House of Lords

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 15 April 2026

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Death of a Member: Viscount Bridgeman

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:06

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)]

My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, on Friday 10 April. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Viscount’s family and friends.

Marine Protected Areas: Bottom Trawling

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked by

[Baroness Sugg]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards banning bottom trawling in Marine Protected Areas.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, the consultation on the latest round of proposed by-laws to introduce restrictions on bottom trawling in 41 marine protected areas resulted in a very large number of responses being received. The Marine Management Organisation is now carefully considering those responses and reviewing the evidence. When all of that has been considered in full, the decisions will be made. Our environmental improvement plan commits us to finish putting MPA fisheries by-laws in place by the end of this year.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that response. She will know that bottom trawling is a hugely destructive fishing practice that causes widespread, severe and often irreversible environmental damage to our marine ecosystems. I would like to push the Minister a bit more on the response to the consultation; it has been over six months since it closed. Bottom trawling is taking place in our waters every day. It depletes fish populations and habitats, undermining the healthy seas that our fisheries and coastal communities rely on for their livelihoods. Does the Minister agree that time is of the essence, and can she say any more on when the consultation response will be published?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that this is a serious issue that we need to move on as soon as we can. We have proposed that we will do this by the end of the year. The big issue is the sheer number of responses that were received; it is taking a long time to go through them. Also, the proposed by-laws are very substantial. We are absolutely determined to get it right. It is better to take the right amount of time to come out with the right decisions that will genuinely make the differences that we need to see in our marine environments.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

Is the Minister confident that the Government can justify calling these marine protected areas when bottom trawling is still permitted in 90% of them, resulting in 20,000 hours of suspected bottom trawl fishing last year? An outright ban would mean that there is no need to monitor that. We are still waiting for the much-promised ban that was promised in the general election. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, we are all asking, “When, when, when?”

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I said, we are working with the Marine Management Organisation on this, because we need to get it right. We had a huge number of responses. There is also ongoing research at the moment that needs to be taken into account. The way we are looking at this is that each marine protected area is set up to protect specific species or habitats. Regulators look carefully at what those are and how different types of fishing affect those different habitats and species. It is quite complex, so it is important that any decisions we make will make the biggest difference they can.

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

My Lords, I take great comfort from the Minister’s words. This is a hugely complex issue, as we know. On a previous Question in this area, I spoke very much in favour of total banning, but subsequently there have been representations to me about the valuable source of food in this time of the importance of resilience, the targeting of special species that are valuable for the industry, the lower carbon footprint and the economic contribution to the very knocked-back local fishing communities. I very much appreciate the effort that the department is putting into it. I stress that there may be solutions in paying attention to the gear that is used—there are a lot of regulations that can be further enhanced—and regulating the quantity of catch.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes some really important and sensible points. The reason we are doing it site-specific and tailored is to ensure that we limit fishing only where genuinely necessary and avoid placing restrictions on activities that do not damage the seabed. Sometimes, management measures will involve a ban across the whole site, but it is important that we get that balance. That is what we are looking to do.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said about the disastrous effects of this practice and the fact that it is now six months since the consultation ended, will the Minister take into account the fact that one of the main campaigners against this awful practice has been Sir David Attenborough? It is his 100th birthday on 8 May. Perhaps the Minister will agree that we could congratulate him by announcing the implementation of this ban for his birthday.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am very happy to congratulate David Attenborough, whether we bring in a ban or not. He has been an extraordinary champion for our environment over many years, and I am sure we all wish him a very happy 100th birthday. I watched his film on bottom trawling. It was an extremely important piece of footage.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, this Government’s agreement with the EU last year surrendered around 40% of UK fishing rights to our European neighbours for the next 12 years. Just 10 EU vessels account for 25% of all bottom trawling in UK waters, with little by British vessels. Under this agreement, is the Minister able to end this damaging EU exploitation of our waters?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I am not able to divulge any of the detail of the current negotiations on the EU reset. Those of us who are involved in that reset process are extremely aware of the sensitivities around fishing, the type of fishing and the fishing gear being used, as the noble Lord mentioned earlier.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government’s approach will align with their 30 by 30 commitments and nature recovery goals? How will the Government measure that delivery?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

One of the reasons for bringing in this proposal to extend the protections to 41 more areas is entirely to support our ambition of delivering on 30 by 30. As I have said before, it is much more complex to deliver that in a marine environment, which is why it is so important that we get it absolutely right. I do not have the further detail the noble Baroness mentioned, but I am sure we can pick that up another time.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I would like to ask why No. 10 is so eco-stupid, but that would be very rude of me, so instead I ask the Minister, because I know she feels strongly on these issues, to please explain to No. 10 or whoever produces these policies that we need nature and that bottom trawling destroys a complete ecosystem that is irrecoverable for decades, so it actually militates against any sort of food stocks for the future?

[A noble Lord]

She has already said that.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Perhaps my noble friend would like to answer the question. I know the noble Baroness feels passionately about this. I am very glad that she decided not to be rude about No. 10. We all know the importance of the marine environment and the damage that bottom trawling does, which is why we need to take our time and get this right.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on her response about the protection of the fishing industry. In that regard, will she talk to the Isle of Man fisheries and the Northern Ireland Minister for fisheries about the spatial squeeze that is going on in the Irish Sea and the fact that Northern Ireland vessels with foreign crew on skilled worker visas and transit visas are excluded from Isle of Man waters? It is important that a meeting takes place to ensure that the fishing industry, with all the issues that have already been demonstrated, particularly along the east coast of Northern Ireland, is protected and can play a pivotal role in the local economy.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I assure my noble friend that Ministers meet regularly across government and with devolved Governments on how to ensure that we have a thriving, sustainable fishing industry right across the UK. I am aware that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland recently met representatives from the Northern Ireland fishing industry and has discussed issues, including those raised by my noble friend. I assure her that skilled worker visas have never been accepted by the Isle of Man and non-UK nationals have always been required to hold the appropriate permission to work on land or in Isle of Man waters. I have recently met the Minister from the Isle of Man, and we have agreed to have regular meetings going forward. This is something I can raise with her at our next meeting.

Zimbabwe: Constitution

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

15:17

Asked by

[Baroness Hoey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have held with the government of Zimbabwe regarding the proposed change to the constitution which would allow President Mnangagwa to stand for a third term.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

My Lords, UK officials remain in contact with the Government of Zimbabwe, civil society and other stakeholders as part of our ongoing engagement on this matter. The ambassador raised these issues yesterday with senior officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, constitutional amendments are a sovereign legislative matter for Zimbabwe. However, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association are essential to democracy. We continue to monitor reports of harassment and stress the importance of transparent, inclusive and lawful processes.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister for that response, but does he realise that the constitutional changes proposed will mean that the people of Zimbabwe will no longer elect their president, the electoral commission will be abolished, judicial appointments will become very unsafe, and there will be many more changes, all of which are anti-democratic? This is coupled with continued brutality, beatings, torture and imprisonment against opposition figures and those in civil society. I am glad that our ambassador has been having meetings, but can we have an assurance that he will speak out more strongly against the tyranny of the ZANU-PF regime, which rules by terror and threat of terror and is using these corrupt political processes to change the constitution and stay in power? Is it not time, finally, for a radical reappraisal of the United Kingdom Government’s engagement with SADC and the African Union to impress on them that only when we get free and fair elections throughout Africa and corruption is tackled will there be sustainable economic growth and social development in Africa?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

There are a lot of questions there, but I will set out the position as clearly as I can. We share the concerns that have been highlighted in the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission’s report, that the constitutional amendment public consultations —to which the noble Baroness refers—were highly managed, with limited space for dissenting voices, civil society, and the media. I should also say that the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission is an agency of the Zimbabwean Government. We continue to urge that the constitutional reform processes are inclusive, transparent, and fully consistent with democratic principles and the rule of law. I spoke to the ambassador this morning, and he raised these issues yesterday.

On speaking out more strongly, frankly, the Government’s view is that 20 years of megaphone diplomacy did not get us anywhere, and we are now in the business of engaging, though we do not underestimate the concerns that the noble Baroness is raising.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by declaring that my British wife is also an African Zimbabwean. My father-in-law, who as a young man taught Robert Mugabe, resisted Mugabe’s regime with humour and disparagement. The Zimbabweans have a sophisticated understanding of democracy, which is their cultural tradition. Their democratic sentiments were eloquently expressed in the protests that accompanied Mugabe’s steps to appoint himself president for life. The symbol of the protests was a little red card held aloft. It signified that politics is a game that must be played according to the rules, which Mugabe had violated. It behoves us—

[Noble Lords]

Question!

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

The question will come. It behoves us to support this spirit of democracy, and to prevail upon other African members of the Commonwealth to exert pressure upon this regime. Might I ask the Minister—

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, this is Question Time, not speech time.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot match my noble friend’s commitment to humour and disparagement as a tool for democracy today. I take seriously what he says about the importance of democracy, and it is no secret that we have a long people-to-people relationship with the people of Zimbabwe, not all of which reflects terribly well on the UK. We will continue to build those relationships.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, ZANU-PF has justified extending the term of the president, and giving him a third term, on the grounds that he is “doing a good job”. It has also said that not having elections from the people, but in parliament, will save money and reduce the risk of violence, which we know is mostly perpetrated against the people by ZANU-PF. What is the price of democracy? Does it not show that ZANU-PF has utter contempt for democracy, and how can we challenge it to reverse its decisions?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

There is an active civil society in Zimbabwe. My noble friend Lord Collins visited last year, and we will continue to work with stakeholders, including the Zimbabwean Government. We welcome the president’s re-engagement efforts, and the progress on economic reform, but we understand the concerns about these constitutional reforms as proposed, and we will continue to advocate about that.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister probably knows that Zimbabwe is rather keen to rejoin the Commonwealth. Could it be explained to President Mnangagwa that the chances of doing so will be much improved if he stands down after two terms, since the Commonwealth on the whole—it does not always work—prefers presidents of two terms rather than indefinite terms?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The noble Lord regularly raises the Commonwealth, and I appreciate its importance. There was a Commonwealth assessment mission in 2023, and we would welcome another assessment mission. In the end, it will be a matter for the Secretary-General to make a recommendation, and for all members of the Commonwealth to take a view.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, as I have said on previous occasions, my diocese of Southwark is linked with four of the five Anglican dioceses in Zimbabwe, and I have visited our link dioceses on many occasions. I note that the Zimbabwe Council of Churches has called this week for the withdrawal or amendment of the Bill currently before the Zimbabwean parliament. Would the Minister advise the House what the reaction has been of neighbouring states to this latest development in the governance of Zimbabwe and its wonderful people, so poorly served by those currently in power?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. If he will forgive me, I do not think I should speak on behalf of the other states around Zimbabwe, but I have made clear what this Government’s view is on these proposed constitutional changes, and we shall continue to make that case.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has had to say. These changes are profoundly undemocratic, extending the current presidential mandate and abolishing the elections, with violence and intimidation at the public meetings when it was discussed. What I have heard from the Minister is lots of “consultation” and “listening carefully”, but I have not heard any condemnation in what he had to say.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I have not used the words “consultation” or “listening carefully”. I have said that we will engage with the Zimbabwe Government on these issues, and the ambassador raised our concerns as recently as yesterday. I am sorry, that is a complete travesty of what I have said.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that Zimbabwe’s president is intrinsically involved in the criminality at the heart of the state, the machine of that criminal enterprise being the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, oiled by a business elite—many of whom are the sons and daughters of the white and Asian elite who supported sanctions-busting under the racist regime of Ian Smith—and unchecked today by the independent judiciary, accountability and professional scrutiny that continue to exist in South Africa, enabling the state of Zimbabwe to either sponsor or turn a blind eye to massive gold and tobacco smuggling?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. We recognise the economic reforms undertaken by the Government of Zimbabwe and the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, including—this is an important point that I have not made before—the signing of the IMF staff-monitored programme, as an important step towards greater macroeconomic stability, which, frankly, is greater than it was under Mugabe. However, for these reforms to be sustainable, tackling corruption must remain a central part of the reform agenda. We are very clear about that.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, as a former resident of Zimbabwe, I ask what is being done in terms of working with other countries on representations to the Zimbabwean Government. Surely it is better that we work not alone but with many other countries right around the world.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

Indeed it is. I often find myself agreeing with the noble Lord on this and other matters. The most important thing that will help to transform the lives of the people of Zimbabwe is progress on debt distress, and that is what we are working on through the arrears clearance dialogue in which we are taking a very active part. Despite what lots of noble Lords have said, we welcome the progress on economic reform.

NHS Adult Gender Identity Clinics

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

15:28

Asked by

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how many patients under the age of 25 have been referred to NHS adult gender identity clinics in each of the last three years; and what safeguarding measures are in place for those individuals.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, 5,624 patients under 25 were referred to adult gender dysphoria clinics in 2023-24, 6,355 were referred in 2024-25 and initial figures show that 6,167 were referred in 2025-26. There are strong safeguards within the existing service provision and specification that was agreed following public consultation, including with the medical royal colleges. These include specialist assessment, accounting for complex co-morbidities and care delivered by a multidisciplinary team with a wide range of expertise, including in neurodiversity and endocrinology.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I wonder if she has had a chance to review the landmark study from Finland recently, which suggests very strongly that gender medicine actually has a very negative impact on vulnerable young people with complex needs and, far from actually helping them, in fact is harming them. Can I urge her to expedite one of the most important recommendations from the Cass Review, which is to bring in a separate set of services for 17 to 25 year-old young people who are experiencing gender dysphoria? She will know that, currently, the adult clinics operate an affirmative model; that can be very worrying because young people can access life-altering and irreversible hormones after only two appointments. For young people with a whole set of complex needs, I do not think that is right.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, we are indeed committed to developing services for 17 to 25 year-olds, and I certainly recognise that this is a potentially very vulnerable time in a young person’s journey, as was clearly outlined in the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Cass. I can say to the noble Baroness that we recognise changing patient demographics, and therefore a holistic biopsychosocial assessment framework is being developed for use across all services, including a complexity measure to support understanding of the impact of any co-occurring conditions, as the noble Baroness refers to.

