Lords Chamber

Monday 9th February 2026

(began 15 hours, 34 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:38
None Portrait Introduction(s): Baroness MacLeod of Camusdarach; Baroness Antrobus
-

spiritual and temporal, and all other our subjects. Whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we of our special grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and of all other powers, in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create and prefer our trusty and well beloved Katherine Margaret McLeod to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness MacLeod of CAMHS Lord Darroch of Lochaber, in our county of Inverness shire.

And for us, our heirs and successors do appoint, give and grant unto her the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness MacLeod of CAMHS Lord Darroch to have and to hold on to her for her life willing and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that she may have, hold and possess a seat, place, and voice in the parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that she may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, Preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or, as they do at present, use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster in the forenoon of the 16th day of January, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's sign-manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I. Catherine Baroness MacLeod of CAMHS, do solemnly, sincerely, and CAMHS, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Britain and Northern Ireland, and of our other realms and territories. King, head of the Commonwealth, defender of the Faith to all Lords, spiritual and temporal, and all other our subjects. Whatsoever to whom these presents shall come. Greeting. Know ye that we of our special grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958, and of all other powers, in that behalf us enabling do by these presents advance, create and prefer our trusty and well beloved Sophie Antrobus, member of our most excellent Order of the British Empire to the state degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Antrobus of Old Sarum in our County of Wiltshire, and for us, our heirs and successors do appoint, give and grant unto her the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness Antrobus to have and to hold unto her for her life, willing and by these presents granting for us our heirs and successors, that she may have, hold and possess a seat, place, and voice in the parliaments and public assemblies and councils of us, our heirs and successors within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons, and also that she may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, Preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed, or, as they do at present, use and enjoy.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent witness ourself at Westminster in the forenoon of the 28th day of January, in the fourth year of our reign, by warrant under the King's sign-manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I Sophy Baroness Antrobus do solemnly, sincerely, and truly solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, first My Lords, first Oral My Lords, first Oral Question
14:48
None Portrait Oral questions: Number of beagles currently used for testing in life sciences laboratories
-

>> My Lords, first Oral Question Lord McCabe. >> My Lords, I beg leave to ask the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper, the government.
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:47
15:47
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
During the bill's development and parliamentary passage, the Secretary of State for education has regularly corresponded and engaged with her devolved government counterparts, and this has been supported by continued has been supported by continued engagement between officials. As a result, I can confirm that a legislative consent motion has been successfully agreed in the Scottish Parliament. The Senate is in the process of agreeing a suitable date process of agreeing a suitable date for the debate. This is to ensure that there is time to consider and discuss amendments tabled and accepted by your Lordships House at Report stage, which also engage the consent process.

Owing to the date these amendments were tabled, it has not been possible for a further supplementary legislative consent motion to be secured by the time of this statement. However, the Welsh Government has recommended that the Senate gives consent to the Report stage amendments and is committed to progressing the supplementary LCM as swiftly as possible. More broadly, I am grateful to Ministers and officials in the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive for their positive and collaborative approach towards this legislation.

We remain committed to sustained engagement with the devolved governments for the remainder of the bill's passage, as we look forward to its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

implementation. My Lords, I beg to move that this bill now be read a third time. The question. Is that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that. This bill be now read a third time. As many as are of that opinion will say content contrary, opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it in clause 38, amendment one. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in clause 38, amendment one. The Lord Mohammed of Tinsley. In behalf. Of Lord Mohammed. I move that
15:49
15:50
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
>> My Lords, I'll now speak to the amendments tabled. I recognise that amendment one, moved by the noble Lord Lord Storey on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Muhammad, is a tidying up amendment consequential to his previous amendment on school uniform. Whilst I am sure that the debate on the wider issue of school uniform will continue in the other place, we recognise that this amendment simply corrects a now redundant reference created by his prior amendment, and for this reason we are prepared to accept it at this stage so his proposed amendments can be considered together in the next stage.

And turning now to government amendments. Amendment two provides that regulations made by Welsh Ministers in relation to the mandatory meeting scheme for parents wishing to withdraw their child from school for home education, will be subject to the approval procedure. This is an important and necessary correction which brings Wales into alignment with the position in England, where regulations made by the Secretary of State are subject to the affirmative procedure. As the bill currently stands, no parliamentary procedure is attached to the Welsh Regulations, and it is essential that this gap is addressed to ensure proper scrutiny and accountability.

Amendment three introduces the legal definitions of child and carer for Wales. This is a small but important correction which would ensure clarity in the provision that enables Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State to require local authorities to record whether a child is a young carer on children not in school registers. As we discussed, young carers can shoulder responsibilities that impact their education and understanding when a child is in that position could enable authorities to provide the right support. This amendment does not alter the policy intent of the bill.

It simply ensures that the Welsh legislative framework is complete and coherent, and I trust the House will agree that correcting this oversight strengthens the bill and supports young carers. I turn I now turn to amendments four, five, six and seven which concern Academy trust inspections. These make a small drafting adjustment to move the parliamentary procedure for regulations made under the new chapter two of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to section 102 of that act, which already governs regulations made under that act.

The previous drafting inserted a bespoke section dealing with procedure for regulations into chapter two A, which conflicted with the existing section 182. These amendments resolve a minor technical issue in the legislation. They make no policy change and do not alter the level of parliamentary scrutiny that regulations will be subject to. I beg to move.
15:52
15:53
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move that this bill do now pass. I begin by expressing my gratitude to your expressing my gratitude to your Lordships House for the careful and constructive, constructive scrutiny on the children's Well-Being and on the children's Well-Being and schools Bill. This bill brings forward some once in a generation and much needed reforms to our children's social care and education systems, and will deliver tangible changes for young people. It delivers on manifesto commitments, including free breakfast clubs in primary schools and limits on branded uniform items, as well as raising standards in every classroom, ensuring fair access to good local schools and strengthening support for the most vulnerable children.

The opportunity to bring about meaningful, lasting change in the lives of children and families through legislation of this kind is rare, and it has been a privilege to take this bill. I am grateful to all members who have brought their significant expertise to debates, with contributions drawing on backgrounds in education, children's social care, health data and local government, enriching our discussions and strengthening the legislation. Over Second Reading, 12 days of committee and five days of report. Many noble Lords have spoken powerfully on behalf of children as well as parents, carers, teachers and professionals working on the front lines.

And that perspective has played a key role in refining the legislation. I would like to thank all noble Lords that I have engaged with inside and outside the chamber, over the course of the Bill's passage through this House. The government has had over 60 engagements with peers and many more with external bodies. Noble Lords, including the opposition front benches, have been exceptionally generous with their time, expertise and scrutiny and that contribution has been valuable. I would like to express my thanks in particular to my noble friend Baroness Blake for taking the bill through this house alongside me.

Your support, expertise and unwavering dedication to children's social care and education have been evident at every stage and I am thankful also to my noble friends, Baroness Anderson and Baroness Twycross for supporting during Committee stage in this House. I am also grateful to the officials who have supported me throughout the passage, including my private office, the bill, team, policy, strategy and legal teams and I extend my gratitude to the whips team, parliamentary business and Legislation team and Office of Parliamentary Counsel.

This bill has been vast in scope, and with 875 amendments debated, logistically complex. And finally, I thank the clerks, doorkeepers and staff of the House. This bill has frequently stayed late at night or until the early hours of the morning, and I appreciate their work greatly. I am confident that this legislation will greatly improve the lives of children and young people, and I look forward to further consideration as it moves to the other place. I beg to move.
15:56
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
The question is that this bill >> The question is that this bill do now pass.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now pass. My Lords. I'd like to echo the words of the noble Baroness, the Minister, in thanking all members Minister, in thanking all members of the House who have been involved, some more than others, in the passage of this bill, and for the quality of scrutiny that it received. I'd also like to thank both the Ministers, their private offices and the Bill team for their time and engagement over the course of the bill, and for the very detailed correspondence they've sent us, and also in particular, to thank Beatrice Hughes and Dan Cohen in our research team for their support throughout the course of the bill, which feels like it's been quite a long, a long time.

And of course, to my noble friend, the Earl of Effingham, for his invaluable support. But, my Lords, if this Bill had been a weather forecast, I think it might have been the west coast of Scotland in November. There's been it's felt at times quite depressing, a lot of rain, quite a lot of clouds and only rare glimpses of sunshine. And I say that because I fear that in part one of the bill, the government never really went to the root of the very real problems that it was seeking to address.

And conversely, in part two of the bill, we heard again and again a question about what problem was the government actually trying to solve. So the noble Baroness, the Minister, talks about meaningful and lasting change. And all of us in your Lordships House hope that she's right. But I would gently suggest that that will be much more likely to be the case if the government accepts our amendments when it reaches the other place. Because when we think about our debates in this bill in part one, rather than trying to address fundamentally the shortage of foster carers and kinship carers that we see in this country, it is focussed on reorganisation and regulation, and rather than learning from the successes of our free schools and academies in part two of the bill and embedding those in the school system, the government has sought to centralise and to micromanage.

But we did have some glimpses of sunshine in the bill. Certainly working together across all benches in this House has been an absolute privilege and pleasure and has unquestionably improved the bill for me. Bright spots in part one of the bill included tightening the involvement as health as a partner in the commissioning for children, in receipt of a deprivation of liberty order, and in the role of the regional commissioning cooperatives. Another bright spot was requiring the government to have clear evidence of impact before rolling out the multi-agency child protection teams nationally.

In part two, our amendments have tightened the rules around elective home education for children, where there are valid reasons to have a safeguarding concern and have prevented reducing the published admission numbers for schools that are high performing and popular to protect the interests of children and parents. And I absolutely am grateful to the Minister for accepting the spirit of some of our amendments and debates in Committee stage, particularly in relation to clauses 40 and 50.

I'm hoping those clause numbers haven't changed with the latest version of the bill. And then, my Lords, we had two whole days of sunshine was sunny even late into the night, with amendments to delay the use of virtual private networks and social media for teenagers and the prohibition of smartphones in schools other than for very specific medical reasons such as diabetes. And we couldn't have had the clarity and confidence on these benches to focus on these areas without the unstinting help from so many people outside the house.

Campaigners, experts, parents such as Ellen Room, Esther Guy and Ian Russell who have all shared their own points of view and all called for change. When I worked in the city, nobody ever talked to me about domestic abuse. When I ran a domestic abuse charity, everybody I sat next to on the bus talked to me about domestic abuse and working on these amendments on social media and phones. There is literally no one I speak to who doesn't raise it with me and stress how important it is that we get these changes right.

So as we move forward, I hope the government will be in a springlike mood, that it will focus on the sunshine and make sure that it's not responsible for yet more rain by accepting the bill as it now stands, that would demonstrate the humility and commitment to service that the Prime Minister has so often talked about, and the leadership that this country and its children need.
16:02
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> If I may make a few comments. And third, my thanks to everybody And third, my thanks to everybody involved in this bill, particularly the Minister, who was always fully on her brief, was prepared to listen always and meet quite regularly. And I think she was a model as how as to how Ministers should actually take the House with them. And I particularly like to thank Baroness Blake because I found Baroness Blake would always look at you as though she agreed with everything you said and make you feel important.

She often didn't, but she actually looked at you in her eyes, bore down on you. I also want to thank all members who got involved. It is a joy, isn't it, to be involved in a bill where we might have differences of opinion, but we all want to make a difference from wherever we come. And if I may say so, it is good to work on a school bill which actually finishes and is not cut short. Mid amendment from our side.

Our team was was one person mainly and that was Ulas Lord Beith and Ulysses recently appointed to our team and rushed around and was just an absolute joy to to work with. In fact, I think he could have taken my job quite easily. He knew more about it than I did at the at the end of it, and of course, to the Bill team and all those members who spoke. And I'd particularly like to to thank Minister McAllister for meeting me on two occasions, and also to thank Minister Smith's staff, who made wonderful tea, fantastic for me.

I think this will make a difference to children and parents lives. There's no two ways about that. I found part one an amazing change from where we are part two. Some might argue that we didn't go far enough, particularly on the issue of academisation. Some might argue that we went too far, so maybe the government got it absolutely right. Personally, for me, that sort of moment of sunshine feels like the sound of Music. That moment of sunshine was actually after ten years when this issue was first raised.

I was sort of jeered. I was told I was completely, you know, completely mad. It's taken us ten years to get the issue of home education, an absolute understanding of how important it is to make home educators. The value is enormous, but to get home educators in the right frame, the commitment of this House, you know, on the fifth, fifth day, we got to I think it was half 11 at night and normally at half 11 at night. People sort of energy levels sink.

But did they know that only suddenly sprang to life and there was renewed energy and we finished at 130. Was it in in the morning? So that just again shows the commitment. Finally, finally, I obviously want to thank my colleagues who who worked with me on these benches. The new the new Lib Dem education spokesperson, that's Lord Mohammed, who now takes over as education spokesperson. Lord Addington, and Baroness Tyler, who made a lot of sacrifices, by the way, to be here.

She had paid for a very expensive fine arts course, and she gave up a number of sessions so she could actually, with real vigour and determination, actually speak on those issues. So I again want to thank everybody who made a real difference to children and families lives.
16:06
16:06
16:07
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak. >> Amendments in my name in relation to clauses one and two. I would start by observing that we on these benches are broadly supportive of most of the provisions in this bill. Many of the amendments tabled in my name, save with 1 or 2 exceptions, have the aim of strengthening the bill's existing provisions rather than removing them. The use of reasonable force to compel attendance at sentencing hearings was a measure first proposed by the previous conservative government in the Criminal Justice Bill, which fell at the dissolution of Parliament.

It is therefore a policy that we on these benches strongly support, as the government have consistently said, victims and their families deserve to see justice done. They deserve to hear directly those remarks, which explain the court's reasons for the sentences that are being imposed and they deserve the chance to face their offenders and have their own voices heard in open court. In that spirit. Yet many of the amendments in my name probe at details of clauses one and two and question how they would operate.

In practice, these clauses set out the statutory powers for judges to order an offender to attend court for their sentencing hearing by reasonable force, if necessary. As we've heard previously, offenders who refuse to attend their sentencing hearing thereby insult their victims. Offenders should not be able to refuse to undermine the final movement of justice in such a way. The amendments in this group ask the important question of why the government are not taking this opportunity to expand the applicability of clauses one and two, given their upcoming and substantial court reforms.

I understand that the application to the Crown Court only in this clause is the same as that of our Criminal Justice Bill. But I would like to point out a crucial difference between the position of the last government and the position of this government. When this clause was originally proposed, there were no plans to alter the sentencing powers of the magistrates courts. However, this government is now proposing to increase magistrates sentencing powers to three years, thereby shifting a large number of cases away from the Crown Court towards magistrates.

As such, magistrates will hear a much greater proportion of increasingly serious cases, which surely throws into question the application and the scope of clauses one and two. In fact, this is not simply a different contextual background to that of the previous government, but also of this government, for this bill was introduced in the other place before the government announced their court reforms. And so, as published, clauses one and two would have permitted the compulsory attendance of an offender for sentences between one year and three years.

Now, however, if the bill is unamended and the government's court reforms go ahead, a person convicted in a magistrates court for an offence that would have previously been heard only before a Crown Court will not be required to attend their sentencing hearing. If it was previously the government's view that offenders facing between 1 and 3 years imprisonment should be subject to compulsory attendance at their sentencing hearing, then why have they not made the necessary amendments to the bill? Unless that is because they have changed their mind, in which case perhaps the noble Baroness, the Minister, would be clear about that.

But if the government's position is that the scope of offenders who should be compelled to attend a sentencing hearing should remain the same as when the bill was introduced, then they must surely accept these amendments. So the question that arises is why stop at Crown courts when extending these powers to other courts could make a meaningful and positive difference to victims of other crimes? My Lord, we should not dismiss the experience of victims of, for example, burglary. Requiring an offender to attend their sentencing hearing may give those victims just as much closure and conversely, an event an offender refusing to attend could cause just as much insult.

If this series of amendments was not accepted. If anything, by reserving these powers for Crown Courts only, we risk playing down the significance of other crimes by signalling that offenders do not have to face their victims. Extending these powers to other courts would not only provide greater consistency, but also show that no crime is more permissible than another or one. Victims experience more important or less important than another. If the rationale is one of practicality or resource, then perhaps the government should make that case.

If, however, there is no compelling reason whether it be legal, procedural or financial, then this bill presents an ideal opportunity to address a gap rather than requiring further primary legislation later on down the line. After court reform has been implemented. My Lords, if the government's intention is to strengthen victims confidence in the criminal justice system, then surely consistency must be at the heart of that ambition. Victims do not experience crime through the lens of jurisdictional boundaries. They experience the indignity of being wronged, and they rightly expect the justice system to deal with offenders in a manner that recognises that harm each time, regardless of which court is sentencing.

It is for these reasons that I believe the government should revisit the decision to confine these powers solely to Crown courts. Otherwise, the bill risks creating a two tier system where the victims of some crimes are afforded the closure of seeing justice done in person, while others are denied it for reasons that are administrative rather than principled. I would be grateful if the Minister could also clarify what consideration is being given to victims expectations and their confidence in the justice process when limiting these powers to the Crown Court.

I do hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, will reflect on these points and consider whether there is scope for a more ambitious and comprehensive approach, and I look forward to her response and to working to strengthen this legislation for the benefit of all victims.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment. Proposed clause one, page one. Line ten. Leave out by the Crown Court.
16:14
16:15
16:16
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. >> I'm very grateful to the noble and learned Lord Keen. >> For the. >> Way in which he's explained

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Way in which he's explained these amendments, but I'm also extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord Maude Thomas for injecting a note of caution. And to my noble friend Baroness Hamwee for a note of questioning about the proposed amendments. My Lords, in the members explanatory statement, the noble and learned Lord Rennard Lord Sandhurst say that the amendments in this group propose a probe. The rationale behind restricting the power to order offenders to attend a sentencing hearing to only the Crown Courts and the noble and learned Lord has explained why.

He suggests that there is no difference for the purpose of this power between the Crown Courts and the Magistrates courts. My Lords, I should make it clear that on these benches we do start from the position that defendants should be obliged to attend court for their sentencing hearings. But the fact that they're obliged to attend court doesn't lead to the conclusion that the courts ought to have the power to get them to court, whatever, and however far they wish to resist.

It is, of course, important, and this is a point that Lord Keen made from the victim's point of view. The defendants are in court for the occasion when the offenders, those who've committed offences against them, are brought to justice. And it's appropriate, therefore, that in the right cases, the court should have power to order them to do so. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas pointed out what a serious power this is, and it's particularly a serious power, as I'll come to, to say, because the use of force is sanctioned to get defendants to court.

And we've heard tell in the press and I think in the House of Commons from some of the wilder speeches, if I may put it that way, of effectively the court having the power to order that offenders be brought to court by considerable force and in chains, quite clear that that's not the way the bill puts it. It puts the puts it in terms of the use of force being reasonable and proportionate and appropriate, but nevertheless it's a very serious power.

It's also important, from the offender's point of view, that they should come to court first, that they should hear what the court says about their offences, as well as what their their counsel and the prosecution say about their offences. And it's also important because the fact of their attending court and listening, hopefully with some care to what goes on at their sentencing hearing, may be taken as a sign of their understanding. The import of the hearing and if an order is made, it's going to be the case that breach of such an order to attend court for a sentencing hearing is a sign of a lack of remorse on the part of that defendant, and it is absolutely clear that a lack of remorse will usually involve a court in treating a defendant more severely than the court might treat a defendant who does show remorse for the offences they've committed, and also shows understanding of the impact of those offences and what they've done on the victims that they have offended against.

But the scheme of this bill is to bring in a very strong regime of compulsion with the specific incorporation of provisions about contempt of court, and significantly, as I adumbrated about the right to use force to bring defendants who are unwilling to attend court for their sentencing hearings, who refuse to attend court to court to bring those offenders to court by force. Now, the conditions for the new regime are as set out in the bill that the defendant has been convicted and that the defendant is in custody awaiting sentencing by the Crown Court.

And that brings into play the kind of reservation that the noble and learned Lord Polak about. It's plainly designed to deal this new regime with serious offences. And the third condition is that the offender has refused or is likely to refuse to attend the sentencing hearing. And it follows, we say that it should be the case that the code for punishment for contempt should be confined to adult offenders, and the amendments seek to make this procedure and all its features applicable to a wider group of offenders, and as well as being applicable to magistrates courts as well as Crown courts.

And the question that I ask and ask the Minister to respond to, as well as the noble and learned Lord when he closes, is how far a change to include magistrates courts is going to help victims, while one can see how it is justified and how it might help victims in serious cases. I question how far the use of force is ever going to be in the public interest, and I think one has to question the purpose of the use of force.

It could be twofold. It could be to force offenders to face up to their offences and help them to avoid re-offending. And it could be to help the victims to to see those who've committed offences against them are being brought to justice, and there may be force in that, but there is also a risk and it's a risk I suggest, maybe important, that forced attendance could become a means for defendants to get publicity for themselves and for their offences, and for their resistance to justice, to portray themselves as public martyrs, and in some cases, to make political gestures that could be thoroughly undesirable.

And were it the case that these orders became the norm, those dangers would be real. I say that if it's going to have a positive effect, this power is likely to be much more effective for serious cases in the Crown Court than it is for cases in the Magistrates Court. Of course, we take the point that the Magistrates Court, sentencing powers and the scope of magistrates courts hearings has now been increased over what it was before the distinction was changed.

But nevertheless, I'll be very interested in hearing the Minister's response to justify this distinction. And our position at the moment is that the distinction is plainly justified.
16:24
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, this group of amendments in the names of the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen of Elie and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst, explore the reasons for limiting this power to the Crown Court. Before I begin, I'm sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the families of John Mustafa, Henriette, Sabina Nessa, Zara Aleena and Olivia Pratt-korbel, whose mother and aunt sit below the bar today. Their tireless campaigning has brought about this change.

They have persuaded the government that when a cowardly offender refuses to attend court, it causes anger and upset, which can feel like a final insult to victims and their families who have sat through the trial, waiting for the moment when they can tell the world, and, importantly, the offender, about the impact their crimes have had. For many of them, they want the opportunity to look the offender in the eye as he or she hears about the effects of what they have done.

My Lords, offenders are expected to attend court for sentence and the overwhelming majority do so because the Magistrates Court hears less serious cases, offenders are more likely to be on bail and where an offender is on bail. The courts have powers to compel attendance by issuing a warrant. When a warrant is issued, the defendant is brought before the court in custody for the warrant to be executed, and the judge can add an additional sentence for the offence of failing to surrender to bail, which will appear on their record in the future.

Forgive me, but in the Crown Court, which deals with only the top level of serious crime, offenders are much more often remanded in custody and so court powers to get them into court are more restricted. That is why this government has acted by bringing forward this legislation, giving three powers which can be used in relation to recalcitrant offenders. And I think that is the right word that's used by the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee, namely, first authorising the use of reasonable force, except in the case of children, because we're a civilised country and this government does not believe in using force on children.

Second, for offenders who still refuse to attend, or for those who are disruptive once they are there, the power to add an additional sentence. And thirdly, the power to impose the same kinds of prison sanctions as a prison governor can impose. But my Lords, getting an unwilling and often disruptive offender to court is by no means straightforward, and it inevitably causes a delay to the sentencing hearing for the following reasons. At the outset, the judge will have to hear submissions from prosecution and defence counsel as well, possibly from the prison and escort staff, as to whether the offender has a reasonable excuse for non-attendance and, if not, whether to exercise these new statutory powers, then the judge will need to give a ruling giving reasons as to why, in the circumstances of that particular case, it would be necessary, reasonable and proportionate to use reasonable force to get the offender to court.

Then the prison and transport staff are going to have to go and get the prisoner from the place, whether it's a prison or a court cell, which they're refusing to leave. The prison and transport staff will then have to use their judgement as to how best to execute the judge's ruling, including what degree of force to use. And finally, if the offender is forced into court and is then disruptive, this is likely to cause more delay whilst the judge decides what to do next.

My Lords, there's probably one thing we can all agree about. The criminal courts do not need any additional delays, so judges will need to weigh up carefully whether and when to use their new powers. The noble Lady Baroness Hamwee raised the question of the inherent powers that courts already have both courts, both the Crown Court and the Magistrates Court have inherent powers to deal with non-attendance as a contempt of court. But these are sparingly used because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas has made the point very powerfully.

