Lords Chamber

Wednesday 21st January 2026

(began 1 hour, 12 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
None Portrait Oral questions: Implementing the violence against women and girls strategy
-

Oral Question Baroness Hazarika. question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
If that was a question, I all I can say is that he's he's given his own answer, and I will. >> My Lords. The the. The Highways

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The the. The Highways Agency and the police forces have acted responsibly in this case by acted responsibly in this case by paying compensation. But in London, responsibility for enforcing moving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

traffic offences is almost. Entirely devolved to the boroughs. And I believe those boroughs. And I believe those powers have been enacted and been made available in the rest of the made available in the rest of the country as well. In such cases, where cameras are used for the where cameras are used for the enforcement of of moving traffic offences. And although I appreciate they don't have very many variable they don't have very many variable speed limits, what audit is the government undertaking of the systems being used by them to ensure that they haven't got bugs and problems as well? Yeah.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it's important to note that this is an issue because of that this is an issue because of the interaction of two systems, the the interaction of two systems, the the technology used for camera enforcement is, is, is obviously checked and and there is an audit process. I can't describe it to the noble Lord in detail. But the matter we're discussing about, about the enforcement of variable speed limits has come about because of the interaction of two systems.

And the circumstances he's describing are only about are only about cameras either used for speed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enforcement or more often, yellow box and such and such, like. My Lords were.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords were. Being concludes oral questions for today. Business of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Lord Privy Seal. My Lords, I beg to move the motion. Standing in my name on the
15:48
15:50
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: Cancellation of scheduled local elections in May 2026
-

elections in May 2026.
15:50
15:50
15:50
15:51
15:52
15:52
15:53
15:53
15:54
15:54
15:55
15:55
15:56
15:56
15:57
15:57
15:58
15:59
15:59
16:00
16:00
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move motion a that this House do not insist on that this House do not insist on its amendment seven, but do agree with the Commons in their amendment with the Commons in their amendment seven A and seven B in lieu. My Lords, it is a pleasure to see the Sentencing Bill return to your Lordships House, hopefully for a final time. Subject to your Lordships Agreement, the Bill will have completed all its stages and will shortly become law.

That moment will be hugely significant for our prison and probation services. It will put them on a sustainable footing and deliver punishment that works. I am very proud of having played my part in taking the bill through Parliament. Apart from a brief bill on the Sentencing Council, this is my first experience of getting a bill through, and I've been struck by the fantastic teamwork from everyone involved. I will briefly set out the government's rationale for disagreeing with amendment seven and tabling our own amendment in lieu.

Before I do so, I must again thank the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen and the noble Lord Lord Marks. In keeping with their approach throughout the passage of this bill. They have engaged constructively and openly. Once again, their interventions have made this a better bill. My Lords, the government fully supported the intention of amendment seven to promote transparency in the courts and improve the experience of victims as they navigate the justice system. We could not accept it as drafted due to the risk that it was significantly increased judicial workload.

At a time when courts are working intensively to drive down the court backlog. However, I am delighted that we tabled an amendment in lieu which expands the provision of Crown Court sentencing transcripts to all victims who request them free of charge. This new clause represents an important step forward for victims, ensuring that they are able to request and receive relevant sentencing remarks for free. Sentencing remarks set out the judge's reasoning, helping victims understand how the sentence was reached without having to visit the courtroom.

This experience can be retraumatising for many. This change will embolden victims to look back on their bravery and process their experience at their own pace. This clause also delivers a major step forward for transparency more broadly, enabling victims to digest sentencing remarks outside the pressure, the pressures of a courtroom setting and free of charge. This is consistent with Sir Brian Leveson independent review of the criminal courts and the 2017 Lammy Review, which sought to shape a more open justice system fit to serve every victim.

My Lords, the detail on timeframes and processes for providing transcripts will be set out in regulations, but I can confirm to the House that our intention is that the regulations will specify that transcripts will be provided within 14 days of a request being made. This timeframe will support requests under the Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme, which currently allows referrals up to 28 days after sentence. I can also assure the noble and learned Lord Keen that we are considering his amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill, which would extend this deadline to 56 days, extremely carefully.

I thank the noble Lord Lord Marks and the hon. Member for Chichester and the other place, for raising important questions about the definition of victims and why it is necessary to allow for exceptions. We are carefully considering the scope of the definition of victim for these purposes, but I can assure noble Lords that this clause does not restrict us to a narrow definition. We will ensure that there is as much consistency as possible with the definition of the victim for the purpose of the code, and we will specifically consider the circumstances that the hon.