[Baroness Cass (CB)]

My Lords, we know that the 18 to 25 year-olds have many of the same complex problems as the under-18s and, as the Minister has said, they need similar holistic wraparound care, although that is not necessarily yet in place. However, Dr Levy’s review had a narrower remit than mine, focused on quality improvement rather than the model of care, so as a next step would the Minister agree to ask departmental and NHSE colleagues to convene a group, which should include independent experts, representatives of professional groups and representatives of the new children’s and young people’s services as well as service users, to consider how we best understand and, importantly, improve clinical outcomes for this group of young adults?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, I remain grateful to the noble Baroness for her work and her expertise in this area, which I know has been acknowledged both by the previous Government and this Government. I will certainly take on board what she has said and ask my officials to discuss this further with NHS England.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to seek some clarification from my noble friend the Minister about this matter, because the Mental Capacity Act 2005 presumes adult capacity and the Care Act 2014 defines safeguarding thresholds, which my noble friend has outlined in some detail already. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that adults aged 18 to 25 referred to gender identity clinics are treated as autonomous patients without additional safeguarding measures beyond those which she has already outlined and apply to any competent adult?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

Yes, I can assure my noble friend that patients are treated as individuals and their care is personalised. It is important, as my noble friend says, to recognise that the law presumes that patients aged 16 and over have capacity to consent to medical treatment. I can also give the reassurance, acknowledging as I have already that patients may have co-existing conditions that warrant additional safeguarding measures, that this will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, if the Government are concerned with safeguarding those aged 18 to 25, can the Minister set out what assessment has been made of the documented harms caused by multi-year waiting lists, including serious impacts on mental health, physical well-being and life outcomes? Given the evidence that regret or detransition among those accessing gender-affirming care is rare, can the Minister clarify what specific risk this proposed safeguarding framework is intended to address?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

It might be helpful if I speak in general terms. The Levy review highlighted multi-year waits for adult gender clinics. We recognise that waiting times are too long, and that is why we have increased the number of adult gender services from seven to 12 and we will be establishing a national waiting list. Dr Levy’s report did not make specific reference to concerns about safeguarding, and it is important to see it in that context. I emphasise once again that, where there are additional safeguarding matters, they will be dealt with on an individual basis as is right and proper.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, this is a highly sensitive topic, and I think we have to be very careful about how we talk about it. Evidence published in the BMJ shows a fiftyfold increase in recorded cases of gender dysphoria among children and young people between 2011 and 2021. While we should show compassion and not generalise about individuals presenting with gender dysphoria, what assessment has the Minister’s department made of the drivers for this rise in presentations? It is a sensitive issue, as I said, but are the Government assured that there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that the most vulnerable young adults are not irreversibly medicalised, only for some, even if just a small number, to regret it later?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a number of points. Let me be quite clear that surgical interventions are only for adults—that is for those aged 18 and over. As I said in my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, I also refer to the fact that the strong safeguards in place include, among a whole range of others, specialist assessment, access to a multidisciplinary team and assessment of capacity. These are strong safeguards, and it is right that this is the case in order to support patients to get the care that is appropriate to them and which they need.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, NHS England’s Levy review catalogued failings in relation to a lack of data and tracking outcomes from gender dysphoria clinics. Can the Minister explain how the NHS can offer any treatment without such evidence relating to efficacy, benefits, harms, regret and detransition? Can the Minister also comment on the criticism that clinicians are reluctant to correct patients’ unrealistic expectations, often those of young women, about medical transition. They believe that hormones and surgery can change biological sex; they cannot. That is a scientific fact and surely NHS doctors should explain that.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am not quite clear about the questions I am being asked. However, I return to the point about safeguards and say to your Lordships’ House that I have already outlined the strong safeguards, the professionalism and the medically informed evidence. Contrary to what is being suggested, there is no casualisation at all about decision-making.

Masculinity and Misogyny in Schools

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

15:38

Asked by

[Baroness Berger]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the results of the recent survey by the NASUWT on masculinity and misogyny in schools.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, misogyny has no place in our society or in our schools. The NASUWT survey is deeply concerning and underscores why delivering on the freedom from violence 10-year strategy to halve violence against women and girls is a necessity and a government priority. This Government are committed to tackling misogyny and the spread of toxic influences, with new misogyny resources for both teachers and parents, dedicated school programmes through the new VAWG strategy, and online safety resources.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, the NASUWT survey indicates that misogyny is on the rise among our young people. Some 23% of female teachers have experienced misogyny in our classrooms; this figure has increased year on year and is up 6% since 2023. Teachers are pointing to the influence of the manosphere, online misogyny and AI in spreading harmful narratives, and evidence indicates that social media use by young men is driving this growth in misogynistic beliefs. What assessment have the Government made of the role social media is playing in this worrying trend?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure it is the case that social media has had an impact here. We know the influence that those who choose to use it to express toxic masculinity and misogyny can have. That is why we need to support schools, as we are doing through increased investment in resources to help teachers and students to tackle misogyny. It is why the consultation on social media use among young people that the Government have launched is so important, and why we have committed to act on its conclusions.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, to pick up on the point about parents that the Minister raised, how do the Government intend to engage with not only parents but communities, particularly to deal with the negative cultural influences on the perception of women among some of our young people? It is not just in schools that this issue is happening; often it occurs at weekends and in our city centres. How can we engage with communities, as well as parents?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. This needs to be tackled outside school, as well as inside. That is why the DfE has worked jointly with DSIT to design, test and launch a website for parents of all-age children to help them keep their children safe online. We are currently developing misogyny-specific content for that site that will give parents information and tools to spot warning signs and hold open conversations, and will direct them to further support that will link with the Home Office’s Enough campaign, about which we will be saying more soon.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, will the Government start with children in primary school?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The new RSHE guidance that we published and the curriculum are clear that there is important work to be done at key stage 2 to support children to develop their ideas and approach to healthy relationships. That is a really important baseline from which to talk more explicitly later in their school life about misogyny and how it is tackled.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, this report makes for quite harrowing reading, and it points to two particular things: one is misogyny and the other is a breakdown of discipline and respect for authority in school. What work are the Government doing to address this issue, which covers both girls and boys? In speaking to young boys about their behaviour, how are we going to avoid demonising boyhood?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes two important points. On the latter point, it is important that we recognise that the vast majority of boys and young men abhor misogyny as much as anybody else. Supporting them to be strong allies and to challenge their friends where necessary is an important part of the work. As the noble Lord suggests, one of the shocking elements of the NASUWT report is the suggestion that students are using misogyny to abuse teachers. Good behaviour in all our schools is the right of pupils and teachers. That is why every school has a legal responsibility to have a strong behaviour policy, and why we would expect strong action to be taken to protect staff, just as we would expect for students.

[Baroness Primarolo (Lab)]

My Lords, unfortunately, girls are not always able to feel safe in calling out sexist or abusive behaviour that they experience from other pupils in schools. What more can be done in schools, and after school, to give girls the confidence to speak out and feel safe?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an important point—we want girls to be able to feel safe and to report, as she suggests. However, it should be not only the responsibility of girls to stand up for themselves in the face of misogyny; it should be part of the whole-school approach to challenge that and part of a school’s safeguarding process. Support for that is clearly spelled out in the Keeping Children Safe in Education statutory guidance, for staff to understand how to support girls when they report incidents and how to identify what is happening even if those incidents are not reported.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, is there any evidence that the problem is worse with a decline of single-sex schools? Would things be better if there were more single-sex schools, at least for girls?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The truth is that I do not know whether there is any evidence that supports that contention. The vast majority of children in this country do not go to single-sex schools. We need to ensure that every school, single-sex or not, recognises the need to tackle misogyny and is supported, as this Government will do, with the resources to be able to do that.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister acknowledged the impact of harmful social media on our children’s attitudes and behaviour, so I am puzzled why the Government will not commit in primary legislation to restricting access to social media for under-16s. The noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, the Secretary of State for DSIT, and the Prime Minister have all said that they intend to, but the government amendment does not include that commitment. Can the Minister explain why?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Can I say how much I am enjoying getting back to this in the next stage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on Monday? We will have the opportunity, once again, to discuss the action that this Government have already taken to understand the concerns that there are about social media and to recognise the different views on how, in detail, we should respond. That is why, on 2 March, this Government launched the consultation on how, not whether, we should take action, with further measures to ensure that children have healthy relationships with technology, mobile phones and social media. It is why we tabled new powers that mean that we can act fast on the consultation’s findings—in months, rather than waiting years for new primary legislation every time technology evolves. I do not think it is unreasonable for a Government to act on the basis of consultation and detailed consideration.

[Baroness Teather (LD)]

My Lords, last week, I attended the Cambridge Disinformation Summit run by the Judge Business School, where a key takeaway for me was that restricting young people’s access to social media is not on its own a sufficient response to the risks that we are discussing today. Does the Minister agree that we need accountability from social media companies on algorithms that promote and target extremist content to both adults and children?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I largely agree with the noble Baroness. It is important that the strong powers within the Online Safety Act are implemented. However, the logic of her argument is that we need to make sure that we support children and young people and our schools to be able to challenge misogyny and avoid falling for the toxic influencers, while strengthening the good values and attitudes that most young people have. That is what we will be supporting our schools to do.

Conservation of Habitats and Species (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2026

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:50

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 February be approved.

Relevant document: 55th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 13 April.

Motion agreed.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

Relevant documents:45th and 50th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee, 16th Report from the Constitution Committee

15:51

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, has consented to place his interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Clause 110: Commencement

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

1: Clause 110, page 111, line 34, leave out first “[paragraph removed]”

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 in my name. These are minor and technical amendments, which I understand have been agreed by the Government. I beg to move.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

2: Clause 110, page 111, line 34, leave out second “[paragraph removed]”

Amendment 2 agreed.

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Baroness Pidgeon]

3: Clause 110, page 112, line 7, at end insert—
“(ia) section 17 (Greater London Authority Act 1999: amendment of Schedule 6);”

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

I beg to move Amendment 3, following advice about the need for a technical amendment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, these are minor and technical amendments following amendments made to the Bill on Report. The Government will not oppose them today.

Amendment 3 agreed.

Amendment 4

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

4: Clause 110, page 113, line 10, at end insert—
“(ka) section 40 (brownfield land priority);”

Amendment 4 agreed.

Amendment 5

Moved by

[Lord Shipley]

5: Clause 110, page 113, line 29, leave out paragraph (z)

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, to be clear, Amendment 5 removes a reference to a clause and a schedule that were removed from the Bill on Report on Monday. It is a consequential amendment, which I beg to move formally.

Amendment 5 agreed.

Amendment 6

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

6: Clause 110, page 113, line 30, at end insert—
“(za1) section 63 (promotion of parish governance);”

Amendment 6 agreed.

Amendment 7

Moved by

[Lord Freyberg]

7: Clause 110, page 113, line 34, at end insert—
“(z2a) section 70 (agent of change: integration of new development with existing businesses and facilities);”

Amendment 7 agreed.

Schedule 1: Establishment, expansion and functions of combined authorities and CCAs

Amendments 8 to 11

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

8: Schedule 1, page 115, line 10, leave out “[subsection removed],”

9: Schedule 1, page 118, line 32, leave out paragraph (j)

10: Schedule 1, page 120, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 7

11: Schedule 1, page 120, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 37

Amendments 8 to 11 agreed.

15:55

Motion

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and engagement during the passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill through this House. I am particularly grateful to the Opposition Front Bench, namely the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lords, Lord Jamieson and Lord Moylan, for their constructive challenge throughout the debates. I am very aware of the challenges facing an Opposition Front Bench, and let me say how much I appreciate the approach of clarity about points of difference, concise, clear and consistent speeches in debate, and all the work that goes on behind the scenes with me and officials, as well as with opposition Peers. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, deserves much credit from the House for her approach.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock, Lady Thornhill and Lady Pidgeon, for all their work. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who stepped in admirably to fill the shoes of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, when she could not get her own shoes on because she had a fracture. I thank him very much for his last-minute work on the Bill; his contribution was highly valued. I also thank my noble friends Lord Wilson and Lord Leong, who have supported me in the Whips’ role throughout the Bill, and my noble friend Lord Hendy, whose very considerable expertise and knowledge on taxis and licensing has made this Bill a lot easier for me to deal with.

Many noble Lords from across the House have shared their valuable expertise in local government, local growth and community empowerment during the scrutiny of this Bill. I am particularly thankful to the noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Wallace, and my noble friend Lord Bassam. Their insights and engagement have allowed us to bring about critical improvements to the Bill, including establishing local scrutiny committees as a first step towards proper public sector accountability at local level. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his work to help resolve the legal lacuna from the Day v Shropshire case. I also extend my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Borwick and Lord Foster, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, my noble friends Lord Blunkett and Lady Royall, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and many more for their championing of issues such as culture, taxi safety and addressing gambling harms.

We may disagree at times on how devolution and community empowerment are best delivered, but I believe we are in broad agreement that a change is overdue. Local leaders and communities should have a greater say in shaping their areas so that they can deliver growth and improve the local public services that people want to see. The Bill is a fundamental step towards achieving this ambition.

Finally, I place on record my thanks to all the officials who have worked on this Bill: the Bill manager, Hannah, Caragh, Jenna-Marie, Guy, Simon, Alice, John, Wendy and Rachel; and to Nadja, Beth and Anna in my private office. I also pay tribute to the many parliamentary staff who support the work of this House: the clerks, doorkeepers, security, Hansard, the Public Bill Office and our excellent Whips’ team. We have not had as many late nights on this Bill as we did on the planning Bill, but I know we were all very grateful when we were here until 1 am that we had a whole team supporting us.

I am pleased to have been part of some very productive and constructive discussions in this House. I beg to move.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive engagement with this complex Bill, both in Committee and on Report. While there have been a wide range of concerns and differing proposed solutions, I think there has been a shared sense that this Bill falls short of its title in several of its measures. Instead of local devolution, we are seeing regional centralisation and, instead of community empowerment, we are seeing yet more direction from central government.

To many, it is still not clear why the Government have decided to pursue this course of action or what the underlying vision is behind the Bill. It goes without saying that all of this comes at a cost, as we are seeing with local government reorganisation up and down the country. We said this from the start and I believe that we are beginning to see it now.

That said, we on these Benches believe that the Bill as amended on Report leaves this House as better legislation than when it came to your Lordships. I am pleased that this House has agreed to prioritise brownfield land for development, to integrate new development with existing businesses and facilities, to promote parish governance for unparished areas and to amend Schedule 1 to safeguard local consent in local government changes. In addition, in the light of the Government’s amendments to increase the number of commissioners that mayors can appoint, I am glad that our amendment to ensure that they are appointed through a fair and transparent selection process was agreed.

16:00

I thank noble Lords on the Benches to my left for their work and shared concern on the provisions for rural affairs in the Bill, protecting local authorities’ right to choose their own governance models and making the Greater London Authority more democratic in its voting requirements. However, I am disappointed that we could not rely on cross-party support for our amendment to ensure that the Government complete their long-awaited review on open spaces before proceeding to remove statutory trusts for recreation.

There were several other areas where we would have appreciated better assurances from the Government. It would be in no one’s interest if local people end up having to pay higher council taxes, if local service delivery becomes less efficient and if the role of local councillors is increasingly sidelined by mayors as a result of this Bill.