It's far from straightforward. So for these reasons, the government's view is that this new legislation is appropriately restricted to Crown Court sentencing. It represents a reasonable and proportionate response to the problem, because it is the Crown Court where these powers are needed and operational arrangements are already in place for producing the most serious and violent offenders at the Crown Court, managing the risks of that involves and, where necessary, using proportionate force. So for these reasons, we consider that expanding the power of the magistrates courts might create legal and operational uncertainty and unnecessary delay to court proceedings, and I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendments.
16:29
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this debate, and indeed the observations with regard to the timing of any extension of these powers. I would observe with respect to the submissions made by the noble Lord Marks, that if these provisions do help victims in the Crown Court, then it's not clear why they would not help victims in the Magistrates Court. And with respect to the observations of the noble Lady, the Minister, she talked at length of the difficulty of implementation with regard to these provisions, but that would apply equally in the Crown Court and in the Magistrates Court, and indeed the appearance of serious offenders in the Magistrates Court is, of course, going to be an immediate development, with the proposed changes under the sentencing Bill, which will extend the sentencing powers of the magistrates to three years.

But of course, the question before us today is not whether these powers are necessary on that. The House appears to be agreed. It's the scope and application of the powers that has to be considered. And in that context, I have highlighted the way in which these proposals have undergone, as it were, something of a sea change. In view of the proposed changes in sentencing power and the transfer of increasingly serious cases from the current court to the Magistrates Court, and I would respectfully suggest that limiting these powers to one jurisdiction risks sending the wrong message to victims and indeed causing confusion amongst victims who are not hidebound by jurisdictional boundaries between the Crown Court and the Magistrates Court.

If attendance matters for all the reasons outlined by the government, then the principle does not end at the doors of the Crown Court, but extends across the court system. And, of course, it's important to consider, and no doubt the government will come back on this. It is important to consider the impacts of these powers on the Crown Court and indeed on the Magistrates Court. And if resources are, for example, a concern, then that's something that does need to be addressed expressly.

My Lords, we remain supportive of these clauses in the Bill, and we only intend to strengthen them and to make the benefits accessible to a wider cohort of victims. And I would therefore urge the Minister to reflect on the potential inconsistency created by restricting these powers to the Crown Court when sentencing powers are in the course of amendment, transferring increasingly serious cases to the Magistrates Court, and the risk that this entails of creating a two tier system of justice for victims.

This bill provides an opportunity to ensure genuine and system wide consistency, and I would invite the government to consider that going forward with this bill. At this stage, I withdraw the amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment two Lord Keen not moved. Amendment three. Lord King.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

three. Lord King. My Lords, I rise to speak to these to this group of amendments these to this group of amendments which in my name and that of the noble and learned Lord Keen they seek to ensure this Bill lives up
16:33
None Portrait AMDT: 3 Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-

to its purpose in the name of victims. Clauses one and two set out how offenders can in future be compelled to attend their sentencing hearing. But as sentencing hearing. But as currently drafted, they contain no mechanism to involve the victims mechanism to involve the victims directly in the process. This, we suggest, is contrary to the bill's purpose to make provision for an purpose to make provision for an enhanced experience for victims within the criminal justice system. Indeed, it is unclear in what situation a judge would be minded to make such an order without the request of the prosecution in.

It's unclear what the criteria for such a decision would be in that instance if, in the absence of a request by the prosecution, the court's power to compel attendance is not automatic, then I look to the Minister to say why that is the case. Further, I ask the Minister to clarify whether published guidance will be provided to judges as to what factors should be considered when making an order beyond the practical considerations of officer safety. The amendments which we advance, on the other hand, overcome some of our concerns.

They will enable the victims to have a say and to request that the offender be ordered to attend. As the noble Baroness, the Minister set out previously at Second Reading, the reasoning behind this bill's provisions is to compel attendance in the first place, and is to provide an opportunity for victims to look the defendant in the eye and explain exactly how a crime has affected them. The sentencing remarks are often their last opportunity for this. Why, then, I ask, should victims not be given a say whereby they can express expressly request that an offender is ordered to attend? This would give both the victim a greater voice and the judge greater clarity on how to proceed.

The second two amendments in this group, amendments four and nine, will also require the courts to consult the victims. If the judge is minded not to make an order compelling and offended to attend sentencing. If a victim is deceased or incapacitated mentally or physically. Our amendments also allow for family members or another appropriate representative to be consulted in their place. Justice should not stop when the victim cannot speak for themselves. This will put victims at the centre of the process.

It will ensure that such decisions are not taken behind closed doors, but are taken in consultation with those victims whom these decisions affect. My Lords, we cannot treat these issues as merely procedural. For a victim, a sentencing hearing can be a profoundly significant moment, and it's an opportunity for closure. The very last thing I'm sure that noble Lords would want is for a victim to feel disconnected or sidelined or unheard by the courts. In the run up to a hearing.

This amendment will also give judges a chance to explain and justify their decisions. If it is the case that that the offender will not be in attendance, or the judge will not exercise their powers to compel attendance, then victims or their representatives deserve an explanation why that is the case. This should happen both. Where a victim has made a request for an offender to be ordered to attend, and where they have not. We do not consider this to be a heavy burden on the courts.

It should instead be considered best practice. My Lords, these steps would ensure that the judge's decision making process is consistently transparent. It will make our system more accessible and demonstrate to victims that they are a priority, not an afterthought, particularly at the point of sentencing. My Lords, this bill was presented to Parliament as an opportunity to address these very concerns. Our amendments fill real gaps in drafting. I am sure the Minister will want to reflect carefully on these amendments.

I look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to this debate. I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause one, page one, line 17. At the end page one, line 17. At the end insert or at the victim's request.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert or at the victim's request. May I make two observations? The first relates to the remark
16:38
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
>> The first relates to the remark made by the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst, in relation to how the Sandhurst, in relation to how the judges will exercise this powers, and whether guidance would be given. And no doubt the Lord and the lady, Chief Justice, or will consider whether to give guidance, or whether such guidance would be given by practice, direction, or whether the exercise of this power might be the subject of discussion at the Judicial College. But but the handling of this is entirely for the judiciary.

It's difficult enough, and it certainly would not be the case in any way appropriate for the Ministry of Justice to give guidance. It seems to me that is part of the way in which the exercise of this judicial power must be for the judicial branch of the state and them alone. Unless, of course, Parliament, in its infinite wisdom, decides that it wants to set down the criteria. I would strongly urge members not to do that. The second relates to a more practical point, and that is the ability of the victim to intervene in the decision and to be able to make a request.

I think it is sometimes forgotten. The transformation that occurred during the 2000 and the next decade in the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service dealt with victims. There was a time when the victim was regarded as peripheral to the way in which the courts operated, and matters that had to be taken into account. It that is a position that changed remarkably and for the better. I think it is appreciated that the exercise of the judicial power to compel someone, or to have someone brought into court, is a matter that has to be exercised with the greatest degree of thought.

And if the Crown Prosecution Service were to request this to happen, I would be astounded if they had not consulted with the victim. That is what, in my experience, often happens in these very difficult circumstances. There is a discussion as to the best way of proceeding, and it is very important that this is approached in that sort of way. If the victim was to be allowed to make the request directly, it seems to me that this raises the question is how is this to be done in open court with the discussion of the various issues, or is it not best left to the wisdom of of the Crown prosecutor and the judge's ability to ask the questions as to the victim's views? It seems to me this is a much more efficacious way of dealing with the matter.

Rather than bringing the victim personally, because there's no suggestion of a victim's advocate for this into what will, if this power is to be exercised, be an occasion of great difficulty, because the last thing anyone wants to happen is to make is to to provide secondary victimisation by an awful scene in court. I would urge that the government exercise very considerable caution in considering considerable caution in considering this amendment. By Lord Stern. Once again, I'm extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord Maude
16:42
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thomas for his note of caution, even about amendment three or even about amendment three or amendment eight. In the case of service personnel, which allow the service personnel, which allow the victim or victims to request an victim or victims to request an order that an order be made, I should say first that I completely agree with the noble and learned agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that it is, of course, a matter for the judiciary to exercise its discretion as to whether orders are made.

And I'm not entirely sure that the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst took into account quite how difficult it came to be to make these orders, and I think that I suggest that the noble and learned Lord Maude Thomas's caution about bringing the victim in as effectively a party to such an application is reflects a point well made. But I do accept that it is right that the victim's voice should be heard. And I also agree with the noble and learned Lord Maude Thomas that the victim's voice in court now is heard in a way that it certainly wasn't decades and even years ago, but a formal position whereby the victim is entitled to make a request is probably undesirable, though it's quite clear that the victim's voice should be heard, and that guidance to and from the judiciary should reflect that the victim's voice should be heard.

As to amendments four and nine were effectively what the amendments are seeking is a very serious conflict. If the court is minded not to make an order under subsection two, the court has a duty to consult victim or whether victim is deceased, and so forth, a family member or other appropriate representative that I suggest puts the victim in a wholly invidious position of effectively making the victim compulsorily, a party to the application for an order that I suggest is likely to stoke up hostility between victim and the offender, which is something that we're trying to avoid or at least reduce, and even possibly between victim and the court, which is a thoroughly undesirable position.

Far better, I would suggest, to leave it to the judge to decide how the victim's views should be sought, how they should be taken into account without imposing any duty on the court to consult the victim at any stage. So it would be much better for the Bill to remain silent on how the victim's bill should be, how the victim's views should be sought. But the expectation will be that they will be sought. And I have no doubt that's how the judiciary would approach this exercise.
16:45
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, amendments three, four, eight and nine, once again in the names of the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen of Elie and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst seek to give a victim or a bereaved family a victim or a bereaved family a defined role in the process of ordering someone to attend their sentencing hearing. My Lords, victims have been at the forefront of this measure. It is precisely because an offender's refusal to attend sentencing can compound the trauma for victims, that we are giving judges an express power to order attendance, building upon the judge's existing common law powers.

Whether to order attendance must be a judicial must remain. A judicial assessment of what is in the interests of justice. It will be made case by case, with the judge retaining the ultimate discretion. Having considered all the circumstances, as I said when responding to the last group of amendments, we anticipate that judges who are considering making an attendance order will hear submissions from both prosecution and defence, and prosecuting counsel will inevitably be expected to advance the views of the victim and the family, having sought them beforehand and having asked them.

I can tell you from my own experience that if they haven't spoken to the victims or the victim's family, the judge is likely to tell them to go away and do so. It happens now. If there is not a victim personal statement, the judge will, in my experience, inevitably say, why isn't there one? Does the victim want to make one? And I can tell your Lordships from my own experience again, that the views of victims and their families are given great weight by the judge.

That said, we are anxious not to create unrealistic expectations in the minds of victims or their families that they would have the right to require the offender's attendance at court. It could lead to some very difficult experiences for victims and their families. What if, for example, the judge were to find that the offender had a reasonable excuse for non-attendance, but the family of the victim disagreed plainly? The judge's decision would have to prevail, but at what cost to the family, if they had believed that they had the right to require their attendance? We do not want to make sentencing hearings any more stressful or distressing for victims than they already are.

Judges must have the discretion to do what is right based on the facts in front of them and the submissions that they hear. And my Lords, there will be cases where it is not in the best interests of victims or families for the offender to be in court, including the thankfully rare occasions when the offender is likely to be disruptive or disrespectful and cause further distress. My Lords, to place a statutory duty on the court to consult a victim whenever an order is not made risks creating additional delay at the point of sentence.

What, for example, if the victim's family have chosen not to attend court and yet there is a mandatory statutory duty upon the judge to find out and consult them. And as I've already said, the one thing that the Crown Courts do not need is any additional delay. In addition, such a statutory requirement risks placing an additional unnecessary emotional burden on victims and families. The bill preserves judicial discretion, and we expect judges to take account of all relevant circumstances, including victims interests, and we are confident that they will do so.

We are confident because that is what they already do. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendments.
16:49
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who contributed to this short but thoughtful debate, and in particular to the noble Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. This debate has Thomas of Cwmgiedd. This debate has underlined how crucial these provisions are to the overall purpose of the bill, why they weren't close attention, and the balance which they have to be struck. My Lords, we must, of course, get this right. The bill was brought forward with the express purpose of strengthening victims rights and improving their experience of the criminal justice system.

But as drafted victims will remain on the sidelines if we are not careful of a key decision making process, whether an order should be made to compel an offender to attend their sentencing hearing. If this bill does not allow victims to make explicit requests for compelled attendance, then the bill will fall short of its own purpose and logic. Notwithstanding the noble Lady, the Minister's assurance as to what happens in practice or happened to when she was sitting in the Crown Court, so far as the CPS are concerned, surely it should be made obligatory for the CPS to ask the victim if the victim wishes the attendance of the defendant to be compelled, and for the CPS if, in receipt of a positive answer, to pass that view to the court, it will then be for the judge.

The current position is that the judges have discretion what to do, whether to use their powers to compel attendance even without a request to the prosecution. But it is not clear, we suggest, when judges would exercise that power. So we look to Ministers to confirm that, whether from them or as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas has pressed from the judiciary, there should be guidance as to the exercise of the powers. We would also be grateful if the Minister would outline the reasoning behind why these orders are not automatic in the event of non-attendance, and when reasonable force can be safely administered.

Our amendments offer a simple and straightforward improvement. They would have ensured that victims could make such requests, and that they consulted where the court is minded not to make an order for on a compulsory basis. That will be so regardless of whether they have made the request or not. Sentencing hearings are often the final opportunity for victims to be heard and to feel that they are heard. So why would we deprive them of a say in decisions that directly shape that experience? Victims voices must be embedded in the process.

They should not be treated as merely passive observers. We've also observed that where a victim has died or is incapacitated, the system was not simply move on without them. Family members or appropriate representatives should be consulted in their place. We hope the Minister will carefully reflect on the points raised today to help fulfil the Bill's stated purpose and fill what I am sure are unintentional gaps in its drafting. We look forward to hearing how the government intend to move forward in due course that for the moment,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we withdraw these amendments. Is it your. Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment four Lord Keen not moved. Amendment five Lord Keen.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Keen. My Lords, the amendments in my name and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst propose that the
16:52
None Portrait AMDT: 5 Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-

Sandhurst propose that the provisions in clauses one and two of this bill apply to offenders from the age of 16, rather than only to those aged 18 and over, as drafted. Clauses one and two are explicitly limited in their application to those aged 18 or over, and that's a departure from the original conservative proposal for this power, which would have required the court to consult the relevant youth offending team if the offender in question was under 18. And we therefore believe that the blanket threshold of 18 should be examined, the Lord, the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales has, of course, ten years of age, even if it is believed that the age of criminal responsibility might reasonably be set higher than ten years, a subject of recent developmental science and indeed reflecting public expectations in the field of criminal law.

The Lords, a 16 year old who's been convicted of a serious offence, will be expected to go before a Crown Court judge to receive their sentence and yet will face no statutory obligation to attend their sentencing hearing. Under these provisions, that appears inconsistent with the intent of these provisions. We've seen both in recent cases and in parliamentary proceedings on this bill. How deeply distressing and unfortunate it can be for victims and families when an offender refuses to face the court at sentencing, and that described by Ministers themselves as a, quote, final insult to those already traumatised, and it is difficult to articulate why someone aged 16 who's been found guilty of a serious offence should be exempt from measures designed to ensure that they confront the consequences of their own criminal actions.

We should also reflect upon the wider tapestry of civic responsibility that is developed, in which this government would also confer upon 16 year olds. The government have proposed to lower the voting age to 16. Some at age 16 can marry, they can pay tax, they can join the armed forces. They assume a suite of responsibilities in civil society. They are treated as autonomous agents in a host of legal and social contexts, and to exempt them uniquely in this narrow but important sphere, from the requirement to attend their own sentencing hearing when convicted of a crime, does appear inconsistent with those wider developments.

The Lords we owe it to victims and to the public to ensure that the measures we put on statute reflect a coherent and principled approach. These amendments ensure that they align with the realities of criminal responsibility and indeed the government's wider policy. Someone who commits a serious crime at 16, such as murder or serious violence, should not be placed beyond the reach of these important attendant provisions. That is the inconsistency that appears to us in the present form of clauses one and two.

Accountability cannot be robust at conviction and sentencing in substance, but simply optional at the point of sentencing. In practice. And we've seen very recent examples of young people, relatively young people aged 15 and 16, committing the most heinous offences and indeed, in some instances murder. And there can be no doubt, of course, that the existing framework for youth justice should be maintained and remain separate and distinct from these provisions. But nevertheless, when it comes to those 16 years and older, their personal conduct does take them before the Crown Court.

They appear there for sentencing. There is no principled justification for differentiating on the basis of age alone. Between 16 and 18, when culpability and legal responsibility has already been established. And so, with that in mind, I respectfully move these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. A member proposed clause one,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A member proposed clause one, page one. Leave out line 19. I beg your Lordships pardon. Leave out 18 and insert 16.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and insert 16. My Lords, very briefly, these amendments would treat offenders over the age of 16, in the same way
16:57
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
over the age of 16, in the same way as offenders over the age of 18, in relation to three aspects of the compulsory attendance regime. The first aspect is the requirement that the court consult youth offending team before making an order. The second is the use of force against young offenders, and the third is the use of prison sanctions. In the case of service offenders, the members explanatory statement explains that these amendments probe why these provisions apply only to offenders over the age of 18, and that's the position that the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen has taken, is that they should apply to everyone over the age of 16.

And I suggest that the answer to the question is that, modest as they are, these provisions make different arrangements for offenders under under 18 because they are designed to protect 16 and 17 year old offenders who are children and not yet adults. And I submit we on these benches believe that it is right that contemporary criminal justice for attempts to treat offenders under 18, in a way that acknowledges the particular vulnerabilities of 16 and 17 year olds.

My Lords, in the first group of amendments today, the noble Lady said the government broadly agrees with that position. The amendments seek to remove the distinction between 16 and 17 year olds, on the one hand, and adults will be at young adults on the other. That we say would be a retrograde step and it should be opposed. I would add that of the measures that are proposed in the amendments, those sanctioning the use of force against 16 year olds to bring them to sentencing hearings against their will would be, we suggest, particularly egregious and potentially very damaging.

Thank you.
17:00
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, may I start by reassuring your Lordships House that an attendance order can be that an attendance order can be made in respect of all offenders, including children. In fact, most children are not tried in the Crown Court. They are tried in the youth court, even for very serious offences. So it's very rare for children of this age to appear in the Crown Court. But if they do, then an attendance order for the sentencing hearing can be made. The only difference is that force will not be used to get the children to court.

And the reason is this current operational policy, informed by the Taylor Review of 2020, restricts the use of force on children. Domestic policy is also informed by the UK government's signatory status to the UN convention on the rights of the child, and we have committed to complying with its duties under the convention. My Lords, as I said a week ago during the debate in your Lordships House on the age of criminal responsibility, this government recognises that children in the youth justice system can be some of our most vulnerable citizens, many of whom are themselves victims, at the very least of neglect and abuse.

And there is a disproportionate occurrence of special educational needs and neurodivergence in this cohort. So whilst we acknowledge that some children have committed very serious crimes for which they must be punished, this government does not treat them as merely small adults. And for them we have devised a separate but related regime where a child fails to attend or is disruptive. Once there, the court may treat that as a contempt of court, but the maximum penalty is a fine with the court taking into account the limited means and making relevant arrangements for younger children.

Lowering the threshold from 18 to 16 would cut across that safeguarding architecture. The government's view is that the strongest coercive powers should be reserved for adults, where the legal, operational and ethical framework properly supports their use. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I thank noble Lords for measured observations on these proposed amendments. The Lords is broad agreement across the House that attendance at sentencing is about accountability, about dignity for victims, and about respect for the court and refusal to attend. Sentencing has rightly been described by Ministers as a final described by Ministers as a final insult to victims and families. So the question before the House is not whether the principle is right, but to whom it should be applied.

These provisions are about ensuring offenders confront the consequences of their actions and allow victims to see justice done and hear sentencing remarks, and they also uphold the authority and integrity of the court. We are dealing with a situation in which in which 16 and 17 year olds find themselves prosecuted in the Crown Court for serious offences, including murder, and in respect of which they receive long custodial sentences. A 16 year old can be convicted of murder or serious violence.

That same 16 year old would face no statutory obligation to attend their sentencing hearing. But accountability cannot logically begin at conviction and then disappear at sentencing. From a victim's perspective, the same harm emerges, regardless of whether an offender is 16 or 17 years of age or 18. The distress caused when an offender refuses to attend sentencing does not diminish by virtue of their age. There is also the wider policy context that I mentioned before, which is that we now do treat 16 year olds essentially as adults, both in respect of the proposal that they should be able to vote, that they can marry, that they can join the armed forces.

And in respect of the wider social and political autonomy, these amendments do not impact upon the youth justice system. They do not remove judicial discretion. The courts will always retain
17:04
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
discretion and take account of the welfare capacity and safeguarding concerns of 16 year olds. In these circumstances, it respectfully appears to us that this proposal does not undermine clauses one and two, but rather seeks to strengthen it for the benefit of victims. it for the benefit of victims. Someone whose conduct is serious enough to warrant Crown Courts sentencing should not be shielded sentencing should not be shielded from accountability at the point of sentencing. But for the moment, we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw these amendments. Is it your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment six Lord Keen not moved. Amendment seven Lord Keen not moved. The question is of clause one stand part of the bill, as many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it in clause two, amendments three and eight and nine Lord Keen not moved. Amendments ten, 11 and 12 Lord Keen not moved.

The question is to clause two stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary not content the contents have it in clause three, amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

13 the Baroness Brinton. In my name and other amendments in this group, look at the in this group, look at the arrangements set out in clause three of this bill on how the court should manage the difficult issue should manage the difficult issue of the rights of a person with parental responsibility, but who is a convicted child sex offender. The range of proposals but and indeed range of proposals but and indeed my amendment 13 are probing at what point being a convicted child sex offender must take priority over the rights that a child sex offender may have as a parent himself or herself.

Although it is usually a man, and the range of
17:06
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
proposals in amendments 14 and 22 from Lord Keen arguing for any sexual offence, which is broadly sexual offence, which is broadly what we're arguing to, and amendments 15, 19 and 27 from Lord amendments 15, 19 and 27 from Lord Meston argue for a conviction of more than six months, show the more than six months, show the range. The government, of course, starts at the point of four years and above. My Lords, there are real and above. My Lords, there are real tensions here and I'm particularly looking forward to the contribution from Lord Meston who can help us non-lawyers bridge those differing priorities with his practical experience and having parental responsibility.

But the role of the family courts versus the criminal courts, and this is where I want to start. I'm pleased that the government is in clause three, recognising that we should have a clearer position on when convicted offenders of child sex abuse lose their parental rights. Because, my Lords, it's been iniquitous that parental rights have trumped the safeguarding of children, even when the person with parental rights has been convicted of CSA child sexual abuse, including, astonishingly, of their own child or stepchild.

The charity We Stand and the Victims' Commissioner Claire Waxman have long campaigned to protect children from their parent with parental responsibility, and I thank them for their briefings. It is extraordinary that a parent convicted of raping their child has been able to retain access and decision making of that child, even when they are in prison. There is absolutely no doubt that this has caused other parents and family members much distress, and often considerable expense, when they've been to the family courts to ask for access to be stopped.

So from these benches, we welcome clause three as a starting point. However, we aren't convinced that it isn't quite strong enough, and one example is that the serious sexual offences listed in schedule ZA1 of the Victims and Courts Bill, includes both indecent imagery offences and contact offences. Imagery offences have a minimum sentence of a community order, and this means that it could be argued that a section three serious offence can be triggered at any sentencing threshold. However, the majority of sentences for indecent imagery tend to fall below three months and one year.

Sentencing guidelines for contact offences start at the minimum of a year, so that would exclude these offenders under the government proposals. And that's why amendment 13 includes all convicted child sexual abusers. And my Lords, this is not about punishment of the offender. This is about protecting all children. We know from research that most child sex abuse takes place in the family environment, and therefore those children are at the highest risk from the offender. We stand told us that research from the Centre of Expertise for Child Sexual Abuse shows that natural parents are the highest offending group in intra familial child sex abuse, which accounts for over two thirds of offences.

As a result, the children of convicted child sex offenders are already at the most risk. A non abusing or protective parent has a legal duty to protect their child from any child sex offender and at any level of offending, and I personally have seen the involvement in a case some years ago about how hard it can be for a non abusing protective parent to do it when they also have to fight the family Court's assumption about the rights of the other parent, even one who is a convicted child sex abuse offender because that trumps the offence.

We know that the protective parent will often have little or no legal aid to fight to protect their children, including having no right to know where the offender is. This means that papers cannot be served. They also have no right to any information about the rehabilitation or risk assessments of the offender. And that, my Lords, is also extraordinary. How can they comment on them or ask for assessments to be made? They are the ones looking after the children. Another problem is the limited time frame on protective orders such as prohibited steps, orders and worse, no powers of arrest if breached by the offender.

One consequence of this is no sense at all. Extraordinarily, the offender has the right to make multiple applications to vary or overturn protective orders and to make repeated requests for contact with the children. In households where there has also been coercive control and domestic abuse. These repeated requests continue that abuse. But too often the family courts see it only through the eyes of the offending parent trying to assert their rights. Section 9114 of the Children Act cites is the the basis for that we stand.

