims—survivors—are needed too. The position of so many organisations in the third sector is precarious. Appreciative words are no substitute for services and funding.
As we know, too many victims and alleged offenders have a long wait for the trial. Some of the alleged offenders are not on bail but released under investigation—an alternative to bail but without set timeframes or conditions attached. It has been suggested that for the police this is a cop-out—no pun intended—as it reduces the load on them. The Leveson recommendation was to return to the pre-2017 system of conditional or unconditional bail.
What priority does the Bill have? It was introduced in the Commons in May and there has been a sort of hiatus. In this House, it is to go to Grand Committee, rather than having its Committee stage on the Floor of the House—presumably, though one should not assume anything, in time for it to be through by the end of the Session. I appreciate that timing is not a matter for the Minister, but she may wish to comment. She may not, of course.
I will turn to some specific points. I know we will spend some time on the first two clauses. While the failure of a convicted offender to appear at a sentencing hearing can cause a lot of distress to the victim, who then cannot look the offender in the eye while he or she hears victim statements, I confess to wondering whether it would be better to rely on and perhaps use more the existing powers held by custody officers, prison governors and, of course, judges—although I can see why there is a concern not to use contempt of court powers other than sparingly. There are risks associated with the sanctions and impacts on prison capacity and the Crown Court backlog. It is a difficult balance.
We will also discuss the transcripts of sentencing remarks, an issue which for some time has been pursued by my honourable friend the Member for Richmond Park, and to which my noble friend Lady Brinton has referred. At a meeting in early September of the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, I asked the then Lord Chancellor, just before she became Home Secretary, about progress in this area. She said:
“I do not believe we are far from having a tech solution that meets the test of accuracy … we are testing market solutions for speed and accuracy. Then we will need to take a view on operational viability and how quickly it could be rolled out”.
She also said:
“It is a long process, and it has a cost attached to it”,
and went on to emphasise that
“accuracy … is the problem at the moment”.
If the Minister could update the House, that would be very welcome. I appreciate this is not as straightforward as some of us would like to think, but every day in this job we are aware of how quickly the Hansard writers record and reproduce what we say. Mind you, they do tidy it up as well, which is certainly not what is wanted in the courts.
In addition, can the Minister update the House on when the prohibited steps provisions restricting parental responsibility are likely to come into force? As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, Section 18 of the Victims and Prisoners Act is still “prospective”. What discussion has the MoJ had with local authorities which will have to take on additional responsibilities, and will they have additional funding?
It is inevitable that I keep coming back to resources. I am sure that the Victims’ Commissioner will need to be better resourced, given her new powers and duties. Baroness Newlove would undoubtedly have taken the opportunity to make the point that she could have used much more than £150,000, whatever the agreement made. We all miss her, and we will welcome Claire Waxman to the position when she takes it up.
The length of Schedule 2, mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier—it is longer than the aggregate of all the Bill’s clauses—is, I suppose, a reflection of the way our statute book develops. I do not want to sound churlish. Clause 7, “Victims’ rights to make representations and receive information etc”— et cetera is doing some heavy lifting—is important out of all proportion to the clause’s two lines, but proportionate to the schedule. How much heavy lifting can be done by
“issues of public policy of relevance to other victims or witnesses”?
We will see.
I am pleased that victims’ rights to make certain disclosures are not to be precluded by NDAs. I hope the relevant regulations will be made with as little delay as possible, so that this comes into effect. This is one of those occasions when seeing the regulations in draft during the course of the Bill would be particularly helpful, given that not all NDAs will be covered.
It is not just what is in the Bill; it is also what is not. I am, as we all are, grateful to the organisations that have briefed us on the introduction of a duty to commission victim support services: 16 major organisations coming together to urge us to urge the Government to drive change in the commissioning of specialist services for victims of exploitation and abuse, and for victims with specific needs, is not to be ignored.
I should declare an interest: many years ago, for quite a number of years, I was a trustee and chair of the domestic violence charity Refuge. Much that is in the Bill, and much else, to quote the Long Title,
“about the experience of victims within the criminal justice system; about the functions of the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses; and about procedure and the administration of criminal justice”,
lends itself—indeed, calls for—consultation with those affected and those working in the sector. But—or “and”—I know that we have a group of Ministers who understand this very well.
I have said that there is much in the Bill to welcome. What I have been saying should not detract from that, but we do want the Bill to be as good as it can be.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, as always, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Today, it is an enormous pleasure to congratulate my noble friend the Minister on bringing the Bill forward and introducing it with the style and clarity that we are fast becoming used to—no pressure.
In particular, the Bill addresses a number of concerns that many of us had about flaws and deficiencies in the Act of last year specifically, and our regime for supporting victims of crime in general. So this Second Reading has felt, at times, a little like a reunion. It was a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Russell, in his place before—I think he will return—and to hear in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
Of course, I have to say it one more time: we all miss Lady Newlove so much. Those of us who worked quite hard on attempting to improve last year’s Bill tabled a large number of amendments and sat for a number of days with her advice, support and strategy. It is therefore very heartening to see so much of the spirit of some of those amendments reflected in this new Bill.
I hope my noble friend was able to take real pride in making what may have been her first Section 19 statement on the cover of the Bill. This is, of course, Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, which requires Ministers to state their view of a Bill’s compatibility with human rights. Noble Lords will notice that my noble friend felt able to do this on this occasion. I hope she took pride in that, not least because, as a criminal barrister and, indeed, a judge of some distinction, she will be very aware that it is perhaps in the realm of victims’ rights in particular that the European Convention, by way of the Human Rights Act, has made the most positive difference here in the United Kingdom.
Briefly, on defendants’ rights, I was heartened to see my noble friend’s body language in the face of the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the proposals on jury trial. Panto season is upon us and the SW1 rumour mill is working with full force, so I had heard the same rumours about this preposterous suggestion that limitations on jury trial would be dropped into the Bill at Lords Committee. I was, and am still, heartened to see the body language and, no doubt, we will have it from my noble friend’s mouth in her summing up.
Of course, defendants’ rights were well developed in this jurisdiction long before even the European Convention. The drafters of that convention referred to Article 6 as the “English article” because of things such as the presumption of innocence in particular—but this was far less the case in the context of the rights of victims of crime.
I remember that, when I was a young Home Office lawyer in the early 1990s, rape complainants were routinely cross-examined in person by their alleged assailants, sometimes for days on end, at the Old Bailey. They were cross-examined about their sexual history, with judges understandably nervous about interfering, until the commission, as it then was, in Strasbourg, suggested that it might be degrading and inhuman treatment and a new torture for the victim, who was usually a woman—it need not be, but it usually was. It took Article 3 of the convention and a Labour Government’s response to make sure that that should never happen. That is just one example of the many ways in which positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights have animated and accelerated the development of victims’ rights in this country like never before. I put that on the record because it is so infrequently discussed in all the heat and noise around human rights debates in this country at the moment.
In a similar vein, I welcome Clauses 3 to 5, on restricting the parental responsibility of sex offenders who have abused children. There were similar attempts last year, but these measures go further. The House, and in particular my noble friend, will be very comforted by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who is distinguished in that area, as is my noble friend in the context of criminal trial. So, that is very much to be welcomed. I agree that the Explanatory Notes are incorrect but, mercifully, Clause 3 is very clear that it is a crime against any child, not just a crime against one’s own child, that meets the test and triggers the new mandatory requirement to make a prohibited steps order in relation to parental responsibility.