I pay tribute to the work of my noble friends Lord Moylan, Lady O’Neill of Bexley, Lord Lansley, Lord Borwick, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Lady Coffey, Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Lucas. I urge the Government to give due consideration to their concerns. I also say a big thank you to my noble friend Lord Jamieson, who has sat beside me through the whole lot and taken over at least half of the work, if not more, and a special big thanks to Molly, Richard and Henry in our office for all their invaluable support throughout the Bill. Finally, I thank the Minister for the time she has committed outside this Chamber and for responding constructively on a number of matters. I know from experience how demanding the process can be. We are very grateful to her for her engagement throughout the Bill and the way she has conducted it through the House.

While we agree with the Government’s direction, we are committed to engaging further to improve the system of local government in the interests of the local people it serves.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I extend the thanks of these Benches to the Minister, all her staff and the Bill office. She was right to point to the amount of work that has gone into getting the Bill to Third Reading. I thank her for her engagement with the Bill; it is of major constitutional importance and therefore has to be as good as we can make it. I am personally grateful for all she did to improve the clauses on scrutiny and audit, which will make a big difference. I extend my thanks to the Liberal Democrat Bill team, where a number of people have done a lot of detailed work. I pay tribute to Adam Bull in our Whips’ Office for his excellent support to the Bill team over many months.

I see the Bill as a work in progress. I think I said at the outset that it gave a sense of direction and that we want it to succeed. Everything we have said at each stage of its passage has been about trying to make it better. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said, the Bill is entitled “devolution”, but actually it is about decentralisation and does not say very much at all about community empowerment. We are a glass-half-full group on these Benches, and we want the Government to succeed. You cannot manage 56 million people in England out of London. I see this as being part of a renewal of our democracy, and I wish the Government well.

I just hope when the amendments, which are not many in number, are considered in the other place that our proposed changes will be taken seriously. There is one about rural issues, which should become a strategic authority competence. As I recall, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, moved one on the appointment processes for commissioners. How they are appointed needs to be in the Bill, not in guidance. It is for local people, as we said on Monday, to decide governance structures that they think are best for them, rather than having a single model which is imposed out of Whitehall by the Government.

Crucially, to demonstrate that the Government are serious about devolution, there should be a duty to promote parish and neighbourhood governance. With the Bill, the Government are creating very large democratic units that are increasingly remote from people. All that we have said about neighbourhood, parish and town governance is trying to bring decision-making closer to people who, after all, are paying the bill for it.

With those comments, we shall see what the Commons does at ping-pong. These Benches are pretty firm on some of these issues, so I hope the Government will be flexible in their approach. With that, I thank the Minister for the leadership that she has shown, and her staff. We have something which is a major improvement on what we have had in recent years, and I wish the process well.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful for those contributions. They were in the same tone that we have had all through the Bill of constructive challenge where it is appropriate. I say to both opposition Benches that there are some further discussions to take place on the outstanding matters before we get through ping-pong and I hope those discussions will be conducted in the same spirit as we have dealt with the rest of the Bill.

I have been in local government for a very long time and there have been numerous attempts at reorganising and devolving over the years, but most of the power still sits here in this very small part of London when it should be out there with local people. I hope, as we go through the final processes of the Bill, that we will end up with a piece of legislation that does exactly what we all want it to do, which is to make sure that power, funding and decision-making are devolved out of Whitehall back to local areas where the people taking the decisions actually have skin in the game and are connected at that very local level to take the right decisions for the people who we all serve. That is what we all want to do, and I hope, as we progress through the final stages of the Bill, that we will get to a good place on that.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Victims and Courts Bill

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Commons Reasons

16:08

Motion A

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1A: Because this Amendment would impose undue pressure on the resources of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Judicial Office.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall speak also to Motions B, B1, C, and C1. This group concerns amendments made in this House relating to access to court transcripts, and homicide abroad. In relation to each, I shall set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.

I will speak first to Motions A and C, which relate to Amendments 1 and 3, originally tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, both of which concern access to criminal court transcripts.

I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her extensive engagement on the Bill throughout its passage in the Lords, as well as in recent weeks. I am sorry she is not in her place today. I know she has not been well, but I think she may be joining us remotely in due course. I hope she can hear me when I say that she and I have spent significant time with each other discussing these amendments at length, and I really am grateful to her for her constructive and collaborative approach in addressing the issues before your Lordships’ House today.

That said, I am disappointed and frustrated that I have not been able to get a meeting with the Opposition Front Bench, despite making numerous attempts through various channels to do so. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, knows I am sincere when I say the Government agree that it is extremely important for victims to be able to access information relevant to the criminal court proceedings in their case. But, as we made clear both in Committee and on Report, these amendments would not achieve the meaningful benefits that victims are seeking. In the case of the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, the Government believe it could in fact undermine victims’ experience rather than improve it.

With that, I turn to Motion C1, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. We have already set out in previous debates the operational and financial implications this amendment would have. Our first reason for not accepting it is that while the Government are firmly committed to strengthening transparency, this would create substantial pressures on a system in which resources are finite.

The second reason is arguably the more important one: the potentially serious and damaging impact this amendment may have on countless victims. The noble and learned Lord has said that this amendment contains a pragmatic safeguard for victims, in that victims would be able to request anonymisation prior to publication. The Government fundamentally disagree that this gives protection, because it does not give victims the right to object to the publication of sentencing remarks. Instead, it limits victims to requesting anonymisation ahead of publication and does so within a relatively narrow window of 14 days from the point at which the request is received.

How is this to work in practice when the police and/or the CPS would have to locate the victims—probably quite a number of them—explain the request to them and give them time to consider the request? Then the victims would need to respond, and then redactions would need to be carried out sufficiently in what in some cases will be a long and complicated document. Following sentence, many victims will be traumatised and will just want to start putting what has happened behind them. What would happen should a victim of a horrifying crime request that their sentencing remarks not be published at all?

By denying victims a right to determine whether remarks relevant to their case, often containing highly personal and sensitive information, are published online for the world to see, this loss of agency significantly risks being distressing rather than empowering. It is unlikely to feel like an improvement in transparency or experience and may in fact compound the harm caused by the offence. This Government believe that transparency is not served by measures that risk causing further distress to victims or undermining confidence in the justice system. The Government do not accept that this amendment strikes the right balance between openness and protection and believe it would in practice do more harm than good.

I have made the point already that we are focused on delivering the substantial commitment made earlier this year, that by spring 2027, we will provide all victims with Crown Court sentencing remarks relevant to their case, free of charge, upon request. I thank all Members of your Lordships’ House from all parties and groups, including the Opposition Front Bench, for their constructive engagement during the debates on that amendment during the passage of the Sentencing Act 2026. The significant expansion will deliver meaningful benefits and represents an important step forward in helping many victims better understand their case. It will, we accept, genuinely enhance transparency in the justice system.

That said, we recognise that there remains a need to consider what more can be done to support victims’ access to information about court proceedings relevant to their case, particularly in cases that do not result in a conviction. That is why I am pleased to confirm that the Government are undertaking a study to explore the use of AI transcription in the criminal courts. This is another step towards greater transparency and improving access to court transcripts by examining how artificial intelligence transcription could support the production of court records more quickly and at a lower cost. Many of these cases involve sensitive personal information, and we must ensure that the use of AI transcription delivers high levels of accuracy, upholds the integrity of court proceedings and protects information where necessary.

16:15

The findings of our study have the potential significantly to reduce fees and improve access to court transcripts. This will mean that further reform will be evidence-based, workable in practice and underpinned by confidence in accuracy and appropriate safeguards.

Motions B and B1, both tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, concern support for victims of homicide abroad. Again, I thank the noble Baroness for her efforts in advocating for others on this issue and for the positive and constructive engagement we have had over recent months.

The Government fully recognise the challenges faced by families bereaved by homicide abroad, and we remain committed to strengthening the support available to them. The previous Lords amendment sought to create an appendix to the victims’ code, setting out how it would apply to these families. This issue has been discussed at length. The Government recognise the underlying intention, which is to improve the experience and the outcomes for families who find themselves in this unimaginably awful situation, but the proposed approach would risk undermining the effectiveness of the code for all victims and it would place obligations on relevant agencies in England and Wales to provide services that would be impossible to deliver in practice. However, we agree that more needs to be done. Under the draft new code, we have included clear signposting to the relevant support and guidance available to these families.

Motion B1 proposes a review of the effectiveness of how the code applies to these families. While I understand the intention, the code applies only to those families where the case is capable of prosecution in England and Wales. The Motion, as framed, therefore risks limiting the scope of any review to the support available to these families. Instead, the approach that we are going to take is to build on our existing commitments to improve consistency through reviewing FCDO consular training and improving access to translated documents.

I am pleased to confirm that the Ministry of Justice will also work jointly with the FCDO and the Home Office to undertake a review of how support is provided to these families and to assess how current arrangements are operating. Importantly, it will also allow us to identify whether further improvements can be made. We want to get this right. The review will be robust and comprehensive. Its findings are to be published in 2027.

Taken together with our commitment to ensure that there is independent oversight by the Victims’ Commissioner when particular issues arise, these actions demonstrate the Government’s clear commitment to strengthening the support available to families as they navigate these awful situations.

For these reasons, the Government do not consider legislative change to be the best way forward, so we do not support these amendments. I hope that the House can support our intention to address these issues via non-legislative means. I beg to move.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister, her ministerial colleagues in the justice department, officials and staff, who have been available for conversations both during the passage of the Bill, especially since Report, and the helpful discussions reflected in the Government’s Motions in front of us today.

My Motion B1 on the horrendous issue of homicide abroad differs from the amendment that I laid at earlier stages of the Bill, because I listened carefully to the Minister, both in the Chamber and in our meetings. I have accordingly removed the element about enshrining the rights of bereaved families—of course, they are also victims, because their loved one was murdered—in the victims’ code. I still believe that it is possible to draft something that reflects that, but time is not on our side.

I pay tribute to the Government in that the new code of practice—just brought in for use by the Home Office, the Foreign Office and other government departments and officials such as coroners—is much more comprehensive and should, as it is now being implemented, improve the experience of families found in this horrendous position.

The one area that I do not want us to lose is the ability to review how the new code of practice is actually working. My amendments today set out a mechanism to ensure that within 18 months of the section on these arrangements coming into force,

“the Secretary of State must review the effectiveness of how the victims’ code applies to victims … who are close family members of a British National resident in England and Wales”

who is murdered or a victim of manslaughter or infanticide, and that the Secretary of State must lay a report of that review before both Houses of Parliament. However, I am very grateful to the Minister for our discussions and note what she has said at the Dispatch Box, that the Government will set up a joint review with the FCDO and the Home Office that will focus on access and experience for the families of those murdered abroad, to be published next year. It is especially welcome that the Government will work with the Victims’ Commissioner and, I hope, with victims’ organisations that help these families too.

The Minister knows that from these Benches we will continue to talk to victims’ groups and that if concerns remain in the future, we will raise questions and, as appropriate, amendments in future legislation, but until then we look forward to seeing the Government’s review next year. I will not take my Motion any further today.

I now turn to Motion A on court transcripts. Over the years, we have tabled amendments about the ability of victims to access parts of court transcripts. It has been too easy to gloss over why too many victims feel excluded from the court process, whether by accident or worse. This can be through poor advice. For example, victims are told—far too frequently, I am afraid—that if they sit in the court after they have given evidence, it is a bad look and it might harm the views of the jury, because victims are seen as ghoulish or, worse, vindictive.

Also, too many victims are not aware of what they are entitled to. Here, I pay my respects to the Minister for her outrage at the Dispatch Box during an earlier stage of the Bill when she outlined her fury about when arrangements for victims are not followed properly in court. In theory, this should not happen, but it does. For those who also do not have the support of professionals to guide them through what is happening in a court case, there is bemusement and often a lack of knowledge. It really affects whether they feel that the process has been as fair to them as it has been to the defendant.

The amendments on court transcripts are invisibly but inextricably linked to the amendments on reforms to unduly lenient sentences, but because of parliamentary procedure and the way the Bill is laid out, they are separated. However, access to information and support to understand it is at the heart of whether a victim feels the need to submit an appeal to the Attorney-General for a sentence to be considered unduly lenient. I will talk about this more on the next group, but that link is there, so getting both matters right is vital.

I am very grateful to the Minister for her helpful discussions on the practicality of making court transcripts available to victims, and for the announcement yesterday, which she has just outlined in her contribution, that the Government will conduct a study to look at how AI transcription can be used accurately—including, importantly, appropriate redactions for the safety of victims and witnesses—and considerably more cheaply than the vastly expensive current arrangements. From these Benches, we understand the pressure on the court system from imposing the current expensive system further.

We will watch for the outcomes of this study and any consequential actions. As the Minister knows, we will hold the Government to account from our Benches in both this House and the Commons. This includes an amendment that my honourable colleagues have already tabled to the Courts and Tribunals Bill, but I am very grateful for the progress we have made. That is why I did not retable my original amendment today.

Motion C1 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is for sentencing remarks to be published online within 14 days of a request being received by anyone. On Report, we were very concerned that this particular action would lead to victims and witnesses being much more vulnerable than they would under the proposals we have been discussing on other amendments, where the transcripts are specifically for the victims and would have to be carefully redacted to keep them safe. This amendment would take us back a complete step, leaving a victim having to receive notification within a short period of time—we know this fails on other issues—and having to formally request anonymity. This makes victims the afterthought in the process rather than putting their safety, as judged by experts, at the heart of publication of any information. I am afraid that is why we cannot support it today.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, Motion C1 in my name would insist on my amendment from Report regarding the publication of court transcripts. It would require sentencing remarks by the Crown Court to be freely published online, while also informing applicants of their right to request anonymity if they wish it.

Open justice is a fundamental principle of the institution of democracy and the public confidence in that institution. This Motion would make it easier for victims, journalists and the wider public to understand exactly what is happening in the court system. This is of particular relevance regarding grooming gangs and the formal inquiry that the Government launched just this week. It would help to facilitate the transparency required to hold the guilty accountable.

As faith and confidence in public institutions continue to dwindle, many believe that the state does not operate to serve their best interests. The Sentencing Act now has the effect of an automatic presumption of short sentences—a policy that in practice effectively abolishes custodial sentences of one year or less. It is more important than ever that the public can access the reasoning behind sentencing decisions, so that confidence in the rule of law and the integrity of judicial decision-making is preserved.

In the other place, a Labour MP said she was confused about why the Minister was not accepting Lords Amendments 1 and 3 at that point. The Minister said in reply that the Government

“are willing to go further, and we will look to see what more we can do in the Lords”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/26; col. 326.]

Yet the Government have taken no action on this issue other than to reject my amendment in its entirety. I therefore feel compelled to move Motion C1.

I thank the Liberal Democrats for their consistent support of this amendment and the principle that it upholds. It was the combined effort of 160 Conservative and 55 Liberal Democrat Peers that saw this amendment’s successful passage. I also thank the 56 Liberal Democrat MPs who supported the amendment in the other place. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat Justice spokesman said:

“I urge all colleagues to vote for all these excellent Lords amendments, which are incredibly important to victims and their families”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/26; col. 337.]