Note that the basis of the Children Act 1989, a more recent primary legislation that has not yet been repealed, states that the involvement of a parent in a child's life is linked to the firmament of the welfare of a child, and this means that judges and other authorities, such as social services and cafcass, are forced into a legal anomaly. They must balance the potential harm to a child from a convicted sex offender or a parent, with legislation stating that both parents involvement in the child's life furthers the welfare of that child.

And this, my Lords, lead to inconsistent outcomes even if the presumption is repealed. This fundamental belief is still enshrined in the Introduction and Guidance to the Children Act. Children of the CSA parent are often at greater risk than other children, who are automatically protected by existing criminal restrictions, such as sexual harm prevention orders and registration requirements. Other protective parental concerns include. Non-molestation orders granted by courts are often for very short durations, six months or a year, so they aren't an alternative to a prohibited steps orders.

They have to defend themselves in a family court to counter allegations made by the offender, often including parental alienation. Even after a CSA conviction. And worse, the nature of the courts means that they often end up in a revolving door in and out of the family court for years, which has emotional and financial consequences for them. And the fact of the CSA conviction never changes, and that leads to how the family courts thinks that parental responsibility might be exercised by the offender parent is realistic.

Surely, my Lords, it is not. Research shows that online and non-penetrative offences are just as high risk for re-offending against their own children. And this is important, and the reason why amendment 13 has reduced the bar from a four year sentence to any CSA conviction. Surely, my Lords, for safeguarding reasons, now is the time to change the legal responsibility to the offending parent having to prove why they are safe to exercise that parental responsibility through rehabilitation courses and often assessment by professionals.

But the position of the court must start with the assumption of the protection of the child, not with the rights of the offender parent. And that's why all convicted child sex offenders with parental responsibilities should have a prohibited steps order for each child at the time of their conviction. The Ps0 should have a penal notice attached to it to prevent breaches, and a ps0 is useless if it doesn't have the power of arrest. If there is a safeguarding issue, and because many protective parents and their families are in a living hell, it would be good if the legislation can be retrospective or there should be specific guidance to the Family Court that the protecting parents are to be assumed to have overriding parental responsibility.

Lord Meston amendment 19, in this group proposes a position between amendment 13 and the clause that the arrangements for regarding view, review and reduction of parental responsibility for a CSA offender should be assessed to six months or more. And I look forward to hearing his arguments for this, because it might be the halfway house that is helpful to both sides. I also signed Lord Meston amendment 34 on extending Jade's law during the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Bill, we in your Lordships House debated extending Jade's law to ensure that when an offender is convicted of the murder of voluntary manslaughter of a person with whom they have shared parental responsibility, that responsibility is automatically suspended on sentencing.

Jade Ward was a mother who was murdered by her former partner, leaving behind four children. He was sentenced to 25 years, but was also allowed to continue his parental responsibility despite the Prisoner Victims and Prisoners Act coming into force in May 2024. Section 18 on Jade's law has not been commenced and we are struggling to understand why and I hope the Minister will explain, or even better, tell us that it will be commenced. But Lord Meston amendment goes further and we support him in this.

My Lords, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Amendment 13. Amendment proposed clause three, page five. Line 40 leave out from the offender to the end of line one on page six and insert for any on page six and insert for any sexual offence in relation to children, including online offences.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

children, including online offences. I have four amendments in this group, three of of which are like that just proposed partially by the noble Baroness, lady Brinton are
17:16
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
seeking to explore the thinking behind the four year minimum prison behind the four year minimum prison sentence required by clause three of the bill to trigger the duty of the Crown Court to make a the Crown Court to make a prohibited steps order to restrict the offender's parental the offender's parental responsibility. My amendment 15 and 19 would lower the minimum age required to one of more than six months. Before I develop the argument a little further, perhaps I could just comment on a couple of points made by the noble Baroness, much of which much of what she said I entirely agree with.

But please let us not talk about parental rights. The Central Reform of the Children Act 1989 was to substitute for the concept of parental rights, the concept of parental responsibility, which is why it appears in this bill and has been part of our law for a long time. It replaced, as I have already said, the reference to rights as determining who had authority over aspects of the child's life or upbringing. The other point I'm afraid I would take issue with is her suggestion that in too many cases, the.

Court only sees matters through the eyes of the parent who, seeking to assert his rights or responsibilities. That I suggest is not correct. And it is certainly not my experience of how the family courts work. My Lord, returning to the substance of these amendments, it is clearly difficult to determine where to draw the line in such cases, bearing in mind that a convicted person whose sentence does not cross that line is still quite liable to have any parental responsibility restricted by the Family Court if it cannot be done in the Crown Court during debates.

In another place, the logic of the four years minimum sentence was questioned, and the Minister there argued that the four year threshold provided a predetermined marker of seriousness for cases in which the restriction of parental responsibility by the Crown Court is to happen automatically. The Minister also said that the government wanted to minimise the strain placed on the Family Court. There is force in in those points at a practical level, as I suggested at Second Reading, one reason to draw the line at four years is to make best use of the resources, expertise and powers of both the criminal and the family Court, respectively, without overburdening either.

However, one disadvantage of leaving too many of these cases to the Family Court is that it would deprive the mother and other family members of the benefit of the automatic suspension of parental responsibility, which the Bill provides, and indeed. Would require those who want to. Restrict parental responsibility make their own applications to the family Court, possibly without legal assistance. As the noble Baroness indicated, it is possible, my Lords, by use of Ministry of Justice statistics for 2023, to get some approximation of the cases involved, which would give some idea of the number of offenders and number of children who would be affected.

In this respect, I'm indebted to Amanda Newby, associate professor at Northumbria University, for her research and expert assistance on this and on other amendments in 2023. In England and Wales, there were 1924 cases of serious serious sexual abuse where an immediate prison sentence of between 4 and 15 years was imposed, in addition to which there were 44 sentences of life imprisonment. In the same year there were some 1093 cases involving serious child sexual abuse, where an immediate prison sentence of more than six months and less than four years was imposed.

Only 59 such offenders were sentenced to six months or less. Those statistics all involve adult offenders. It's clearly not possible to ascertain how many of those held parental responsibility for a child at the time of sentencing, but I suggest that it would have been, or could have been considerably lower on that basis, moving the threshold down to more than six months imprisonment would or could increase the number of potential cases by approximately 1000 annually. Although I repeat that many of those probably would not hold parental responsibility.

That likely increase does show that a significant number of children would not be protected under the bill. If the threshold is not lowered, and that is indeed an argument for lowering the threshold. I hope I've indicated amendment 27 in my name, perhaps illustrates some of the difficulties in drawing lines. The offence of sexual communication with a child under section 15 A of the 2003 act is not covered by the Bill as presently drafted, because the maximum sentence for that offence is two years.

That was an offence added in 2015 to the 2003 act to cover a specific form of sexually motivated grooming, and it might now be thought that it should be covered by the provisions of this bill. However, my Lords, essentially it should be accepted that one real difficulty is that the Crown Court, under the Bill, is going to be required to make orders under the Children Act, which the Family Court is generally for which the Family Court is generally the more appropriate forum.

The. Also, this bill does not contain any provision for mandatory review by the Family Court, as was provided under section 18 of the Victims and Prisoners Act. Jade's law in the Family Court, the other parent would have the status of a party and could be represented, and that court would have access to the relevant family history and to evidence in the form of a professional welfare and other reports if required. In other words, my Lords, quite frankly, there are compelling arguments, compelling arguments.

Either way, my Lords, can I move then to amendment 34 at the end of this group in my name, with the support of Baroness Brinton? That does not concern sexual offences, but rather seeks to extend what is now known as Jade's law, enacted, as I've mentioned, under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, section 18, as the noble Baroness reminded us, restricts parental responsibility where one parent kills the other and is convicted of murder or a specific category of manslaughter at the suggestion of the victims commissioner, we seek to amend that provision to include the attempted murder by one parent of the other.

I don't recall that this had been suggested when the 2024 act was passing through Parliament, and the omission of attempted murder may indeed have been an oversight. Oversight. But I do recall that there was some caution when, at various stages, suggestions of extending Jade's law to other offences of violence was were ventilated. Be that as it may, I would submit that it is clearly appropriate to include attempted murder involving the most extreme form of non-fatal assault.

To do so would relieve the victim from the obligation to seek the agreement of the perpetrator to decisions concerning the child and, if agreement is not forthcoming, would relieve the victim from having to apply to the court. The Victims Commissioner has become aware of the concerns of survivors of attempted murder when the offender has retained parental responsibility over their children without giving details. I had to deal with a case when the convicted parent used his status to obstruct the other parent, clearly motivated only by a desire for revenge, causing that other parent further distress and expense, as well as an inescapable fear of what he might try to do when relieved.

Released from prison. People in that position should be relieved and shielded of having to go to court unless absolutely necessary to do so. Finally, I would join the noble Baroness in mentioning the commencement of section 18, Jade's law. Section 18 is not retrospective and has yet to be brought into force. And so the reality is nobody has yet benefited by it. Can the Minister say when it will be put into effect? I don't want to trespass on arguments to be advanced on other amendments, but I do share the curiosity, curiosity about the provisions in the bill covering what is to happen in the event of an acquittal on appeal.

When when a sentence is reduced on appeal to that, I would add the question of whether a prohibited steps could be made where a sentence is increased on appeal or under the unduly lenient sentence scheme to one of more than four

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years. I rise very briefly to. Support Lord Meston and Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Support Lord Meston and Baroness Brinton in amendment 34. As they've mentioned, the Victims' Commissioner has been approached by a variety of individuals who a variety of individuals who survived attempted murder by their other half or their partner, and in other half or their partner, and in those cases, they're faced with a dilemma, because in some cases, the
17:28
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
person who tried to kill them and the difference between being murdered or not murdered is murdered or not murdered is sometimes a matter of an ambulance arriving two minutes earlier and managing to stop an attempt, whereas if it was two minutes later, whereas if it was two minutes later, that person might be dead, or by a neighbour hearing what was going on and making a telephone call. So the and making a telephone call. So the authorities arrive in time. So it's a very narrow decision as to, frankly, whether somebody ends up dead or injured but alive.

In some of those instances, the perpetrator who has gone to prison retains parental responsibility but may not know that they have parental responsibilities. So the surviving partner is in a dilemma, because if they bring it to the attention of the partner who is in prison and he's unaware of those rights, he may be tempted to to try and use them to disrupt the lives of the surviving partner, which I you know, I don't think anybody, anybody would, would wish to happen.

But in the instance that a survivor feels strongly enough that they want to try and go through the courts, to have the parental responsibility of the person who tried to kill them, stripped away, they then the onus is on them, the survivor, to go through the family courts. And that can be quite a lengthy and complicated process, and it is often made more difficult because the quality and flow of relevant information between the criminal court, which sent the attempted murderer to prison and the family court, is not always as open and as clear as it might be.

So for all those reasons, I do hope that when she comes to reply, the noble Lady, the Minister can clarify what the government's view is on this. And in particular, you know why. Commencement of the original Jade's law seems to have been delayed. What is holding it up and how quickly can we expect it to be put into operation?
17:30
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
I smiled. >> And will recall that I raised this issue at Second Reading. I stand now to support the amendments stand now to support the amendments of number 14 of Lord Keen and Lord Sandhurst and amendment 15 of my learned friend. If I may refer to him in those terms. Lord Meston. And I would like to just add that I have sympathy towards the drafting of amendment 13 by the noble Baroness Brinton. My Lords, that, as I've said quite frequently in this House, I say frequently because this the issue of sexual offending rose in the passage of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

And I said then that and I repeat it now, that sexual offences in the family environment are are can be appalling. And when that sexual offence is of a father sexually attacking, I think that is the right word. Children as young his own. It is in the role I'm afraid of a father rather than a mother, that when the father attacks his own children, his own son, his own, his own daughter, when they as young as 14 years, and it's an absolutely appalling offence and it's beyond most of our comprehension that anybody, any father would do that.

It's certainly beyond my comprehension, my Lords, the importance here, I think, is of the value of the precipitate, the prohibited steps order made in the Family court, because that can be carefully fashioned to the particular needs of the family, and therefore it's very welcome that the Family Court has this provision and. And therefore that the use of this prohibited order is most valuable for the protection of children and spouses in the family. My Lords, the thing that I'm a little bit puzzled by, and I would ask my noble friend the Minister, to reply the provision in clause three of the bill is a provision under which it is obligatory within the circumstances set out in clause three for a prohibited steps order to be made.

What I am grateful for guidance and I'm sorry I haven't researched this. That is the power. That's the question I put to my my my noble friend. The Minister is the power to make a prohibited steps order as a matter of discretion by the Crown Court. Or is the situation that a prohibited steps order can only be brought into force under the obligatory drafting of clause three of the bill? And I'd be very grateful if my noble friend the Minister could answer that one.

Thank you very much.
17:34
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
Observations. >> No one can. >> Doubt the revulsion of sexual. >> Offenders who've attacked their own children.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

own children. Or have the potential to do so. But there are two practical points But there are two practical points that we must bear in mind. First of all, the criminal justice system and the courts and the family justice system and the courts have been starved of resources by both governments. There is no doubt about that. And when sentence lengths are increased by both parties, we end up with a situation in the prisons.

That is a crisis. And I think in deciding what orders to make in this kind of case, it is of paramount importance to have regard to the resource implications. And it's no use saying, oh, there's money for this. There isn't. The courts system is starved, and the result of that is victims suffering in a whole host of other cases by the tremendous backlog. And both governments, this government and the last government are responsible for the position into which the courts have been placed.

So I say when we look at this, please have regard to resources. The second point and a point made by Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Meston. I think it is important we get the balance as to what the Crown Court is to do and what the Family court is to do. Correct. I'm not sure, having listened to this debate, that that is a matter that has been sufficiently addressed. The one thing you can't have, because it's wasteful of resources and doesn't apply expertise correctly, is not to have the lines clearly drawn.

And I hope very much before this comes back, there will be the opportunity for those who have day to day responsibility in the judiciary and in the court service together with the ministry, to be sure that we've got the most effective and efficient use of resources and the right kind of drawing the line, it's very difficult. But we cannot ignore the bankrupt state of the courts. It is a regrettable fact, and we mustn't make the mistake we've made in relation to sentencing.

Yeah.
17:37
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
Apologise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it me? Yes, yes, yes it is. Sorry. I'm very sorry, I apologise. Sorry. I'm very sorry, I apologise. I had thought I had my notes here I had thought I had my notes here and I have been listening hard. My Lords, I'm grateful to all noble Lords who've spoken in this group, which concerns the operation of clauses three and four and the use clauses three and four and the use of prohibited steps. Orders, the safeguarding of children where a parent or individual with parental responsibility has been convicted of serious sexual offending.

This group rightly raises profound questions about thresholds, about discretion, about safeguards and consistency. And indeed, as the noble and learned Lord Thomas has just pointed out, the balance between the two wings of the court system, the family and the criminal courts. I thank noble Lords for their searching and constructive contributions to this debate, all of which are motivated by a shared desire to protect children from home. I begin with amendment 13, termed by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, an amendment 14, which was tabled in my name.

An amendments 15 and 19 tabled by the noble Lord Lord Meston. All these amendments concern and probe the four year custodial threshold that currently triggers the duty on the Crown Court to consider making a prohibited steps order. I wish to thank the government at the outset for the constructive manner in which they have already engaged with this clause, they accepted during the Bill's passage through the other place, that the original scope of clause three was too narrow, as drafted on introduction, it applied only where the offender had committed sexual abuse against their own child.

Following sustained concern, the government rightly expanded that clause. So it applies where the offender has abused any child. That change was welcome necessary. However, while the class of victims has been widened, the custodial threshold remains set at four years and it is here that noble Lords have expressed deep unease. A four year sentence is an extremely high bar. There are numerous sexual offences involving children that may result in sentences well below four years, yet which would plainly justify the imposition of a prohibited steps order in order to safeguard a child.

To give just a few examples, offences such as sexual communication with a child, causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. Certain forms of indecent assault or online grooming behaviours may, depending on the facts, attract sentences significantly less than four years. Yet it would be surprising to suggest that an individuals convicted of such conduct should automatically fall outside the scope of the safeguarding measure, which has been designed to prevent them exercising parental responsibility without scrutiny. My Lords, I fully accept, and I think all noble Lords accept, that there is a balancing exercise here.

The state should not intervene lightly in family life, and we must be careful not to construct a regime which is too blunt, so it results in unnecessary or disproportionate separation of children from parents. But equally, clause three is drafted. Risks. We suggest being too narrowly drawn so that it fails to engage precisely in those cases where concern is most acute. Our concern is that the current threshold risks excluding serious and dangerous. Individuals, simply because the custodial term imposed falls short of an arbitrary figure.

So we look to the Minister to explain why four years was chosen, what evidence underpins that decision, and why a lower threshold or an offence based approach was not chosen. Turning to amendments 22 and 27, these raise an issue of rather different but also a troubling nature the power of the Secretary of State by regulation to amend the list of offences to which clause three applies as drafted, that power is not limited to expansion. It allows. It allows the list to be amended.

That necessarily includes the possibility of reduction. My Lords, it is difficult to conceive of a principled reason why a future government would wish to remove sexual offences from the scope of safeguarding provision of this kind. That prospect should concern the whole House. Of course, we accept the need for flexibility. The criminal law evolves, new offences may be created, particularly in the online sphere, as was illustrated by the recent grok AI scandal and by non-consensual deepfakes of women and children in particular.

My Lords, I recognise that Parliament cannot foresee every future risk. Recent controversies involving emerging technologies only underline that reality. It is therefore sensible that Ministers should have the power to expand the list where gaps emerge. But, my Lords, it is not at all clear why the power should run in the opposite direction. That is why we tabled amendment 22, which would enable the Secretary of State ensure that the Secretary of State would only be able to expand the list of relevant offences, rather than shrink that list.

Opposition to what is modest drafting would raise serious questions about the government's intentions. We hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister, will reflect carefully on that. In that context, we are grateful to the noble Lord Lord Meston for amendment 27, which would add section 15 A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, namely sexual communication with a child to the schedule. This offence criminalises the deliberate sexualised communication with a child for the purpose of sexual gratification. Technology enabled form of abuse can be profoundly harmful.

It often forms part of a wider pattern of grooming. Its inclusion in the schedule would materially strengthen the safeguarding framework, particularly if the threshold under clause three were to be revisited. Finally, amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Meston, seeks to extend Jade's law to cover attempted murder. This amendment raises an important principle where the law recognises that certain conduct is so grave that parental responsibility should be curtailed automatically. It is difficult to see why the distinction between murder and attempted murder should be a point of difference, particularly given the catastrophic harm that attempted murder can cause.

This has been a thoughtful and serious debate. The amendments in this group aimed at strengthening clause three to improve children, to protect children from harm, whilst respecting the practical policy constraints which the government faces. We have no doubt that the noble Baroness, the Minister, will engage constructively with the issues raised and provide the House with the assurances and explanations that these amendments request. Thank you.
17:45
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. The government understands that the aim of this group of amendments is to ensure that the children who are at the heart of these cases are protected. We share that objective. But for reasons I will explain, these amendments may cause more problems than those that they are intended to solve. But I start off by saying these amendments are all intended to be made to legislation either proposed or already enacted, which deal with slightly different situations, namely convictions for certain serious sexual offences, children conceived as a result of rape, and where one parent has been convicted of the murder of the other.

But all these pieces of proposed or enacted legislation have one thing in common they are not intended to be additional punishments, nor are they intended to replicate far less replace, the experience and expertise of the Family court. What they're intended to do is to protect children who are caught up in these very situations, very serious situations, as quickly as possible. In each of these three situations, the government has identified issues in which the crime for which the relevant person has been sentenced is so serious, and they will usually be serving such a long prison sentence that it is relatively straightforward to conclude that a prohibited steps order will be in the best interests of the child, so these proposals allow the Crown Court judge automatically to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility at the time of sentence, whereas at the moment, what happens is that following sentence, the remaining parent has to apply to the Family court to do exactly the same thing.

But this inevitably takes time and causes distress. And it is of course, known that some perpetrators use their parental responsibility to continue to try and exercise control even though they are behind bars. And of course, in relation to parents serving a life sentence for the murder of the other, it's axiomatic that there'll be no other parent to make the application. But what this legislation does not do is automatically to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility, in all cases, forever.

The defendant who has had it restricted, can apply to the Family Court to have it restored. What it does, though, is put the onus upon them to do so. All these provisions do is to provide a quick and convenient method of protecting children and victims. But, my Lords, restricting the exercise of parental responsibility is, of course, an extremely serious thing to do. And for this reason, the government has to give serious consideration to how to balance the competing principles involved. And against this background, I now turn to amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 22 and 27.

In the names of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, the noble Lord Lord Meston, and the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen of Elie. Taken together, these amendments seek to broaden the offences within that are within the scope of this measure and reduce the minimum sentencing threshold, down from four years. The government, of course, believes that any individual who poses a serious risk to children should not be able to exercise their parental responsibility. And for the avoidance of doubt, I make it clear that the government's view is that parents do not have rights.

The only rights are those of the child. However, in order to create a power allowing the automatic restriction at the point of sentence, we must be sure that to do so would be in the best interests of the child, and that is why we have set the threshold at sentences of four years imprisonment. Because in our judgement, if the behaviour of the defendant is sufficiently serious to warrant a sentence of four years or more, it is safe to assume that it would be right to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility.

And the reason we have set it at four years is because this is already a threshold for seriousness used for other purposes in criminal sentencing for certain offences, including sexual offences. An offender who's sentenced to four or more years serves two thirds, rather than half of their sentence in prison. So it's already recognised that that shows particular seriousness. This pre-existing legislative provision is why we have chosen four years as the indicator of seriousness. If we were to lower the four year threshold, we could risk moving away from a point where we can be sure that restricting the exercise of parental responsibility will always be in the best interest of a child into territory where it is less clear.

Equally, we must ensure that these measures are not in contravention of a person's human rights. In particular, we need to ensure that any interference with a person's right to private and family life under article eight of the European Convention is justifiable and is a justifiable and proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim. We have set the threshold at four years for serious child sexual offences, as we are of the view that, given the risk of harm to children, this intervention is justified.

That is not to say that the parental responsibility of offenders who have committed sexual offences, whether against their own child or someone else's, but have received a sentence of less than four years for them, their their parental responsibility cannot be restricted. In those cases, an application can still be made to the family court who are best placed to consider that all the circumstances, including what is in the best interests of the child. The noble Lady Baroness Brinton, raised a number of issues about shortcomings in the family court.

With the greatest of respect to her, I am going to invite her again to say that this is perhaps not the time and place to expand on those that they are, of course, serious points. And I think, as the noble Lady knows, I have responsibility for family justice policy within my department. So these are things that perhaps she and I can discuss. On another occasion, when we met the noble and learned Lord Keen asked about appeals and it's been raised again today.

I promised him a reply. My Lords, in cases where there is a successful appeal and an offender is either acquitted or the sentence is reduced below four years, the bill provides a clear process for the review of the prohibited Steps order, and the relevant local authority will be under a duty to make an application within a very short time to the Family Court, so that the Family Court can consider again, exercising their expertise and their experience. Whether the Prohibited Steps order imposed by the Crown Court should be varied or discharged.

I turn now to amendment 27. In the name of the noble Lord Lord Meston. My Lords, the offence of having sexual communications with a child carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, so this could not be added to the list unless the requirement of a four year minimum sentence were removed. I turn now to amendment 34, in the name of the noble Lord Lord Meston, and to which the noble Lady Baroness Brinton has put her name and spoken. This concerns James Jade's law, and would expand it.

Jade's law provides for the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility in cases where one parent kills the other, the noble Lord and lady wish to amend the legislation so that it includes cases of attempted murder, and I am grateful for being told that that was at the suggestion of the victims Commissioner Claire Waxman, for whom I have the utmost respect. I entirely recognise that in order to be convicted of attempted murder, what the defendant has done will have been truly horrific.

After all, a defendant can only be convicted of this if they had the intention actually to kill. And nothing I say is intended to minimise that. But I repeat what I have said earlier, the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility is not intended to punish the defendant far less to act as a mark of societal disapproval. It is about children, and, I repeat, that Parliament must be satisfied that restricting the exercise of parental responsibility will be in a child's best interests.

The sad but determining factor in these killing cases is that the child is only going to have one parent left, and that parent will usually be serving a life sentence. There is no other comparable situation where the defendant did not succeed in murdering the other parent, although they intended to do so, they will usually be serving a long sentence, but there will be a surviving parent, and in most cases, the surviving parent will be able to make an application to the family court if one is felt necessary, and this lessens the need for an automatic referral to the Family court.

It would also be difficult to justify why, if attempted murder are included, why not other serious criminal offences such as section 18 wounding, which also carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment? Your Lordship should also be aware that adding a further measure into Jade's law at this point will risk delaying its implementation, which has already taken a lot longer than the government would have wished. I have been asked for the reasons for that, and I will give them as quickly as I am able to.