I also welcome the provisions on the victim’s right to make disclosures in the face of the abusive NDAs that have been so much in the public consciousness on both sides of the Atlantic in recent years, and to make representations and receive information. These provisions seem to go further than before, which is important. Perhaps in summing up, my noble friend could comment on my comparison between Section 17 of the 2024 Act and the new provision on non-disclosure. It seems to me that the presumption is now much more in favour of disclosure, and not just to a very limited collection of individuals such as lawyers. The new provision is more open and in favour of public interest disclosure of criminal conduct against victims, which is more in line with amendments that I tabled and supported, along with others. I hope that my noble friend will be able to clarify the comparison between the old and the new provisions. I see this as an improvement and more presumptively in favour of disclosure.
I particularly welcome more teeth for the Victims’ Commissioner and the victims’ code. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, nodding in her place. She will remember that we went to enormous lengths last year to plead for a victims’ code with teeth. Maybe we could seek even more teeth—who knows? At one point I even tabled an amendment that would have created a new consolidated victims’ code. It took a lot of careful typing on my part and a lot of patience from the Public Bill Office, but it was rebuffed by the last Government. What I am particularly heartened by is the duty in this Bill on the Victims’ Commissioner to report on compliance with the victims’ code. A code with no teeth would be in danger of cruelly raising victims’ expectations that were then not met.
I wonder if my noble friend could explain whether, like me, she thinks that the new ability of the Victims’ Commissioner to engage in individual cases that have a broader public policy interest could on occasion involve intervening in high-profile cases, at least on appeal, in the higher courts. That would be a good use of the Victims’ Commissioner’s time. If a very serious point of law that affected victims’ rights were in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, is it anticipated by my noble friend and the Government that the Victims’ Commissioner might, as part of her functions, be able to intervene in that case? That would be incredibly helpful as part of giving teeth to both the commissioner and the code.
I support the provisions on unduly lenient sentences. I know there is some debate about whether they go far enough, but I support them.
I noted my noble friend’s comments on private prosecutions. Obviously, the provisions in the Bill are about costs in certain cases, but I noted—I wrote this down quite carefully—that in her introduction she talked about the right of an individual to bring a private prosecution. That is of course an important right. I think of our friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, and how important it was not just for her and her family but for the whole country that she persevered not just with campaigning but with a private prosecution. That demonstrates graphically the importance of the right of an individual who has been wronged and neglected by the authorities, in the context of policing and prosecution, to bring a case.
However, the other side of the equation is some corporate private prosecutions, about which I am concerned. The Post Office is the most obvious example. That was not an individual who had been wronged; it was a corporation prosecuting for private profit. I have been slightly sceptical about whether it is a right that should be afforded at all to private corporations as opposed to individuals. I just throw that into the air for consideration, but it is not in any way to distract or divert from my support for the Bill. I hope we can give it a safe and speedy passage while allowing enough time for adequate scrutiny and, if necessary, enhancement.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, it is always a bit daunting to speak after one of the lawyers in this place. I am not a lawyer. I, as always, will speak to the Bill from the perspective of poor communities. My first plea to the Minister is to remember that in this country there is a great myth that poor people are the perpetrators of crime, whereas most poor people’s experience of crime is as a victim. It is from that point of view that I come to this debate.
I welcome the Government’s intention to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system; I think I can safely say that that is an objective that we on the Conservative Benches share. However, good intentions are not enough. The test is whether the Bill strengthens public confidence, delivers justice in practice and protects victims, not whether it simply moves more cases through the system. A lot of poorer people are hearing, “The prisons are full and the courts are full, so we won’t bother doing it properly. We’ll just put them through quickly”. I want to be clear that the single greatest driver of crime is the idea that you are going to get away with it. I spent over three decades working in the poorest communities, so I know that crime is committed by a small number of people very regularly, who have the conversation about what risk they are taking. If you are going to put victims at the centre of this, that is one of the key questions you have to answer.
Ministers will say that the system is backed up or clogged up. I accept that the backlog is serious, but removing juries does not fix the cause of this delay. It does not create more judges, more courtrooms or more capacity. Jury trials are not the problem; they are a safeguard. Faster justice can be seen as less legitimate and will weaken confidence. I was one of the people who did the Lammy Review with David Lammy, and he was very strong at the time that poorer communities, particularly non-white communities, feel much safer in front of a jury. If you remove that now, you could be removing the confidence of those communities in our system in its entirety. These are the sections of our public most exposed to criminal behaviour, so we need to think very carefully about what we do on that.
Clause 3 restricts parental responsibility only where a sentence is four years or more. I expect that Ministers will say that they had to draw a line somewhere, and I accept that, but why here? An offender with a sentence of three years and 11 months still remains a serious risk; victims will struggle to understand why safeguarding suddenly applies at four years. If the Government do not explain this logic carefully, public confidence will suffer. The reason I made the comment about speaking after a lawyer is that lawyers have this in their thinking, and they look at the world through the rules they have learned; most poor people are trying to make ends meet. Things need to be simple. Simplicity is fairness, and I want to be clear about that. Most people do not have the time to pore over the fine detail in the way we do in your Lordships’ House.
I welcome improvements in the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but for victims the issue is not intent but access. The current 28-day limit is simply unrealistic for many victims and their families who are grieving, traumatised and trying to navigate a complex legal process. I know Ministers will say that they will keep this under review, but can I gently suggest that victims need certainty not future monitoring?
I want to end on this idea of court backlogs. I return to my theme that getting away with it is the single biggest driver. I expect that Ministers will say that this Bill is not intended to solve every problem in the justice system—of course that is reasonable—but the court backlog is a central problem facing victims today. One of the biggest problems is seeing the perpetrator, as far as you are concerned, walking around “free as a bird”, to use the expression that one young man used with me this morning. That has to be addressed, but this Bill contains little to address it directly. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was very clear about what goes on in court and I think that needs looking at, because the jury system and the speed at which we get people through is why people think the British criminal justice system is the best—particularly people who, in their life experience, may find themselves in front of it.
The Bill contains measures that I welcome, but it also raises serious questions. If the Government’s aim is to rebuild confidence in the criminal justice system, reforms must be logical, coherent and visibly on the side of victims. I look forward to scrutinising the Bill as we go through the process, because I truly believe that the Minister wants to do the right thing. I want to be part of helping that happen, because I believe this is far beyond party shenanigans. This is about what it means to exist in Britain today.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this important Bill to the House, as it gives me the opportunity to speak about the vital specialist support services that victims of abuse and exploitation so desperately need. The picture we see before us with regards to this is a bleak one, far worse than any nation should accept, but with this Bill we have a precious opportunity. We can turn despair into hope and ensure that victims and survivors are finally met with compassion and understanding and get the support they need when they need it.
The Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, which is hosted by Barnardo’s—I declare an interest as vice-president—estimates that 55,000 children and adults are currently on waiting lists for support for child sexual abuse. Alongside this, 23 specialist services have closed in the last 18 months, with only 363 remaining. This leaves, theoretically, a case load of around 16,500 victims per service, which is simply unimaginable.
For so many victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, just seeking help is an act of bravery, yet most will discover that services that can truly understand or empathise with their trauma are few and far between. It is shameful that this has been allowed to happen. Much of the time, victims and supporters are left on a painfully long waiting list and their healing is put on hold. They wonder whether they can bear to reopen old wounds by the time help finally comes.
For domestic abuse, the picture is not much brighter. In 2025, a report by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner revealed that thousands of children are being left with nowhere to turn after experiencing abuse. More than a quarter of these vital services are having to turn children away because they simply do not have the resources to support them. Between 2023 and 2024, over a third of organisations were running an area of the domestic abuse service without any dedicated funding. This is not a system that is putting victims first and certainly not a system that is putting children first.