There may have been a little wobble since—I am not clear why—but I hope that our efforts in the voting Lobby today will compel the Government to act.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions and for the thoughtful way in which they have engaged with this issue. I recognise the commitment and valuable contributions that all have made during the passage of the Bill. To those who spoke powerfully about the need for victims better to understand what has happened in court and why, I say that the Government are absolutely aligned with that objective. I thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising that point about victims being either explicitly told or made to feel that they should not attend court to hear the rest of the trial. It is a powerful point. I have had experience of it personally. I shall take it away and see what I can do to improve the situation.

As I have set out, Lords Amendments 1 and 3 would impose statutory duties that risk being unworkable, would create delay and have effects that would not serve victims well. Our priority must be to ensure that the commitments we make are ones that we can deliver. That is why the Government have focused on delivery through the Sentencing Act 2026 and why we are now going further through the study in artificial intelligence transcription, about which I spoke a moment or two ago.

Turning very briefly to support for victims of homicide abroad, I repeat my absolute assurance that the Government share the ambition of strengthening the support available to families bereaved by homicide abroad. The commitments that I have outlined today do go further. Cross-departmental work to improve consistency and support through a comprehensive review will put families at the centre so that we can ensure they get the support they need. I urge noble Lords to support Motions A, B and C.

Motion A agreed.

Motion B

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.

2A: Because the Commons consider that the obligations to which Lords Amendment 2 would give rise are unworkable.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B) not moved.

Motion B agreed.

16:30

Motion C

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.

3A: Because this Amendment would impose undue pressure on the resources of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Judicial Office.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 3.”

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move.

16:31

Division 1

Motion C1 disagreed.

Ayes: 209

---

Conservative: 183
Crossbench: 12
Non-affiliated: 8
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Bishops: 1

Noes: 260

---

Labour: 165
Liberal Democrat: 56
Crossbench: 32
Non-affiliated: 7

16:42

Motion C agreed.

Motion D

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.

4A: Because Lords Amendment 4 would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion D I shall speak also to Motions D1, E, F and G. This group concerns amendments made in your Lordships’ House relating to private prosecutions and the unduly lenient sentence scheme. For each, I will set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.

Motions D and G relate to Amendments 4 and 7, originally tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. These amendments would have removed Clause 12 from the Bill entirely, meaning that the Lord Chancellor would not have the power to set the rates of costs recoverable from central funds in private prosecutions.

In 2024-25, the Ministry of Justice spent £6.3 million on private prosecutions. Over the past decade, this figure has increased significantly and has proved to be highly variable. There is some evidence that the near certainty of substantial cost recovery can create incentives for prosecutors to pursue cases that are disproportionate or are an unsuitable remedy for the legal issues in the case. We have seen litigation charges far exceed what a privately paying client would consider reasonable and which are wholly out of proportion to any loss incurred. We have also seen private prosecutions used as a no-lose tactic in civil or commercial disputes—for example, in an effort to gain leverage in what is, in essence, a civil dispute by bringing a criminal prosecution. As the noble and learned Lord has said before, £6.3 million is a small proportion of overall Ministry of Justice spending. That may be so, but it is still a great deal of money, and this Government are committed to ensuring the proportionate and responsible use of taxpayers’ money, regardless of the scale of the expenditure.

Clause 12 will allow the Lord Chancellor to set rates recoverable in private prosecutions, but only when informed by extensive stakeholder engagement and public consultation. We will set rates that are proportionate to the complexity and seriousness of the case, ensuring consistency, clarity and transparency, all the while safeguarding the vital right to bring a private prosecution. I make it absolutely clear that this Government have no intention of trying to curtail that right; that is not what the clause is intended to do.

16:45

I turn to Motion D1 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. The Government recognise the importance of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny, and I confirm that we will publish an impact assessment alongside the secondary legislation that sets the rates. We do not believe it is necessary to set that out in the Bill, so we do not think Amendment 4B is necessary.

I fully recognise the desire for parliamentary scrutiny, and the Government are committed to ensuring that any use of this power is subject to proper oversight. The Government believe that the negative procedure is appropriate and proportionate in this case. It strikes the right balance, ensuring that the regulations are laid before Parliament and are subject to scrutiny, including from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and may be challenged where concerns arise. If Parliament chooses to grant an enabling power, it should be capable of being exercised in a workable and proportionate manner. The negative procedure achieves that and maintains effective scrutiny. For these reasons, the Government cannot accept Amendment 4C.

Motions E and F relate to Amendments 5 and 6, both tabled originally in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The noble Baroness has been a tireless advocate for changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and I once more express my thanks for her continued engagement—we have been seeing quite a lot of each other, as noble Lords will have understood—and her valuable insight. During our discussions in relation to many parts of the Bill, we have talked, and sometimes I have been able to persuade her—but sometimes she has persuaded me and we have changed our minds. It is due to the noble Baroness’s efforts that these amendments have been introduced and that this Bill will have been improved throughout its passage in this House.

We are a Government who listen. We want to get things right. So we have listened, and we have heard the experiences and views of victims and bereaved families. With the ULS scheme, it is no different. In this context, I pay tribute to Tracey Hanson, who, after her son Josh was murdered in an unprovoked knife attack in 2015, set up the Josh Hanson Trust, which focuses on supporting victims of violent crime and delivers educational programmes aimed at preventing youth violence and knife crime. She has campaigned tirelessly for reform of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, to ensure that victims and bereaved families are made aware of the scheme and have a longer period in which to ask for a review. She has worked for over a decade with academics and campaigners to create this change in the law, in order to ensure that no other bereaved family suffers an injustice like that which was suffered by her family when they were not notified in time about the existence of the unduly lenient sentence scheme. I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting Tracey Hanson, but I would like to do so. She is clearly a remarkable woman, able to use her energy to campaign for changes to the criminal justice system in memory of her son Josh, so that other families in her position can benefit from her work.

I am also grateful to other victims’ campaigners, the current Victims’ Commissioner and the late Victims’ Commissioner, Baroness Newlove. All of them have played such a significant part in educating us about the problems with the ULS scheme. We know that at the heart of the campaign by victims is that they simply want to be told what their rights are and to be able to exercise them. That is not a lot to ask and we accept that that is the purpose underlying the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness.

While agreeing with the objective, we have been clear that an exceptional circumstances model will not meet victims’ needs. This is for technical legal reasons. “Exceptional circumstances” is a very narrow legal test and routine non-notification would not qualify, meaning that most of the victims calling for change would not in fact benefit. Instead, we propose an amendment in lieu to deliver what victims and your Lordships’ House have called for: an out-of-time interests of justice route. The key points are that it will apply only to victims and close family members of deceased victims. It will support victims and bereaved families who could not act within 28 days because of their circumstances: for example, because they were not notified of the scheme in time or were in hospital.

Applications may be made up to six months from sentence. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his discussions with me on the appropriate time limit and, having listened to him, we have settled on six months. The Court of Appeal will remain the final decision-maker on whether an out-of-time application may be accepted and may request evidence explaining why the deadline could not be met. It will apply to sentences passed after the Act comes into force, so it will not operate retrospectively. We expect that it will commence later this year, once resourcing and operational guidance are in place. This change in the law means that, where victims are not notified in time, as regrettably we are told happens too often, they will for the first time have a route to request a review outside the 28-day limit.

I am also pleased to have tabled a further amendment in lieu, which will introduce a statutory duty to notify victims of the ULS scheme. The operational detail will sit in the victims’ code, because keeping all victims’ rights together in one central document ensures coherence and allows the code to be updated as practice evolves—because, of course, primary legislation cannot be amended nearly as easily as the code can be. This amendment addresses the core problem of too many victims not being notified about the scheme. Witness care units will continue to inform all victims of the ULS scheme, supported by service improvements that we are developing with the police. Bereaved families will receive an enhanced notification requirement, building on the existing CPS bereaved families scheme that provides direct engagement at the point of sentencing. That is the natural moment to explain the ULS scheme to this cohort in person and to do it clearly. Together, these amendments deliver what victims have been calling for—a robust statutory duty to notify them and a fair out-of-time route. I beg to move.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 4B and 4C in lieu—

4B: Clause 12, page 16, line 28, at end insert—
“(2AB) Before making any regulations giving effect to subsections (2ZA) or (2A), the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish an impact assessment evaluating the likely effects of the regulations, including, but not limited to, their impact on—
(i) the ability of private prosecutors to bring proceedings,
(ii) the charitable and voluntary sector, and
(iii) access to justice, and
(b) publish a response to that impact assessment.”

4C: Clause 12, page 16, line 30, at end insert—
“(4) In section 29 (regulations), in subsection (1B) omit “or 19(4B)” and insert “, 19(4B) or 20(1A)(d) in relation to private prosecutions”.””

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion D1 as an amendment to Motion D. I begin by thanking the Minister for Motions E and F, which are an important step forward for victims. They provide for more time to submit an unduly lenient sentence application and create an exceptional circumstances clause when it is in the interest of justice to do so. Motion F will ensure that the victims’ code is amended to ensure that victims are notified of their right of access to the ULS scheme—an issue that unfortunately has acted as a barrier to the scheme in previous cases.

I must confess I am a little surprised to see Motion E in the name of the Minister. She said in response to my own amendment on Report:

“The victims asked us not to bring forward our amendment extending the time limit to 56 days, and so we have not done so”. —[Official Report, 10/3/26; col. 244.]


I wonder whether that is still the view of the victims now that we have an extension to six months.

Motion D1 in my name concerns the issue of private prosecutions and, while it is not my intention to repeat the debate in Committee and on Report on the importance of private prosecutions for charities or for dealing with the scourge of shoplifting, we on these Benches continue to harbour serious concerns about the manner in which Clause 12 is drafted. It was therefore unfortunate that the Government have not acted on any of the arguments raised by me, my noble friend Lord Sandhurst or the noble Lord, Lord Marks, with regard to these issues.

The Government have stated that, before any rates are set, there will be extensive engagement with stake- holders and a full public consultation, yet Clause 12 as drafted will give the Government the power to cap the amounts payable for prosecutors for their costs prior to any consultation actually taking place. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said on Report,

“that is the wrong way round”.—[Official Report, 10/3/26; col. 224.]

We on these Benches agree with that sentiment entirely.

However, as the Government have cited financial privilege as a reason for opposing our amendment to leave out Clause 12 from the Bill, I have instead tabled Motion D1, which contains two amendments in lieu. The effect of these amendments is threefold and seeks to mitigate the consequences of Clause 12. First, they would ensure that an impact assessment is launched on the potential effect of Clause 12, with particular regard to its consequences for charities and victims regarding access to justice. That need is underlined by the observations that the Minister made about there being some reservation about the way in which private prosecutions are being pursued. It is only appropriate, therefore, that these matters should be addressed. Secondly, my amendments would ensure that the Government publish a response to that impact assessment before they exercise the regulatory-making powers under Clause 12. Thirdly, the amendments would ensure that such regulation is subject to the affirmative procedure of both Houses, which is entirely appropriate in these circumstances. The Government have said that they have no intention of exercising the regulatory powers under Clause 12 until after their own public consultation, so I see no reason why they should oppose these amendments. They have been drafted with transparency and open justice in mind. If it is the Government’s intention to resist these simple amendments, then I will seek to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I turn first to the issue of private prosecutions, which is the contentious area in this group. I say at the outset that we on these Benches agree with Motion D1, and the Amendments 4B and 4C in lieu, proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen.

I start with a brief general point that we have made before. Private prosecutions are important, particularly against a background that police and other prosecuting authorities often have insufficient resources, or in some cases insufficient will, to investigate and prosecute offences themselves. It is wrong that decisions to invoke the criminal law should be exclusively in the hands of the state and its agencies. Private prosecutions offer a way for commercial organisations and for charities and others to bring prosecutions. That is important in the cases of shop theft in particular, but also in cases of fraud against charities and in other criminal matters. It is essential, however, that those who bring such prosecution successfully should be able to recover their reasonable costs. Otherwise, we risk their being deterred from doing so by having to bear the whole cost themselves without the prospect of objectively reasonable reimbursement.

As it stands, Clause 12 looks like an attempt to give the Government power to bring in regulations to limit the costs to be reimbursed. It may be that there are some private prosecutions where lawyers are overcharging for those prosecutions, and if that is the case, and there is evidence to establish that, then there may be some need for further regulation. But as a general rule it is unwise for Parliament to give Ministers the power to make regulations without their first establishing that such regulations are necessary. In this case, there is no hard evidence that we have seen to establish that regulations limiting the recoverable costs of private prosecutions are necessary. Ministers should not be able to bring such regulations into effect to limit recovery of such costs without their first establishing the necessity for such regulations.

Hence, the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord are right, I suggest. They are right to insist that an impact assessment, considering the likely effect of the regulations, and a response by the Government to that impact assessment, are made public before any regulations can be brought into effect. That would mean that Parliament can be properly informed of the need for them. The accompanying amendment, requiring an affirmative resolution, is entirely consistent with that principle, so we will support those amendments in lieu.

I turn next to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. We fully support the Government’s amendments in lieu, and we are very grateful to the Minister for meeting my noble friend Lady Brinton and me to consider our concern about the rights of victims and their families to refer sentences for consideration in circumstances where they have not been informed about the detail of the scheme or have not had reasonable time to consider making such a referral, at a time when circumstances for those victims are traumatic in the extreme.

17:00

The scheme is of no help to victims who would wish to challenge unduly lenient sentences if they do not know about their right to challenge them, or if they have had insufficient time to make a referral. As it stands, the present time limit of 28 days is quite simply too strict. Motion F would ensure that the victims’ code makes it mandatory to inform victims of their right to seek a referral of an unduly lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal, so that victims know about the scheme.

Motion E would mitigate the injustice of an unduly strict 28-day time limit on seeking such a referral. As the Minister said, the Motion would enable an extension of time where the interests of justice so require, while the six-month long stop would respect offenders’ right to finality in knowing the sentence that they are to serve. I am very grateful to the Minister for her acceptance of our suggestion that six months should be the time limit, and the gracious way in which she dealt with that today. These amendments will make the unduly lenient sentence scheme a much more effective and just protection for victims and their families than the scheme as it has operated to date. We are very grateful for what the Government have done to ensure that happens.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, on the Motion that has been proposed as regards private prosecutions, it is very urgent that this is brought into effect as soon as possible. If the proposal goes ahead for an extensive consultation of the kind envisaged, together with impact assessments and responses, I fear this would be a regrettable move, given the tremendous impact on the criminal justice system of the loss of funds.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to make a virtual contribution.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Marks for his comments on private prosecutions, and for the discussions we have had with the Minister, and separately with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, over the course of the Bill.