Members for Chichester and Bexhill and Battle raised in the other place yesterday, where a victim is personally unable to request sentencing remarks. We have no intention of restricting access in these circumstances. Further details will be set out in regulations, including any necessary safeguards and any limited exceptions. We will ensure that any exceptions are limited, and our intention is that all victims will be able to request and receive their Crown Court sentencing remarks free of charge. But there may be circumstances where exceptions and omissions are necessary, for example, to protect the identity of another victim.

And I can reassure noble Lords that these regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure. So your Lordships House will have the opportunity to scrutinise the regulations brought forward carefully. I can also confirm that any assessment of the previous pilot for free sentencing, remarks for rape and serious sexual offence victims is underway. The results will be published shortly. This explores application volumes, costs of provision and any feedback from the courts on the process. It also includes applicant survey feedback shared by victims or by those applying on their behalf.

This change represents a profound step forward for victims and for transparency in our justice system. For the first time, every victim whose case is heard in the Crown Court will have the right to access, free of charge, a clear explanation of how the sentence was reached. This is a landmark moment for transparency and open justice, and a meaningful improvement for victims across the country. I urge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all noble Lords to support the government's motion, and I beg to move. The question is that motion A be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to? My Lords, I thank the noble Lord,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his remarks and his explanation for the government amendment in lieu of our own amendment in lieu of our own amendment. I also thank the Minister for his sustained engagement with peers across the
16:06
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
engagement with peers across the House, both in and out of the chamber. My Lords, the government had now committed to publishing sentencing remarks for all Crown Court trials, and we thank the Minister for this step. It was only in response to our successful conservative amendment that the government finally acted. It was regrettable that they opposed our original amendment in both houses, but we do welcome their amendment as a step forward in the right direction. Sentencing remarks explain the judge's reasoning in determining the sentence imposed.

And this is important not only for the victims whose lives are disrupted and the most profound way by crime, but also for the transparency required in the justice system. The provision of sentence remarks upon request will mean that victims who are unable to visit the courtroom, whether for practical reasons or because of the experience the experience is simply too traumatising, will be able to understand the reasoning behind sentences handed out to offenders. This amendment builds on the work of the last conservative government, which successfully piloted free access to sentencing, remarks for victims of murder, rape and other sexual offences, and this amendment now rightly widens that scope to all victims.

It is wrong that a victim of, for example, aggravated burglary should have to pay to read the reasoning behind the sentence of the criminal who robbed their shop. And this was a clear gap in the law that will now be filled. The government amendment contains provisions for the timeline and processes for providing transcripts to be set out in regulations. And I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his assurance that regulations will specify that transcripts will be provided within 14 days of a request being made.

Under our current system, victims have just 28 days to submit an application for the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and this can be a complex legal process to contend with in less than a month. It is our intention, as indicated by the noble Lord Minister, to double the time victims have available to 56 days. But I am grateful that the Minister shares my commitment to ensuring victims receive their transcripts before that point. Without timely access to these remarks, victims would risk being shut out of the scheme and denied access to justice.

Finally, my Lords, I turn to the matter of publication. Open justice is an essential foundation of our democracy, and sentencing will no doubt become more complex and discretionary under this bill. We therefore believe that in principle, sentencing remarks should be made available to the wider public to maintain transparency and accountability. Although the government are unable to commit to public release of sentencing remarks at this point, we note the progress made on this issue and we will raise the matter again during the passage of the Victims and Courts Bill.

My Lords, this amendment represents a significant step forward for victims and for transparency in our justice system. It ensures that those affected by crime can access the reasoning behind sentences, and it builds on a clear conservative record of reform. While there is more to do, we have now made real progress and we will continue to press for full public access to sentencing remarks in future legislation.
16:10
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My noble. repeat some of the niceties, but I too, am glad to see this step forward. I wonder if I can ask the forward. I wonder if I can ask the Minister some questions on the government amendment. Firstly, the phrase that sentencing remarks that are relevant to the victim will be supplied from what the Minister has said is that distinguishing one particular victim from another victim in the same case, or what is meant by sentencing remarks relevant to the victim.

I have to say that I would think that if I were a victim, I would think that everything that was said in the sentencing would be relevant. It also occurs to me that if the court is required to edit the remarks before supplying them, that's actually more work for the court, which is something that obviously the government is aware of. I take it that remarks relevant to the victim are different from circumstances. This is in paragraph 11, circumstances in which, for the purposes of this section, sentencing remarks are relevant to the victim.