Some groups, such as women and children and minority individuals, need specialist trauma-informed support which is tailored to their unique needs. It is essential that they have someone there who understands them, believes in them and can help them when they need it most. The specialisms of these services are often a lifeline for victims, as they have the expertise and knowledge to meet their needs, but, unfortunately, many are struggling just to stay afloat.
Children who have experienced unimaginable harm need specialist support which recognises their unique experiences. Instead, they are met with services that cannot offer them the tailored help they require. Victims tell us at Barnardo’s time and time again how crucial it is to speak with counsellors who truly understand their trauma and relevant experiences of abuse and exploitation. Those counsellors need to be commended for their commitment and dedication to making a difference to vulnerable children’s lives, because such child-focused specialist knowledge can transform the direction of a child’s life.
However, research has shown that most mental health services available to child victims are very generalised, leaving them without the expert guidance they need to rebuild their lives. That is why this Bill must include a clear duty on local statutory agencies to commission high-quality specialist support services for victims and their families in line with local needs. These services must also ensure that those with specific requirements, such as women and children, receive support that is tailored for them. Only then will we be able to deliver the national guarantee of support that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse so rightly called for.
No survivor should face a postcode lottery of support. They should not be left holding their pain alone while they wait for help that may never come. When they finally find the courage to speak their truth, we should respond with compassion, understanding and unwavering support. Let us ensure that survivors are never again left to carry their trauma in solitude, but are instead supported to step forward with hope and dignity. As I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime, so let us do everything in our power to eliminate pain and trauma from the lives of all children, which so often can be passed down to their children.
This Bill has the power to help achieve this goal, and we at Barnardo’s are happy to work with the Government to ensure that the support and provision we are calling for become a reality, for the sake of the nation’s children’s happiness and well-being. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill aims to enhance the rights of victims within the criminal justice system, introducing measures to ensure that their voices are heard and offenders are held accountable. As we have heard, it is a brief Bill at only 18 clauses long. As we have also heard in today’s debate, in a number of ways it is not a party-political Bill, because everyone taking part wants to get the best out of the Bill and to move as constructive amendments as possible.
The first point I want to discuss a little more widely is compelling offenders to attend sentencing hearings. For the first time, judges will have the statutory power to order offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. Those who refuse without reasonable excuse may face additional custodial sentences of up to 24 months and additional meaningful sanctions. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and as anyone who has sat in a court knows, it is frequently very difficult to find a balance between making sure that the interest of victims is properly catered for, with the reading of the victim personal statement, and making sure that the offender does not kick off and make the situation much worse. The changes put forward in the Bill are a better framework within which judges can operate, but we need to be frank that judges need to be given discretion where it may not be appropriate, and there should be suitable sanctions if offenders are not turning up for the sentencing hearings.
The powers of the Victims’ Commissioner will be enhanced, allowing them to investigate individual cases, request information from local authorities and publish annual reports on compliance with the victims’ code. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s question about whether the Victims’ Commissioner may be able to intervene in Court of Appeal cases, or something like that, was very interesting. I will be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say about that suggestion. Like all other noble Peers in this debate, I want to pay my tribute to Baroness Newlove; I hope she would see some of the fruits of her work in this Bill. I have no doubt that her successor, Claire Waxman, will do a sterling job as well.
On expanding victim support, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we have all received letters from 16 organisations working in this sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, they are asking for specific things through this Bill: first, requiring local statutory agencies to commission sufficient specialist support services; secondly, ensuring that victims with specific needs, such as women and children, receive high-quality specialist services; and, thirdly, guaranteeing that agencies commission support in line with local victims’ needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, put these points with her usual passion, and I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to say something about those specific requests.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised a very interesting point when she talked about the dovetailing of the Bill with the Government’s VAWG strategy. This is something that I know my noble friend and her colleagues in the Home Office will be talking about a great deal. It is resource intensive, of course, but it really goes to the heart of the Government’s intent in trying to halve the level of violence against women and girls over the next 10 years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about transcripts of sentencing remarks. I really fail to understand why this is such a difficult problem to get over the line. I understand that there is a cost to it and that there are sensitivities, but it is something that the Government should be able to sort out.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, raised a subject that he has raised on other Bills—that is, effectively encouraging some sort of restorative justice at the international corporate level, if I can put it like that. I look forward to him pursuing that, because it is a very interesting idea. To be frank, there was not much take-up of that idea by the previous Government; we will see whether the current Government are more interested in his ideas.
I want to say something about the issue of addressing parental responsibility. The Bill automatically restricts parental responsibility in cases where a child is conceived through rape or where a parent is convicted of serious sexual offences against any child, ensuring that perpetrators do not have a say in critical decisions regarding the child’s welfare. I noted the point that my noble friend made—that up to 20 offenders may be captured by this change in the law, after it goes through. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, gave a number of examples, which I know from my own experience as a family magistrate, where parental responsibility has not been given in the first place or has been withdrawn, usually from fathers. This takes the existing provisions a step further, which I welcome, specifically in cases where the father has been convicted of serious sexual offences. Nevertheless, I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pursuing the practical difficulties of doing this in Committee.
The Bill also seeks to improve transparency and accountability. It introduces measures to modernise the criminal justice system, including flexibility for the Director of Public Prosecutions in appointing Crown Court prosecutors and updating sentencing powers in magistrates’ courts. I have only one point on this, regarding the CILEX members to whom my noble friend referred in her introductory remarks. We should be very clear about this: CILEX members are from more diverse backgrounds than lawyers who are either solicitors or barristers, and that is to be welcomed. I am sure there is an ambition to have more diverse people acting as prosecutors, and this is a route to achieve that. It is not just about increasing the numbers, which of course is welcome in itself; it is also a route to achieve greater diversity. I noted my noble friend’s assurance that there will be no dilution in standards, so it is a welcome move by the Government.
In conclusion, this is a good Bill, and I hope that it will increase trust and confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole. I look forward to taking part more constructively when we move to Committee.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I always find it slightly daunting, when speaking towards the end of a debate, to follow so many eminent noble Lords. In my short time in this place, I have learned that your Lordships do not like needless repetition, so I will absolutely attempt to abide by that stricture.
The first observation I make, while broadly welcoming the Bill, is that nobody really expects to be a victim of crime. It is not something that ever really appears in our political debates, that politicians major on when they make election campaign promises, or that appears in the media with great regularity. But when someone is a victim of crime they very often find themselves being badly failed by the services that are supposed to be there to support them and which they assumed would be there. Until they need to use them, they do not understand what is actually going on in the system.
I served as a Minister in the Home Office and in the Ministry of Justice, and it is a huge privilege to hear from victims who are brave enough to come forward and speak about their experiences. I and, I know, many others welcome the Government’s work on strengthening support and services for those victims. When victims come forward to speak about those things, they exhibit a huge amount of bravery. We can learn a lot from that. That is how we go forward, tailor the services and get it right for them in the future.
As people have said, this is not a party-political point. We made some progress towards improving services for victims under the previous Government. We quadrupled legal aid for victims, enshrined the victims’ code in law and began the task of unpicking automatic halfway early release for serious offenders, but there was always more to do. It was the start point, not the end point, of a journey.
I have a couple of key concerns about the Bill, particularly around rape and serious sexual offences. I will add my comments to what others have said about the window for victims to apply to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. I do not think that 28 days is enough. Will the Government please look again at the issue of court transcripts? As so many others have said, those really need to be provided in cases such as that of the grooming gangs. It will give confidence to everybody in the system.