I echo the two important points from our Benches made by my noble friend Lord Marks. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has helpfully reflected in his Motion, an impact assessment on these specific regulations is vital. It would assess how workable they are, especially for the charitable and voluntary sectors, as well as for access to justice. My noble friend’s second point was equally important, and one that we on these Benches often talk about: the risk of giving Ministers the power to use regulations—in this case, to recover costs—without any transparency or reference back to Parliament. The Government need to think hard before they bring that into force.

I now turn to Motion E on unduly lenient sentences. I repeat my thanks to the Minister and her officials, as well as to the late Helen Newlove, the current Victims’ Commissioner, the new Victims’ Commissioner for London, and all their staff over the many years that I and others have been laying amendments to improve the arrangements for victims to be able to submit a claim to the Attorney-General to review an unduly lenient sentence.

I want to pick up where I left off in the previous group, when I outlined how the criminal justice process can seriously let down victims, including on the occasions when they are left distraught by a sentence that really does not meet the level needed for the horrendous experience that they were put through. I am very grateful to the Minister for her comments about the extraordinary work that Tracey Hanson has done to ensure that, after her family’s experience, changes should be made. Her experience was an appalling failure of public service to victims like her and her family. Over 10 years ago, her 21 year-old son, Josh, was the victim of an unprovoked knife attack. In Josh’s case, it took four years for a conviction and sentencing to be reached. She said:

“At no stage during the trial or at the point of sentencing was I informed of the ULS scheme. I only learned of its existence from another bereaved parent, by which time I had just hours left to act within the strict 28-day limit. With no clear guidance available, I submitted an appeal late in the evening on the 28th day, only to be told it was ‘out of time’ because it arrived outside office hours. That decision was final. I had no right to appeal”.


I have heard a little of the energy that the indomitable Tracey Hanson, Claire Waxman and others found on that single day to try to get an appeal in, after being told of it by another bereaved parent, which was, as been mentioned, on deadline day. That formal notice did not give a notice of an hour by which an appeal had to be submitted. Frankly, it was appalling that the Attorney-General’s Office chose to reject it because its idea of the end of the day was Friday hours—namely, 4 pm—even though it was posted by hand through its doors after that deadline but on the Friday.

That is why, during the passage of this Bill, our amendments have consistently asked for special arrangements. First, there must be a duty on an official body to notify a victim as soon as possible after sentencing, and in the event that a victim has not been informed in that time, special arrangements should be made. That is why I am so grateful to the Minister for the government amendments in Motions E and F. Yes, the Minister and I have had extensive discussions and, yes, we have agreed on some things and disagreed on others, but I want to thank Ministers in the MoJ for the round-table meeting with a number of victims last month, when four Ministers were able to hear at first hand from victims about their experience. I hope that, too, played a part in the decision to change things.

Motions E and F are very helpful steps forward to resolve problems and change an intransigent process that has blocked access to justice for victims. We hope that this will now signify a real change to their experience.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by touching briefly on the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Once again, I am grateful to your Lordships for the care and consideration brought to this debate, not only today but throughout the passage of this Bill. These measures matter; they will make a meaningful difference to those who have already endured so much.

I turn to the question of private prosecutions and reiterate that I recognise the concerns raised in relation to Clause 12. I want to make it clear again, as I have said before, that the vast majority of private prosecutions do not result in claims on central funds and will remain entirely unaffected by this measure. It is absolutely right that a number of respected charities make use of the private prosecution route to protect the public and prevent and pursue wrongdoing, but those cases account for only 10% to 15% of claims made on central funds. I make it absolutely crystal clear that we have no issue with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. This enabling power does not restrict who may bring a private prosecution, nor does it narrow the types of cases that may be pursued, and nothing in the clause alters the long-standing statutory right to bring a private prosecution.

It has been suggested that the Government must first consult in order to understand the landscape, but the need has already been established. The Justice Select Committee’s 2020 report published 42 accounts of written evidence and expressly recommended that the Government take a closer look at the private prosecution landscape, particularly when public money is involved. Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts also heard evidence of private prosecutions being misused and imposing significant burdens on the courts. Clause 12 responds to these findings, and I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his support.

Having said all that, we will engage thoroughly with stakeholders and we will hold a public consultation before any secondary legislation setting the rates is brought forward. As part of that process, we will undertake and publish an impact assessment.

I have stressed the importance of prescribing rates which address disproportionate costs without chilling the private prosecutions market. I bear in mind that, in recent years, your Lordships’ House has expressed concern about the quality of impact assessments, so we will work hard to develop an impact assessment which allows the Government to make good, evidence-based decisions. We believe that that is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is referring to when he seeks to compel the Government to respond to an impact assessment in paragraph (b) of Amendment 4B. I would be grateful if he could let me know whether he means something else. Had he accepted my invitation to a meeting, we might have been able to resolve that in advance.

I urge noble Lords to support the Government’s amendments on the ULS scheme and to support Motions D, E, F and G.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 4B and 4C in lieu—

4B: Clause 12, page 16, line 28, at end insert—
“(2AB) Before making any regulations giving effect to subsections (2ZA) or (2A), the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish an impact assessment evaluating the likely effects of the regulations, including, but not limited to, their impact on—
(i) the ability of private prosecutors to bring proceedings,
(ii) the charitable and voluntary sector, and
(iii) access to justice, and
(b) publish a response to that impact assessment.”

4C: Clause 12, page 16, line 30, at end insert—
“(4) In section 29 (regulations), in subsection (1B) omit “or 19(4B)” and insert “, 19(4B) or 20(1A)(d) in relation to private prosecutions”.””

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, in the light of what we have heard, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Motion D1.

17:11

Division 2

Motion D1 agreed.

Ayes: 270

---

Conservative: 188
Liberal Democrat: 59
Non-affiliated: 9
Crossbench: 6
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Bishops: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1

Noes: 200

---

Labour: 169
Crossbench: 28
Non-affiliated: 3

17:23

Motion E

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A, and do propose Amendments 5B to 5F in lieu—

5A: Because this Amendment gives rise to legal uncertainty.

5B: Clause 13, page 16, line 38, leave out “sub-paragraph (2)” and insert “sub-paragraphs (2) and (5)”

5C: Clause 13, page 17, line 16, at end insert—
“(d) after sub-paragraph (4) (inserted by subsection (2)(c)) insert—
“(5) The Court of Appeal may allow notice of an application for leave to refer a case to be given after the expiry of the period in sub-paragraph (1) (and any extension of that period under sub-paragraph (2)) where the Court of Appeal is satisfied that—
(a) notice of the application is given pursuant to a request, by a person who is a victim in the case falling within section 1(1)(a) or (2)(c) of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (meaning of “victim”), to review the sentencing of a person,
(b) notice of the application is given—
(i) within six months from the day on which the sentence, or the last of the sentences, in the case was passed, or
(ii) where the request is received by the Attorney General within the last 14 days of the six-month period mentioned in sub-paragraph (i), within 14 days from the day on which the request is received, and
(c) it is in the interests of justice to allow notice to be given after the expiry of the period in sub-paragraph (1) (and any extension of that period under sub-paragraph (2)).””

5D: Clause 13, page 17, line 19, leave out “(4)” and insert “(5)”

5E: Clause 13, page 17, line 20, at end insert—
“(4) The amendment made by subsection (2)(d) applies only in relation to cases where the sentence, or the last of the sentences, was passed after it came into force.”

5F. Clause 17, page 18, line 34, after “13” insert “(1), (2)(a) to (c), and (3)”

Motion E agreed.

Motion F

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A, and do propose Amendments 6B and 6C in lieu—

6A: Because the Victims’ Code already stipulates that victims will be informed of the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

6B: After Clause 13, insert the following new Clause—
“Reviews of sentencing: duty to notify victims
(1) Section 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (victims’ code) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) The victims’ code must make provision about informing victims of the opportunity to ask the Attorney General to refer a case to the Court of Appeal under section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (unduly lenient sentences).
(3B) Subsection (3A) applies only in respect of—
(a) a person who is a victim by virtue of section 1(1)(a) or (2)(c), and
(b) cases relating to the criminal conduct as a result of which that person is such a victim.”
(3) In subsection (13), after “references in” insert “subsection (3A) and”.
(4) In section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, in subsection (1), at the end insert “(for requests for referrals by victims of crime in England and Wales, see section 2(3A) of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024)”.”

6C: Clause 17, page 18, line 34, at end insert—
“(ca) section (Reviews of sentencing: duty to notify victims) (reviews of sentencing: duty to notify victims);”

Motion F agreed.

Motion G

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.

7A: Because Lords Amendment 4 would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and Lords Amendment 7 is consequential on that Amendment, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion G agreed.

Southport Inquiry

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Statement

17:24

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 13 April.

“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the Southport inquiry. I must thank all who participated in the inquiry, and the chair, Sir Adrian Fulford, and his team. Today, Sir Adrian published the report of the inquiry’s first phase. This summer, the Government will provide a full response. That will also cover Lord Anderson’s Prevent review. Today, I will provide the Government’s initial reaction to an inquiry that exposes a series of tragic failures from which we must learn.

We do so in the shadow of the events of 29 July 2024. I will not name the perpetrator, nor dwell on the details of the crimes that saw three beautiful young girls murdered, the attempted murder of eight other children and two adults, and lasting physical and psychological harm to many more. I know that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that my thoughts today are with all those affected. In honour of them and the memory of three murdered girls, Elsie Dot Stancombe, Bebe King and Alice da Silva Aguiar, we must now act to prevent similar attacks. It was for that reason that my predecessor appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead a full statutory inquiry.

The inquiry’s work has two parts. The first, which reported today, considered the decisions made by the agencies and services that interacted with the perpetrator. That included a range of institutions in the criminal justice system, as well as in education, healthcare and local government. It also considered the actions of the perpetrator’s parents.

The findings of the inquiry are unsparing. Sir Adrian has uncovered systematic failures across multiple public sector organisations. The recording and sharing of information were poor. None of the agencies involved had a full understanding of the risk that the perpetrator posed, and many did not take steps to assess the risk he posed to others. There was a failure by the agencies involved to take responsibility, and nobody was clear as to who was in charge; so the failure, because it belonged to everyone, belonged to no one. Where individuals missed opportunities to intervene, lessons must be learned, but they did so within organisations that repeatedly passed the risk to others and where systemic failings existed.

The perpetrator came into contact with the state on countless occasions. Lancashire police responded to five calls to his home address. The police were called when he was in possession of a knife in a public place. He was referred on several occasions to the multi-agency safeguarding hub. He came into contact with children’s social care, the Early Help service and children’s mental health services. He was referred to Prevent on three occasions. He was convicted of a violent assault and referred to a youth offending team. All failed to identify the risk that the perpetrator posed, and so he fell through the gaps. The warning signs were missed: a growing history of violence, and a clear and continuing intent to commit harm.

In the Home Office, the focus falls on Prevent and policing. Sir Adrian is clear that police should have progressed the perpetrator to the multi-agency Channel programme. Channel could have actively assessed and managed his risk. Instead, he was not deemed suitable because he had no fixed ideology. That ran counter to the guidance at the time, but the thresholds were unclear and the guidance was applied inconsistently. The perpetrator’s multiple referrals were also considered individually, when they should have been seen as a cumulative and compounding risk. The perpetrator did not receive the correct interventions, and his autism diagnosis meant that professionals focused far too much on his vulnerability and far too little on the threat that he might pose to others.

The horrific attack was itself evidence of the ease with which it could be conducted. There were no restrictions to stop the perpetrator watching the violent content that inspired him, downloading instructions to make poison, or viewing terrorist materials online. He was also able to bypass the safeguards that should have stopped him buying and receiving dangerous weapons. These findings are devastating, but they are not surprising. Findings like these have been heard before in inquests and inquiries. This time, however, they must be a spur for change. The inquiry makes 67 recommendations. The Government are reviewing them and will respond to those which relate to national government this summer, and I expect local agencies to do the same.

Since this awful crime, the Government have already acted. That begins with Prevent. Since the Southport attack, the Home Office and counterterrorism policing have reviewed historical cases to ensure that similar instances were handled correctly, with cases reassessed for any change in risk and managed accordingly. The Government have reviewed the Prevent thresholds and published updated guidance. We have introduced a new Prevent assessment framework, with mandatory training for counterterrorism case officers. Oversight of repeat Prevent referrals has been strengthened, ensuring that cumulative risk is not missed and senior sign-off is required before a case is closed. To provide independent oversight of the whole system, we have created an Independent Prevent Commissioner. I thank Lord Anderson, whose term ends today, for so ably taking on that position on an interim basis. I am pleased to say that I have appointed Tim Jacques as the new Prevent commissioner, and he begins his role tomorrow.

This Government have also begun to place greater controls on a dangerously unregulated online world. The Online Safety Act 2023 requires companies to remove illegal content from their platforms. The Act is intended to limit children from encountering content that is legal but poses a risk of significant harm, although that is just the beginning of what can and must be done. The internet remains a dangerous place for children, and we are clear that tech companies have a moral responsibility to keep their users safe. The House should be in no doubt that, when they fail to do so, the Government will intervene. That is why we are consulting on whether to remove children’s access to social media entirely.

I can also announce today that we will legislate to prevent the spread of extreme violent content online. We have also made it harder for people to purchase weapons. The Crime and Policing Bill places new controls on the online sale and delivery of knives. We have banned the manufacture, purchase and possession of ninja swords and zombie-style machetes, and earlier this year we published new guidance mandating that any child caught with a knife must be referred to a youth offending team.

In the aftermath of the attack, the Government commissioned Jonathan Hall KC—the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation—to consider the legislative gaps exposed by the attack. That work identified an inconsistency that clearly needed addressing: unlike for terrorist attacks, there is no crime on the statute book for planning an attack without an underlying ideology. Jonathan Hall therefore recommended the creation of a new offence. That legislation will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The inquiry also identifies a wider issue: rising numbers of young men are fascinated by extreme violence—boys whose minds are warped by time spent in isolation online. That is a risk to us all. Where someone is vulnerable to terrorism, they can and should be managed through the Prevent programme. However, where they are not, there is no clear approach to that risk. Today, we publish the terms of reference for the second part of the Southport inquiry, which will face directly into that challenge. Sir Adrian will provide recommendations on the adequacy of the existing arrangements, across all arms of the state, for identifying and managing the risk posed by violence-fixated individuals. He will explore what specific interventions are required to reduce the risk to the public. He will also review the influence of the internet and social media, and the ease with which weapons can be procured. Sir Adrian begins this work immediately, and will present his final recommendations next spring.