So can the Minister clarify what is meant by circumstances in this context? The there's also provision for the omission of information and making provision about the supply of a transcript, which I take it covers not supplying it though I'm obviously not pushing that that point. Like the noble and learned Lord, I'm concerned to know about publication. A number of us have heard from the lady Chief Justice of the progress that's been made, and the success of using new technology in this context.

Can I also ask what consultation is planned on circumstances, on exceptions, and so on the various points that will be covered by the regulations? The Minister has said, and we're grateful for this, that our answers will be given to questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for for Chichester. But briefly, there are whether the term victim is be the same as the definition used by the victims code, including whether victim is unable personally to request sentencing.

Remarks. Whether the. Amendment to provide exceptions. What sort of exceptions are these? Which goes back to my point about consultation and what sort of information may be omitted. And possibly overarching all of this? Will the government be publishing a review of the pilot that's been carried out recently, which we've heard about? We gather it's been successful, if limited. Can we hear more about it?
16:13
16:14
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
which we agree is a better bill for its passage through this House, has benefited enormously from the work that he and the noble Lord Lord that he and the noble Lord Lord Lemos and the whole of the Bill team have put in to providing an team have put in to providing an expert and collaborative approach to the Bill, my Lords. That said, the amendments in lieu do not go as the amendments in lieu do not go as far as we would have liked, although they represent a significant step towards achieving transparency and help for victims in the courts.

The provision for the transcripts to be provided within 14 days, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen, will also allow time for applications to be made under the unduly lenient Sentencing scheme, and that's helpful. We do have a few questions, some of which have been adumbrated by my noble friend, Lady Hamwee. I'd be interested to hear the noble Lords answer to her question and to the question asked by the hon. Member for Chichester in the other place, as to what exceptions the government has in mind under Subclause three C of amendment seven, that would permit the government to provide exceptions to the requirement to supply a transcript.

I note the point he made about the identity of other victims or other defendants, but further detail would be very helpful. My Lords, we would have also liked the amendments to cover the immediate family of victims parents, siblings and adult children. They should be entitled to receive transcripts, and that's very important. Where a victim is either sick or disabled or traumatised, possibly by the offence or otherwise. Those family members should also be entitled to be supplied with a transcript.

I note that the noble Lord referred obliquely to the position of others, so that victims would be sure of receiving the transcripts. But, my Lords, these are, of course, transcripts of public hearings. But many victims may not themselves have attended those hearings, or, given the trauma of the hearings, may have been unable to concentrate themselves while the sentencing remarks were made. Their families should be able to receive transcripts, and I'd be interested to hear what the government's final position on this this issue will be.

We would also have wished the amendments to cover transcripts provided to defendants and their immediate families. My understanding is that defendants are entitled to receive transcripts of sentencing remarks to help them with deciding on, or preparing an appeal against sentence, but if that's right, and if it's limited in that way, the entitlement is far too narrow. As part of the process of rehabilitation, it is really important for defendants to understand the reasoning behind the sentences, the passed on them that are passed on them.

My experience of the Criminal Court, stale as it now is, is that most defendants are far too worked up during their sentencing to listen to the detail of sentencing remarks when they're made. What they want to know is whether or not they're going to prison and if so, for how long. So the detail of the justification for their sentences and of steps they need to take themselves is generally lost on them. And that applies to community sentences as well as to prison sentences.

And the same considerations apply to defendants families as apply to the families of victims, which I mentioned, whom I mentioned earlier. The noble Lord knows that we're pressing for a wider category of transcripts to be provided than just sentencing remarks, and we will continue to press for that during the passage of the Victims and Courts Bill in due course. Meanwhile, along with the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen and the Official Opposition, we on these benches are very pleased to have made a progress in the way we have on a difficult and important issue, and we're pleased to support the amendments.
16:19
16:19
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson (Labour)
-
-
Well, I thank all noble Lords, especially the noble Baroness Jones, for their insightful contributions to today's debate, and I'd like to think that my years of doing think that my years of doing business deals has helped in trying to get this through. I've learned doing business deals is that the doing business deals is that the way to get a good deal is to listen to everybody, and where good ideas come from, all, all places take them on board and that's how you get a good deal.

And I hope that this sentencing bill is a good bill, because we have listened and I have listened and my colleagues have listened, and it has been a very constructive process also to know the noble Lord Marks and the noble Baroness Hamwee questions. I think I answered a number of those points in my opening speech, but I'll carefully go through Hansard and where I didn't refer directly to your questions, I will write to you with the exact details. I'm very happy to meet up to go through those points.