Attendance at sentencing is so important. It is just fantastic that the Government are doing this, taking forward some of the early steps that we took in the previous Government. I too have some knowledge of Zara Aleena’s case. Her family said that when their niece’s killer did not appear in court, it was a slap in the face to them. They wanted the killer, McSweeney, to face his actions. They felt it was so important for them. They wanted him to hear what impact his despicable actions had had on their family and how he had destroyed them as a family. I really hope that, in the name of them and so many others, we can get that done as a Parliament and help those people.
There are some operational difficulties around this that we will look forward to working with the Government on. If police officers are required to enforce attendance, they should be issued with stab vests and tasers. They need to have the right kit so that they can do it, otherwise there is a worry about the use of the defence of reasonableness and appropriateness. We have all seen that people sometimes use that to get away from actually doing what they need to do, which is facing justice in open court.
Before I conclude, I ask the Minister to reflect on some really important work that the previous Government did on rape prosecutions. It might be slightly outwith the scope of the Bill but, against the backdrop of the work that the Government are doing on the VAWG strategy and on the court system as a whole, we introduced an operation called Operation Soteria. We worked with the Crown Prosecution Service, with police forces across the country and with the courts. We were improving the experience of rape victims when they went into court and the pace at which those trials moved through the court system. By the time I left the role, we had City St George’s perform an objective study, which found that that operation had objectively improved both the time it takes for those cases to come to court and the experience of victims. I would be really interested and grateful if the Minister could touch on that when she comes to sum up, or else write to me about how that work has been taken forward and how it fits into the wider plans.
The Government are completely right in their ambition to tackle the backlog of 74,000 cases at the Crown Court, but I think the public will find it extraordinary that we are looking at getting rid of jury trials, or even magistrates’ trials, when we know that there are courts sitting empty. The Minister shakes her head, so perhaps she will address that when she responds. As I have said, I look forward to seeing the Bill go forward and to working with the Government and others. I very much hope that victims outside here will see that we are doing our job and standing up for them.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I will say a few words in the gap; I have notified the clerk. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, because I spoke in the gap very recently just before he was about to speak. I ask for his tolerance.
I did not put my name down for this debate, because I thought other speakers would cover all the essential features. The Minister did a marvellous job to cover all the major issues in the Bill in her opening speech, so I was right about that. Led by the Minister, this House has done very well to cover all the major points of the Bill. However, while I sat and listened to this debate, my attention was drawn to Clause 3, in which the Crown Court is under a duty to make a prohibited steps order where a serious sexual offence has been committed. Effectively, that means that contact is prohibited between the offender and the damaged child or their family. When one contemplates it—for example, when a father commits a vile sexual offence on a son or daughter—one can see exactly why the introduction of this offence in Clause 3 is to be greatly welcomed.
However, my concern is the stipulation that the offender must have had a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of four years or more. Surely this clause should be drafted differently; it should be when a sexual offence has taken place and the offender has been convicted for that. There is a loosening up in new subsection (5), which states that the prohibited steps order can still be made when
“the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal, or … the sentence is reduced, on appeal, so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment … of 4 years or more”.
There is a loosening up. It seems that the straightforward principle is that, when an offender has been convicted of a serious sexual crime, it should be sufficient to trigger the right of the Crown Court to introduce prohibited steps.
I end by saying that this is a very difficult area. I am heavily involved in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, in which there is a provision preventing a parent, under certain circumstances, having contact with the child. In that case, the party who approached me explained that the father is the offender but he has not yet been convicted because the DPP’s decision has not yet been made to make that conviction. There is always a difficulty of proof when a young child has been molested. I wonder whether this provision should not be further extended when there has not been a conviction.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I speak in the gap to acknowledge that the Bill has many virtues; I cannot enumerate them better than the Minister and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst have done. We have heard many valuable contributions in this debate, and I cannot begin to respond to them as elegantly as my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie will. I cannot bring the front-line experience of dealing with violence against women and girls as effectively as my noble friend Lady Maclean has done to this debate. But I can bring one thing: an appreciation, from my time in the Ministry of Justice, that the single most important thing for victims is not the advocacy of the Victims’ Commissioner, welcome as that is, or the support of victims’ services, valuable as that is; it is effective, speedy justice, with high-quality prosecutions of those who deserve to face the highest sanctions for their criminal acts.
We know that the area where the justice system most poorly serves our citizens is rape and serious sexual offences, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out. We know, from the most recent report by the inspectorate looking at the work of the Crown Prosecution Service that early contact with victims made by the CPS is still tragically far from the level that the CPS and victims would like to see. We know also that the CPS faces constraints in the quality of people whom it can employ, and above all, the criminal Bar—those experts who deal most effectively and most sensitively with these cases—is facing a drought, with a quarter of people at the criminal Bar having departed and a further quarter potentially likely to depart.
That is why I am concerned that in the Bill the CPS is given the power to increase the number of those working as prosecutors by potentially diluting the quality threshold and bringing in, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, pointed out, those who have other qualifications. That change may be justified on the basis of diversity. I want to see changes justified on the basis of efficiency.
What are the Government doing to ensure that we can reverse the flight from the criminal Bar and that we can continue to make it an area where our very best lawyers see their careers developing? When there are vital questions of guilt or innocence, or horrific crimes such as those my noble friend Lady Maclean mentioned, nothing is more important than ensuring that we have the best possible prosecutors as well as the accused having the best possible defence. There is no question but that the criminal Bar provides it. Whether or not there are gifted solicitor advocates and CILEX-trained individuals have skills, no one is as well equipped as those who are either called to the English and Welsh Bar or who are advocates in Scotland. Unless and until we can have that guarantee, I fear that we once again have another measure to dilute quality and cut costs, with justice, unfortunately, being the victim.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I say at the outset that, as far as the speakers in the gap are concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, need not fear to intervene in the gap, as he has done on other occasions before my speaking. He is always very welcome. It was very good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Gove, speaking in the gap, with his experience and showing above all that this is very much a non-party-political debate. We are all worried about the concerns he expressed.
From these Benches, as my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Hamwee in particular have said, we broadly welcome the Bill. Just by way of introduction, for too long, victims in our criminal courts were largely ignored and unprotected by the system and were, frankly, shamefully treated as bit-part players in the business of criminal justice as no more than witnesses. When offenders pleaded guilty, they were often not even informed about the date and place of trial. Certainly, they were not given an opportunity to make any meaningful contribution to the procedure of the case.
Recent years, however, have seen a great deal of welcome change. The introduction of victim impact statements and the attention that is now paid to them; the establishment of the office of the Victims’ Commissioner, given statutory authority in 2004; and the formal introduction of the victims’ code and its statutory strengthening by the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 have all been important milestones along the way. Now we genuinely have a system that seeks to put victims of crime at its heart, but in many ways this important ambition is not achieved in practice. It is hoped that the measures in the Bill will close some of the gaps, but certainly not all of them.
I join everyone else in paying a warm tribute to Baroness Newlove, with whom I worked on a number of important measures to improve our system. She had such an important influence on the criminal justice system and on public awareness of the importance of victims and of looking after them in society as a whole. I welcome the appointment of Claire Waxman to the post; she has done a wonderful job as Victims’ Commissioner for London, and I believe that she will do a wonderful job as Victims’ Commissioner.
The Bill takes forward the Government’s intention to strengthen the position of victims, and it fits particularly with their ambition to halve violence against women and girls. Among the most important and welcome provisions of the Bill are those in Clauses 3 to 5, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, pointed out, and Schedules 1 and 2 that go with them; they include restricting parental responsibility for convicted sex offenders committing offences against children and requiring the court to make a prohibited steps order. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about the good sense and the likely utility of these measures. We welcome them and the general valuable protection of vulnerable children who are at risk of violence or abuse from convicted offenders.