In the summer of 2024, an act of unspeakable evil took place in Southport. Nothing will ever heal the pain of those who survive, including the families who suffered unimaginable loss. Responsibility rests with the perpetrator, but there was also responsibility within the family. The perpetrator’s parents knew the risk that he posed but did not co-operate with the authorities. There is also responsibility on the state, and on all of us here, to learn the lessons from failures, wherever they occurred. That lesson is that the failures happened everywhere. We must ensure that we do not find ourselves here again, grieving deaths that would never have happened had the state—and those who work within it—acted differently. That is our task. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for today’s Statement. There are many things to learn but our foremost concern must be with the victims and their families. This report is littered with evidence of institutional failure. Time and again, public bodies were presented with the evidence and given the chance to intercept Rudakubana, and yet they failed to act. It is, in retrospect, unfathomable that Rudakubana was referred to Prevent three times and each time the referral was closed. I am therefore delighted that the Government have now updated their Prevent assessment framework and that oversight of repeat Prevent referrals has been strengthened. That basis must now be built upon, beginning by reviewing Sir Adrian Fulford’s Prevent recommendations. The importance of investigating online activity and ensuring that neurodivergence has a place within practitioner training must now be prioritised. When can this House expect an update from the new Prevent commissioner on incorporating these suggestions into the system?

There is also evidence that shortfalls in information sharing between agencies represented one of the key failures among public services, particularly on behalf of the police. Sir Adrian has outlined that the police should have progressed Rudakubana to the multi-agency Channel programme and has made several other important suggestions on general police practice. Given that the Secretary of State acknowledges that this step should have been taken, can the Minister offer a timescale in which we can expect to see measures to ensure that guidance on Channel referrals is followed consistently?

It was also noted that Rudakubana’s autism was a key factor in the police not taking action on early warning signs. Following a report by his parents in 2021, the police concluded that the

“suspect suffers with autism and it is not in [the] public interest to prosecute”.

The report found that Lancashire Constabulary, despite responding appropriately to calls, did so

“without any real consideration or understanding of what”

his autism

“might mean for his criminal responsibility or risk”.

This approach was mirrored by the social services. The child and youth justice service reduced its contact time with Rudakubana and later began to accept his attendance at school as qualifying contact time due to his autism. This was despite the fact that he had failed to adequately engage with his social worker.

It is clear that there exists an institutionalised practice to defer to disabilities as an explanation for misconduct and to focus on the individual’s vulnerability over the risk they may pose. In this case, inaction on behalf of the authorities was in part caused by the attacker’s autism diagnosis. Can the Minister say whether, in the light of this report, the Government are now reviewing their position on sectioning and whether there are lessons to be learned that should be applied to our approach relating to neurodivergent people more generally?

Another important revelation of this report—one that was missing from the Home Secretary’s Statement—was a similarly institutionalised practice to consider race as an important factor in agency work. Rudakubana’s head teacher, Joanne Hodson, was encouraged to water down his education, health and care plan by both his father and social services. His social worker at the time even went so far as to accuse Mrs Hodson of “racially stereotyping” Axel Rudakubana as

“a black boy with a knife”.

This is becoming a worrying trend. The same practices were made apparent in the inquiry into the tragic murders in Nottingham in 2023. Mental health care professionals had not sectioned Valdo Calocane due to the concern they placed on the “over-representation” of young Black men in detention. This mindset within institutions filters through into the public conscience. A security guard present at the Manchester Arena suicide bombing avoided confronting Salman Abedi for fear of being called a racist, despite having a “bad feeling” about the soon-to-be suicide bomber.

The institutional obsession with ethnic or racial parity must end. Immutable identity cannot play a role in agency work concerned with protecting the public. Public bodies must act if and when there is ample evidence to suggest a risk to the individual or to the public, as was the case with Rudakubana, regardless of who they are. If that leads to disproportionality then so be it. If outcomes suggest an overrepresentation of this or that community then I am afraid the responsibility must lie with the individuals in question, not the public bodies reacting to their actions. We cannot continue with this current mindset; the consequences are far too dire. That much has been made tragically clear. I hope the Minister can agree on this specific point.

I hope that, in the light of these findings, the relevant agencies will now be spurred on to making the necessary changes to their operations to ensure that an atrocity like this will not result from their failings again. In particular, information-sharing must be made a priority. I hope the Minister will make this assurance today.

I also acknowledge the monumental shortcomings of the attacker’s parents. Past the failure to seek adequate help regarding Rudakubana’s behaviour, the refusal to alert the police of his purchase of weapons and the lack of accountability that Sir Adrian Fulford highlighted in their testimonies, their actions in the week leading up to the attack are unforgivable. The report leaves no doubt that the parents had the express knowledge that Rudakubana was planning to commit an attack, yet they did nothing to prevent it. It will do little to prompt criminal proceedings, nor will it offer much comfort to the families of the victims, but it is an important point to place on the record.

This report must serve as an inflection point. We owe it to the victims, survivors, families and communities affected by this atrocity. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I commend the Statement made in the other place. Our thoughts remain with the families of Elsie Dot, Bebe and Alice, and with those still living with the physical and psychological scars of Southport.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the first phase of Sir Adrian Fulford’s inquiry. Its findings are indeed unsparing but, tragically, not unsurprising. How often have we stood here after inquests and inquiries, hearing once again of the same systemic failures, poor information sharing and missed opportunities?

The report describes the state’s failure as belonging to everyone and therefore to no one. In the five years before the attack, the perpetrator came into contact with almost every arm of the state: mental health services, children’s social care, three schools, Lancashire Police and the Prevent programme, three times. No comprehensive risk assessment was ever made and each agency assumed someone else would take the lead. This was a failure not only to join up the dots but to share life-saving information. As Sir Adrian warns, that culture must end—because until it does, tragedies like this will happen again.

The Government now say that they will legislate to strengthen accountability between agencies. This is welcome, but it is hard to understand why they are overlooking an opportunity already before them in the Crime and Policing Bill—a Bill which, ironically, could help deliver exactly what the inquiry calls for. The Bill proposes youth diversion orders to support young people who pose a risk of serious violence or radicalisation—precisely the cohort at the centre of this inquiry. Properly framed, these orders could address the very gap Sir Adrian identifies.

When the police apply for an order, the court should be able to see all the relevant information, from schools, social care, health services and the police, to build a complete picture of the child’s needs and risks. However, as drafted in the Bill, that will not happen. The police will consult only the youth offending team. There will be no legal duty to involve schools, health professionals or social services, and no guarantee that the court will ever hear from them. Judges will not see the full picture that could mean the difference between prevention and disaster. That is why I tabled an amendment to introduce a clear multi-agency consultation duty, which would build exactly the structured accountability that Sir Adrian said is essential.

Had such a duty existed before the Southport attack, the perpetrator’s autism might not have been repeatedly misunderstood as an explanation for his behaviour. The police might have known more about the support available, and agencies might have felt obliged to share vital information. I made these points on Report, but the Government resisted the amendment, preferring to rely on guidance. I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity at all, but we risk once again seeing fine words followed by inaction.

It is not too late. The Bill will return to this House tomorrow. I urge Ministers to look again, in the light of the inquiry’s finding, and to act swiftly to ensure that the law reflects what Sir Adrian has so clearly set out: lives depend on joined up responsibility and real accountability.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Statement that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made in the House of Commons yesterday. My thoughts and, I know, those of the whole House will be with the families of the three girls who were killed and with the victims who are still suffering the trauma of those events. The events in Southport on 29 July 2024 were completely shocking, and I welcome Sir Adrian Fulford’s report on his findings. I thank him and his team, who I have met on a number of occasions during the first stage of the inquiry. I say to the House as a whole that the Government will consider the recommendations in full, and we will respond to phase 1 of the report by the summer. I thank Sir Adrian again for his work.

Sir Adrian’s inquiry identified five main areas of failings, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, highlighted. Those failings are clear and are very strong criticisms, which we need to examine and address in the response to those recommendations. Sir Adrian indicated that there was a failure of organisation and ownership of risk with the perpetrator themselves. There was poor information management and sharing, there were excuses for the behaviour of the perpetrator due to the diagnosed autism spectrum disorder and there was a failure to oversee and intervene in the perpetrator’s online behaviours. The role of the perpetrator’s parents, as the noble Lord identified, was a major failure. As I said, we will consider those recommendations and formally respond to the inquiry in the summer.

I note and appreciate the comments and the pressure put on me by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, but it is important that we get this right and consider the recommendations in full. The Crime and Policing Bill is coming back tomorrow. It will potentially, subject to its passage in the Commons, complete its passage by the end of the Session. I do not want to use that week to rush to a decision, which is why we have said that we will respond to the inquiry by the summer.

As the House will know, we have also established phase 2 of the inquiry, which will begin immediately. We have issued terms of reference for phase 2, which will look at whether multi-agency systems are fit to assess and address the risk posed by young people who are fascinated by extreme violence. I expect to receive the recommendations from Sir Adrian in due course. It is certainly important to look not just at the case of the individual—who, I remind the House, faces a 52-year minimum term sentence in prison for his horrific crimes—but at whether there are other systemic issues that need to be examined. The inquiry has made 67 recommendations in full, and we will respond to those. With due respect to the noble Baroness, I do not wish to rush those responses today.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, also mentioned Prevent. Since the attack, we have already made improvements to the Prevent programme. This was the most likely framework that could have addressed the risk that the perpetrator posed. To strengthen Prevent, we have launched a new Prevent risk assessment tool, changed the approach to repeat referrals, looked at new guidance to individuals working with people under the Prevent framework and expanded the range of interventions available. We have also introduced the role of the Independent Prevent Commissioner, which was initially held by a colleague—a noble Lord in this House—but has now been approved on a permanent basis, with Tim Jacques being appointed as the Prevent commissioner.

The Government will examine those issues in detail and continue to learn, and will look at the responses to the recommendations in due course. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who holds that role at the moment. I welcome his contribution to date in helping us to improve the Prevent response.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned the question of autism. That was identified by Fulford’s initial recommendations. The perpetrator was autistic and clearly this increased the risk he posed to people in the community. However, autism itself did not necessarily cause the events that happened on 29 July 2024. Risk needs to be assessed on an individual basis. In the case of the Southport perpetrator, autism spectrum disorder clearly added to the risk he posed. The inquiry found that too many professionals were willing to excuse his behaviour because of this. We will make sure that practitioners, particularly those working in Prevent, understand that a referral should not be dismissed and that action should be taken. This behaviour should not have been excused because of autism. The inquiry highlights serious concerns.

For the noble Lord’s information, independently of this inquiry, the Government are committed to developing a new autism strategy following recent House of Lords reports on the Autism Act 2009. Work is under way to develop a cross-government national autism strategy. The inquiry’s findings will be carefully considered as part of this proposal.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned the parents. The inquiry examined the role of the perpetrator’s family and has been extremely critical of them. Sir Adrian makes clear findings on moral failings that should have been reported regarding the perpetrator’s behaviour, his collecting of weapons, and his approach to family life and the community around him. It is a matter ultimately for the police whether any criminal action is taken in relation to the parents. The parents are British citizens and have the right of abode in the United Kingdom, as does the perpetrator. There are certainly lessons to be learned from that and we will respond to the recommendations in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned the question of race. In this case, that may be a factor, where people have not taken the action that they should have because of the individual’s race. However, I want to make it clear to the House that the action taken by the perpetrator, who is now serving 52 years in prison, could have been taken by anybody, regardless of race. I do not want to bring the issue of race into this, but I understand the point that the noble Lord has made—namely, that professionals need to ignore race when they look at the actions of an individual. That is the important point that has come out of this report.

Finally, the Government have already taken further action to ensure that we establish an internal working group to look at the recommendations that have been made. As I have said to the House, we will report back by the summer on those initial recommendations. Phase 2 has begun now and it has our full support. As the Minister sponsoring the inquiry, I will continue to meet Sir Adrian to ensure that he has the resource and support to achieve his final recommendations.

It is clear to the House that the individual concerned undertook appalling acts. Our thoughts remain with the families of the victims. It is our duty as the Government to look at where failures existed that contributed to this attack. The responsibility lies solely with the perpetrator, but there are factors that contributed to the attack. With due respect to all Members of the House, we need to reflect on the recommendations. We will bring back government proposals in due course for phases 1 and 2.

17:44

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive answers. He is of course absolutely right that, for many of the recommendations, the Government must take the time to think through their response to get it right. However, people looking at the Fulford report will have noticed the systemic failures. One of the things they will be concerned about is whether there are currently people who present a risk to the community, who may not have been referred to Prevent, who are going to fall through the cracks. That is an urgent matter.

Is the Minister confident that the welcome steps that the Government have already taken to strengthen the way Prevent works, and the other changes they have made, will capture any of those individuals in the system? Can he provide that assurance to the House—or is there more in a short-term way that the Government need to do to check that no-one has already fallen through the cracks who may present a risk to the public?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is an absolutely fair point. Again I put to the House that Sir Adrian’s recommendations are clear. There are five areas of failing. We are looking at those recommendations and will report on them in the summer. The second phase is looking at the wider picture. We will look at those recommendations in due course.

However, the Home Office is not complacent. We have established a violence fixation taskforce, which is looking at a range of issues in the Home Office: the recommendations, the Government’s response and the development of the very issue that the noble Lord mentions, which is identifying individuals at risk who are fascinated by violence, managing that risk and looking with other agencies at what we need to do, pending a formal response to the recommendations in due course.

It is very difficult sometimes if individuals appear from nowhere. We cannot necessarily legislate against that, but it is important that we review now what the priority approaches are to make sure that, if there are people in the system, we examine that very clearly and quickly. The Home Office taskforce is now being commissioned by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to establish some general examination of the very issues that the noble Lord mentions. I hope to report back to the House in due course.

[Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families and Southport. In the immediate days after this unspeakable tragedy, additional resources were put into Southport in terms of policing and counselling for young people in the local community and local schools. The support provided by the local community after this tragedy was immense: the local authority, schools and the voluntary sector. Can I ask my noble friend the Minister what his plans are to ensure that this support is continued to a community in Southport that is still in mourning and in shock?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My noble friend makes the valid point that the whole community in Southport and in Merseyside, and the religious community in the area, came together to give support to the families. This happened two weeks after the general election. The local MP, Patrick Hurley, had just been elected. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has helped support the local community in Southport. The churches, the imams and the local Jewish community have all come together to give that support. The Government recognised the needs of Southport by putting additional resources into the local council and the local community and will continue to monitor that.

This is a major, traumatic event for the families and for the community as a whole. It is important that we do what we can to maintain community cohesion and support the local community. The Government stand ready to continue to give help and support where required, during both the second stage of these recommendations and the whole process of Southport healing and remembering the victims of this despicable crime.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I cannot imagine what it is like for the parents of those three little girls and the other injured children to hear the key word that was used in relation to the inquiry: that these events were “preventable”. That is the most chilling idea: they could have been stopped. The butcher behind the slaughter was hiding in plain sight—a known risk since 13—but, somehow, state bodies did nothing, zilch. So how will those state agencies that failed here be held to account? Will people be sacked? Surely, there must be some consequences. It cannot just be a vague, “Lessons must be learned”.