It is a complicated situation, but this this is a unique piece of legislation. There is no existing process that we can import or learn from. So there has been significant engagement with various partners who are going to be involved in the delivery of Jade's law. That's the local authorities, Crown Prosecution Service, National Police Council and HMCTS, His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service. Government also has to make changes to criminal and family procedure rules, and we also have to develop broader guidance for practitioners and for families that we are on it.

We must bring Jade's law into force as soon as possible to protect the children who need it most. So we must be cautious about doing anything at this stage that could extend this process. As with the measures we are bringing in through this bill, officials are developing a robust system to measure how Jade's law works. In practice, we want to understand how it works in practice, and from there, we can properly consider whether other changes can be made to it. So for all these reasons, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

invite you, Lordships, to withdraw your amendments. Before my noble friend sits down.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before my noble friend sits down. She's still studying. That's very grateful to her. If I understood grateful to her. If I understood her correctly, that the protected steps order can only be made if clause three is activated, and then clause three is activated, and then there is no discretion in the Crown Court to make a prohibited steps order. In other circumstances, particularly when it is when the offence is has when the offence hasn't carried a four year imprisonment has drafted.

If I might guess, I think my my noble friend then said well, the parents can apply to the family court for the protected steps order. My Lords, I find that rather awkward. Surely when the Crown Court has has all the facts in front of it and is in a position, therefore, to make a prohibited steps order, it should do because it has the necessary knowledge. Of course, the prohibited steps order can be adjusted in a separate application

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the Family Court. The short answer to a noble friend's question is you're right, friend's question is you're right, there is no discretion. And the reason that there's no discretion is because, in fact, the Crown is because, in fact, the Crown Court is the one court that doesn't have all the experience of all the knowledge. It won't have cafcass reports. It won't have anything reports. It won't have anything like that. It is simply making an automatic order when there is a certain level of seriousness that certain level of seriousness that has been reached.

It is for the Family Court to consider all the important things in other cases, about whether such an order is in the interests of the child. The Crown Court judge doesn't have the expertise and it would cause delay. And I've said it once before today. I think I may have said it already twice before today. The one thing the criminal courts do not need is any further delays.
17:57
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
And I'm very grateful to. The Lord to open. This debate. And as I Lord to open. This debate. And as I said right at the start, we would. >> Be looking at the entire

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be looking at the entire spectrum of time as to where the, the the responsibility for imposing the the responsibility for imposing these orders would start and stop anywhere between any child sexual offence or four years sentencing. I am grateful to Lord Meston for his comments about parental rights and responsibilities. I absolutely understand that. I am sure he also understands that to the other parent, it often feels as though the convicted parent has more rights than their children.

And I think, my Lords, that is where the problems lie. And that's why there is such passion about this amongst those parents who are trying to make sure that their children are protected. I am also grateful for him for for raising the data. And around 1000 children, possibly in who might be at risk if this goes wrong, is important for us to remember to I just before I come on to respond to the Minister, I just want to thank Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.

Yes, the court system is starved of resources. I want to go further than he does. It's not just about looking at resources. It's a clear plan to increase resources and ensure that duplication and anything else doesn't happen. But we know the court system is under real pressure. And I recognise I say to the Minister, you know, I recognise in the amendment I've laid the last thing that we would want to do is to impose further burdens on an already difficult area.

I completely understand the government has to balance its competing restrictions. The problem is that those of us with the amendment say that four years isn't the safety net that the Minister alluded to. It is too high. I wondered if there was any way that there might be to provide guidance to the family court that asks them to look very clearly at anything between any child sexual offence, even if it's not four, so that the Crown Court isn't burdened with the responsibilities of looking at the in the way that the Family Court would.

Are turning now to Jade's law. The noble Lady said again that you know it. An automatic restriction should not is not intended as a punishment. And I think with Jade's law, again, the burden here is upon the victim, the the nearly murdered parent. And actually going beyond that. For all the amendments here, it is the burden of the other parent having to take on the family court system at a time when they've been through a really traumatic period after the investigation, after the court proceedings, after the conviction of their other half for a very serious offence.

We need to find a way to crack that. So if the government isn't prepared to give way on four years, some of the other issues that the parents face must be resolved more easily than them having to start an entirely new battle for the day that the offender starts a prison sentence. So I wonder if the noble Lady, the Minister, would be prepared to have a meeting on this. I'd be very,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very grateful. In the meantime, my Lords, I wish to withdraw my amendment. Lordships pleasure that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 15 Lord leave withdrawn. Amendment 15 Lord Meston not moved, and 16 Lord Murray of Blidworth. Sorry. Yes, I've done 14 and 15. Right. So 16,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Murray. My Lords, my amendments in this
18:01
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
group are amendment 16, 25, 28 and 33 and they arise out of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member. The Joint Committee I am a member. The Joint Committee have written to the Ministry of Justice on a number of occasions Justice on a number of occasions regarding these issues, and so far we haven't met with a satisfactory response. And I shall listen very response. And I shall listen very carefully to what the noble Baroness, the Minister says on these points, as the provisions in the bill stand, the Crown Court must make a prohibited steps order after sentencing.

It is right that an offender should not be able to exercise parental responsibility, but there should be safeguards in the bill to ensure that children do not suffer as a result, especially if the effect of the order is that there is no one who can exercise parental responsibility. Turning first to amendments 16 and 28 in my name. Unlike the Family Court, the Crown Court would have limited discretion about how best to protect the interests of affected children.

As we heard in the last group and as identified by the noble Lord Lord Hacking, its main discretion under the Bill is that the Crown Court must not make an order if it appears to the Crown Court that it would not be in the interests of justice to do so, a phrase well hallowed in legislation, and which my Lords will find in clause three Subclause four C. In this context, it is unclear what is meant by this phrase, particularly whether it would allow the court to consider the interests of the affected children or just the interests of the offender.

The joint committee wrote to the Minister, asking for clarification as to whether the effect of the Human Rights Act would be that the court would be able to consider the interests of the child when making the order. The Minister replied that the court would have to act compatibly with the ECHR. In fact, she said, under our existing measure, the Crown Court will be able to consider all of the information available to it as part of the criminal proceedings when deciding whether to exercise the interests of justice test, and in so doing will be bound to act compatibly with convention rights given section six of the Human Rights Act.

My Lords, as you can see, this is an answer which I fear lacks clarity. So amendment 16 and 28 would provide clarity on this point. They would ensure that the Crown Court, the Crown Court, was able to get information about the children's circumstances and itself, consider the implications on the children before making an order. And this, my Lords, if one looks at the amendment, one can see that the words would simply be appended after the interests of justice test, or that it would not be in the child's best interest to make the prohibited steps order.

Turning then to amendments 25 and 33, there would be particular concerns. I conjecture, my Lords, if the effect of such an order was that no one was able to exercise parental responsibility for a child. In Jade's law, as we heard in the last group, there is an attempt to address this by requiring the relevant local authority to apply to the Family Court immediately after the Crown Court has made its order, and we see that in the amendment or now section ten B two of the Children's Act 1989, as inserted by section 18 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, amendments 25 and 33 are carefully modelled on that provision in the 2024 act, and they would impose the same requirement on the local authority if an order under the new provisions had the effect that there was no one who could exercise parental responsibility for the child.

In correspondence with the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Minister said that such a provision was appropriate in the case of Jade's law, where one parent had killed the other, because in those cases there would almost always be no one with parental responsibility. But in the cases covered by this bill, in contrast, there might or there might not be. And so the Minister said that the local authority would be aware if the child might be left in this position and would be able to take appropriate action.

My Lords, that's a very unsatisfactory answer in my submission. There can be no confidence that the local authority will simply be aware of this scenario, and there is a no detriment. It is clear to say, no detriment to making it clear on the face of the bill, because relying entirely on a local authority's discretion is inviting the risk that some child is left without someone with parental responsibility and falls between the gaps. These amendments would mean that the local authority would be under a duty to apply to the Family Court, in these cases in exactly the same form as they would under Jade's law, the Minister said in correspondence that local authorities would always know the circumstances of a particular case, so the government should agree and have in principle already agreed that it would be workable for the Bill to impose a duty upon them.

There is, I suggest, no good reason for these amendments not to be accepted. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause three, page six, line 20 after justice page six, line 20 after justice insert or that it would not be in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the child's best interests. My Lord, may I begin by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, may I begin by commenting on two parts of the
18:08
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
Lords amendments. First of all, his amendment 16. I find it difficult to understand how that is going to work in practice. These orders have to be made at the point of sentencing. They can't come later on. If not an afterthought, but a later hearing. But more importantly, I do really question how the Crown Court is going to be in a position to assess what is or what is not in the interests of the child. Certainly how the Crown Court could do it without a report, which typically in the Family Court there might be available from Kafkas or a local authority.

Moreover, what is the Crown Court going to do if the suggestion of not making the order to remove or restrict parental responsibility is strongly opposed by the other parent, as must be quite likely, that are the parent, certainly in the Crown Court would not have party status and probably wouldn't have legal representation. But on the face of it, the Crown Court might be faced with the prospect of a contested hearing on the question of whether or not to restrict parental responsibility.

Clearly, that is something much better dealt with by the Family Court in the appropriate way. Having said that, I of course understand the force of the noble Lords other amendment, which I believe is amendment 33, which seems to me to present a sensible solution to a potentially difficult problem. My Lords, can I move briefly to my amendments in this group amendment? These are really procedural and evidential amendments. Amendment 23 would require would provide for the Crown Court, which is required to make the prohibited steps order to be supplied with all necessary information to make the order, enabling it to make that order in appropriate terms, and to cover all the children to whom it might apply, and enabling it to be provided to the other parent and others.

Holding parental responsibility as it appears from the very length of amendment 23, parental responsibility can be acquired by a number of different people in a considerable range of situations, and it almost goes without saying that the convicted offender may not be a reliable source of information as to the children for whom he has parental responsibility, or on as to the basis upon which he might hold it. The Crown Court therefore, cannot be expected simply to make a blanket generic order referring to all or any children to whom for whom the defendant holds or might hold parental responsibility that would be of little use to anyone.

The. The court, therefore, has to be in a position at the point of sentencing to make an order which should refer to specified children, for that accurate and reliable information should be provided, and as the amendment suggests, that would be best done by the Probation Service as part of the pre-sentence report. Once that order has been made, it is also important that those who are affected by the order are notified of it. Hence, amendment 17 provides the notification by the Crown Court to provides for notification by the Crown Court to the relevant local authority and the provision of a copy of the order with a duty on the local authority to convey that information by onward notification to all persons who hold parental responsibility for the child or children concerned.

Clearly they need to know what has been ordered and to understand the effect of it. The local authority are best placed to provide that information. Finally, amendment 29 is to ensure that in rape cases, the victim is promptly and properly informed that the order has been made with an obligation on the court to notify the relevant local authority within seven days of the order being made, and an obligation on that local authority within 14 days thereafter to notify the victim of rape.

Without this, there is a risk that the other parent or holder of parental responsibility for the child or children concerned and the victim of the rape are not made aware of the order or of its implications. They may be aware that if they attend a sentencing hearing, but that is not certain. In any event, it is a local authority, particularly one involved with the family, who would be best able to explain the effect of the prohibited steps order and its duration and other implications.
18:13
18:15
18:16
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful for the contributions that have been made. contributions that have been made. Could I begin with the points made by the noble Lord Lord Meston? And with regard to his amendments, which seek to clarify what is meant by, for example, the relevant local authority in this bill, as well as put extra provisions in place concerning parental responsibility. And we support the aim behind amendment 17 that others with parental responsibility for the child in question are properly and indeed promptly informed.

If a prohibited steps order is made against an offender. These are clearly well-intentioned amendments which highlight that certain aspects of this bill really do need to be thought through a little more carefully and clarified, and I hope that the noble Lady, the Minister, will provide assurances as to how that can be achieved. I'd also thank my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth for bringing forward his amendments, which would allow the Crown Court to take into account not only the interests of justice, but also the best interests of the child when deciding whether to make a prohibited steps order.

I have to say on these amendments, we're not at this stage able to adopt a settled position. That is not because the underlying principle is unsound, but because further clarification is required from the noble Lady. The Minister as drafted. One of the exemptions to the making of a prohibited steps order is where it would not be in the interests of justice to do so, but that has been observed as a broad and somewhat opaque formulation, and we would be grateful if the noble Lady, the Minister, could explain what circumstances the government envisages falling within that exemption, and in particular, can the noble Lady, the Minister, offer examples of cases in which it would genuinely be in the interest of justice for a child to remain under the parental responsibility of an individual convicted of a serious sexual offence and sentenced to more than four years imprisonment.

My Lords, these amendments would add an explicit reference to the best interests of the child. That is a familiar concept in family law, but its interaction with the existing exemption is not at all clear. And again, I would invite the noble Lady, the Minister, to clarify whether the government considers that the child's best interests are already subsumed within the interests of justice, or whether this amendment would materially alter the test applied by the court. Because if I could then turn to amendments 18, 20, 24, 30, 31 and 32, in my name, which reflect our concerns about the drafting of clauses three and four of the Bill.

My Lords, as currently drafted, both clauses state that a prohibited steps order against an offender which restricts their parental responsibility will not immediately cease to have effect if an offender is acquitted on appeal. Instead, both clauses include sections which set out a review process whereby the relevant local authority must make an application to the court for the acquitted offender. And that's hardly consistent, what with what the noble and learned Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd referred to as a short, speedy and summary order.

In circumstances where there is a successful appeal. My Lords, the clauses as presently drafted are complicate and confuse the issue. The law should be absolutely clear that an acquittal brings the prohibited steps order to an end. People are found to be not guilty of an offence, should not have their parental responsibility, or indeed any other rights restricted, even on a temporary basis. That principle, I would suggest, is straightforward, and our amendments seek only to ensure that the legislation reflects that clarity, and I hope that will have the support of the House going forward.

And I would urge the noble Lady, the Minister, to reconsider and in particular, simplify the drafting of clauses three and four in this bill. There's really no compelling reason why these review orders should be left in place for innocent citizens, and then be the subject of applications by a local authority on their behalf to another division of the court. Lords amendment 18 is tabled to affirm our support for the provision of clause three that where an offender only has their sentence reduced, a prohibited steps order should continue to apply, and we on these benches already have reservations over why an offender's length of imprisonment or detention must be of four years or more for parental responsibility to be restricted.

And I note the amendment made by the noble Lord Lord Meston under reference to a period of six months rather than the four months, four years. And clearly there is scope for consideration here as to where the line might be drawn as a matter of policy. But if a sentence of four years is reduced on appeal, we don't believe that this should result in a prohibited steps order ceasing to have effect. It's quite unlike the situation where there's an acquittal on appeal.

Such an outcome could create significant uncertainty for the child for whom the offender previously had parental responsibility. And, crucially, we can't lose sight of the fact that the offender remains guilty of a serious sexual offence against the child, regardless of any adjustment in the sentence. A potential increased risk to the child's safety or wellbeing could well emerge from such a situation. There is also the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about what happens in circumstances where a sentence is increased under the unduly lenient sentencing scheme, and indeed, I would invite the government to address that point, because clearly it has not been considered in the context of the present drafting of clauses three and four.

So, my Lords, for these reasons, I hope the government will take all of these amendments very seriously. And I look forward to hearing what the noble Lady, the Minister has to say in response.
18:22
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I start by repeating what I said in the debate about an earlier group. A prohibited steps order is not intended to be an additional punishment. Rather, it is a tool devised to protect children. The aim of keeping the child safe and doing what is best for them is the central factor in every case. But as I've already said, these powers are not intended to replicate far less replace, the powers of the Family Court. Crown court judges are simply not trained to make decisions about children, and they do not have the time in which to do so.

The point has been made most powerfully by both the noble Lord Lord Meston and the noble and learned Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, to ask the Crown Court to replicate the procedures of the Family Court could only lead to more time being needed to consider every case. And as I've now said on at least three occasions today, the one thing the Crown Courts do not need is for cases to take longer. I speak first to amendments 1820.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. Jade's law was brought in quite specifically was brought in quite specifically to prevent the victims having to immediately go to the family courts, and I just wondered why things have and I just wondered why things have changed since that principle emerged in the Victims and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Prisoners Act. As far as the JSO situation is concerned, it has changed. It still

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concerned, it has changed. It still remains the case that the that it will be dealt with automatically. But if the. Principle stands.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Then why isn't that also true? When an offender has committed a sexual offence of a certain bar?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sexual offence of a certain bar? I'm trying. I'm trying to join. So slightly at cross purposes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So slightly at cross purposes here. It's the question about whether the Crown courts have got the ability to consider what is in the ability to consider what is in the best interests of the child, rather than automatically making the order when the threshold is the order when the threshold is reached. That's the difference between the two. And as I say, the points have been made most powerfully by the noble Lord Lord Meston and by the noble and learned Lord Hall Thomas. The Crown Court is simply not equipped to go that extra mile of then starting to look at things like reports from experts as to what is in the best interests of the child.

That's where. So I think we may have been at cross purposes. So I turn to amendments 18, 20, 24, 30, 31 and 32, in the names of the Noble and learned, Lord Keen of Elie and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst. The aim of these is to ensure that a prohibited steps order made under either clauses 3 or 4, would cease to have an effect if the offender is acquitted on appeal. I repeat what I have said. This is not a punishment.

It is designed to protect the child. So the measures require that following an acquittal, the relevant local authority must, in very short order, bring an application before the Family Court to consider whether the prohibited steps order should be upheld, varied or discharged. There is mention made by the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen about an innocent parent. This is not about the rights of parents. This is about the rights of children and protecting them. It's not a punishment and therefore it is not something that should be automatically swept away on acquittal.

We recognise the need for a quick resolution in these situations, which is why both clauses state that the application must be made by the local authority within 30 days of the acquittal. This process brings the consideration of the child's best interests, and they're potentially very complex family dynamics to the correct forum, which is the Family court. It will mean that in every case, a judge will undertake a review of all the circumstances, including whether the original prohibited steps order has already been varied by the Family Court in the.

During the period while the appeal was under consideration, or whether other related orders are in place before deciding what should happen in the best interests of the child. The Family Court is the right place for this to happen, because that puts the interests of the child where they should be front and centre. I turn now to amendment 17, 21, 23, 26 and 29, in the names of the noble Lords Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Meston. I think we can absolutely all agree that it is vital to have clear processes for identifying the offenders children, notifying other parental responsibility, holders of a prohibited steps order, and making the victims of a rape aware when the court has made an automatic order.

But the government's view is that primary legislation is not the best way of doing this. These matters are better suited to being addressed in guidance, where we can work closely with those who are responsible for delivering it, to ensure that we have a process that works in practice, we do not want a system that ties practitioners to an approach that cannot evolve with their own processes, and where every time we wanted to make a change, we have to come back and amend the primary legislation in order to do so.

And by way of example, we are not using primary legislation to prescribe the processes as we are working to implement Jade's law. Instead, working work is taking place across government, and I ran through some of the things that we're doing earlier in relation to the previous debate. Working to is taking place across government and with partners to develop a process that is clear, that is practical and delivers the spirit of the aims of the amendment. So in the case of these provisions, we will ensure that all relevant parties, including all other parental responsibility holders, are kept informed at each stage and we will take lessons from Jade's law when this is implemented and where possible, work with our partners to apply the same processes here.

This will allow for consistency across all legislation in this space, rather than multiple processes for the same aim, which could lead to confusion and inconsistency in application. And I very warmly invite your Lordships to work with the government to make sure that we get this right. I am more than happy to meet any of your Lordships who would like to discuss those matters with me, both in my capacity as Lords Minister and as Minister responsible for Family Justice Policy in relation to identifying the children of offenders, this government has separately committed to developing a mechanism in order to identify children who are affected by parental imprisonment, to make it easier to provide support to them.

And I can assure your Lordships that the Ministry of Justice is working closely with the Department for education to determine how we can best identify all children affected and ensure that they get support to enable them to thrive, but to legislate only for Intended to support all children. I turn now to amendment 16 and 28, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for raising the important issue of how we ensure that any restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility under clauses three and four is in the best interests of the child.

The defendants who will be affected by these measures, have, through the crimes they have committed, clearly demonstrated that there are risks to children, whether that risk be physical or mental. The nature of the offences committed and the seriousness indicated by the length of the sentence, allows us to be clear that the restriction in such cases is overwhelmingly likely to be in the child's best interests. In these cases, as we have already debated, the restriction kicks in automatically to offer immediate protection to the child by preventing the offender from being involved in the day to day decisions regarding the child.

But I repeat what I said before it's not intended that these powers should replicate those of the Family Court. The noble Lords Amendment would require the Crown Court to request evidence, such as reports from social workers. This cannot and would not happen quickly at the point of sentencing. It would inevitably and significantly extend sentencing hearings, making delays in the system even worse. And that would work against what we're trying to do with this measure, forgive me, which is to provide a streamlined process to protect children.

Repeat that. Crown Court judges are not trained to make decisions of this kind, and they don't have the time to ask them to replicate. Procedures of the family Court can only lead to more time being needed to consider each case the appropriate place for considerations that involve looking at reports and other things to look at where the child's best interests lie. Is the family court. There is already a mechanism by which the offender, or another parental responsibility holder can apply to the family courts to review the Crown Court order, should they believe that the circumstances mean that it's not in the interests of the child for the order to have been made? And where such an application is made, the Family Courts will consider all the circumstances of the case and make a decision in the child's best interests.

Turning to amendments 25 and 33, may I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Murray, that there are already clear processes in place for safeguarding children, where an offender who has sole parental responsibility for a child has been charged with a serious sexual offence. This represents a clear risk to the child and their safety, and there's an existing duty on the police to inform the relevant local authority where this type of risk exists. The multi-agency guidance, called Working Together to Safeguard Children, makes clear that under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities have a duty to make inquiries and take decisive action where a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm.

My Lords, situations where a child does not have anyone able to exercise parental responsibility for them are clearly a safeguarding issue, but the local authority is already under a duty to step in, and they will follow their usual practices to ensure that the child is safe and protected. As we work to implement these measures, we will ensure that clear operational processes are in place to identify cases where a child has no other person with parental responsibility, and once identified, we will ensure that the necessary referrals are made and delivery partners follow the duties that are already in place to ensure that no child is left unprotected.

So I hope that the existing legislation and the statutory guidance provide some reassurance to your Lordships that local authorities are already under a duty to act in these cases. But we will carefully monitor how this provision operates once it is implemented, and as part of implementation, officials will develop a system to help us understand how the measures work in practice and how we can make improvements. I understand the aim of these amendments, and the importance of ensuring that families are informed throughout this process, but for the reasons I have just given, legislation is not the appropriate route for achieving these aims, and I invite your Lordships to withdraw their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. My Lords, I would of course, like to thank the noble Lords that have spoken in the debate and in have spoken in the debate and in particular the comments in relation to amendments 16 and 28 from the to amendments 16 and 28 from the noble Lord, Lord Marsden, noble Lord, Lord Thomas and noble Lady Lord, Lord Thomas and noble Lady Baroness Brinton. Of course I, I hear the the criticisms that were
18:34
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
levelled of the amendments that the gesture advanced, and indeed by the noble Lady, the Minister, and and they are points with a great deal of merit. I can't I can't say that that is not the case. However, there are two points which I think go some way to addressing the criticism. The first is that, of course, the court will have some reports on the offender, and it is conceivable, in the very rare cases where it may be necessary to consider the best interests of the child, that that there may be reports provided.

And the second point is that according to the answer provided by the noble Lady, the minister's colleague in the Commons in her letter to the was that it is in fact already rolled into the Interests of Justice test, which is a slightly different complexion. Put on the point to that given to us this evening by the Minister, the despatch box, and frankly, the answer given by the Minister. The despatch box was rather more credible and coherent. And so for those reasons, obviously, I have much to think about in relation to, to my amendments.

And I'm very grateful to everyone who contributed and in relation to the other amendments in the group. I think it's been a very useful tour of the of of the technicalities of clause three of the bill and has worked and I and I'm the Minister for kind indicating she'll meet me to discuss it, perhaps with other noble Lords who are interested. Thank you. Oh, I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 17. Lord Meston not moved. Amendment 18. Lord Meston not moved. Amendment 18. Lord Keen not moved. 19 Lord Meston not moved. 20 Lord keen not moved. 21 Lord Meston not moved. 22 Lord 21 Lord Meston not moved. 22 Lord Keen not moved. 23 Lord Meston not moved. 24 Lord Keen not moved. 25 Lord Murray of Blidworth not moved, and 26 Lord Meston not moved.