I am bound to add one note of caution, however: on these Benches we would prefer to see greater discretion in the courts about the making of prohibited steps orders. Sometimes we resort too quickly to mandatory requirements where those may not be necessary or appropriate in every case.
I turn to non-disclosure agreements and the measures in Clause 6 for avoiding unacceptable provisions in such agreements. It is clear that NDAs have often been misused—often, but not always, in the context of employment—and used to prevent victims and direct witnesses from reporting behaviour that is patently criminal. Kinds of behaviour that should be reported but where NDAs can be used to silence victims are abuse, including sexual abuse, bullying, and racial, religious or sex discrimination. Some protection of victims has been offered by the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, but Clause 6 will strengthen the protection for victims and direct witnesses, and it is welcome.
It is a major step forward that the victim contact scheme is to be strengthened. This will make it easier for victims to be kept informed about the release of perpetrators; in particular, it will introduce a dedicated helpline for victims. Victims of stalkers, for example, shamefully have been ignored too often in the past. They have had good reason to complain about the lack of information they have been entitled to receive. I note the important contribution of my noble friend Lady Brinton in the past.
It is right that the definition of victims should be widened, as it will be by Schedule 2, to include bereaved family members and children who have witnessed domestic abuse. We would like to see a reporting obligation on the working of the victim contact scheme to include reports on its accessibility to victims and on its uptake. We would like to see proposals for improvement of the scheme made public on a regular basis.
Strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner to give the commissioner the power to act in the general public interest where particular cases or circumstances or the plight of particular victims raise questions of general importance will broaden the commissioner’s office to enable her to work more effectively in the public interest.
I have not so far mentioned as particularly important the powers in Clauses 1 and 2 to compel the attendance of defendants at their sentencing hearings. Of course I agree with the Government that defendants should be obliged to attend sentencing hearings, and I recognise the importance to victims of obliging offenders to look them in the eye, as the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, mentioned in opening. Victim impact needs to be understood by the public and by defendants, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said. So of course the court should have the power to order defendants to attend such hearings, and it is right that they should do so and right that those who fail to do so should be penalised.
But is there any real point in including a power, as the Bill does, for a prison or custody officer to use reasonable force to compel such attendance? What force is reasonable for that purpose? We have read press stories of offenders being likely to be bound and gagged to bring them to court. Indeed, these were fuelled and reinforced by amendments the Conservatives introduced in the Commons to sanction such treatment—a concept that may have been supported today by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, although I am not sure he meant to go as far as perhaps he did.
I question whether we wish to risk giving offenders the chance of appearing publicly as martyrs and making the criminal justice system into a public spectacle of what could be seen or portrayed as oppression, whether fairly or unfairly. Far better, I suggest, to make the order to treat non-compliance as contempt, as the Bill suggests; to allow judicial discretion, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, suggested; and to sanction it with reasonable but not excessive extra time in custody or financial penalties as appropriate, just as we would for other contempts of court. Unusually, in this case I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that extra sentences would not act as a deterrent to defendants thinking of avoiding their sentencing hearings. I suspect I share the doubt of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, about the use of force.
I turn to a number of amendments to the Bill that we wish to see and propose to introduce. First, we need to be sure that victim support services will be improved by these measures and adequately funded. My noble friend Lady Hamwee made some important points on victim support services and the degree to which provision needs to be made, increased and properly resourced. We would want to see not just national government but local authorities required to produce victim support strategies for meeting the needs of victims of offences relating to domestic or family-related abuse, sexual offences or child criminal exploitation in their areas. My noble friend Lady Benjamin talked of trauma-informed support for victims, particularly child victims. We want to see reports on support services for victims as they are developed, especially for child victims. But such reports should also include the carers for victims, whether they be for children or for elderly or disabled victims of crime.
We will also introduce an amendment seeking a commitment to make transcripts of sentencing remarks and summings up available to victims. I agree with those who suggested that a solution based on new technology and AI may make it easier, but the availability of transcripts is very important and should not be put off by a supposed lack of resources. I welcome the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, both on the importance of transcripts and on the lack of validity of the excuse that the cost is a justifiable reason for failing to address this issue.
No one who heard the sentencing today of Paul Doyle by Judge Menary, to more than 21 years’ imprisonment for the dreadful road rage attack on the Liverpool Football Club victory parade, could fail to realise the need for public awareness of sentencing and its justification. While public awareness is vital, victim understanding is just as important—even more so. The provision of transcripts and of sentencing hearings is therefore a crucial service.
I look forward to considering the important amendments to be moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, on improving our provisions for compensation in a corporate context. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, put that in the frame of restorative justice. I agree with him that that is an interesting and sensible way of introducing this topic and of taking the approach that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, suggests.
We also support the amendment proposed in the House of Commons by Joshua Reynolds MP to amend the victims’ code to ensure that it will apply to assisting relatives of victims of murder or manslaughter committed abroad.
On the unduly lenient sentence scheme, my noble friend Lady Brinton outlined the degree to which we do not believe that the short extra time to be given to the Attorney-General to introduce an application goes far enough. There is, I suggest, no reason in principle why the unduly lenient sentence scheme should not ensure that questioning the leniency of sentences is as available as appeals against excessive sentences are available to offenders.
Before closing, I say this: for all the merits of this Bill, as my noble friend Lady Brinton and others have highlighted, it exposes a glaring failure in the Government’s approach to the criminal justice system: the failure to take sufficient measures to address the delays in the criminal justice system which have led to the current appalling court backlogs. As the last speaker in the gap, the noble Lord, Lord Gove, said that the most important thing for victims is speedy and effective justice, and he emphasised the importance of the qualified criminal Bar in providing that.
The delay in court hearings has been the starkest denial of victims’ rights to justice that we can imagine, as the depressing prevalence of abandoned cases in the face of delay attests, and that is particularly so in the case of sexual offences. For every victim in a case that is abandoned because it is not brought to trial in a reasonable time, that is a denial of justice. It is a betrayal by society of that victim, who justifiably loses any confidence that the system or the state is on the victim’s side.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, in what was an important speech, said that no one expects to be a victim of crime. She highlighted the lack of political attention that crime therefore attracts. That also means that she highlighted the lack of resources allocated by government to criminal justice as a result.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, said about the importance of not just cutting but ending these disastrous delays. Like him, I do not accept that the only way of cutting delays is by restricting jury trials, which I regard as extremely important. It is a question of resources, of efficiency, and of being more adventurous in the ways we deal with this. It is a question of more court sitting days and more hours; of better repair and refurbishment of disused and decrepit buildings; of ensuring that we do not have courts standing empty; and of ensuring that we have more barristers, solicitors, judges, all properly remunerated and attracted to continue the work they do in their professional lives.
On efficiency, we need to improve prison delivery services and all those wasteful things that cause endless adjournments. Prosecutors need to avoid overcharging when that will make no difference to ultimate disposal or sentence. We need to make more use of new technology for listing, for pre-trial hearings and for evidence preparation and presentation, making cases more economic. We need to have an overall inventive approach. If we do that and cut the delays, we will be doing more for victims than what we do in the Bill. Meanwhile, what we do in the Bill is of course extremely important, and that is why, generally, we welcome it and will seek to improve it.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, victims demand effective and speedy justice, and we should deliver effective and speedy legislation.
We welcome many measures in the Bill which build on the previous Government’s efforts in the Criminal Justice Bill and in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. Clearly, this Bill is intended to put victims first when addressing issues of justice and to enhance their voice in the criminal justice process. It is vital that victims are heard and that the justice system is transparent and accessible to victims. That includes, in particular, how offenders are sentenced and how victims can access the information given by the court on that issue.