I think for me, victims come first and it is our intention to provide full remarks and what we wanted to focus on the victims of the case, not the not the victims of different crimes. And so far as the definition of, you know, the involvement of family in this, that will be dealt with through regulations. And, you know, we've got a broad definition of victim and the exceptions will be very limited. But I want to make sure we get this right. And we need to make sure that victims are not retraumatised by the process.

And we need to make sure that some very vulnerable victims and a small number of cases, some victims, may not be capable of asking for these. We need to make sure that that is dealt with. But I'm very happy to. Right. And meet up and get this right. And it wouldn't. It would be remiss of me to conclude my remarks without thanking those who made a vital contribution. I again thank all noble Lords for their careful and constructive engagement through this Bill's passage.

That expertise has strengthened it in many important respects, and I must pay particular tribute to the noble Lord Lord Lemos for his expert guidance. And I must also thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his support, and to the Minister for sentencing, for guiding it so skilfully through the other place. And finally, I thank all the officials across government for their skill and devotion to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

delivering this bill. There are really, really great team. I beg to move. OK.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. The question is that motion A be agreed to as many of that opinion agreed to as many of that opinion will say content not content. The contents have it report of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill Baroness Smith of Malvern.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill Baroness Smith of Malvern. My Lords, I. Beg my Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered on report.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be now further considered on report, as many of that opinion will say, as many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content, if the contents have it after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the contents have it after clause 27, amendment 90 Baroness Grey-Thompson. My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 90 in my name and that of the noble Lady Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. This amendment seeks Manor Castle. This amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the barriers preventing parents of critically ill children being by their bedside. I have been working with Kerry and Francis Davis for around a year after their son, Hugh, passed away. They could have stepped back, but instead they made
16:23
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
a conscious decision to stand up and try and change lives of other families there in the Southwest Gallery today, as they have been for previous debates. What they've for previous debates. What they've done is turn the most devastating personal loss into a determination to make sure other parents are not to make sure other parents are not left to face the same failures that they experienced when Hugh died in they experienced when Hugh died in 2021. Kerry and Frances left the hospital at 1130 at night when the doors closed behind them.

Hugh was still in there and suddenly they were out of the system. They stood outside with their bags, trying to work out how they could carry on. They had a three year old child at home that they had not seen for three weeks. There was no transport, which they didn't expect, but they took an hour and a half taxi home in silence while the driver chatted about football and the weather, unaware that their world had just collapsed. When they walked through their front door, everything was still there.

The toys, unfinished drawings, the remains of Hugh's birthday cake still in the kitchen. The pain was unbearable. They woke the next morning and sat in silence. And then Hugh's younger brother, Rafe woke up, who they hadn't seen in three weeks and said, Where's Hughie? There was no guidance, no support. And they did what no other parent should ever have to do. They had to look online. Kerry tried to access mental health support, but no one could help. The GP was unaware of their situation and just offered sleeping pills.

Charities said there was a 12 week wait. Kerry has been very clear with me that he just would simply not have survived 12 weeks without immediate support. By chance, he was introduced to a trauma clinic and it literally saved his life. The GP never called the community team, never called the family were quite literally on their own. And my Lords, this experience is not rare. Research consistently shows that between 30 and 50% of parents of critically ill children meet the diagnostic threshold for PTSD, with symptoms beginning at or shortly after diagnosis, not years later.

Studies show that mothers of seriously ill children face around a 50% increased risk of early death, driven by prolonged stress, cardiovascular strain, and mental health deterioration. Fathers face significantly elevated risks, including higher rates of depression, substance misuse and suicide, and yet are even less likely to be able to access support and siblings. The forgotten children the children not in the hospital bed are often the most overlooked of all. Research indicates that up to three times more likely to experience long term emotional or behavioural difficulties, including anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress symptoms.

Yet despite these known risks, the NHS does not wrap its arms around these families. Instead, families are signposted to charities charities that are themselves underfunded, overstretched and increasingly unable to fill the gaps left by statutory services. There is no consistent, proactive pathway where a family is treated as a unit, where a child receives. When a child receives a serious or terminal diagnosis. And this stands in stark contrast to support that's available for families with babies with a terminal diagnosis. My Lords, this amendment does not seek to assign blame to what's happened in the past.

It does not mandate immediate spending or prescribe a single solution. What it asks for is something far more basic and far more overdue. It asks the government to undertake a systematic review of how parents, siblings and families are supported when a child is critically ill or
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page