The question is that clause three stand part of the bill, as many as that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content. The contents have it in schedule one, amendment 27. Lord Meston not moved. The question is that schedule one be the first schedule to the bill. As many as that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content. The contents have it in clause four, amendment 28. Lord Murray not moved and 29 Lord Meston not moved 30 Lord keen not moved 31 Lord keen and 32 not moved, and 33 Lord Murray not moved.

The question is that clause four stand part of the bill. As many as that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content. The contents have it. 34 Lord Meston not moved. Amendment 35 Lord Keen, oh Lord Sandhurst. Sandhurst.
18:37
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
It is me. My Lords. Amendment 35, standing in both my name and that standing in both my name and that of Lord Keen of Ely, would insert a new clause into the bill to extend new clause into the bill to extend the safeguarding framework in clause three beyond serious sexual offending. So it it also applies to those convicted of the most serious child cruelty offences. In effect, it mirrors clause three. Before I address the amendment in detail, I want to place on record my thanks to Helen Grant, Member of Parliament, for her tireless work on this issue over a number of years and across several bills, she has consistently drawn the Parliament's attention to a clear and troubling gap in our safeguarding framework.

That is, the absence of a coherent, systematic response to the most serious forms of child cruelty. Her campaigns for child cruelty register and her persistence in ensuring that these issues remain firmly on the parliamentary agenda, in no doubt something which all noble Lords can both respect and support. My Lord. Clause three of the Bill introduces an important and welcome provision for the protection of children. The logic is compelling where conduct is so grave that it demonstrates a fundamental incompatibility with the exercise of parental responsibility.

There should be an automatic safeguarding mechanism. Amendment 35 asks a simple but profound question why should that logic apply only to sexual offences and not to other, more serious forms of child cruelty? The new clause proposed by this amendment mirrors the architecture of clause three. In many ways, it introduces a duty on the Crown Court to make a prohibited steps order where an offender with parental responsibility is convicted and sentenced for a defined list of serious child cruelty offences as drafted.

The threshold for such offences is a custodial sentence of two years or more. That is an appropriate balance, we suggest, between protection and practicability. These offences have been carefully selected. They reflect those on Helen Grant's proposed Child Cruelty register, a register for which the government has already previously expressed support. They embrace serious crimes, such as causing or allowing the death or serious harm of a child, child cruelty and neglect, infanticide of certain offences under the Offences Against the Person Act where the victim is a child, and offences relating to female genital mutilation.

FGM. During the Crime and Policing Bill, the noble Baroness said Ministers will continue to pursue this issue with vigour. The offences set out in this amendment strike at the very heart of a child's safety and well-being. It is only right that a prohibited steps order is imposed. My Lords, if the government is truly believes in acting to prevent child cruelty, then to reject this amendment would be to to defend an inconsistency in the current framework, which we say is difficult to justify apparent.

Convicted of a serious sexual offence might automatically be prevented from exercising parental responsibility while a parent convicted of causing severe physical harm or life threatening neglect may not be, from the child's perspective, that distinction is artificial. The harm is real, the risk is real, and the need for safeguarding is just as acute. This amendment does not necessarily does not undermine family life unnecessarily. It does not sever parental responsibility permanently. It simply ensures that in the most serious cases, no steps may be taken by the offender without the oversight and consent of the family courts, they are best placed to make decisions concerning welfare and long term outcomes.

In doing so, it brings coherence to the Bill and aligns it with the broader safeguarding principles that Parliament has repeatedly endorsed. My Lords, this amendment is motivated by a simple proposition children who have suffered the most serious forms of cruelty deserve the same automatic safeguarding protections as those who have suffered serious sexual abuse. So I commend this amendment to the House, and I urge the government to engage constructively with it. In the same spirit in which clause three itself was conceived.

I look forward to the Minister's response. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause four, insert the following new clause in the words as printed on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Marshalled List. My Lords, the automatic restriction of a person's parental responsibility is a novel change to the law, and it must be done in a
18:42
18:43
18:45
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to all noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group which amendments in this group which concern the operation of clauses six and seven, and the scope and six and seven, and the scope and operation of the victim contact scheme. I turn first to amendment 42, in the name of the noble Lady, Baroness Brunton. I recognise the intention behind this amendment and the principle that underpins it, that victims whose close family members have been murdered, killed unlawfully or subjected to infanticide abroad should not find themselves falling between the cracks of the victims code simply because the offence occurred.

Outside the United Kingdom. There is a strong case for ensuring that any victim should receive clear information and appropriate support for how to engage with the criminal justice system, and the amendment seeks to give effect to that principle by requiring an appendix to the Victims Code, setting out how it applies in such circumstances, my Lord. That said, it is also right to acknowledge that this amendment raises practical and operational questions that would need careful consideration. These include questions about jurisdiction, the extent to which criminal justice processes are engaged domestically, and how responsibilities would be allocated between domestic agencies and those overseas.

And I therefore look to the noble Lady, the Minister, to address how the government would envisage this operating in practice, while recognising and engaging with the important principle that the amendment seeks to advance. My Lords, I turn to amendments 47 and 47 be tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell. These amendments extend the definition of victim to include those who have experienced persistent anti-social behaviour, meeting the statutory threshold for an anti-social behaviour case review, and secondly, they create a victim identifier linked to compliance with the Victims Code across criminal justice agencies.

Both proposals are ideas that I'm sure will instigate. Interesting debate, and I look forward to hearing the noble Lord expand on these proposals and to the government's response to them. My Lords Amendments 56 and 57, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Which may or may not be moved, concern transparency and accountability in decisions taken by hospital managers not to disclose information requested under sections 44 or 44. And clearly, if hospital managers are to be entrusted with the discretion to withhold information in cases that may directly affect victim safety, it is entirely reasonable that there should be clear written reasons for such decisions and a meaningful route to appeal.

Transparency and decision making is essential not only for victims but for other parties, such as the probation services, who are tasked with managing risks. Lord, I turn to amendments 36 and 37, which stand in my name. Amendment 36 is a technical amendment, it adds the National Crime Agency to the list of relevant bodies to which clause six does not apply, given the National Crime Agency's distinct operational role and intelligence handling functions, it may be appropriate that it be expressly included in that provision, and I hope that the government will see this amendment as a sensible clarification rather than as a point of contention.

Amendment 37 would require the Secretary of State to extend the victim contact scheme to certain categories of victim, who are currently excluded from victims of offender sentenced to less than 12 months for violent and sexual offences, victims of coercive, coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking or harassment, and bereaved families in cases of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving. It would also require information to be communicated in a timely manner, and for annual data to be published on the scheme's uptake and accessibility.

The Lords. The importance of this amendment has only been heightened by recent legislative developments. The sentencing bill, which is now passed, represents a marked shift in sentencing policy, particularly through the automatic and blanket presumption against short custodial sentences, regardless of offence type, and during the passage of that legislation, particularly during debate in this House, the consequences for victims were repeatedly raised by a number of noble Lords. My Lords, although the government may respond by saying that in exceptional circumstances this presumption may be overturned, the reality is rather clearer.

An increasing number of offenders convicted of violent and sexual offences will now serve their sentences in the community, rather than in custody. From the victims perspective, that is not an abstract policy choice. It has immediate and practical consequences for their perception of justice being served, for their sense of safety, for their ability to plan their lives, and for their need to receive appropriate information. Under the current framework, many of these victims are excluded from the victim contact scheme because the custodial threshold is not met.

That is. Now, I would suggest a glaring inconsistency in light of the government's Sentencing Act. If anything, victims whose offenders are serving sentences in the community have a greater need for timely, accurate and trauma informed information, not a lesser one. Furthermore, without timelessness, the scheme risks becoming meaningless. Information provided late is often information which is provided too late to be of use and without transparency, such as through the publication of annual data on uptake and accessibility.

There can be no meaningful accountability for offenders or for the government. The Lords we now live in a sentencing landscape that places a far greater reliance on community supervision, and the government have said they expect to more or less double the number of people being tagged rather than incarcerated. The need for transparency and accurate data has never been more pressing. My Lords Amendment 37 insists that where the state chooses to sentence offenders in the community, it must also accept the corresponding responsibility to support and protect victims properly in the absence of custody.

Robust victim engagement is really not an option. It is essential. I would therefore urge the government to engage seriously with this amendment and to explain, if they are minded to resist it, how victims are to be adequately protected in a system that is going to leave an increasing number of offenders in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the community, I beg to move. Amendment proposed clause six, page 12, line 20 at the end, insert

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 12, line 20 at the end, insert d the National Crime Agency. Lords, I rise.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I rise. To speak to amendment 42, in the name of Baroness Brinton, supported name of Baroness Brinton, supported by noble Lady Baroness Finlay. The two amendments in my name, 47 A and
18:53
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
two amendments in my name, 47 A and B, I am grateful to Baroness Brinton for adding her name and to the 55, 56 and 57 which Lord Ponsonby will speak to us by some supernatural means, I'm not quite sure, but myself and Baroness Brinton will try and cover it. I would like to point out that all of these amendments have in common, that they have been laid with the active engagement and support of the victims. Commissioner Claire Waxman, who in the noble Lady the Minister mentioned, she knows and has a high regard for.

And rather than go on at great length about each amendment, although I'm sure your Lordships are dying to hear about it, I do suspect that it would be better to have follow up meetings involving Claire Waxman to go into the detail as to why she feels, and we feel these are important enough to to actually raise during Committee stage on bereaved victims of murder abroad. Amendment 42. We covered this ground previously in previous legislation, attempting to get it onto the face of the bill.

My noble friend Baroness Finlay will be able to go into much more detail about this, but in essence, we are dealing with a sort of a slight anomaly in the way victims are treated. We have, on average per annum, between 80 and 90 individuals who are UK citizens who are murdered while they are abroad, and at the moment, the experience of their families. When that unfortunate incidents happens, ranges from quite good to absolutely appalling. And that is because there is no consistency in the way they are treated.

The government has made attempts to try and get its house in order, in terms of what happens within the United Kingdom's jurisdiction, where we do seem to have an issue is getting the FCDO to apply a form of sort of guidance and, above all, training across its key consulates in the areas where these incidents take place, to to ensure that those consulates are properly equipped if and when such a tragedy appears to be able to deal with it in an effective and consistent way, and the experience from the victims whose loved ones have been murdered abroad is in some cases the consulates, absolutely brilliant and go out of their way to be helpful.

In other instances, the victim really, truly is left entirely on their own, and particularly if this has happened when, let us say, the partner of the person who's been murdered is abroad and finds no help whatsoever, and is not familiar with the language of that particular country, you can imagine the the complexity and the agony of trying to deal with all of that, on top of the shock of of having had somebody very close to you murdered. But my noble friend will go into that in more detail when it comes to amendments 47 and 47.

B what they have in common is that for certain victims of anti-social behaviour, when anti-social behaviour really is persistent, it conforms to a pattern, often an escalating pattern, and has a deep, deep effect on on the victim. There is not consistency at the moment in the way, in the way that is dealt with. And amendment 47 A tries to ensure that the authorities are more effective in identifying that pattern of behaviour and are able to join the dots, pull it together and recognise that that it has triggered a threshold at which proper support and access to victim services should should be allowed.

47 B again is about joining up the dots the way anti-social behaviour is dealt with and the way in which it might come to the attention of the police. It might come to the attention of a local authority, or it might come to the attention of a housing association. There is no consistent way of that information, a being recorded in a consistent and helpful manner, and b being communicated across those different boundaries in a way that enables whichever of those three jurisdictions is looking at this pattern of behaviour, can actually pull the evidence together, that it needs to understand exactly what's been going on.

So this is a request for a, for a, for a unique identifier for each victim, which would I hope be the start of a process to enable that information to be channelled in a more consistent and coordinated manner, which would obviously be helpful to the victims, but would also be extremely helpful to whichever authority is trying to identify just how severe this pattern of anti-social behaviour is, and indeed, whether the effect is having on the on the subject, on the victim is sufficient for it to trigger, you know, comprehensive sort of wraparound support.

Lastly, I will deal with the three amendments, which I think my noble friend, the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, will deal with in more detail, which is when a victim has been the subject of perhaps murder by an individual. Or, let us say, somebody in one's family has been murdered by somebody who, it is identified, is mentally disordered, and they are then detained because of their mental disorder, the ability of the victims to get access to the sort of information which they are able to get from the Prison service, from the courts, is completely different to what is able to be accessed from from the hospital system.

And again, there are some hospitals, some hospital managers who go out of their way to be understanding and to be helpful and, and try and give the victims whatever succour and information they can. Others refuse point blank. They they say that, you know, a variety of different laws and processes prevent them from doing that. They're not at liberty to do that. So I think all we're asking and the victims commissioner is asking is to look at this very closely.

There is an individual called Julian Hendy, who's the founder of an organisation called 100 families who's, who's very involved in this and who really can give chapter, book and verse. And I think perhaps we need to establish, first of all, perhaps through meetings, just how much of a problem this is. Secondly, what are the different ways in which we might do something about it? And thirdly, how complicated is that? Does it need to be in primary legislation or other or other ways of doing that? And with that I will sit down.
19:00
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Portrait Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-
-
I'm most grateful to the way that this has been introduced by my that this has been introduced by my noble friend Lord Russell. The problem basically for a family, problem basically for a family, when they discover that their relative has been murdered abroad, is they don't know at all what has happened, as has been said. And the problem is that unless a service from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is very rapidly responsive, there is a serious danger that evidence will not be maintained, it will be destroyed, will be lost and therefore any processes to bring anyone to justice for this will be seriously impaired.

The Victims code, as it has been written at the moment, seems to differentiate between victims when they're the murder was on home soil versus those that could occur anywhere in the world. And the difficulty to is, of course, that all the different countries around the world have different police services, different processes. Language may be difficult. Dialects in different areas may also be difficult. So I think that there are two aspects to this. There's the part that occurs in this country, which is where the family may be contacting the FCDO.

And I was glad to see that the information on the website had been recently updated, and it reads as if everything will happen smoothly, but unfortunately that is a very rose tinted view of reality. Some parts haven't been updated for a few years, but I do wonder whether one of the problems lies actually out there with our own staff in all these different countries who may never have experienced managing a death before, and suddenly find that they're dealing with an incredibly difficult situation with all kinds of blocks because of the politics of wherever they are.

And therefore, in linking between here and our own staff around the world, it would seem important that there is always one designated person who, from day one of their placement in that country, has responsibility for all aspects of deaths or injuries that could occur in that country, that they know about the different dialects, the different police systems, the different ways of maintaining evidence. And that would require a fair degree of forensic training. And it can't just be written in guidelines.

It can't just be written in a handbook. It means that people need to be prepared ahead of time in order to cope with the situation, because then it may well be that the families who are completely devastated and find themselves in a terrifying and unknown situation, at least, are talking to somebody who has some competences in the way that that country and that place works, and the judicial systems in that country. Sadly, the judicial standards that we expect here are not applicable in all places around the world.

Sadly, police services are not always as well organised as ours are, and it can be extremely difficult to try to get the right people in the right place at the right time. I think it's also important that whoever has that function has a certain degree of power. That's probably the wrong word, but responsibility to make sure that evidence is not inadvertently lost and destroyed. And it isn't until you know and have learned about evidence that should be kept that you might not realize how important some things are.

It isn't only aspects of clothing and the body, it might be any of the personal effects of the person. It would be taking photographs of things without them being moved at all. And so our own staff need to be equipped with those skills. So I hope from this debate we might see a link between the Ministry of Justice, which is obviously the centre for this bill, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the ability for them to make sure that the staff, wherever they are, and it could be a fairly junior member of staff if they're fully trained, have training and have some forensic understanding as well.

My Lords, I made amendment 42 in this group to ensure that certain parts of the victims code applies to victims whose close relative was the victim of murder, manslaughter or infanticide outside of the UK. And I'm very grateful to Lord Russell and Lady Finlay for supporting the amendment and to
19:05
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
going into some detail, and I will endeavour not to repeat what endeavour not to repeat what they've said. My Lords, I am very grateful for the meeting with the Minister last week in which she mentioned the new guidance that's mentioned the new guidance that's been recently updated. It's a good document, but it gives the victims document, but it gives the victims no formal rights at all and relies on two different people the FCDO case manager and the homicide case manager and the homicide service officer provided by the charity Victim Support to help them navigate the system.

I'm sure that this guidance will help to improve the service from its previous iteration, but the experience of families who have a loved one killed abroad is that it can be inconsistent, and some victims also receive fragmented, delayed updates about their case and often have to chase information themselves, not just with victim support or FCDO, but in country. Support from the National Homicide Service is currently discretionary, which can lead families without dedicated help after the trauma. If there just are no resources, having it in the victims code will ensure that there is certainty for victims in receiving a service.

Despite the many differences and difficulties of dealing with the complex arrangements abroad, it is also clear from the guide that there is only an uncertain level of financial help available from the National Homicide caseworkers for victims. And finally, despite what is written in the guidance note, many families find they have to find and pay for translation services themselves, and there is a risk of inconsistency in service provision. Having it in the victims code would ensure that the onus is no longer placed on the victim to get the translation of documents.

This would also give families parity of support with foreign nationals who are victims in the UK or UK. Nationals whose first language is not English. My Lords, turning to the other amendments from these benches, we support amendment 37, the extension of the Victims Contact Scheme, led by laid by Lord Keen of Ely. But that will probably be no surprise to him, given that it was laid by my hon. Friend Jess Brown, MP in the House of Commons. And I did write to Lord keen after it was laid, asking him to withdraw it, as we had from these benches, decided we wanted to relay it here in the House of Lords, as per our convention.

And recently, the PBO has told us that they had no such request. However, that doesn't diminish our support for it. I also signed Lord Russell of Liverpool's two amendments, 47 A and B. The first seeks to ensure that victims of persistent anti-social behaviour have access to victim support services provided by local police and crime commissioners. These services are only available to victims as defined by the Victims Code of Practice, and persistent anti-social behaviour isn't just tiresome and irritating, it can have a really traumatising psychological effect on victims.

I'm particularly reminded of the late Baroness Newlove talking about the local youths who made her and her family's life an absolute misery before they brutally murdered her husband. And if the police cannot stop it, then surely victims should be able to support get support locally. Amendment 47 proposes that each victim has a unique identifier, which would be used with all the different agencies involved in a victim's experience. And I think given the debate on many of the amendments we've already had this afternoon and this evening, this identifier might well solve some of the problems that we were alluding to about different parts of the system and different bodies not actually understanding or knowing even what was going on.

The experience of sharing data between relevant agencies at the moment can be woeful, and this number will strengthen the system. It would mean risk assessment can work better, as well as monitoring compliance with the victims code, improving communication and collaboration across the agencies. I've also signed Lord Ponsonby's amendments 55, 56 and 57, which tackle the problem as Lord Russell referred to earlier, of how hospitals ensure that they balance the needs of the victim with a patient who has murdered a family member of the victim.

And at the moment, unfortunately, because of the code of ethics that the medical practitioners are bound by, the balances, that the patient is their absolute priority. And this can mean that the victims of the most serious crimes can't know where the offenders are, the patients are, or if there are any changes in the care that they might need to know about, which might include short term home release and things like that. This is much less than the information that's available when an offender is in prison, and the process for the victim to ask for information involves asking a victim liaison officer at the hospital who will ask for the information from the clinicians.

So that's two Chinese walls between the victim and the person providing the information. Because once behind hospital walls, there is no evidence that the medics balance or give due regard to the safety and well-being of the victims. And this is very much retraumatising for the victims. I also wonder sometimes if the medical practitioners don't get to see all the relevant data about the actual act and the consequences for the victim. From these benches, we support the proposals that would ensure that the medical professionals must take a balanced approach when deciding whether or not to provide information to the victim, and they must write to the victim to explain when they have decided not to take that balanced view.

And there should also be an appeal mechanism. These amendments ensure that right 11 of the victims code is delivered for victims, giving them the same right for requesting that information from prisons and from other bodies where

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a patient might be held. Close. I rise in general support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Close. I rise in general support of these amendments, but in particular the amendments and put forward in relation to Baroness Finlay from being in charge of some of these investigations over a long of these investigations over a long period of time. Take it from me, they're very, very difficult. When the victim dies out of the jurisdiction. Absolutely nearly impossible. And in a lot of cases,
19:12
19:13
19:14
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I start by addressing >> My Lords, I start by addressing amendment 36, in the names of the noble and Lord Lawson of Ely and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst, the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst, which seeks to add agreements entered into by the National Crime Agency, the NCA, to the list of agreements in subsection seven which are exempt from the measure. My Lords, non-disclosure agreements or NDAs should not be used to silence victims or to cover up crime.

I think we can all agree on that. Subsection seven and eight of clause six provide that the provision will not apply to a narrow cohort of specified agreements in the interests of national security, the UK Special Forces and the security services have their own appropriate arrangements for ensuring that victims and witnesses of crime can speak up about criminal activity. During the development of this measure, detailed consideration was given by the government as to how this provision would work in practice, and whether there were any national security issues that might need to be taken into account.

And having done that, we remain of the view that it is not necessary to exempt from this provision any agreements entered into by the NCA in the interests of national security. And the reason for that is this this measure clause, clause six will not kill, six, will not change the effects of the Official Secrets Act, which already prohibits the disclosure of certain types of sensitive information, such as information related to security, intelligence or defense. So if disclosures are prohibited under the Official Secrets Act, including those relating to information gained through employment as a Crown servant, for example at the NCA, then the Official Secrets Act will be legally binding and the consequences that follow such a disclosure will continue to apply.

My Lords, the purpose of clause six in this act is to ensure that victims of crime can speak out about criminal conduct. It follows that agreements should only thus be excluded from this measure, where it is absolutely necessary to do so, and the government is satisfied that it is not necessary to add the NCA to the list of exempt bodies. I now turn to amendment 37, also in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord keen and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst.

My Lords, all victims are able to request information through the victim helpline. But for some of the most serious cases, they are able to use the more resource intensive and costly victim contact scheme. I have written to the noble Lord to reassure him that victims of coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking and harassment are already eligible for the updated scheme, regardless of sentencing bereaved families in cases of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving, where the offender receives a sentence of 12 months or more imprisonment are also eligible for the scheme.

Under part one of the new schedule six A, and for those victims where the offender received a sentence of less than 12 months imprisonment, they will be able to request information from the new helpline. Timely and sensitive communication is important, but the government believes that this is best achieved through guidance and training, not legislation. And I would welcome the noble and learned Lords engagement as to how we ensure that this is working in practice. But in the meantime, we will be monitoring the scheme through the Victims Code Compliance Framework under the Victims and Prisoners Act, which will include an annual report.

I turn now to the question of homicides abroad. And then 42, in the names of the noble Ladies, Baroness Brinton and Baroness Finlay. Have the objector has the objective of including bereaved families within the application of the Victims Code in cases of homicides of British nationals that have occurred outside the United Kingdom? And I thank both noble Ladies for continuing to raise this important matter. I completely understand how devastating it is for the families to be confronted by this, and how arid and alien the landscape before them that confronts them.

My Lords, the Victims code applies to victims of crimes which can be prosecuted in England and Wales. And in fact, this will already include some bereaved families where the homicide was committed abroad, but where offences are not capable of prosecution. In the UK, most of the entitlements under the code cannot and therefore do not apply, and we do not want to raise the expectations of the families in these cases unless we can actually deliver. My Lords, the services and support provided in England and Wales depend greatly on the individual case and the jurisdiction in which it has been prosecuted.

It does not lend itself well to imposing codification or blanket duties on criminal justice. Agencies, which may just not be may be able to deliver. We have to be realistic. For example, we simply cannot require the police to provide case updates that that's right. Six under the code or to return evidence which is right ten under the code. In a case where no UK police force has any power of control, where the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has principal responsibility for the communication and liaison with families, the police can only be involved if there's an investigative role for them to play, and they're invited to do so by the foreign police force.

Bereaved families will, though in many instances, need support which is tailored to their case. That's why the government continues to fund the homicide service, which provides support based on the needs of the individual, including specific needs which arise because the homicide happened abroad. But that said, we, along with the FCDO, have listened to what these families have told us about the support that they need, including the need to be clearer about the support available from UK agencies, what the Homicide Service is and how to access it.

And that is why together we've worked with the Home Office, the National Police Chiefs Council, the Victims Commissioner's Office and the charity Murdered Abroad to publish a clear, accessible guide which will help families to deal with the specific challenges that can be faced when trying to navigate these processes and improve awareness of the support available to them at such a difficult time. This approach provides a greater degree of flexibility to the review and update, to review and update the guidance quickly, avoiding the need for amending primary legislation.

I had a very useful meeting the other day with the noble Lady, Baroness Brinton, and of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and indeed of the noble Lady Baroness Finlay, who had to leave before. I think we actually got to this topic, and we have sent copies of the code, and I'm pleased to hear that the noble Lady, Baroness Brinton, has broadly found it helpful. But of course we are here to listen and help and improve it if we can. Alongside this, the FCDO are refreshing and republishing information about the roles and responsibilities of organisations in cases of murder or manslaughter or British nationals abroad, and it's important that this happens to ensure that families can understand who does what, and to help organisations themselves have clarity about each other's roles.