We are grateful for many of the provisions in the Bill and for the fact that the Government have been open to constructive suggestions during its passage, resulting in new clauses and clarifications that have now been added to it. Indeed, we are supportive of the steps taken by the Government to strengthen the Bill’s approach to parental responsibility so that restrictions apply to offenders who have committed offences against any child rather than just their own.
There are, however, certain areas where we believe that there is further scope still for the Bill’s provisions to be improved, and there are several important points upon which the Bill is silent. In particular, that touches upon the issue of justice delayed being justice denied—a point made by a number of noble Lords.
There is also the parallel development of legislation going through this House that was touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee: in particular, the Sentencing Bill. It is important to be clear that, although this Bill puts victims at the centre of justice, there is concern that the Sentencing Bill currently passing through this House tends to do the opposite. Under the suspended sentence presumption in the Sentencing Bill, many offenders who would previously have gone to prison will now remain in the community. For victims, this often means living alongside the offenders, seeing them in the street, in local shops and in shared public spaces. This is not an abstract policy choice but in fact a daily reality for the victims of crime. Can a system that leaves victims to live with the consequences of offending in this way really claim to put victims first? This is perhaps a tension between the Government’s victims Bill and their proposed sentencing provisions.
Turning to the clauses of the Bill itself, we are broadly supportive of Clause 1 on sentencing. Sentencing is not a purely administrative act but a moment of public accountability. For victims, the sentencing hearing is often the first and only opportunity to see an offender confronted with the true consequences of their actions, and their physical presence in court matters to victims. Indeed, the absence of an offender at sentencing, particularly where it is deliberate, can no doubt exacerbate the victim’s trauma arising out of the original offence.
With regard to the specific provisions, there is a reference to reasonable force being employed to bring an individual into court. That raises question marks of onus. Will it be for the police officer to prove that only reasonable force was employed? It might be more appropriate to approach this on the basis that such force as is necessary will be employed, provided that it is not disproportionate. That would be a safety net for police officers, who might very often be accused of using unnecessary force in the situation that they are faced with. There is also a need to ensure that police and prison officers, who are already under significant pressure, are provided with the appropriate instruction, training and means to carry out this task. That will need to be addressed in due course.
Turning to Clauses 3 to 5 on the restriction of parental responsibility, we generally support the Government’s steps in this area, as I indicated earlier. It is, as the Government consider it, an important child protection measure. But there is a question mark as to the four-year threshold provision, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. Are we otherwise to throw the onus back on the family court to address this issue? Equally, are interim measures to be left to the family court to determine and deal with? We hope these issues will be addressed going forward in discussion with the Minister. I look forward to that opportunity.
On Clauses 6 and 7 on victims’ rights, again we are broadly supportive of these measures. It is essential that we extend these measures in order that victims can be confident that their interests and concerns are being properly dealt with.
Some criticism was made of the length of Schedule 2. It is only fair to observe that Schedule 2 is of such length because of the attendant number of existing statutory measures that are required to be amended, which maybe does not reflect very well on our existing statutory provision but is the necessary consequence of having so many diverse provisions that touch on this very issue. There are one or two issues that we want to raise with the Minister in due course. For example, Schedule 2 requires certain parties to take such steps as they “consider appropriate”, which seems rather open- ended. We hope that in time the Minister will have an opportunity to address that sort of issue in Schedule 2 so that we can be reassured as to the effectiveness of these measures going forward.
On Clauses 8 to 10, with respect to the position of the Victims’ Commissioner, we are broadly supportive of all these measures and acknowledge the very considerable contribution that was made in this regard by the late Baroness Newlove. We look forward to her replacement with the experience that she has had as Victims’ Commissioner for London.
Clause 11 deals with the extension of the right to prosecute to those other than qualified solicitors or barristers. I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, that by extending this to those with CILEX qualifications we will increase diversity. That is to be welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Gove, is also undoubtedly correct that the provision will dilute qualification. The question is whether it will dilute the quality of prosecution. That will have to be monitored with very conspicuous care going forward. I look forward to the Minister explaining to us how the Government will seek to monitor that. It is important that we have Crown prosecutors available, but equally they should be of a quality and standard to ensure fair and effective prosecution. That is a matter for the interests of victims and for society as a whole.
I turn briefly to Clause 12, which deals with the introduction of regulations to set rates of remuneration in the case of private prosecutions. Let it be noted that private prosecutions are a very significant and important aspect of overall prosecutions within our courts. Such matters as shoplifting, for example, which are a scourge upon society and the high street, are generally taken up as prosecutions privately by major institutions. Indeed, in the case of fraud, again private prosecutions play a very important part, not just in respect of minor fraud but very often in the case of major fraud, which is extremely expensive to prosecute.
The Minister said that what would be introduced would be fairer, with safeguards and so on. I wonder if she is being a little economical when she describes the matter in that way. I take as my guide the Explanatory Notes, which
“have been prepared by Ministry of Justice in order to assist the reader”—
in this case, myself. If we look at the Explanatory Notes, we are reminded that, in the case of a private prosecution, it is provided by the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 that there will be “reasonably sufficient” compensation to the prosecutor as required. The Legal Aid Agency monitors this matter, and it employs the Senior Courts Cost Office guidelines for solicitors in respect of such costs. Those particular costs have been the subject of review by the Master of the Rolls, pursuant to a recommendation from the Civil Justice Council, so that in 2021 those rates were increased for the first time in 11 years. There is now a provision for them to be reviewed annually in line with the services producer price index.
Consequently, those reasonable rates of remuneration are now about five times higher than the criminal legal aid rates. That has nothing to do with the reasonableness of remuneration for those undertaking private prosecution; it has everything to do with the poverty of the criminal legal aid rates that are in place at the present time. You do not encourage the very formidable burden of private prosecution by trying to bring down a reasonable level of remuneration to what is, frankly, a poverty level of remuneration that has had, and continues to have, a very significant impact on the prosecution of criminal offences in our courts. It is not just physical buildings; you have to invest in people as well as property. We have failed singularly to invest in people, and that has to be improved. I would rather see a victims provision that said we are going to pay a reasonable rate to those undertaking criminal prosecution, so that we can get adequate prosecutors and so that we can get adequate defence counsel, than to say that, in order to try to remove this embarrassing disparity, we will try to impoverish those who take up the burden of private prosecution.
Of course, the Minister said this will have no chilling effect on private prosecutions. I merely raise the question: where is the impact assessment? Perhaps we will hear in due course.
I move on to Clauses 13 and 14, which deal with sentencing reviews. With regard to unduly lenient sentencing, a number of noble Lords have observed that there is a need for transcripts to be available to victims in order that they can understand how a sentence was arrived at and, if necessary, make a request to the law officers that a ULS review should be carried out. In that context, I have no difficulty with the suggestion that the Attorney-General should have 14 days from the time of the request in order to deal with that matter. But, while I accept that the unduly lenient sentence mechanism is not an appeal mechanism for victims, it is a means by which victims can make a request of the law officers, and they have to be given a reasonable period of time to do that. I acknowledge the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that, for that to be effective, there has to be a more realistic time limit available.
I turn briefly to matters which we say should properly be in the Bill but are not yet there, although I look forward to their introduction in due course, possibly at the instigation of the Minister herself.
First, there are no provisions to address the courts backlog. Let us be clear that, without any doubt, that is the greatest barrier to victims achieving justice, disposal and closure. We know that there are many Crown courtrooms that are not sitting on a single day, indicating that there is at least the property capacity to deal with it. I equally acknowledge the need for not just property but personnel. It would be good to see that fundamental problem addressed in the Bill as well. I also note that, where offers of additional court sitting days have been made by the Lady Chief Justice, they have not been fully taken up by the Government. It would be helpful to know why not, given the enormous backlog that we face at the present time.