The Minister said that we should not bring race in to this. I do not think anyone did, except the state agencies that said action should not be taken because of the race of the individual. I am referring as well to the ongoing Nottingham inquiry—I am sure the Minister is following it—where Calocane also murdered three innocent people. Nobody wants to talk about race but, as Emma, the mother of Barnaby, one of the murdered people, said, “I don’t want to talk about race”, but mental health treatment was not given to him because it might be seen as being because he was Black. A bastardised anti-racism has not helped us here and will not help us hold people to account, either. We must be honest and frank. We are not bringing race into this; the institutions and state bodies did.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hope I was clear and I thought I made it clear to the House when I talked about the issue of race and said that the characteristics that led to the individual perpetrating this awful attack were mental health issues, obsession and a range of other issues that were identified in the report. There was an element of people using the issue of race to not necessarily follow through on some of the points that they could have done, but the race of the perpetrator is an issue that we need to be very careful about examining per se. There are obviously issues within that.

When we look at Adrian Fulford’s recommendations in due course, there are obviously failures around the management of the individual. We will look at those recommendations. On the individuals who have been criticised, I am sure there will be discussion with local authorities and others about how they improve that performance. But I say to the noble Baroness that we had this report yesterday at noon. It is important that we look at and assess the recommendations. I have given a commitment that we will report back by the end of the summer, and that is one thing that we will do. So, if she will allow me, I will not comment on the issues she has raised pending the examination of the inquiry in detail.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, after what happened in Southport, is it fair to say that the parameters within which Prevent operates are too narrowly drawn? What I mean by that is that the perpetrator’s obsession with violence was drawn to the attention of Prevent three times, but Prevent’s response was, “Well, because he doesn’t fall within these narrow parameters, there is basically nothing we can do”.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for making the very important point that there are issues that we need to examine in relation to obsession with serious violence that may be outside the Prevent programme but need to be examined as part of the characteristics of somebody referred to Prevent. Part 2 of Adrian Fulford’s inquiry has very clear terms of reference to look at the issues of how individuals are being radicalised and how they are becoming obsessed with violence. Sometimes that violence obsession is not linked not to an ideology but to the whole principle of, “I want to be involved in violence”. That is a new element that we need to examine, and part 2 of Adrian Fulford’s report is designed to look at that very issue.

We have already reviewed the Prevent agenda and widened its scope. The Independent Prevent Commissioner has already produced a report for us on those issues, and we are going to continue to look at how we improve Prevent. I say to my noble friend that Prevent has been a significant intervention in almost 6,000 cases to date and has turned many people’s lives around. It has had cross-government support and support from all parties, and I want to continue to use it. But there are certainly lessons to be learned, which is what we will do in relation to our examination of these issues.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister say what advice he has given or is planning to give to the Secretary of State for Education about managing the risk that, sadly, some young people present to their peers and to adults? I ask this because I read the Southport report and all the shocking findings it lays out immediately after reading a recently published Ofsted document on its areas of research interest, where there is an explicit statement that it is aligned with the Department for Education’s areas of interest. They are overwhelmingly about how to include more children who face additional barriers and need extra support and how to support them better. There is not a single question in the whole of it that acknowledges the risk that sometimes exists for other children when high-risk children are included, yet there are, to touch on points that others have made, a number of questions that express concern about stereotyping. It feels as though some departments are still going headlong down the route of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to as a sort of bastardised anti-racism and failing to be honest, open and transparent in the interests of all children—who can no longer include, sadly, the children who were murdered at Southport, but should include all their successors.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments. Self-evidently, there are lessons to be learned by the health service, education and other agencies of government and at a regional level from the failures that occurred that Sir Adrian has identified. As part of our task force examining the recommendations, we will certainly be involving other government departments and discussing with them how we can help them to improve their performance. There may be lessons to be learned, as the noble Baroness said, in relation to education. I expect that when we respond to the recommendations, that will be a cross-government response. It will not just be a Home Office response. It will include the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Education and the Department of Health. I will, if she will let me, reflect on the points that she has made and feed them into my colleagues in education. We will continue to look at that as a cross-government approach to the recommendations that Sir Adrian has made.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, this has been one of the most horrendous cases that we have witnessed. I believe that the public have lost confidence in so many authorities which should be looking after our children, and all of us, frankly. I recall the Victoria Climbié case and the many children over the years who were murdered and tortured, and there were always lessons to be learned. This is not pointed at just one Government by the way; it is just a fact of life. Latterly, we had the Manchester Arena bomber and all those children who were murdered, and we have had rape gangs, a situation that has gone on for the past 20 or 30 years. Here we are now in Southport. My view is that the public have lost confidence because nobody is ever held to account. This is not about just pointing a finger and wanting to see somebody in authority end up in court, but the cover-ups that have gone on in some of these awful circumstances, with nobody brought to account or feeling the full force of the law, cannot continue. Until this is dealt with in a far more open manner and those who are accountable feel the full force of the law, I do not think we are going to get any further forward, and there will be no lessons learned because we will probably be having this sort of conversation in another year or two’s time. I know that the noble Lord is a good Minister and very thorough and that all of us in this House want to resolve these awful issues. He has our full support, but we need to regain the confidence of the public.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to give confidence to the public, and the purpose of the inquiry that the then Home Secretary Yvette Cooper launched was to ensure that we drew out some lessons. There will always be, in the cycle of any Government at any time, things thrown up that show failures. This inquiry has found that no single agency, or multi-agency arrangement, took ownership of the risk; that is unacceptable. There was poor information recording management and sharing of agencies and professions; that is unacceptable. The behaviour of the individual was excused based on his autism; that should not have happened. There was a failure to understand and intervene in online behaviours, both at home and at school, and his parents in particular had major failings in excusing his behaviour.

Can we make changes on those things? The recommendations that Sir Adrian has made are guidance for us. In answer to the earlier question of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, we are going to reflect on those in due course. A range of issues might come out of that, including how we hold individuals to account. The key thing, having had those recommendations at 12 noon yesterday, is that the Government have time to consider them properly, and to bring back a plan for both Houses of Parliament. As soon as those recommendations were received by Government, we brought them to this House, and the House of Commons, to share them in an open and public way, so that colleagues will know that we share those concerns. We have, I hope, the full support of the House to address them, and will do our best to ensure systemic failures are addressed and, if need be, individuals are held to account.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I do not usually call for bans, but I would like to call for a ban on the phrase “lessons must be learned”. That is what makes the public feel cynical. I have been here for a few years, and “lessons must be learned” has been said so often to me, but none has ever been learned, as far as I can see. Can we just stop saying that phrase, because everyone just rolls their eyes? That was a joke.

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

Excuse me, but it is not time for a joke. Statements should be about questions to the Minister.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Let me give the noble Baroness an answer. If she thinks that we are not going to take this issue seriously, bring forward a plan, respond to the recommendations and, yes, learn some lessons, then she is dealing with the wrong Minister in the wrong place. My job is to make sure that we respond to this in an effective and constructive way. I am trying to reach out to the whole House to say that there is, I hope, a unified approach to these recommendations. I will report back and, if lessons have to be learned—I will use that phrase again—the whole purpose of the Government’s actions will be to prevent this happening in the future as far as possible. That is what this Government are trying to do.

Knife Crime

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Statement

18:02

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 14 April.

“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a Statement on the Government’s plan to halve knife crime in a decade. That commitment, made in our manifesto, is rooted in recognition of a tragic truth: in too many places, a deadly cycle has taken hold, as fear and violence feed off each other, leaving people—and especially young people—feeling that they have no choice but to carry a weapon to stay safe. In the most devastating cases, that results in the loss of lives that have barely begun.

All that is wretchedly familiar to the House and to me. We know it from the long list of tragedies about which we have spoken with families across the country. We hear it in the anguished words of bereaved parents, whom many of us have met after fatal stabbings in our constituencies. We see it when we look at our children, whose safety is too often the cause of worry and sleepless nights. In these and so many other ways, knife crime is destructive and devastating, and has for too long been plaguing communities and destroying lives.

The task of putting that right falls to this Government. Since the general election we have acted decisively to deliver a response that matches up to the scale of the threat, implementing bans on zombie-style knives, zombie-style machetes and ninja swords; restoring neighbourhood policing to the heart of our communities; getting more than 63,000 knives and dangerous weapons off our streets; ramping up action against county lines gangs to record levels, with over 2,700 lines shut down last year; setting up the coalition to tackle knife crime; and legislating to deliver the toughest crackdown yet on online knife sales. The concerted effort that we have mounted, alongside our partners in the coalition, law enforcement and communities across the country, is having an impact. Since the start of this Parliament, knife crime is down by 8% and knife homicides are down by 27%, to the lowest level in a decade.

Together, we are making progress, but it is not enough. Knives are still being carried, stabbings are still occurring and lives are still being lost. Indeed, there have been several fatal cases in recent days and weeks, and I take this opportunity to express my deepest sympathies to the victims’ loved ones. For them, for all the families out there whose world has been for ever changed by knife crime, and for the country as a whole, we must do more, and we are doing more.

We have published the Protecting Lives, Building Hope plan, which details the action that the Government are taking and will take to further reduce knife crime and, ultimately, achieve our goal of halving it in a decade. The plan outlines activity and investment designed to drive progress across four key outcomes: supporting young people, stopping those at risk from turning to knife crime, policing our streets and ending the cycle of knife crime. I will address each in turn.

First, we will do much more to give every boy and girl the best possible start in life by addressing the root causes of knife crime; increasing investment in youth services; launching 50 Young Futures hubs to bring together well-being support, careers guidance and positive activities in areas badly affected by knife crime; stepping up support for children who are persistently absent from school; and investing in mental health support teams in schools. We do all that and more because we recognise that, to deliver the change that is needed, we must act early and prevent harm before it escalates into violence in later life.

Secondly, we are ramping up efforts to stop young people being drawn into knife crime, be they at risk of being an offender, a victim or both. A new Safety In & Around Schools Partnership, backed by government funding, will see around 250 schools given targeted support to boost their capacity to tackle knife crime and reduce the risk of harm. We are also investing in the county lines programme and the highly effective network of violence reduction units, and strengthening crime prevention in the communities that need it most.

Thirdly, we will ensure that victims of knife crime get the justice that they deserve, and that dangerous criminals face the full force of the law, through a robust and effective police response. Visible local policing is central to our approach not just on knife crime but across the full breadth of this Government’s agenda on law and order. The severity of the situation that we inherited has been well documented, so I will not retrace that ground, except to say that we have made it a first-order priority to rebuild neighbourhood policing, by putting an additional 13,000 police personnel into neighbourhood roles in England and Wales by the end of this Parliament, with over 3,000 in place two months ahead of schedule, and by implementing the neighbourhood policing guarantee, under which every community has named, contactable officers devoted to tackling local issues.

Police boots on the ground are essential, but we must also ensure that forces are equipped and empowered to make interventions that are precise, timely and effective. We will therefore support the development of tools and approaches that have the potential to enhance prevention and detection, with substantial funding to enhance crime mapping, invest in research and development aimed at improving our capability to detect high-risk knife carriers, and enable targeted action in the police force areas that see the most knife crime through a new knife crime concentrations fund. We will also support forces in maximising the use of intelligence-led stop and search, and where the law needs strengthening, we will not hesitate, as shown by our commitment to introducing much tougher rules around the online sale of knives, through measures we know as Ronan’s law, after Ronan Kanda, who was fatally stabbed aged 16 and whose mother and sister have campaigned heroically for change since his death. That will all be underpinned by the most radical programme of police reform in 200 years.

Fourthly, we will seek to end the cycle of repeat harm by strengthening the youth justice system, improving the rehabilitation of adult offenders to reduce the risk of reoffending and developing a new national approach to identify, prioritise and manage habitual knife offenders who pose the greatest risk to public safety.

Each of those four strands is important on its own, and the steps that we are taking within them have been chosen because the evidence supports that. Equally, I am clear that this work transcends individual policies or initiatives. Ours is a whole-of-government, whole-of-society mission aimed at building a safer, more hopeful future for all. The publication of this plan marks a significant moment in that mission, not because of what it says but because of the action that it will drive.

Above all, we think today of the victims, and of the families that are smaller than they should be. Although we can never undo the pain inflicted on them, we can prevent others from suffering as they have. It will not be easy, but this Government will be unrelenting in the vital effort to protect lives and build hope. As Pooja Kanda so aptly put it:

‘Every child deserves to grow up safely’.

She is right, and we must and will do everything in our power to make those words a reality in every part of our country. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, we meet at a time when too many people in this country still feel less safe in their streets and less confident in the criminal justice system. We know the threat of knife crime; in Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill, we on this side of the House pointed out that, in the year ending March 2025, there were 528,582 stop and searches in England and Wales, including 5,572 under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. In the year ending June 2025, there were 51,527 knife offences, and 1.1 million incidents of violence, with or without injury, recorded by the police.

The Government now say that they will halve knife crime in a decade, and we all want that, but targets without a clear plan are not enough. Can the Minister say how they are going to empower police to tackle knife crime with confidence? If the Government want officers to act decisively to prevent violence, they must also ensure that officers who act lawfully and proportionately feel properly backed. That is why we must prevent the Independent Office for Police Conduct from reopening an investigation into the same conduct after a police officer has been prosecuted and acquitted, unless there is substantial new evidence. We have made that argument forcefully in debates on the Crime and Policing Bill, and we will revisit that tomorrow.

The Government must not undermine police confidence when we need more proactive policing. Although the Government speak of neighbourhood policing expansion, the fact is that overall police officer numbers have fallen by more than 1,300 since the Government took office, including particularly sharp falls in the Metropolitan Police when knife crime is at its worst in London. What impact has the fall in police numbers had on overall crime levels and on perceptions of safety in communities? What steps are Ministers taking to expand the numbers of police officers, and when will they deliver on their manifesto commitment to recruit more police?

In Committee on the Crime and Policing Bill, we proposed lowering the threshold for Section 60 from “anticipated serious violence” to “anticipated violence”. Unfortunately, the Government declined. What was their answer? The Minister said in response that

“if we wish to make an impact on knife crime, stop and search is a tool in extremis but better education, youth futures programmes and policing hot spots are more effective ways of reducing the problem overall”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 150.]

I can say with confidence that hotspot policing and targeted funds are all very well but hotspots cannot police themselves, and the Government have still not gone far enough in strengthening police powers or in giving forces the numbers they need.

We need stronger controls on dangerous weapons and tougher restrictions on knife sales. In government, we Conservatives banned zombie knives. Can the Minister tell the House what impact in measurable terms the new ban on ninja swords has had on knife crime? Disappointingly, the Government have also opposed a Conservative amendment that would have increased the maximum sentence for possession of a weapon with intent to commit unlawful violence from four years to 14 years. Of course prevention matters, but it is complementary to, not a replacement for, a tough sentencing policy.

That brings me to youth hubs, youth centres and the wider youth offer. We want there to be investment in youth outreach and early intervention. How will the money be spent, how will success be measured and how will resources be redirected if schemes do not work?