I can assure the noble Ladies that as we develop the new victims code, we will review what further signposting information can be included in the code to support families bereaved by homicide abroad, and we would welcome the opportunity to work together with the noble Baroness to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make sure that we get it right. Of course. I'm very grateful to her for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to her for everything she has said. She said very early on that the problem is that the victim co victims code that the victim co victims code isn't always applicable abroad. I wonder if she could comment on wonder if she could comment on clause two of the amendment that talks specifically about the Secretary of State by regulation, issuing an appendix to the victims code, setting out how the code applies to these victims. It is absolutely understood from our side that it would be different.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Lady for raising this point. Our current for raising this point. Our current position is that we don't believe that that is necessary, but I'm that that is necessary, but I'm very happy to meet with the noble Lady and get her to try and persuade me why I'm wrong. And persuade me why I'm wrong. And she's right. There's my challenge to the noble Lady and the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the noble Lady and the noble Lady. Baroness Finlay, of course. Just a moment. Thank you, noble Lady. The Minister. What I think would be really helpful and a step forward is the FCDO has a duty of care and the responsibility for UK citizens when they are in whichever country, and it doesn't seem too bizarre or extreme to hope that they would accept a degree of responsibility for the very small number of unfortunate victims during the course of a year, who, for whatever reason, are killed unlawfully in whichever country it is, and to to accept that that is part and it would be a very small part of their responsibility, or be it a very important one, and to be able to organize itself, to accept a that is part of its responsibility, and b to prepare itself thoroughly enough to be able to fulfil that duty in the unhappy event that it is required in a, in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a, in a professional, proper and sensitive way. Doesn't seem too much to ask. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. The noble Lord, Lord Russell puts it very persuasively, and it's puts it very persuasively, and it's extremely tempting, particularly given that I don't speak for the FCDO. They, of course, sounds utterly reasonable to me, but I'm sure the noble Lord will understand why I can't give that kind of commitment today from the despatch commitment today from the despatch box. But what I can commit to is meeting and discussing this further.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Of course. And forgive me. I'm interrupting again on this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm interrupting again on this issue. I just wondered whether the noble Lady the Minister might be noble Lady the Minister might be able to undertake to discuss with able to undertake to discuss with the FCDO the concept of having one named lead person in each embassy named lead person in each embassy or consulate, so that when they experience managing one of these tragic situations, they there is a named person when they leave that's handed over to another named person, but also that those they can come together as a group to provide support to each other, learn from each other, and also be able to compare where particular difficulties have occurred, so that the training over the years can improve for each of these people.

Because I think the worry at the moment is that these are so unusual, for in some places that it's a once in a lifetime experience for some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the staff. Again, the noble Lady puts it very persuasively, and listening to very persuasively, and listening to her now, it all sounds, it seems to make total sense. And one of the things that I would say is that if things that I would say is that if as a government, we are committed to supporting victims of crime and putting them in front and centre, obviously that doesn't stop at our borders. But I do not think that I can give an answer today and I do not think it would be right to do so.

But what I will commit to is meeting the noble Lady and seeing if I can work. At least find out from the FCDO what their approach would be to such a suggestion. Perhaps if she would write to me putting it in writing, then I could pass that on so that we can try and take matters further from there. My Lords amendment 47 A in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Russell and the noble Lady Baroness Brinton seeks to add victims of persistent but non-criminal anti-social behaviour to the definition of a victim, as set out in section one of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.

My Lords, this government agrees that anti-social behaviour is a blight on our communities and its impact should never be underestimated and we've committed to provide better support and information to victims of anti-social behaviour and have taken significant steps to do so. This includes the measures in this bill, which will strengthen the Victims Commissioner's powers to hold the agencies that support anti-social behaviour victims to account where anti-social behaviour amounts to criminal conduct, such as criminal damage, victims will benefit from the rights and entitlements within the victims code.

But expanding the definition of a victim to bring those affected by non-criminal anti-social behaviour within the code would, in our view, not be appropriate as it is not an effective or an efficient response to this kind of behaviour. For example, in our view, it would neither be appropriate nor necessary for a victim of a neighbour who is playing loud music on one occasion to be brought within the scope of the victims code. Doing so could create unrealistic expectations and would divert attention and resources from those experiencing serious criminal harm, such as victims of child sexual abuse.

In our view, there are better routes available to help these victims, including the Anti-social Behaviour Case Review, which gives the victims of persistent behaviour the right to request a multi-agency review in order to secure a resolution in the proposals for the New Victims Code, on which we are currently consulting, we have clarified what victims of criminal anti-social behaviour can expect from the code and provided information about the case review process, but I would welcome your Lordships response to the consultation to outline in detail what further provision will be required for these victims, and then the 47 b in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Bach and the noble Lady Baroness Brinton.

My Lords, let me begin by acknowledging the problems brought by our current inability reliably to identify the same victim or witness across the criminal justice system. We accept that this results in duplication of records, slows the flow of information, and leads to inconsistent data across the agencies. In addition, this fragmentation places a significant administrative burden on staff, who must reconcile records manually and then chase the missing information. But perhaps most importantly, it means that victims and witnesses are sometimes provided with conflicting information, which can cause confusion at best and serious distress at worst.

The government is already working to address these issues through the Criminal Justice System Data Improvement Programme, jointly led by the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. This programme aims to strengthen data sharing across the criminal justice system and is actively exploring how individuals, including victims, can be more reliably recognised across agencies. We are clear that improvements to data sharing must be underpinned by robust safeguards in order to ensure that personal data is handled lawfully, securely and proportionately, with a strong focus on minimising unnecessary circulation of sensitive information, which I know is a key concern of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton.

The government is open to considering legislative options to improve data sharing, data quality and the use of unique identifiers where that is shown to be necessary and proportionate. But introducing a statutory requirement at this stage, ahead of the completion of the work of the programme could unintentionally constrain future design and implementation choices before we are confident it would deliver the intended benefits for victims and the wider criminal justice system. For these reasons, the government does not believe that primary legislation at this stage is the appropriate mechanism.

With pleasure, of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd just like to say to the noble Lady that for well over a decade since the passage of the decade since the passage of the Children and Families Act, which I think passed in 2012, we have been think passed in 2012, we have been discussing as a house a unique identifying number for children who may end up either in the health may end up either in the health system or in the care system, as well as schools. It has taken well over a decade.

They are just about over a decade. They are just about to use the NHS number as part of the Children and Wellbeing Bill. Can I urge the noble Lady to have a look at this again? Because otherwise we'll be here for another ten years. Arguing the same point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That this government has not been in power over the whole of the last decade, and we're doing our last decade, and we're doing our best to look at it. But I will certainly look at it and discuss it with her. And as I say, we are with her. And as I say, we are simply saying that at this stage, we do not think primary legislation is the right way of dealing with it. Finally, I turn to amendments 55, Finally, I turn to amendments 55, 56 and 57, in the names of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who is not in his place, and the noble Ladies, his place, and the noble Ladies, Lady Baroness Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell before I do.

I recently had the privilege of meeting Emma Webber and Julian Hendy of 100 families, and they explained very clearly to me the issues as they see them, and it was a very moving experience. I want to pay tribute to their strength and to honour the memories of those that they've lost and their experiences, along with the experiences of all victims of crime, must continue to guide us. My Lords, part of the rationale for providing information to victims is to help them to feel safe and so that they can plan for an offender's eventual release or discharge.

And that is why the legislation requires that hospital managers provide victims with specified information where appropriate, regardless of any assessment by a hospital manager of the victims. Safety and wellbeing. Because we acknowledge that the hospitals, the hospital managers assessment could well be different from the victim's own assessment. Where hospital managers receive a request for information from an eligible victim outwith the specified list within the bill, they will consider whether it is necessary and proportionate to provide it, and this assessment can, of course include considering the risk to the victim.

But where there are specific concerns about a victim's safety, there are other, more appropriate processes to be followed, and it is important to note that this is not, in fact, the primary purpose of the victim contact scheme, where a decision is made that it is not appropriate to provide some information. Reasons can and should be provided wherever possible, but these should reflect the victim's communication preferences and consideration and considerations about this would, in our view, most appropriately be set out in operational guidance, which would also provide the necessary flexibility to adjust requirements.

As we monitor practice, we agree that victims should have a route for some recourse where information is not provided. There are existing complaint routes for all cohorts, and the government considers a more effective way of going about this would be to make sure that hospital managers understand and fulfil their obligations to victims at the outset, rather than introducing additional bureaucracy. My officials are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to consider routes by which to support hospital managers, including whether a joint departmental protocol or via planned updates to the Mental Health Act code of practice.

Statutory guidance under the Mental Health Act 1983 might provide an appropriate vehicle. But, my Lords, in relation to all the amendments in this group and many of the others, we are listening and we want to get it right. We will continue to work with your Lordships and with victims groups. But for now, in relation to all these amendments, I invite noble Lords to withdraw them.
19:34
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this wide ranging and thoughtful debate wide ranging and thoughtful debate on the operation of the Victim Contact Scheme and the wider Support network for victims. The debate has demonstrated broad consensus on the principle that victims rights and access to information must keep pace with changes in sentencing policy and criminal justice practice. The question is not whether victim engagement matters, but whether our current structures are fit for purpose in the systems that we now operate.

And several amendments in the group had common concerns, gaps in coverage within the victims code and the victim contact scheme, lack of transparency, consistency and accountability in how information is provided, the risk that victims fall through the cracks to the technical thresholds or institutional boundaries that exist. And taken together, these amendments seek to ensure that victim support is timely, trauma informed, consistent and indeed capable of scrutiny. And the amendments also recognise that, amongst others, where the state chooses to sentence offenders in the community, it is assumes a greater, not a lesser responsibility to support victims.

Victim engagement must be strengthened, not weakened, in a non-custodial sentencing landscape, and I would therefore urge the government to consider carefully how victims are to be protected and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

informed under current policy. But in the meantime, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause six stand question is that clause six stand part of the Bill, as many of that opinion will say. Content the opinion will say. Content the contrary not content. The contents have it. The question is that clause seven stand part of the bill, as many of that opinion will say content. The country is not content. The contents have it. Amendment 37

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord keen not moved. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes. My Lords, I beg to move that the House be resumed. We will then move to dinner, break business, and we will therefore not return to the bill before God. It's always bill before God. It's always difficult, isn't it? What is it, 20 difficult, isn't it? What is it, 20 06I got that right. 2006 no. 2016 2016 sorry, mental arithmetic.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question, the question is that the House be resumed as many that the House be resumed as many of that opinion will say content. The contrary not content. The The contrary not content. The contents have it. Do we want to contents have it. Do we want to Yes. Yes. Questions Yes. Questions on Yes. Questions on statement Yes. Questions on statement made Yes. Questions on statement made in the House of Commons on Thursday the 5th of February on the National Cancer Plan.
19:38
19:38
Earl Howe Portrait Earl Howe (Conservative)
-
-
government's desire to tackle cancer and to succeed in the fight against the condition that's against the condition that's affected almost every family in the country. In one way or another. The country. In one way or another. The government have set out a clear ambition in this area, and we support them in that endeavor. I support them in that endeavor. I think it's appropriate for me also to pay tribute to all those who have contributed to the development of the plan, particularly those with lived experience of cancer and those close to them.

Their willingness to share their experiences with such openness and in many cases, courage, has, I'm sure, been invaluable in shaping the finished result. And they deserve our thanks and recognition. The cancer the National Cancer Plan sets out a number of significant commitments, including improving early diagnosis, restoring performance against cancer, waiting time standards, accelerating the set up of clinical trials, and rolling out targeted lung screening nationally. It also places a strong emphasis on modernising services through technology and innovation.

These are all laudable aims, and indeed, Cancer Research UK has said that there is much to welcome in the plan. However, it has also rightly noted that delivery, funding and accountability will ultimately determine whether patients see real change. It's easy to put ambitious plans down on paper, but what matters in the end are clear delivery milestones and accountability. And in that respect, this plan echoes many of the ambitions of the ten year NHS plan, which was strong on aspiration but lighter on detail about how improvements will actually be delivered on the ground.

My first question is therefore straightforward when will the government publish clear, fully funded milestones setting out how and when patients can expect to see tangible improvements over the next year or two? My Lords, it's also clear that the success of the plan will depend on having a sufficient workforce of cancer nurses, radiographers, pathologists and oncologists to deliver its aims. Can the Minister say whether we will shortly see a fully funded long term workforce plan to support the staffing required to expand diagnostic and treatment capacity, not just in NHS trust settings, but also within neighbourhood health centres in particular.

Can the government explain clearly who will staff these services and how will they be funded? Blood cancer UK has highlighted the importance of ensuring that blood cancers are properly recognised in workforce and service planning, and that patients receive consistent support from the point of diagnosis, including access to a named healthcare professional. Staff also need to know that they will be supported in delivering this plan, given current strains on capacity. In that context, we hear anecdotally of the difficulties involved in ensuring that staffing by doctors is adequate in all parts of the country.

Some doctors, especially doctors in training, make up their minds that they won't be sent to work in an area that's not to their liking, perhaps because it would locate them far from friends and family. Will the welcome announcement of more training places in rural areas actually be enough to get sufficient numbers of doctors working in those areas? Alongside the important question of staffing levels sits the government's ambition to invest in up to date capital, equipment and cutting edge technology.

Investment in this often expensive technology is best and most efficiently met through capital budgets managed centrally. That leads me to a question about accountability and accountability for delivery, and where such accountability will lie with the planned absorption of NHS England into the department, can the Minister give a sense of how the National Cancer Plan as a whole will be steered and monitored not only centrally but also regionally? One specific aspect of the plan that I'd like to welcome is the dedicated chapter for children, teenagers and young adults.

This has been described by Teenage Cancer Trust, the The Teenage Cancer Trust as a crucial step and an important acknowledgement that teenagers and young people deserve care designed around them, not as an afterthought. And the work that the government has done in recognising this is welcome. One point that the Teenage Cancer Trust has made particularly clearly is the importance of involving young people at the policy development stage. Can the Minister set out how young people with cancer were engaged with the development in the development of this plan, and how their voices were reflected in its content? And looking ahead, what steps will the government take to ensure this becomes an ongoing process? Listening to young people with cancer and systematically taking their feedback into account as the plan is implemented and reviewed.

Another point that charities and campaigners have consistently emphasized is the importance of clearly distinguishing between children and young people. The needs and challenges facing a three year old child are self-evidently different from those of a 17 year old young person, and it's important that this distinction is properly recognised in both policy and practice. I'd therefore be grateful if the noble Baroness, the Minister, could set out for the House how these different groups within the broader category of children and young people are engaged with, in particular, be helpful to understand how mental health support is tailored to different age groups and how the impact of a cancer diagnosis at different stages of a young person's educational journey is reflected in their treatment and support pathways.

If the noble Baroness could confirm that this distinction is one which the government actively makes and which will be taken into account in future policy development, I should be most grateful. My Lords, let me conclude by reiterating my support for this plan and for the ambitions it sets out. In particular, there are some welcome and promising commitments around improving access to clinical trials and speeding up diagnosis. As the Minister knows, we need to do better in both those areas and we share the government's ambitions to do so.

For our part, we will continue to play our role in opposition by scrutinising delivery closely to ensure that ambition is matched by action, and that the government's very laudable commitments translate into tangible improvement on the ground for patients.
19:45
Baroness Walmsley Portrait Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, from. >> These benches, we very much welcome the National Cancer Plan and support its ambitions. And it and support its ambitions. And it is very ambitious. Many organisations and committees have called for an integrated long term plan. So it's very good that the government has listened and particularly has taken note of the views of patients and their families, the people with lived experience of all these problems. However, can I reiterate Cancer Research UK's response to the plan? They said, quote, the key question that patients and their loved ones will ask, however, is how quickly will they see progress in cancer survival and outcomes? The improvements they're waiting for will depend on how this plan translates into delivery.

Funding must match the ambition of what's been promised, or the NHS will struggle to expand its diagnostic capacity or introduce innovation at scale and clear. Leadership and accountability are also crucial, unquote. Many of those have also been mentioned by the noble Lord Earl Howe just now. My Lords, we know that outcomes in England have lagged behind comparable countries for decades. So it's positive to see improving cancer survival at the centre of the plan. But it's going to be a tough thing to achieve and will require much, much faster progress than what we've heard so far indicates.

The key, of course, is improved diagnosis at an early stage, so I welcome the renewed commitment to earlier diagnosis and meeting all cancer waiting time targets by 2029. It is outrageous that 92% of trusts do not reach the target for starting treatment. So I welcome the full rollout of lung screening by 2030 and increasing the sensitivity of the test used in bowel screening by 2028. But what about breast screening? There have been problems in some parts of the country on getting getting that done.

Can the Minister say whether these plans will be fully resourced? There's no point in doing the screening and tests unless an expert is there to interpret them. There are bold promises, but will they be matched with the resources and training required? My Lords, the plan talks about AI tools and liquid biopsy tests, which could certainly hold real potential for increasing productivity. But before they're introduced, they must be robustly tested so that only safe and effective innovations reach patients, and those that don't work can be dropped.

Whilst there is a focus on diagnosis and treatment, I was pleased to see that the plan includes a commitment to increase action on those lifestyle factors which we know cause cancer, smoking, tobacco, overweight and obesity, alcohol and UV exposure still cause many cancers. Cancers that could be prevented. Fortunately, the Tobacco and Vapes bill should certainly have a positive effect over the coming years in stopping people starting smoking in the first place. And it's also positive to see action to strengthen protection on sunbed use and measures to drive HPV vaccination uptake uptake, particularly in underserved groups.

And the new AD Hoc Committee on Childhood Vaccine Rates is, I hope, going to contribute to that. More action is needed to drive the shift from sickness to prevention, which is one of the government's core objectives in its ten year health plan. There's still more to do to help millions of existing smokers quit smoking and prevent overweight and obesity in the first place. Tightening regulation on alcohol through introducing introducing minimum unit pricing as implemented in Scotland and Wales, is also a missed opportunity.

Will the government reconsider? Rare cancers make up about 24% of cancers diagnosed in the UK and the EU every year, and this includes cancers of children and young people because they are less likely to suffer from the cancers caused by the sort of lifestyle issues I've just mentioned, and this is where research comes in and the ability to implement the findings of the research into the NHS. It's a sad fact that the NHS has been slow in the past to implement new cutting edge treatments, so it's welcome that the plan has some important commitments in this respect.

But as with other aspects of the plan, the devil is in the detail. The focus on ending delays in cancer treatment is indeed a step forward. But funding 28 new radiotherapy machines is not enough. When the treatment is so cost effective and successful. My Lords, we need to end the radiotherapy deserts. So will the Minister extend her ambition to the 200 extra radiotherapy machines which the Liberal Democrats have proposed? My Lords, 28 will probably only replace the old machines that need to be replaced anyway and won't take take us forward.

Can the Minister tell us about the plan also to train the operatives for these new machines? My Lords, resources, training and accountability are really at the heart of this and we haven't got a lot of detail yet. So I look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward to getting more. My Lords, I'm very. Grateful for the warm welcome from both frontbenchers for the National Cancer Plan. I do feel this is a moment where we transform our cancer care and we actually make it personalised. We wrap it around the person instead of expecting it the
19:52
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
person instead of expecting it the other way. The 62 day treatment standard hasn't been met since 2015. And outcomes, as we've talked about a lot in this chamber, continue to lag behind those of comparable countries. And that is what has driven us to this point to ensure that by 2035, 3 in 4 people diagnosed and diagnosed with cancer will be alive five years later, whereas at present it is three and five that represents my Lords, 320,000 more lives saved and all of the effects on their friends, their families, their communities as well as themselves.

And that will be the fastest improvement in cancer survival this country has ever seen. To try and deal with some of the frontbench questions and and I should say, I agree with much of what has been raised, including recognition for all those, including those with lived experience, who contributed to what is, in my view, and my experience, a very bold ten year strategy, but actually one that is set out as to how we will do it. And both the noble Lord Earl Howe and the noble Lady Baroness Walmsley, asked about clear milestones.

Well, I'm glad to say that those are set out at the end of each chapter, with dates and with responsible organisations for all key actions and commitments with regard to the workforce plan, which which the noble Lord Earl Howell raised. It will be published in the spring and it will set out not just to the point raised by the noble Lady, not just on expanding numbers, but ensuring that the staff are properly trained and supported. And I might add, this will require a multidisciplinary team approach.

We will use training directly as a lever to prioritise training places in trusts, often those in rural and coastal areas, that the noble Lord Earl Howe questioned about. It is indeed the case that vacancy rates are higher and performance is lower. And of course, training doctors takes time. But this is about long term sustainable change. It is about turning around the whole of the cancer pathway. It is. It is the exact opposite of tinkering here and tinkering there.

We are working with the Royal Colleges to boost the numbers of doctors specializing in clinical and medical oncology. And with regard to the noble Lord Earl Howe's question about the bringing of NHS England into the department, I see that as a great opportunity and within the plan we have set out a reformed National Cancer Board. It will be comprised of cancer experts and it will be accountable. That is so important. As the noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley, also spoke of to the overall delivery of the plan and regionally, we will keep and strengthen the role of cancer alliances and they will work hand in glove with NHS regions to deliver cancer improvements.

A noble Lord, Earl Howe, also asked about young people how they were engaged. We worked with the Children and Young People Taskforce to ensure their voices were heard through the taskforces Patient Experience panel. And importantly, we will also appoint a lead for children and young people with cancer to to be part of the revamped National Cancer Board. We want their voices to continue. And we do. We definitely recognise the distinction between children and young people. They have different needs.

And so just to give an example, the plan highlights the importance of play for children, but it also highlights the role of youth support co-ordinators in providing educational, emotional support and fertility support for teenagers and young people. And I would agree with the noble Lord Earl Howe that cancer has a profound psychological impact, has a profound impact on all patients and those who are supporting them. But the plan does set out how that support must be standardised for children and for young people, including longer term support.

The noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley, asked about improving early diagnosis and we are providing £2.3 billion investment in diagnostics to deliver nine and a half additional tests by 2029 across screening and symptomatic diagnosis. And the noble Lady asked about what? How about seeing change? I say go to a community diagnostic centre. I think that to me epitomises where we are going with our National Health Service. We will also spend more than £650 million to complete the rollout of lung cancer screening by 2030.

One of the things that can make the biggest difference is in areas that are more disadvantaged, as long as well more disadvantaged, as long as well as prevention and with regard to radiotherapy machines, the responsibility does lie at a local level and we do expect local systems to continue to invest in new machines to meet the ambitious targets. And through the spending review, providers have been allocated with £15 billion in operational capital for local priorities and £5 billion to support a return to constitutional standards, including for radiotherapy machines.
19:58
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Portrait Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-
-
I must prepare all my interests in palliative care over the years in palliative care over the years so I won't list them now, but I had the pleasure of working on the the pleasure of working on the Palliative Care Commission under the chairmanship of sir Mike Richards, and I'm glad from speaking to him that he will also have a role with the modern service framework. My concern in chapter four is that action seven seems to compound palliative care with end of life care, and not recognise that actually, if you have interventions early and patients benefit maximally, it's been shown from at least three months involvement with palliative care rather than it coming in too little, too late.

And therefore when you have integrated services in a cancer centre that allows the time of recurrence, when there's a crisis to be dealt with immediately, rather than patients going home and saying, oh, they will see somebody later, you have to be on the spot and you have to be available 24 over seven. So I hope that there will be recognition that palliative care services save money. I was glad to see that the Ripoll study in Oxford is referred to, and I've asked the noble Lady if she recognises the figures that have come from Hull, York, that where you have specialist palliative care services that are fully integrated, you're saving about £800 million a year by avoiding wasted interventions.

And I should declare an interest that I do have a family member with an extremely rare. A young family member with an extremely rare cancer. And so I also hope that the Minister will be able to provide reassurance that this speedy processes for modern and semi-experimental treatments will be much more rapidly available, because at the moment, many patients are having to pay privately through fundraising schemes because there are treatments which are emerging, but they're not yet available on the NHS.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry to hear of the member

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sorry to hear of the member of the noble Ladies family and to the point about treatment. By 2028, every cancer patient will have access to a personal cancer care access to a personal cancer care plan via the NHS app. Because I think what's important is tailoring treatment and support through the treatment and support through the whole care journey, including before that care journey starts. That will be a complete innovation that we're not talking about rehabilitation, but what we're now calling Prehabilitation to support people.

We're also investing £80 million in four new NHS aseptic medicine production hubs, operational by next year, to
20:01
20:02
Lord Bethell Portrait Lord Bethell (Conservative)
-
-
I'd like to echo the praise of >> I'd like to echo the praise of other noble Lords for this report. Professor Paul Johnson has done an enormously worthwhile job, and enormously worthwhile job, and there's so much richness and good things in the report. But there is one area that I would like to put a one area that I would like to put a spotlight on, and that is the unfortunate framing that catching cancer is, largely speaking, and for the majority of people, simply a matter of bad luck.