Secondly, there is no real provision for increased transparency. Again, we come back to the issue of court transcripts. It appears to us that there is at least perhaps a halfway house: I appreciate that, very often, the Government will come up with the cost implications of transcripts as well as the time implications, but surely there is scope for a mechanism whereby, if victims request a transcript of sentencing remarks, the court should be able to request that transcript as soon as the request is made. It would not be in every case, by any means, and it would curtail both costs and delay.
The third area, touched on in the other place, is data on who actually commits crimes. The Bill contains no provision that mandates the collection and publication of data on offenders’ visa status, asylum status or related immigration information. That is important from the point of view of public perception and victims’ perception. To what extent is crime going to be committed by those who have come into this country unlawfully, for example? You have to satisfy public concern on that issue, and the appropriate way to do that is by collecting the appropriate data.
There is then the question of the need to recoup outstanding fines. I understand that at the present time there is something in the region of £1 billion in outstanding fines, and recovering that could only help the Ministry of Justice in its improvement of courts services and of legal aid rates, surely. But the scale of unpaid fines is “truly astounding”. Those are not my words: I am quoting the London Victims’ Commissioner. Surely some further steps need to be taken in that regard.
That question of fines then comes to the issue of overseas corruption, which was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. I listened with interest to the point he made, and has previously made, about the need to ensure compensation for the countries that are the victims of corruption. I look forward to considering the amendments which he has made it clear he intends to bring forward in that regard.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, mentioned the possible concern that the issue of jury trials would be dropped into the Committee’s amendments. My understanding is that, as a matter of precedent, that never, ever happens, and what happens is that, if someone wishes to see an amendment, they indicate that they will bring it back on Report. In any event, I do not anticipate that the premature and perhaps ill-thought-out proposals that have emanated from the Ministry of Justice on the limitations to jury trial will come before the House any time soon—but, if they do, I have no doubt they will meet with the most robust response.
Before closing, I thank the Minister for the clarity with which she presented the Bill. I look forward to further engagement with her on its terms.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the helpful and constructive approach taken to the Bill—and I really mean it when I say that. Many of those who have spoken this evening have enormous expertise in this area and the contributions are very welcome. Many of the points made have given us food for thought and we will reflect on them. I hope to answer most of the matters raised but, if I do not, I will write to the noble Lord in question.
I hope that I shall be forgiven if I single out one of your Lordships for the matters he raised—the noble Lord, Lord Bailey. He spoke very movingly in reminding us about the disproportionate effect of criminal offences on poorer communities. It is good to be reminded of that, and also of how important it is that there is clarity for citizens. I am often acutely aware that sometimes when I am trying to explain one of the provisions in a piece of legislation, even to those in this House with the enormous expertise they have, I do not explain it very well. It was a very well-made point and one that I shall take away.
I will deal first with non-attendance at sentencing hearings, which was spoken to by many of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. My noble friend Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, who I thank for her kind words, asked whether the power to add additional custodial sentences would have an impact on the issue of prison capacity. We envisage that any impact would not be immediate, because any additional time in custody would be served at the end of the offender’s existing sentence. We estimate that the measure would result in five additional prison places, at a steady state around 12 years after implementation.
Also, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby spoke about balance and proportionality in requiring defendants to attend their sentencing hearing. We agree with that because, although we are doing our best to compel defendants to attend, if they do attend, we cannot compel them either to behave properly or, indeed, to experience or express contrition for what they have done. For some victims, a defendant who turns up and laughs or is disrespectful or shouts discourteous things can add to a victim’s problems. So, we need to make sure that we strike the balance between forcing them to attend and ensuring that there is no bad behaviour that will simply make things worse for victims.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, among others, raised the question of risk to those who are dealing with the question of reasonable force. Let me make it clear that it is not police officers. It will be prison staff and PECS —Prison Escort and Custody Services—staff. They already have training and experience in dealing with the question of reasonable force when it comes to getting offenders to court. It will be their assessment that counts. It will not be the judge who decides what kind of force will be used, or whether it will be used: it will be down to the assessment of the staff as to what the risk is. We have made it absolutely clear that we do not expect any additional risk to staff. That is not the purpose of the exercise. This is why it has to be proportionate. We are certainly not binding and gagging defendants to bring them to court. That would not be appropriate and we are not turning this into some kind of sideshow, which was the expression that somebody used.
Turning to the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility mentioned by numerous noble Lords, I make the point in response to my noble friend Lord Hacking that parental responsibility is not the same as parental involvement. The removal of parental responsibility does not mean that those parents will never see those children again. That would be a matter for the family courts to decide. What it does mean is that, for example, a defendant who is serving a very long sentence of imprisonment cannot simply interfere with questions such as which school the child will go to, and so on and so forth.
I thank noble Lords for the broad welcome given to these provisions. A number of points were made, including by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about the Explanatory Notes. I am sorry about that. We will check that we have got them right by Report.
On the question of four years, a number of noble Lords made the observation about a line having to be drawn somewhere. These are new and radical provisions, and we want to balance the seriousness of an automatic restriction with the seriousness of the crime and the impact it will have on the child. We made the assessment that, as this was not a decision to be taken lightly, it should be done only in tightly restricted circumstances, and four years seems to us to strike the correct balance regarding the seriousness of the offence. The other issue is that we want to make sure that the system is not overwhelmed by the number of cases. However, these are certainly matters upon which we can reflect.
A number of noble Lords raised interim orders. My immediate response is that they would pose difficulties for the Crown Court. First, what is the evidence upon which it would act? Secondly, they would drag the Crown Court into decisions that are properly those of the family court. However, we can certainly reflect on this matter, and we will be happy to discuss it with as many noble Lords as wish to do so.
I am grateful to those who broadly welcomed the non-disclosure agreements. I was asked where these differ from those brought in under Section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act, which came into force on 1 October. The new measures go further. Basically, they mean that those subject to a non-disclosure agreement can speak to anyone, not simply to categories of individuals. The most important thing is that this aligns with and complements the legislation in the Employment Rights Bill. That is the purpose of it.
On strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti asked whether the commissioner would be able to intervene in individual cases. That is not anticipated at present because really that is the function of the Crown Prosecution Service; if there are points of law to be made on behalf of victims, that is part of the function of the CPS. Again, though, we can reflect on this question, and if she would like to meet me to discuss this, she would be welcome to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, spoke about never expecting to be a victim. As the noble Baroness was saying that, I reflected that of course that was the experience of the late Baroness Newlove; she never expected to be a victim but the events of one evening meant that she was propelled into a situation that she had never envisaged at all. However, when it comes to the idea that victims do not get a lot of attention, there are a number of Bills going through both Houses of Parliament that deal with law and order, so I suggest that this Government are giving a lot of attention to the question of victims.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that victims used to be seen simply as a special category of witness. In fact, he and I are both probably old enough to remember a time when prosecuting advocates were not even allowed to go and introduce themselves to the victim of a crime, far less explain anything about what was going on. I am happy to say that that is not the situation any longer. Successive Governments, and I pay tribute to all those involved, have sought to put this right, and I pay tribute to the party opposite for the part it has played in ensuring that victims have been brought more centrally into the system.
As far as Operation Soteria is concerned, which the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, mentioned, many of its provisions are being taken further. We announced recently that we are going to firm up the rules of evidence about what victims can be asked regarding their previous sexual experience and so forth.