This matters all the more because the Government’s broader economic policy risks undermining the very stability that they claim to be building. Young men do not drift into gang culture and street violence in a vacuum. Where there are few opportunities to prosper, young people are more vulnerable to exploitation and more likely to join illegal gangs. That is why it is entirely proper for this House to ask whether the Government’s wider tax-and-spend choices are making matters worse. If you make it more expensive to hire and to take a chance on a younger worker, it is entry- level jobs that disappear first, and the vulnerable young person finds legitimate work just out of reach. Gangs do not recruit in prosperous conditions; they recruit where the formal economy has receded and the illicit economy looks, to a teenager, like the only market left.

I am not claiming that every unemployed young person turns to crime—that is not true; far from it—nor do I diminish the individual’s responsibility for their actions, but a weaker youth labour market creates more fertile ground for exploitation, including by county lines gangs and organised criminal networks. Indeed, we have consistently challenged Ministers directly on youth unemployment and the effect of the Government’s economic choices on hiring. The public deserve better and I believe this Government have some way to go yet.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome the Government’s new strategy in broad terms. It is the right direction of travel. There is much in Protecting Lives, Building Hope to support the focus on prevention, early intervention and joined-up local action. These are principles that the Liberal Democrats have long championed, and it is good to see them reflected in national policy.

Knife crime continues to harm too many lives and too many communities. Many areas still feel the effects of reduced youth services and local support. Rebuilding these networks must be central, and I am encouraged that the strategy recognises that. The principle behind the plan is sound. If delivered well it can do lasting good, but success depends on sustained funding. Prevention cannot be turned on and off with budget cycles. Youth work and early intervention succeed only when they are steady and trusted.

Resources should be directed where fear and harm are greatest. Knife crime shapes how young people move about their area, how safe they feel and where they go. A data-driven approach is sensible, provided that it is used carefully and does not erode trust or concentrate suspicion unfairly. Real neighbourhood policing, visible, consistent and rooted in local knowledge, remains the best safeguard against that.

Technology and crime mapping can help, but that is not the whole answer. Ours is already one of the most surveilled countries in the world and London alone is the most heavily monitored city in Europe. Knife crime, however, is a human problem requiring human connection. Innovation should complement proper front-line presence and strong community partnerships but never replace them, and we must guard against technology that subtly changes the nature of society or erodes rights and freedoms.

The strategy rightly points to the role of social media in glamorising violence, spreading fear and helping criminal networks to recruit and communicate. But we have reached the stage where policing online platforms requires more than new laws and rhetoric; it demands sustained, visible enforcement. The Online Safety Act provides for serious criminal penalties. What the public want to know now is how often these powers are used.

One area which needs clarity is the future of serious violence reduction orders, which allow stop and search of known offenders without suspicion. The Liberal Democrats have long had concerns about their proportionality and impact on public confidence. Can the Minister confirm whether they will continue and when Parliament will see the pilot evaluation? If they are not to be extended, we should understand why, and if future use is being considered, the evidence should be published in full.

This strategy contains many of the right elements. The challenge now is delivery and ensuring that those commitments lead to genuine, lasting change on the ground. The Liberal Democrats will support that ambition and work constructively to make it happen.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the broad support from the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for the Government’s approach. This was a manifesto commitment to ensure that we tackle knife crime and halve it in the period of the action plan that we have brought forward today.

I just want to say to the House as an opener that the success to date in the last two years has also seen a reduction in knife crime as a whole. In the year before the start of this Parliament—2023-24—knife crime rose by 4% and by 4% in the year before that. Since the start of this Parliament, overall knife crime is down 8% and knife-related homicides and hospital admissions for assault with a sharp object are at their lowest level in a decade, dropping 27% and 11% respectively. Knife-enabled assaults are down by 9%, knife-enabled robberies are down by 10%, and more than 63,000 knives have been taken out of circulation, including in ninja sword surrender schemes that that we introduced following the ban on ninja swords last year.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned London. Since this Government were elected, knife crime in London has fallen by 7%. There were 15,981 offences in the last year of his Government, compared with 14,860 offences in the first year of this Government. So there is success but there is still individual challenge and individual responsibility is still required.

The knife crime action plan is a very substantial document and I recommend that noble Lords look at it in detail. It reflects a number of the concerns mentioned by both Front Benches, including the fact that we need to look at prevention, targeted hotspot work and supporting young people, particularly to avoid them getting involved in gangs. That is not just an aspiration from this Government. We will launch 50 Young Futures hubs by the end of this Parliament; the initial eight opened last week. We are putting an extra £66 million into the serious violence reduction programme. We are rolling out 50 Young Futures panels. We have provided £1.2 million for safety through school partnerships in 250 schools in knife crime hotspots, and have put £26 million into the knife crime concentrations fund.

It might interest the House to know that 27 police force areas make up 90% of the total knife crime in this country. It makes sense, therefore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said, to try to focus resources on those hotspot areas. In this plan, we have now put £34 million into funding the county lines programme. We have put money into the pupil premium to look at funding violence-reduction programmes in those hotspot areas. We have put £15 million through the Ministry of Justice into interventions for children who are approaching the cusp of the criminal justice system but who should be moved away from it; and we are putting money into safer research and safer streets as a whole. As can be seen, this involves the MoJ, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Home Office: this is a cross-government strategy to try to ensure that we reduce knife crime by half, as in the plan before us.

The question of stop and search is important, and we need to use it proportionately, as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, said. It may surprise the House, and I hope will not horrify it, to know that 15,955 knives were recovered last year alone through stop and search. Without stop and search, those 15,955 knives would have been in people’s pockets, potentially being used to additionally attack, in either a robbery or an assault, or being used for defensive purposes leading to injury or death as a result of knife crime. We certainly need to look at the challenges of stop and search to make sure that it is fairly approached and done in a proper, effective way. I cannot, however, get away from the fact that almost 16,000 knives were found on people through both random stop and search and through intelligence-led policing, where we know that individuals may be knife carriers. Finding some 15,955 knives in one year is a deterrent, but it is also an important issue.

The question of sentencing is also important. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. He knows that tomorrow we will deal with those amendments. The Government have reflected on the concerns that he put, legitimately, on behalf of HMG Opposition. Tomorrow, there will be amendments that will move some way towards increasing the level of sentence as a whole. He will also know that the Government have a range of issues to do with prohibiting the purchase of knives online, stricter laws on age verification, checks on sale and delivery—all of which are in the Crime and Policing Bill, which I hope will receive favourable consideration for Royal Assent shortly. By autumn of this year, we will begin to put into practice the measures that have been legislated for in both Houses to help increase the restriction on knives as a whole.

On 16 December last year, we also launched a public consultation on a licensing scheme for those who sell knives or bladed articles, including importers, retailers and private sellers. That follows recommendations made in the end-to-end review on online knife sales to introduce a registration scheme to ensure that we have a minimum standard and that we can monitor those issues. We also have a range of measures going forward on the police numbers issue that the noble Lord mentioned. One of the purposes of the Government’s action was to focus again on neighbourhood policing, local police in local hotspots, and we have put 3,100 additional police officers and police community support officers into neighbourhood roles in less than a year. We have a plan to bring forward 13,000 additional neighbourhood personnel by the end of this Parliament.

That is the most important thing. Neighbourhood police officers know their flock, know the businesses and know the individuals in their community. They can gather intelligence, provide support to individuals, look at where gangs are operating and help co-ordinate interventions, along with the funding that we are providing in this plan. We will have a debate about police numbers, but the importance of having police in a neighbourhood is critical, and that is what the Government are trying to do with this proposal, in parallel to the action plan as a whole.

The House will know that this is an extremely difficult task. I will look at the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has mentioned, reflect on those and, if need be, respond to her by letter. This is an extremely thorough plan. It has new resource going to it to help meet its objectives, it is cross-government, it is paralleled with legislation currently before this House, and we will continue to work to improve neighbourhood policing over the course of this Parliament. Can we stop all knife crime? No, we cannot. Can we have an objective of achieving a halving of knife crime? Yes, we can. I pay tribute not just to Home Office officials but the police, community groups, campaigners and victims of knife crime who have helped formulate this plan. I hope that the House will give it its full support.

18:20

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has given a really scary figure of 16,000 knives having been confiscated—I take it that is what happened—as a result of stop and search. My noble friend may not have it available, but is there information on the ages of those who have been stopped? Is it just young men or have older men also been stopped? Does my noble friend have any information—he may need to research it, and I do not expect him to give me an answer right now—on what happened to those 16,000 persons who were found to be carrying a knife? It must have been in some form of illegal circumstances. What follow-through has been achieved out of this really scary figure of nearly 16,000 knives being confiscated following stop and search?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I gave that figure to the House because it is accurate and it shows the value of stop and search as a policing exercise for prevention. I do not have to hand the figures on age distribution but I can probably find those for my noble friend. If I can, I will write to him accordingly and place a copy of that letter in the House Library. I also do not have at my fingertips the criminal justice outcome information regarding the 16,000 individuals who have been found in possession of a knife, but, if it has been collated, I am sure that I can find it and give it to my noble friend. These are figures for last year. We know the stop and search outcomes: there are severe penalties for knife possession without a legitimate purpose. I will certainly examine the points my noble friend has made and, if I can, respond to him by letter.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this good and comprehensive plan. However, the important thing is that it is sustained and is not just a flash in the pan where, in a few years’ time, we start cutting away the funding and looking at other approaches. It has to be maintained. I turn to the point about youth work that the Minister made. Youth work must be an important part of the package. Young people need to be able to relate to people—I think the Minister used the expression “human contact”—wherever they gather, whether it is in the park, the street corner, et cetera. That is why detached youth work is so important. Will the detached youth workers be qualified, and how many detached youth workers are we talking about?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s broad support for the action plan. It is an ambitious target to halve knife crime within a decade, but it is one that we think is worth achieving. As I said in what I outlined to the House, there are measures about legislation, about policing and about stop and search, but there is also a great emphasis on prevention. The prevention estimates are predominantly dealt with by my colleagues in the Department for Education. We are trying to open the 50 young future hubs by the end of this Parliament. The initial eight opened last week; they have long-term funding and back-up for the course of this Parliament.

The noble Lord makes an interesting point on the question of detached youth work. I do not have statistics on that in front of me, and I would not wish to second-guess what they may be, but I shall examine that issue and talk to colleagues in the Department for Education, and if I have information that I can share with the noble Lord I shall do so in writing. The important point is that in this measure that we have here there are the youth future hubs, £66 million for the violence reduction units, and the 50 youth future panels. There is the money going into schools in the hotspot areas and the diversion of £26 million of resources to the 27 police forces in the areas where 90% of knife crime occurs. That is a way of trying to focus it down. It is very important that we do what the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, suggested, which is to use intelligent information to determine where this is a problem and therefore look, with neighbourhood police, youth workers and youth hubs, at what interventions are required. That is not for me to second-guess, but it is the direction of travel, and I hope that the noble Lord will welcome that. If I can give him the specific information, I shall do so.

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I greatly admire the Minister and his approach to these subjects. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, raised the issue of the 16,000 knives that had been taken. The dilemma that those responsible have to face is that, for some young people, they are set on a career of crime and they are dangerous people who need to be handled with the greatest severity. However, the House will also agree that many young people are terrified and, although they are by no means criminals, they carry a knife for protection. I would only say that trying to get that balance right is extraordinarily difficult, although we have all those preventive and youth support programmes. When my noble friend spoke at the beginning he talked of the importance of work and about keeping young people in school—anything to give young people gainful occupation and stop them slipping into the vicious cycle of knife crime. That is really important, but I for one do not think that every vulnerable young person who is picked up carrying a knife is necessarily a criminal.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness on that. As I said, as part of my general contribution, some of the work that the MoJ is doing and is for individuals who are on that cusp and who might well be getting involved in a gang and carrying a knife. There are resources in the knife crime action plan for the Ministry of Justice not to have a criminal justice outcome for those individuals but to try to find ways in which we can divert them and support them to choose a different lifestyle and break with that gang culture.

Interestingly, some 63,611 knives have been taken out of circulation since the general election through the surrender scheme; that includes weapons through the ninja sword surrender scheme, which had cross-party support, as well as the schemes for zombie knives and machetes, and knives seized by Border Force when they entered the country. We are trying to reduce the types of knife that can be carried or used for those offensive purposes. Every one of us will use a knife in our daily work or life; we have to look at what we do with the ninja knives that we have banned and with the import of the wrong type of knife and the measures that we have taken on registration. The noble Baroness makes a very important point that criminalising young people is not necessarily the best way in which to help them to have a lifetime free of criminal activity, which is key to the plan.

[Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the strategy and specifically on the collaboration across government, which is fundamental to ensuring that this knife crime plan works, as I am sure it will. I draw attention to the big increase in school attendance that the DfE and Ministers there achieved in 2024-25. I know that they are building on that now—5 million extra days of school attendance in that single year, which must make a contribution. Can we encourage the DfE to focus specifically on the most persistent truants in the most dangerous hotspot areas? That would make a significant contribution to the strategy.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The ambition of the Government through the Department for Education is to look at improving attendance at schools across the board. I have sat on a couple of Cabinet committees where that work has been shown to prove successful. That is a cross-government initiative to get children and young people into school. My noble friend makes a valuable point. I mentioned earlier, and I think it is worth mentioning again, that the pupil premium funding led by the Department for Education is now available to fund particular challenges in state schools that have disadvantaged children and where school attendance is down and there are interventions to support pupils’ social, emotional and behavioural needs. The pupil premium grant is £3.2 billion this year, and there is significant evidence that, as my noble friend has mentioned, it is an effective way to reduce the risk of serious violence, including knife crime. That is a Department for Education-led approach but, as I have said, the knife crime plan is a prime ministerial objective. The Home Office is leading this, but all departments involved—the MoJ, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care—are playing a role to meet some objectives to help that ambitious target of halving knife crime.

[Baroness Bray of Coln (Con)]

Will the Minister comment on the fact that it seems that some of these youngsters are putting in orders with companies that are not asking enough questions of the people who are buying these weapons—they are likely to be e-commerce companies. Is anybody looking at the record of some of these companies and the fact that they do not ask sufficient questions about some of the people who are purchasing these dangerous weapons?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is an extremely valuable point. In the Crime and Policing Bill, which is before the House now but requires Royal Assent, which I hope will be completed in the next couple of weeks, we are putting measures in place requiring online sellers of knives to include age verification controls, checks at sale and also checks at delivery. There are penalties in the Bill for organisations that fail to meet those objectives. The Bill recognises that there are legitimate uses for knives but, at the same time, age verification, checks at sale and delivery are key; they are not in place now but, subject to Royal Assent, will be in place by autumn 2026, when we hope to have rolled out any legislation that is finally passed by this House and the House of Commons before Prorogation.

House adjourned at 6.33 pm.