The report says. Quite clearly, under prevention, as much as a third of cancers are preventable. That is a very conservative estimation of the proportion of cancers that are preventable. Modern analysis would suggest it's actually a systemically preventable exposure to multiple risk factors, which are, my Lords, entirely clustered around class. And this framing is incredibly important because it leads to consequential decisions amongst Treasury, amongst health colleagues, amongst the rest of government about what we should and could be doing as a society and as a government in order to try to reduce the prevalence of cancer in Europe.

The Europe Code of Cancer puts prevention absolutely at the centre of the cancer plan. And in countries like Malta, Portugal and Spain, cancer reduction is not seen as something that is relegated to a paragraph in the introduction. It is absolutely front and centre of the whole cancer plan. It embraces all of health and noble. Baroness Warsi mentioned screening and vaccines, but it's a shame that those aren't much more front and centre and that the government's ambitions are not greater. Where are the targets on things like obesity and clean air? These are the kinds of things that one would expect to see built into a cancer plan.

And in terms of the all of government approach, where is taxation and the planning system mentioned in the plan as important levers for reducing cancer? My Lords, the bad luck attitude. Cancer is an old fashioned clinicians bias. It isn't any longer supported by the epidemiology. And so I'd like to ask the Minister, firstly, is it possible to perhaps review the research framework which has led to that kind of understatement on the preventability of cancer and coming out of that, secondly, to ask the Minister if she could perhaps consider looking at a cancer prevention plan like they have in other countries.
20:05
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
Well, I'm grateful for the noble Lords support for the cancer plan. And not least, I should have And not least, I should have mentioned this. I'll be honest, even as a Minister, I don't always pay full attention to the forward, and I'm sure other former Ministers might share that, but within a plan. But actually, this one I am going to commend to noble Lords, not least because the Secretary of State himself talks about his own experience of being told he had kidney cancer.

He describes his world being turned upside down. He talks about fear and foreboding, as does our Minister Ashley Dalton MP. They both talk about fear and foreboding and the need to turn that around with action. And I think that kind of drive, as well as the facts before us, drive this plan to the point about a cancer prevention plan. And where is the strategy about reduction of obesity, etc. What I would say is this is a plan to be read alongside our other commitments.

It builds on the ten year health plan, which laid out the way we would be going forward with our shifts. And this is about turning round the whole cancer pathway. But to the point specifically about prevention, I have heard what the noble Lord says. We don't take the view. It's just bad luck. Where there is prevention, we should absolutely tackle that. So what it does do the plan. It tackles the causes, I think head on by talking, not just talking about, but action by the government cutting, smoking.

And we're currently dealing with the Tobacco and Vapes bill, reducing obesity, acting on alcohol harm and protecting people from dangerous UV exposure, including through sunbeds. No one should lose someone to cancer that should have been prevented, and we won't ignore the communities that are hit hardest because by having those preventions, we are supporting the communities who are hit hardest. That is why rolling out lung cancer screening more extensively will be one of the areas of importance and cancer alliances I referred to earlier.

They will promote, for example, new catch up schemes to enable young people who move, who have missed out on the HPV vaccination at school. They can have it administered at their local pharmacy. So we're not leaving matters to chance. And indeed, introducing the availability of home testing for cervical cancer for those who are not coming to appointments for a whole range of reasons, rather than just only offering one opportunity. We are looking at home. We are rolling out home testing kits.

I think in all these ways, actually, the National Cancer Plan does tackle the causes of cancer and we will continue to see that through moving from sickness to prevention, as the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lord knows, is a key factor in our ten year plan. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I support the National Cancer Plan, like others have said, but I'm not here to blow the I'm not here to blow the government's trumpet. So obviously I'd like to pick up on some of the points. It is an ambitious plan, points. It is an ambitious plan, and it is good that it's ambitious, because that might act as a because that might act as a catalyst for some progress. But if that progress is to be achieved, then the government needs to now commit much more than what this cancer plan suggests it will commit.
20:08
Lord Patel Portrait Lord Patel (Crossbench)
-
-
Because the plans, such as every patient, will get a personalized assessment of their needs and a assessment of their needs and a personal cancer plan, a complete support plan, complementing their support plan, complementing their diagnosis and treatment and focusing on their wider needs. It goes on to say every patient will goes on to say every patient will have a named neighbourhood care lead to coordinate their care and lead to coordinate their care and support after treatment. Fantastic if we can achieve that.

Apart from all the technological advances that will have to fund in research terms, it is ambitious to suggest that liquid blood tests and cancer vaccines could be developed tomorrow, be tested and be available. It could be a long term shot and without investment, that won't happen. One of the key areas of deficiency, I think, is nothing here that suggests what manpower requirements would be, and how will this fit in into the manpower plan that the government already has.

So I heard about what you said about the prevention and nothing about developing cancer centres, because we know from experience that where the outcomes are best is when patients are treated in cancer centres and not in every hospital in the country. We have no targets here to eliminate cancer. For instance, it is possible to eliminate cervical cancer by proper immunisation programme of HPV vaccines. The last point I would make is I'm only allowed to ask questions, but it would be nice to have a longer debate, which we never had for the national health plan either, and I hope that could

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be managed somehow. On the last. Point, of course, that will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Point, of course, that will be drawn to the attention of the usual channels. I also would welcome a channels. I also would welcome a debate on this, and I, noble Lords, might wish to note that when they have an opportunity to suggest or apply for particular debates, the apply for particular debates, the last point that the noble Lord made about elimination of cancer. That is of course possible in some cases, and I'm glad that he did mention cervical cancer, because we have committed, and I mentioned it in respect of my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, catch up HPV vaccination campaigns from this year to eliminate cervical cancer by 2040.

I think that is absolutely the right thing to do. I think it is the right thing to introduce the tobacco and vaping bill, which I hope will become an act to phase out smoking and to reduce youth vaping, which can be a gateway to smoking that also will reduce certainly risk factors. And I also wanted to mention the noble Lord is always right to press us to go further. And I understand that. But I would say this is a plan for the long term.

But with staging posts along the way and we have already made progress. For example, I was very pleased when we announced it also to the point the noble Lady, Baroness Walmsley, raised about AI, about on breast cancer screening a trial called Edith in order to harness the benefits of AI working with operatives to speed up and to make more accurate that diagnosis. So I use that as just one example. I hear what the noble Lord says about cancer therapy cancer centres.

We are seeking to move treatment and diagnosis from hospitals to community. That is one model. But there are other models as as the noble Lord, I'm sure, would acknowledge, and I think that it's right to push us to go further. But I think perhaps what sets this plan apart is not just its level of ambition and its recognition that all is not right in the world, but also it's setting out the ways we will get there. But I really, really welcome, from my point of view, the transparency and the leadership which is attached to this, which noble Lords have called for.

So I agree, I believe this plan merits a lot of attention, a lot of support, and I should be pleased to discuss it in this chamber further. My Lords, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To recognise that this is a really good step forwards in terms of the long term plan for cancer sufferers. Many of our families have been touched by this awful disease, which is many and varied. disease, which is many and varied. The reality is, however, that I would like to focus on the innovation and the research side of innovation and the research side of this and our speed of uptake within the NHS across the United Kingdom, the NHS across the United Kingdom, in terms of how quickly we get some of the testing that is available
20:14
Baroness Swinburne Portrait Baroness Swinburne (Conservative)
-
-
out to our UK nationals relative to other places in the world. It's other places in the world. It's recently been brought to my attention that a test that is called an Oncotype DX test, which called an Oncotype DX test, which is used for breast cancer sufferers in order to determine whether or in order to determine whether or not it's suitable for patients to have chemotherapy or not. And in many cases, people can avoid many cases, people can avoid chemotherapy if the test is actually telling the clinician that it's not necessary.

In fact, the majority of patients in a particular type of breast cancer will not need chemotherapy, and that test will tell them and identify them. The reality for me is that that test was available in the US from 2004. It was adopted by Nice for in their guidelines in the UK for in 2015. It is only now being widely adopted across the NHS, across the whole country, rather than just in specialist teaching hospitals. That speed of adoption means that many people are actually having unfortunate treatment that they may not have required, and therefore, I would urge the Minister to look at how quickly we adopt these new genomic tests, how quickly we can actually improve that patient path for each and every patient.

This was personalised medicine that was designed 20 years ago, and we are only just starting to see it roll

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out nationally. Noble Lady makes a very good point, particularly as we are in point, particularly as we are in what I regard as a whole new area of scientific, scientific and technological advancement. And technological advancement. And we've got the chance to harness it in general terms. I can say to the in general terms. I can say to the noble Lady that where, for example, there are regulatory problems with there are regulatory problems with getting new treatments out there. We are actually in we are working to remove all those blocks that that work is going on.

With regard to genomics, the plan does talk about routine genomic testing to match patients, to targeted therapies and trials. And it also talks about investment in AI guided radiotherapy, in cell therapy and
20:16
20:17
20:18
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I laid amendment 38 in this group, which proposes a duty to group, which proposes a duty to commission support services for caregivers of victims of abuse and caregivers of victims of abuse and exploitation. And I am grateful to Restitute for their briefing, not just for this bill, but over the years. Kath pickles from Restitute and her colleagues do an amazing job working with the caregivers, mainly parents, but also siblings of victims of very serious abuse who have to pick up the pieces after the abuse.

Witnessing lives lived in trauma. And of course, it is obvious that over the time, at that time, many of these caregivers are traumatised to, Kath said in an interview with the Daily Express that the independent inquiry into child sex abuse had findings showing showing that Non-offending parents, particularly mothers of survivors, can experience psychological effects similar to those of the victims. And a recent independent report by the University of Suffolk showed that Restitute has built a model of support for victims families from literally nothing.

Yet, despite the sea change across the country, Kath knows from her bitter personal experience of the guilt, shame, stigmatization and isolation that the work that resolution can do is far from enough and more is needed, and that is why amendment 38 is so important. It is important to recognise that support does not confer victim status for sentencing, compensation or criminal proceedings, but it can last with that mother in in most cases, who has to often accept a child back into a home, who has been an adult elsewhere, has been raped or badly sexually assaulted, who may not be able to work or live independently for a very, very long time.

Of course, it's going to affect the very close family caregivers. The Child Sexual Abuse Centre is due to publish national guidance in April of this year, and it's thought that it will explicitly recognise that parents and carers should be treated as victims in their own right, reflecting the harm they experience as a consequence of child sexual abuse and the criminal justice response. The amendment provides clarity and coherence. It recognises that parents and carers of child or vulnerable adult victims may require some proportionate support, distinct from evidential witness support.

It does not expand sentencing or compensation rights, dilute the primacy of the direct victim. However, it resolves a documented structural inconsistency and supports safeguarding justice outcomes and cost effective early intervention. And I wondered, why would the Minister be prepared to meet with myself and with Kath Pickles to discuss these issues further? Amendment 43, also in my name, strengthens victims rights to access to restorative justice services. I want to thank the Common Ground Justice Project and the Why Me group for their briefing today.

We've heard so many different species mentioning the ongoing trauma faced by victims of serious crime. Many find that moving on is very, very difficult and they also feel very unheard. Restorative justice provides an opportunity for them to have a dialogue with the person that harmed them. They have the chance to explain about the impact of the crime then and now, to ask questions, to understand why it happened, and then to have a way to move forward, often positive, not just for them, but also to the offender.

And at a time when only 1 in 10 victims trusts the criminal justice system, restorative justice achieves 85% of victim satisfaction. And by the way, it also reduces reoffending by up to 27% and saves £14 for every pound invested in it. But despite these incredible impact, excuse me, access to restorative justice is poor. And shockingly, 95% of victims are not even told about it. And we know that restorative justice providers have had the capacity to do more.

But poor awareness and low referrals are depriving victims of the opportunity to have their say rehab. The Moj mechanism for approving RJ needs some radical improvement and putting on a proper footing. This amendment seeks a legal right for all victims of crime to be told about restorative justice at all stages of the criminal justice process, and to be offered a referral if it's the right thing. My hon. Friend Paul Kohler MP laid this amendment in the Commons and we were pleased with the Commons minister's positive response.

We've laid it here because we think this is the perfect time and perfect bill for the government to make this commitment and make the UK a world leader in restorative justice. Paul is passionate about restorative justice after he was seriously attacked in his home, he and his wife and his daughter met one of the attackers and it transformed both Paul and his family. And it wasn't about forgiveness. But what can be about that? Sorry, but that can be a byproduct of it.

But what it can really do is to give victims an understanding and the ability for them to move on. And what's more, it can help the offender as well. But in these tough financial times, using RJ consistently throughout the system, if that happened, there would be substantial savings on spending from across all the different bodies involved because of its ability to substantially reduce reoffending by, As reduce reoffending by, As

**** Possible New Speaker ****

researchers showed up to 27%. I beg to beg. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause seven. Is that the new clause, the words as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. I'd like to. I would like to move amendment 45 on behalf of myself and Baroness Jones. I would myself and Baroness Jones. I would also like to apologise to the Minister that I was unable to come to her briefing because it was the same time as my committee of the House, so I was pulled deeply, may not be able to discuss these issues at another time, but thank you for the opportunity. The amendment providing victim navigators across
20:25
Baroness Goudie Portrait Baroness Goudie (Labour)
-
-
the whole of England and Wales. The proposed amendment will ensure that police forces across the whole of police forces across the whole of England and Wales have access to victim navigators to support modern victim navigators to support modern slavery victims. This will fulfill the recommendations of both the Home Affairs Select Committee and Home Affairs Select Committee and House of Lords Committee on Modern Slavery Act, who said victim navigators should be rolled out navigators should be rolled out nationally. The objective must be that they are available in all cases, the provision of of victim navigators will be essential to achieving the safeguarding Ministers pledge to divide our prosecutors of modern slavery predators.

It will also help to fulfil the government's mission of safer streets, including tackling violence against women and girls, and achieve its election promise to deliver a justice system which puts the needs of victims first. By enabling more successful prosecutors and convictions of traffickers who prey on the most vulnerable. The Independent Economic Impact Assessment concluded in 2025 that one single victim navigator has has made a benefit to the country of 150,000 per year. This comes through the savings of police costs, reducing victims needs and thus the cost of support and increasing convictions, which ensures that the predators have to be dealt with and that the victims will come and give evidence.

This is absolutely vital and also saves the exploration exploitation of further victims. The chief executive of Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority describes the benefit of victims having a victim navigator. That means that they're better able to get help, and it also helps us when they're taking people to court because they understand the process better, they understand how to engage and they feel support, which makes a real difference to us. A detective sergeant in the Metropolitan Police recently said, I'm in no doubt that a dangerous predator would not have received a 31 year old jail sentence without the support of justice and care I it led the police investigation into the case and think that victim navigators work was nothing short of an exception.

I wish to move on once.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right to support amendment. Very rare that we have an amendment which actually goes way back in which actually goes way back in terms of good practice. And Northumbria Police in 1990 Northumbria Police in 1990 introduced after the riots a way of monitoring and mentoring witnesses monitoring and mentoring witnesses going to court. At that stage, that part of the country had the highest crime rate in Europe in relation to crime rate in Europe in relation to car crime and the like.

As a result of the monitoring, the mentoring,
20:27
Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington Portrait Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (Crossbench)
-
-
where you actually had an officer paired up with a witness to make sure and witnesses sorry to go to sure and witnesses sorry to go to court. There was an increase of five in the convictions in that area, and it is well documented that crime in that part of the country went down by record levels, country went down by record levels, still not beaten. This surely, in terms of navigators, is an terms of navigators, is an expansion of the scheme and probably dealing with more difficult cases than perhaps we were dealing with in Northumbria.

We know that trafficking and slave trafficking is extremely difficult to get people to come forward and give evidence, and when they do with the justice system, as it stands at the moment, taking 4 to 5 years to get to the Crown Court, there needs to be an extra delivery to the witnesses, and it's the victims who will actually achieve something in relation to the benefits of this. Now the argument will be, I guess from certain quarters this is going to cost more money.

Well, the fact is that that is not the case. As the noble Baroness Goudie has said, there are maximum massive savings on this, and if it's £150,000 for each individual case, you only have to combine that with multiples that make the sum extraordinary. But beyond all of that, I go back to what I said at the beginning. This is a scheme in a different way that worked and was created as best practice by the Prime Minister at the time, John Major.

It's an old scheme. It's a scheme that's practical. It's a scheme that works. So I from my point of view and I think from my colleagues who I talk to, and you've already had quoted a detective sergeant, there are others higher up the tree and further others who are constables, who would actually welcome this as a positive step forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've signed all three of Baroness Brinton's amendments. I Baroness Brinton's amendments. I won't speak to them at any length. won't speak to them at any length. Amendment 38 prompts me to say that I possibly, possibly, I'm not really sure should declare an really sure should declare an interest. Having been chair of the Organisation Refuge for very many Organisation Refuge for very many years and in connection with the amendments 43 and 44, it strikes me
20:30
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
that there is quite a read across between these and the amendments we between these and the amendments we were debating earlier about. How were debating earlier about. How about the response of a victim and how a victim is affected, and how an offender is under the amendments an offender is under the amendments regarding appearance in court, prompted to address what has happened. But it's not that read across really that I was going to spend any time on.

I was a member of the Modern Slavery Act committee, and the noble Baroness, Baroness Goudie, has picked up, as she has said, one of the recommendations. Her amendment is a good deal more ambitious, if I may say so, than the sorry recommendation, more ambitious than the recommendation in our report, which just talked about the objective being to have victim navigators available in all cases. She did read the the amendment, but I think she's calling for the roll out within six months, which does strike me as as ambitious.

Ambition is good. The report was headed evidence gathering, and as we heard the evidence, it was very much about assisting the police and getting best evidence. I have, through a friend who's been involved in assisting police in a number of slavery cases, I have realised how difficult this is. I'll just mention a couple of them. An occasion when a big police operation was set up to rescue people who were block paving. It was almost impossible to hold any of the people who were the subject of this.

I think they managed to keep one despite all the preparation and all the very sort of common sense, humane ideas such as don't just pull them into a room and start questioning them, sit them down and say, would you like a glass of juice? That sort of thing. It sort of sounds obvious, but apparently it wasn't entirely obvious. And occasion when the a woman who was being prostituted was, throughout the police interview in touch with her boyfriend.

I put that in quotes who was telling her what she should be saying. How that could have been got through. I don't know. The one of the things which prompted us to make this recommendation was that the then Minister, who gave evidence, seemed not to have heard of victim navigators. And they're not the same as advisers who assist victims to cope with the process. I mean, there's obviously some quite a lot of crossover, but they're very focused on process.

Not just support. But as the noble Lord has just said, as we so often argue, a bit of investment could yield very good financial results. And that is one reason why victim navigators are a good idea. The there are only 11, I believe at the moment. I'd like to pay tribute to Tatiana, Gwen Jardine and and Louise Gleich, who have been very much behind this scheme. And I think the success of it is in large part due to their own skills and their input.

It's worth, I think, saying as well, that it's not just about getting convictions. One of the achievements has been helping to repatriate victims who actually do want safely to go back to their countries of origin. But it is it is a great scheme. It it's up to the police, I think, to pursue it myself. So perhaps this is something for the Moj and the Home Office. But I do hope that this debate can prompt some government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support to forward the scheme. My Lords, I am grateful to all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate and to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton and Lady Judy for bringing forward these amendments. Amendment 38. In the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton proposes a new clause which seeks to place a duty on relevant authorities to commission relevant authorities to commission support services for caregivers of victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence or exploitation. This amendment will ensure that those with responsibility for the victims are not overlooked by the system and have access to the appropriate support.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's response as to how this amendment could be delivered and might function in practice. Amendments 43 and 44 introduce new clauses concerning restorative justice. These build on the provisions within the bill. Better to enable victims to explain the impact of a crime to the offender, and to participate meaningfully in the justice process. Some victims do engage with restorative justice
20:36
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
services, but such engagement must be voluntary. Victims should not be be voluntary. Victims should not be placed under any pressure to engage further with the offender. Nonetheless, there are findings Nonetheless, there are findings that show these services reduce the likelihood of offenders reoffending likelihood of offenders reoffending and can result in other social benefits, including delivering benefits, including delivering value for money. We on this side are interested to hear from the noble Baroness, the Minister, how the government will ensure that services such as these are not used, where it is thought they are likely to be beneficial.

Amendment 45, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardie, seeks to implement the recommendation of the Committee of on Models on the Modern Slavery Act, 2015 that victim navigators be rolled out nationally so that they are available in all cases. In response to that recommendation, in December 2024, the government stated that it wants to build on the research of the previous government on how to best support victims. In addition, the government said it had met the NGOs delivering the Victim Navigator programme to understand its impact and to explore options for expansion.

We've also heard an authoritative and persuasive speech from Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, who obviously has real hands on experience in this area, and we should listen carefully to what he has to say, and I hope that the Minister will speak to him and engage with him. We look forward to hearing an update from the noble barriers, the Minister, on what further research has been undertaken and what conclusions the government have reached since then. May I reiterate my thanks to noble Lords for raising these important issues, all of which speak to the purpose of this Bill, to ensure that victims receive the support and services that they deserve throughout their journey through the justice system.

Thank you.
20:38
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
I speak first to amendment 38, >> I speak first to amendment 38, in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton and the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee. My Lords, whilst Baroness Hamwee. My Lords, whilst entirely understanding the motivation for this amendment, the government believes that it is neither necessary nor helpful to place a statutory obligation on certain authorities to commission certain support services for this cohort. In a world of finite resources, this would prioritise provision to third parties. I want to reassure the noble Ladies that parents and carers of victims of abuse and exploitation can already access support services.

The funding that the Ministry of Justice provides to the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund, and to police and Crime Commissioners, can be, and is used to commission specific support services for parents and carers. Parents and carers will often access services that the victim themselves is accessing, particularly where the victim is a child and parents and carers are victims of crime, can also seek mental health support or other support through local services and the NHS. Having said this, I recognise that more can be done to support this cohort and as part of the Violence Against Women and Girls strategy, this government has committed up to £50 million to transform support for victims of child sexual abuse through expanding the use of child houses.

These are incredible places as anybody who has had a chance to visit the one in London can can tell anybody, they offer vital wraparound support to non abusing parents and carers in one physical location. In addition, the Ministry of Justice has founded the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse to develop an online directory of support services for those affected by child sexual abuse. This can be easily navigated to identify services for parents and carers and other affected adults.

I turn now to amendments 43 and 44, in the names of the noble Ladies Baroness Brinton, Baroness Jones and Baroness Hamwee Hamwi. My Lords, this government recognises the positive impact that restorative justice can have in appropriate cases and we are very grateful to the restorative justice providers who continue to offer this important service. We entirely agree that when delivered in the right circumstances, restorative justice can improve victim satisfaction, reduce reoffending and bring benefits to victims, offenders and their communities.

Under the victims Code, victims must be told about restorative justice services when reporting a crime. But we have been told that this may be too early and we are listening and that is why, under the new code consultation launched last week, we are retaining this. But we have proposed an additional entitlement for the victim to be told about restorative justice again. After an offender has been convicted. We look forward to engaging with stakeholders during the consultation, where services are available and victims and offenders are willing, referrals are already made and that supported through the PCC funded local services alongside our facilitation of restorative justice across prisons and probation.

However, placing referral to restorative justice for all victims on a statutory footing in our view, is neither necessary nor appropriate. Restorative justice self-evidently requires the consent and participation of both parties, and the safety and welfare of those involved is paramount. Automatic referral is therefore not always suitable. For example, a victim of stalking who has fought tooth and nail to end all contact might understandably see the offer of restorative justice as being at best insensitive and at worst as a way in which the perpetrator in their case could continue their campaign.

The government already monitors delivery, PCC submit biannual reports as part of the Moj grant management process, providing insight into victim support services including restorative justice and PCC. Police and crime plans also set out clear commitments to supporting restorative justice. In our view, introducing a further national assessment would simply duplicate these existing measures as we prepare for upcoming changes to the PCC commissioning model, we will explore changes to the delivery of victims funding, including restorative justice, to ensure that this is delivered in the best way in the future, whilst avoiding unnecessary statutory requirements.

For these reasons, I invite the noble Lady to withdraw her amendments. I turn now to amendment 45, in the name of my noble friend Baroness Goudie and the noble Lady Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. My Lords, we value the excellent work delivered by Justice and Care through their Victim Navigator programme, and this government is committed to ensuring that victims of modern slavery and human trafficking are supported, to help rebuild their lives and to engage with the criminal justice system, to bring those who have exploited them to justice.