I turn to the victim contact scheme in Schedule 2. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, complained how long Schedule 2 was. I was going to say that the reason is that it tidies up a load of other provisions but then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, made that point for me.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised support for victims, and that was echoed by a number of noble Lords, including, in her customary passionate fashion, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. We will reflect on this point. I issue an invitation to any Members of your Lordships’ House who would like to discuss any proposed amendments with me. I will be happy to do so and see where we can work together to ensure that there is appropriate provision to be made for victims.
On Crown prosecutors, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for raising the point that CILEX members tend to be more diverse than barristers and solicitors. I deliberately did not make that point because that is not the primary objective; it is a happy side effect. I make it absolutely clear that this will not reduce standards. I invite noble Lords to reflect on their comments that suggest that CILEX lawyers are somehow less good than barristers or solicitors. They simply qualify via a different route. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, shaking his head and remind him that people used to say that solicitors were inferior to barristers; I do not think anybody is going to say that any more.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Gove, did not say it now, but in the past that used to be said. We have moved on.
Lord Gove (Con)
There is absolutely no doubt, when it comes to the exercise of the prosecutorial or the defence function in court, that someone who has served at the criminal Bar will provide a higher level of service in the most sensitive and most important cases. A misplaced respect for the role that solicitor advocates can play and have played should not take away from the fact that the criminal Bar is under siege. It is losing members. It needs support and it is vital that we recognise that, without a healthy criminal Bar, not just prosecution and defence but the future of the judiciary are threatened.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I have tried very hard to keep this non-partisan, but I have to say very gently to the noble Lord that it is a bit rich to hear from a member of the party opposite about what has happened to the criminal Bar, when pretty much everybody who was working there at the time—that includes me—knows it was the considerable cuts made to legal aid under the previous Administration that put the criminal Bar into the parlous state it is now in. But I say no more about that contentious subject, because this is not an opportunity for us to fall out. The noble Lord and I can debate the respective merits of barristers, solicitors and CILEX lawyers in due course.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti about the importance of private prosecutions and entirely understand her concerns. I hope she is aware that the Government intend to look at some of the issues, for example, that surround disclosure in private prosecutions. We all know the cases to which I refer. She said she has reservations about corporate private prosecutions. I was about to say something, then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, rather made the point for me that some very important commercial organisations have brought private prosecutions in relation to quite big frauds—sometimes very big frauds indeed. Economic crime is one of the scourges of our society. The investigation and prosecution of those crimes consumes a huge amount of public resource. The Government are certainly of the view that there is a place for private prosecution to help to ensure that economic crime is prosecuted successfully.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, drew my attention to the Explanatory Notes—again—as did the noble Lord, Lord Meston. If we have got them wrong, we will correct them by Report.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I was not suggesting for a moment that the Explanatory Notes are wrong; they just happen to contradict the Minister.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I would, of course, always say that I am right, would I not? In that sense, they are wrong.
The noble and learned Lord made the point about needing to invest in people. I will give another gentle reminder about who was in power for the past 14 years.
Turning to the question of the unduly lenient scheme, I entirely agree with noble Lords that there is no point in having a right that nobody knows they have, and we plainly are not getting this right in terms of information. It needs to be more broadly known about. The question of whether 28 days is the appropriate period is one to which the Government are giving urgent consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, said that it should be made the same as for defendants. It is: they have 28 days. That is where the period came from: there is parity between the two. But that does not necessarily mean it must remain.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
As the noble Baroness knows, the period for appeal is extendable in certain circumstances. That is quite an important provision.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
That is very rare. If you appeal out of time, you have pretty much had it. You need to have a really good reason to do so. I now turn to—
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
It would be my pleasure to hear from both my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My noble friend is very gracious, but I fear there is a new trend which is not the practice of your Lordships’ House: to have an extended back and forth at Second Reading. I know this may be the practice of another place not far from here but, with all due respect to noble Lords and to my noble friend with her good humour and fortitude, I am not sure that that is something that we should innovate this evening.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I was only going to support the Minister. One of the differences between an appeal by a defendant in a criminal matter and the unduly lenient sentencing system is that anybody can write to the law officers to complain that a sentence is unduly lenient. Many of the people that the Minister and I may have dealt with in the past wrote in having read an article in a newspaper saying that a particular defendant had been given what they thought was a lenient sentence. Nobody does that to appeal a criminal sentence as a defendant.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
Turning to what is not in the Bill, I of course recall that the Crime and Policing Bill—the Ministry of Justice has some of the clauses in relation to that—has been extensively criticised for being too long. This Bill is now being criticised for being too short—so there is a slight sense of being criticised whichever way we do it.
I will deal with some of the matters that were raised in relation to this. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked whether we intend to bring in the sections in the Victims and Prisoners Act dealing with definitions. I hope that I may write to her in relation to that, because some parts have been implemented and some others are planned to be implemented. I do not want to give her an answer that might turn out not to be entirely accurate.
On the question of homicide abroad, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we are conscious of this being an issue. As I am sure the noble Baroness knows, we are working on a code to give assistance to families abroad. The question of whether the victims’ code is going to apply is difficult, because many of the provisions in the victims’ code deal only with cases that can be prosecuted in this country and therefore would not apply. Again, it is a matter that we are considering and reflecting on and we will be very happy to engage with her and other noble Lords in relation to that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, raised the question of compensation for economic crimes abroad, such as corruption. I entirely agree with him about the importance of not forgetting about the effect of these cases on other countries. In the circumstances, it might be best for me to suggest that we meet to discuss it, because it is an important matter to which I would like to give some serious thought.
Transcripts were raised by many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Transparency is really important to the Government. That is one of the reasons we are now going to make the magistrates’ court a court of record: there will be recordings of all proceedings in order to shine a light on what is happening. If you are recording something, obviously your intention is that at some point it may need to be turned into a transcript. I am old enough to remember the days of the shorthand writer in court. The transcript used to be phenomenally expensive, because you had somebody sitting there typing it out and then it had to be ordered and checked. We are hopeful that artificial intelligence is going to help by bringing down the cost of transcripts: we are all familiar with dictating to our computers these days, so the costs may be in checking rather than actually transcribing.
In the meantime, as far as the victims of rape and serious sexual offences are concerned, the transcripts of those sentencing remarks are free to victims in those cases. We conducted a pilot and, following that, those transcripts will be available free of charge to victims.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, raised the question of victim personal statements, and said that there are anxieties about censorship. This is a tricky one, because as the noble Lord will know, sometimes victims misunderstand the purpose of a victim personal statement and do not quite understand why they cannot include a number of things in it. Again, this is important to us. No victim should feel that their words have been censored. They should be able to say what they want to say—we are going to think about that one.
I turn finally to the issue of backlog and delay. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti raised the question of a rumour about what is to happen to the proposals in the review conducted by Sir Brian Leveson. I think that it could be seen from the expression on my face that it was the first time I had heard of that rumour. Our intention is that proper consideration be given to the important matter of how we deal with the backlog and delay. Speaking for myself, I want to persuade people and take them with us where we can do so. These matters are to be discussed, and I hope that people will listen to each other. Nobody thinks that the status quo is acceptable; the question is how we deal with it. The Government are proposing a package of measures, one aspect of which, as noble Lords know, is the suggestion of slightly moving the line, as other Governments have in the past. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not engage in this and debate it today. I am absolutely confident that there will be other opportunities to do so.
This Bill will help strengthen our justice system. It used to be, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, that victims were treated as mere witnesses and had very little by way of rights. That is no longer the case. This Bill continues the journey of putting them where they should be, at the heart of the justice system. I beg to move.
Baroness Levitt
That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 7, Schedule 2, Clauses 8 to 18, Title.