We recognise the positive impact that tailored support can have on securing victim engagement, and that is why we have already put provision in place across a number of areas, forgive me, which are important for supporting prosecutions, adult victims of modern slavery and human trafficking are already supported by the modern slavery victim care contract in England and Wales and where they that's where they have access to a dedicated support worker who will support them to help access legal aid, legal advice and legal representation and assistance during criminal proceedings.

The Home Office is also in the process of procuring the new support for victims of modern slavery. Contract for adults to support child victims of exploitation and modern slavery. The government funded Independent Child Trafficking Guardians Service provides specialist modern slavery support and advocacy across two thirds of local authorities in England and Wales to child victims and the professionals who work with them. This includes help for the child to navigate the complexities of the criminal justice system, and an invitation to tender for the national contract is currently live, which covers all of England and Wales from 2027.

Because of the existing provision, the government does not consider it necessary to enact an additional statutory requirement to fund independent victim navigators, as this would duplicate the support services already put in place by the government. So I hope that in the light of this, my noble friend will now feel able to withdraw her amendment. Thank you.
20:45
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Thank you. Sandhurst for his his support and curiosity in how the Minister will respond. I thank Lady Goudie, Lady Hamwee and Lord Stevens of Hamwee and Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington for speaking so powerfully on the issue of navigators for victims of modern navigators for victims of modern slavery as well. And I thank the Minister for her response to. She won't be surprised to hear that I perhaps don't quite agree with everything that she said on the amendment 38 the support for caregivers.

It's not, she said. It was not necessarily for this cohort because they can already access support. It is not necessarily clear to these this particular cohort that that's available because they present as trying to fight for the support for their child. And that's part of the problem. And as a result, the personal trauma and damage that they're living with often is quite repressed. So one of the reasons for the amendment was to find a mechanism where people actually say, and how are you? What can we do to support you? So I do hope that, you know, I ask the Minister earlier if be possible, to have a meeting.

It would be good perhaps to to assess this because, I mean, there's also financial. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer should here because often these parents give up work to look after their children. Their lifestyles change in everything. It's a very, very big deal. So but I thank the noble Lady for what she said on that particular point on restorative justice. I'm glad the government agrees that restorative justice can work. I am sorry to be a bit of a pain, but we were very clear in our amendment in one three of the amendment 1.3 of the amendment that a victim must at all times give informed consent and participation in any restorative justice process shall be voluntary.

And that's the core, because it would not work if not so for the Minister to say it might be a problem for victims, because they might not want to do it. That's easy. No, I'm not interested in meeting my stalker. I never personally never want to meet my stalker. Absolutely. No. Sorry, but that's a different nature of a crime. And there are plenty of other crimes, particularly some of the slightly lower level ones, where if it really does reduce reoffending that much, it is something the government has to look at.

And I really hope on that basis that the government will seriously look at expanding it beyond the very small nature it is at the moment where it seems to be a few people who might be interested, rather than recognising it, will transform the court system and the justice system. Overall, I beg to withdraw my amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr. chips pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 39. Lord King of Ely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 39. Lord King of Ely. My Lords, amendment 39, in my name would require the Secretary of name would require the Secretary of State to issue revised guidance on victim personal statements,
20:48
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
victim personal statements, clarifying what victims may include and ensuring that the courts appropriately disregard prejudicial material. Victim personal statements are a valuable and important part of our criminal justice process. They allow victims to articulate in their own words, the impact that a crime has had on them and indeed on their families. This personal element is often deeply cathartic and can provide a sense of agency in a system that victims have described as otherwise procedural and somewhat distant. However, as this bill was scrutinised from the other place, it became clear that many victims and practitioners find the current approach to personal statements unclear and in some cases unnecessarily restrictive.

Members spoke of victims feeling that they were sometimes advised to omit heartfelt and deeply personal material from their statements. These omissions were not for any legal reason, but appeared to be due to an overly cautious interpretation of guidance. There is also concerned that victims do not always understand what is and is not permissible, and that this lack of clarity can undermine victims confidence in the entire process. One recurring theme from previous debates is that victims should not be left uncertain about what they can and cannot say, nor should they feel that their legitimate expressions of harm are being suppressed for procedural reasons.

At the same time, it acknowledges that the equally important principle that personal statements must not be vehicles for allegations of untried criminal conduct or material contrary to statutory limits on free speech or due process. The Lords. This amendment is designed precisely to strike the appropriate balance. It does not remove any existing safeguards. It simply asks the Secretary of State to revisit and clarify the guidance governing the content of personal statements in a way that gives victims clarity and a genuine sense of voice.

My Lords, the amendment would require revised guidance to be issued within six months of the bill passing. The revised guidance must stipulate that when making a victim personal statement, a victim should be able to say anything they wish about the defendant so long as it does not go beyond lawful free speech. Make untested allegations of new criminal conduct, or contain disorderly language, and these are sensible and well established legal boundaries. The amendment also states that the court must disregard any prejudicial comments made during a victim personal statement, and in practice, this simply enshrines what is already understood by judges that victims may express themselves freely, while judges continue to confine themselves to factors that are legally relevant and admissible, and placing this on the face of the act will reassure victims that greater freedom of expression in their statements will not be misconstrued as diminishing the fairness of proceedings, or indeed as even providing a basis for an appeal.

My Lords, this does not mean victims will be able to litigate matters that fall outside the scope of the case before the court, nor does it mean that victim personal statements will supplant other evidence or indeed judicial reasoning. What it does mean is that victims will know where they stand, and that they will not be discouraged from expressing the full impact of their experience, simply because the existing guidance is interpreted excessively, cautiously. The Lords, the importance of clarity in this area cannot, in my view, be overstated.

Victims and their families often report that they do not know what is expected of them when making a personal statement, or that they are told they must temper their comments in ways that feel artificial or perhaps insensitive. That undermines public confidence in the system and risks denying victims a meaningful voice. And what is a critical moment in the justice process? This amendment offers a proportionate way forward. It respects judicial integrity and preserves the lawful limits on personal statements.

At the same time, it provides victims with the clarity and indeed the dignity they deserve, ensuring that they can say what they need to say without fear. That well-meaning but overcautious guidance may curtail their voice. My Lords, I present this amendment in a constructive spirit, and I look forward to the noble Lady of the Minister outlining how the government believes the current guidance is operating, whether it achieves its objectives and whether there is an appetite for revision that reflects victims legitimate expectations and the points raised by members on both sides of the House.

And indeed, in the other place, the Lords. I beg to move amendment.
20:53
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
Proposed after clause seven. >> Proposed after clause seven. Insert the new clause. The words is printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshalled List. Make very few observations. Drawing from my experience of what Drawing from my experience of what happened about 20 years ago, when the statements were being developed, there was an attempt in the more serious cases, particularly murder and manslaughter, to give the victim's family an advocate. And it was tried for a few years because it had transpired that drafting these statements was not easy. And that proved to be an extremely expensive way forward.

And with the financial crisis at the end of the round, about 2008, the scheme was not followed, followed and came to an end. And that left us with the problem. In all of these cases, how do you formulate a victim then called impact statement, now personal statement? And they are extraordinarily difficult to formulate. Those with experience of civil cases will know that if you ask a witness to produce something in his own words, or you ask the claimant in a case to do the same, you get something you could never put before the court because it would never really convey what had to be put forward, and therefore the way in which progress was made was along the cautious lines of developing guidance.

I think such guidance always needs to be kept under review. It needs you need consultation with the Crown Court judges who see this all the time. Clarity in the guidance is essential, but I really would caution greatly against allowing a victim to do more than emphasize the need to explain to the court the way in which the crime has affected that individual, his family, the community. Going beyond that really does seem to me to raise all sorts of problems.

And the last thing one wants to do is to revictimize a victim by saying, no, you shouldn't say that. You shouldn't say that in court. Clarity, I think, is essential. But I think the if I may, with respect to the learned and noble Lord, say that his formulation goes too wide of the mark.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wanted to add a couple of very brief points. First of all, my my own experience also nearly 20 my own experience also nearly 20 years ago now, when I was a victim of stalking, as were some of my colleagues, I found the police encouraged me to make a victim statement. But quite specifically, statement. But quite specifically, we were advised not to talk about what he had done solely on the what he had done solely on the effect on us of what he had done.

In other words, to completely ignore making any comment about about him or his actions. That was that was quite difficult. I was advised very heavily not to get involved and show how emotional many of us were as a result of his actions, and I chose not to do that at all. But I talked last week to Glenn Ewens, who is the father of a four year old who was killed, and he and his family were asked if they wanted to do a victim impact statement, and the police advised them not to use certain language because the court had advised them not to.

They were told that bluntness might upset the perpetrator. They couldn't call him a child killer. He wasn't allowed any props in court. Her daughter's teddy bear and the CPS advised not to appeal the unduly lenient sentence, because it might actually make the judge or sorry the attorney general get less for him
20:57
20:59
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
personal statements are a powerful tool for victims and their families to tell the court about the effect to tell the court about the effect that these crimes have had on them. The victim personal statement is also important for the judge when also important for the judge when deciding the appropriate sentence. The CPS provides evidence and information which can help the information which can help the judge in determining the seriousness of the offence as part of the sentencing process, and plainly, it is right that victims plainly, it is right that victims should have a voice in that.

But, my Lords, it is also right that this must be done fairly. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord keen that there are limits to what can be said in the press, as we cannot have legally irrelevant matters. For example, other behaviour of which the defendant has not been convicted. The judge is not, by law, allowed to take account of such things. That said, my Lords, I too have heard from victims and their families about their concerns about how the process operates in practice, and I completely understand how frustrating it must be to be told that they cannot express themselves in the way in which they expected to be able to, or to include all the information which they feel the judge ought to have.

And we do agree that further work is needed to consider how we can make sure that victims fully understand the process, including the value of being able to have their voice heard in the sentencing process, but an explanation as to why there have to be limitations on this. I have, my Lords, given careful consideration as to whether the government could accept the noble and learned Lords amendment, but I've concluded that parts of the proposed approach risks increasing the likelihood of victims being cross-examined on their.

And whilst because whilst a judge is always good at ignoring irrelevant material where a voice contains inadmissible or inadmissible or irrelevant material, the defence is always going to want to be heard about that in order to protect the position of their client, the government is determined that the sentencing hearing should not become any more contentious than is absolutely necessary, because this adds to the stress and upset for victims. In any event, my Lords, I do not believe that the amendment will have the desired effect because the criminal practice directions and a significant body of case law already provide the legal basis for the victim.

Personal statement in the context of sentencing and criminal practice, directions are issued by judges, not Ministers, and the legal position is then reflected in publicly available guidance. The Secretary of State for justice is not responsible for any of these pieces of guidance, nor have they previously issued such guidance and to ask. This reflects the proper division of powers and constitutional sense. So for these reasons, I am going to invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment. But I will ask him to work with me through the recently launched Victims Code consultation and beyond.

Better to understand victims experiences of the victim personal statement process and how any issues might be addressed, whilst ensuring that the criminal justice system operates safely and fairly for all.
21:02
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, clearly we have to achieve a balance between preserving due process and the justice system and empowering victims. We have to be able to reassure victims, but at the same time protect the judicial process and we must reduce the risk of misunderstanding or indeed even of appeal. In the context of these statements. But there does seem to be a widely held concern that these guidance provisions are not working as they should at the present time.

And there does seem to be an understanding that further work is needed to clarify how victim guidance is construed and applied. And that, I suggest, is not simply a matter for the criminal practice directions. It is a matter that we should consider, whether in the form of a review or in the form of further directions or guidance from the House. In the circumstances, I will seek to withdraw the amendment, but I do so on the understanding that the government understands the need to revisit this issue, to understand why the guidance is not working, and to come to a view as to how it can be improved going

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward. Is it your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? that this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn after

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause seven, amendment 4840. Lord Garnier. My Lords, I. Beg to move amendment. 40 that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Beg to move amendment. 40 that stands in my name. This is not the first time I've argued that this jurisdiction does not do enough to
21:04
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
jurisdiction does not do enough to ensure that domestic, but more importantly, overseas, victims of economic crime committed by people or organisations based here are adequately compensated for their losses. If the last government and the present one have been less than enthusiastic about my proposals, I have received from, amongst others, support from Sam Tate, a partner of the London law firm Clyde and Co, other legal practitioners who have read my speeches and articles on this subject over the years, and from Sam Hickey, a lawyer qualified in Australia and the United States.

In his paper entitled Compensating the Victims of Foreign Bribery UK legislation, practice and Recommended Reforms, published in February 2025 by the International Centre for Asset Recovery, which is part of the Basel Institute on Governance at Basel University in Switzerland. My Lord, having been the initiator politically of the deferred Prosecution Agreement or DPA system in this jurisdiction, and as a vocal advocate for the extension of the failure to prevent economic crime regime. And I should make clear also as a barrister whose practice includes economic crime cases, I've taken a long term interest in this aspect of our justice system.

It is, regrettably, my experience from the time I was reappointed as the shadow attorney general in 2009 and then as Solicitor General during the early part of the coalition government in 2010, followed by what is now 14 years on the government and opposition back benches. Both here and in the other place that all three parties of government, that's to say the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party have acknowledged the problems my amendment outlines with warm words, but have not done enough to make the necessary practical changes.

I do not say that the United Kingdom has done nothing, and there is a reasonable case to suggest that we have been in the forefront of efforts to get a grip on foreign corruption. Several of the DPA cases concluded here have involved admitted allegations of failure to prevent bribery overseas, leading to the imposition of serious financial penalties. But when it comes to compensating the overseas victims of these offences, we have fallen short. It is not right that Crown Court judges and it will usually be High Court or senior Crown Court judges well able to make the necessary assessments with the right evidence.

Who will be dealing with these cases should feel inhibited by existing statute law and practice from assessing and awarding compensation to the victims. I have in mind, because the assessment is, or may be thought to be complicated, these judges deal with complex points of law and evidence every day, and victims should not be required to take out separate civil proceedings that are expensive in terms of cost and time, in order to get justice. As I said in your Lordships House on the 7th of February, 2024, since the introduction of Dpa's in 2014, the courts had by then find corporations more than £1.5 million for violations of the Bribery Act, and yet only 1.4% of that sum had been given to the citizens of victim countries of the indicted corruption.

We are therefore open to charges of hypocrisy, because the United Kingdom has been essentially acting as the world's policeman, while keeping the fines for the Treasury. Sam Hickey, in his paper, makes six recommendations on how we can improve our performance as providers of just and appropriate compensation to the victims of overseas corruption. Now having overburdened the House only last Thursday evening with my thoughts on the need to reform the criminal law of joint enterprise, I will not go into such depth or detail in arguing for my amendment today, but I recommend that the noble Lady, the Minister, just takes a few minutes to read Mr.

Hickey's paper and the basis for his recommendations, even though he kindly makes several references to things I've already said in your Lordships House. If the noble Lady is really short of sleep, I invite her to read my speeches and published articles on the subject. But in any event, Mr. Hickey's paper should be part of the review I'm asking for via amendment 40. In essence, Mr. Mr. Hickey and I both jointly and severally urge upon the government, and I've said as much myself several times in this House and in those articles I've written, what we urge is that we should no longer simply rely on legal principles relating to compensation orders in favour of identifiable human victims in this jurisdiction, when deciding whether to include compensation in the terms of a DPA or when sentencing a corporate defendant following a conviction or plea of guilty by the Crown Court, there should be a rebuttable presumption in favour of including compensation.

Compensation in such agreements or following conviction. Where compensation is included in the terms of the DPA, it should be tailored to the facts of each case. More specifically, the Serious Fraud Office as the usual prosecutor in cases of this sort, should actively apply for compensation to be awarded to discrete victims who've suffered quantifiable losses. In the case of Glencore, the SFO did not. Despite my prompting, when I was acting for the government of Nigeria, did not seek to apply for compensation.

Now there were legislative problems that prevented the court dealing with it, but at least the judge had the decency to hear my argument before saying thanks, but no thanks. But my Lords, it does seem to me that there should be a preference for compensation to be put toward the benefit of victim community or victim communities or societies in the foreign state through, for example, infrastructure projects such as schools or medical facilities, or towards the reduction of national debt.

If none of those is possible, compensation monies should be put towards the anti-corruption initiatives of governments, of NGOs or international organisations. And I suggested in the past, the United Nations escrow account might be a suitable destination as a final resort, to ensure that some measure of compensation is paid in every case. In any event, my Lords, we should legislate for a rebuttable presumption in favour of real compensation. We should, as I suggested before, consider a variety of methods for calculating the amount of compensation, including a victim's losses, the value of the bribe, a percentage of the fines and penalties, or the gross profit of the bribe.

If there are no discrete victims with quantifiable losses, we should look to whichever measure of compensation is the greatest. We should devise a formal procedure that victims, states and NGOs could use to request compensation. We need to clarify the concepts underlying compensatory practices, including the kinds of remedies available, the harm that might lead to compensation, and the victims that might receive it. We also need, as I've said on several occasions before, to incentivize corporations to pay compensation by, for example, subtracting the compensation from the penalty.

Now, Lord, I accept that it could be said of my argument that repetition never made a bad point better, but I gently suggest that successive government failure to listen to a reasonable argument year after year is not evidence of its successful refutation, but of a wilful or negligent refusal to see what is in front of them. That's to say, injustice piled on, injustice and corrupt companies being given license to bribe with impunity and to act without concern for their victims because it's happening out of sight and overseas.

Amendment 40 is, if I may say so, a moderate amendment in its in its ambitions, perhaps too moderate, but it is certainly worthy of the government's consideration, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

urge them to do so. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause seven. Insert the new clause with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the words as printed on the Marshalled List. I have laid amendment 46 in this group at. This was laid in the Commons by Sarah Champion MP, who has long argued for supporting victims effectively and has a particular interest in the function of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The
21:13
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Compensation Authority. The amendment asks the Secretary of State to amend the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme to widen eligibility for compensation to all victims of child sex abuse, including online facilitated sexual abuse, to ensure applicants with unspent convictions are not automatically excluded. Where offences are linked to the circumstances of their sexual abuse, and to increase the time limit for applications for compensations from victims of child sexual abuse to seven years. And I won't give that some of the detail of that.

But the reason for this is that until 2012, the scheme a crime was generally considered violent if it involves physical injury, the threat of immediate violence, or a non-consensual sexual assault. Those were the ones that the compensation scheme could look at. So in practice, this means that many cases of online child sexual abuse are excluded, even where the abuse involves sustained coercion, blackmail or domination, and the child experiences profound and lasting harm. And we know that victims often face significant barriers in accessing compensation for this sort of reason.

There is a problem with the strict time limits that the that Ceqa imposes, because that means many traumatized victims who may be navigating complex criminal justice processes and or unaware of their eligibility often struggle to apply, apply in time. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse Report on Accountability and Reparations recommended extending the time limit for child sexual abuse cases and giving claims officers greater discretion. But these proposals were soundly rejected by the last government.

Ceqa can also refuse or reduce awards where applicants have unspent criminal convictions, a criterion that disproportionately affects victims whose offending is linked to the trauma they experienced. This is often seen in cases involving child sexual abuse and exploitation. Icssr recommended that such cases be assessed on their individual merits rather than rejected automatically, but sadly this was also rejected by the last government. The scheme also has significant shortcomings in how it communicates with victims, and whilst we are aware of work to improve this, many victims continue to contact the Commissioner to express their concerns, describing how their experiences with the scheme left them feeling retraumatized.

It's clear that meaningful, holistic reform of the scheme is needed, and we hope that this amendment will go some way to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

starting to address it. I also put my name to amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I also put my name to amendment 46, the one made by Sarah Champion, which the noble Baroness Brinton has just spoken to very has just spoken to very comprehensively. So I won't add anything to that, but I will speak to amendment 47 in my name, which to amendment 47 in my name, which in many ways is very closely in many ways is very closely related to that. Amendment 46 came through discussions with Claire Waxman, the Victims commissioner. Amendment 47 comes through another through working with another organisation which works specifically with victims of child sexual abuse, victims who have been sort of abused online, which is a charity called the Marie Collins
21:17
21:17
21:17
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
clearer definition of of of what is harmful to to CSA victims and in a harmful to to CSA victims and in a sense, to give the government breathing space while it decides whether it needs to go further and whether it needs to go further and be clearer under the current six scheme, a crime is only considered violent if it involves physical injury, the threat of immediate violence, or is a non-consensual sexual assault, and to a large extent this excludes online child sexual abuse, and there was a court case in 2023 where an individual called went to court against the CIC to appeal, and the Court of Appeal in this case confirmed that online grooming may fall within the scheme where threats cause a child to fear immediate physical violence, even if the threats are made remotely.

However, the court also said that many online cases would still fall outside the scheme and that this can produce outcomes that are counterintuitive and unjust. And it also made it clear, and that is the reason for this amendment, that any broader clarification of coverage is a matter for Parliament and not for judicial interpretation. So what we are trying to achieve is to recognise exactly what this type of abuse is. And it commonly consists of a combination of blackmail, coercion, threats and domination, which are effectively a combination of emotional and psychological abuse.

It involves compelled actions such as the creation and sharing of sexual images, live stream sexual activity, or other sexual acts directed by an offender against the child. All of this online. It results in sustained fear, loss of autonomy and erosion of individual agency can also lead to long term psychological harm, including trauma related conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, etc. etc. So what we are trying to achieve is to firstly, is to capture online only child sex abuse cases where the nature of abuse is such that the conduct meets the scheme's existing criteria for a crime of violence.

Secondly, it seeks to operate within the existing legal framework by clarifying how violence is understood rather than redefining CSA or injury. Thirdly, it is proposing to support consistent and workable decision making by CIC on online only CSA cases, which is not the case at the moment. Fourthly, to avoid creating any hierarchy of abuse by granting eligibility in established scheme principles. And fifthly, and lastly, to provide an interim pragmatic response pending wider consideration of scheme reform. So I hope that the government will look at the evidence, will take on board what is happening.

And in particular, as is often the case with online abuse, the scale at which this is increasing year on year, and to see whether it is something that needs to be looked at more clearly and recognised in law for the harm that it is doing.
21:21
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, allow me to thank my noble friend Lord Garnier, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for bringing forward their amendments and helping to shape what has been a valuable shape what has been a valuable debate about the issue of just Compensation for victims. Amendment 40 in the name of my noble friend Lord Garnier, raises an important concern about how the victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences can be better compensated both domestically and abroad.

And indeed, I have heard his arguments on more than one occasion before and never failed to be persuaded by them. My Lords, these crimes do not just inflict monetary loss on victims. These crimes often involve sophisticated deception. They can cause significant psychological distress, emotional trauma and lasting insecurity. More widely, they undermine trust in our society and so deserve this government's attention. I would also say that the government must look carefully at his suggestions for review. It could be important and beneficial for the City of London as a centre of finance of worldwide renown.

If we can take the lead in this, that will be an encouragement to people to do business here. This brings me to amendment 67. In my own name, I should say that a gremlin came in here, and I'm not blaming the typist, which says in the headline sentencing guidelines on court fines, it should, of course, be compensation orders. That is intended to correct an imbalance for victims. Its purpose is clear to ensure that victims are compensated properly according to the actual value of items stolen.

This principle would apply in cases of fraud, burglary or theft, and in any other crime which has resulted in a victim suffering financial loss. The responsibility for repayment should be put squarely on the offender through the issuing of compensation orders. It is only right and just that offenders pay back the value of what they have stolen to their victims. There should be a direct link so victims fully face offenders fully face up to the consequences of their actions in a real and logical way.

This measure is simply proportionate. At present, offenders may not be made even to begin to compensate for the damage inflicted, which only adds further insult to injury. To correct this imbalance, the amendment would require the Sentencing Council to revise the relevant sentencing guidelines within 18 months of this bill receiving royal offence. This would lead to a more consistent approach across cases and sentencing would recognise an account for the mind actually taken or lost. Justice for victims should be material, not merely symbolic, that would help to strengthen public confidence in our courts and we urge the Minister to take give serious consideration to this amendment.

Amendment 46, in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Brinton. Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, both concerned the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. The former seeks to broaden its eligibility to all victims of child abuse. The latter aims to bring online only child sexual abuse into the scope of recognition of the scheme. My Lords, it is really important that the scheme keeps apace with the evolving landscape in which criminal activity now takes place and all victims must be properly supported with access to the appropriate mechanisms for compensation and for redress.

I look forward to hearing the response to the noble Baroness, the Minister, on how the scheme can be updated. Thank you.
21:25
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
So sorry. >> I waited for the noble Lord. Lord send us to move his amendment. For before I spoke. My Lords, I'll For before I spoke. My Lords, I'll speak briefly to the amendment number 40, moved by the Lord Garnier, and then I'll respond to the amendments, the amendment 67 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Keenan, Lord Sandhurst. I'll say nothing on amendments 46 and 47 on child sexual abuse, apart from the fact that I fully support both amendments for the reasons that have been given.

Turning to Lord Garnier's amendment on fraud, bribery and money laundering, he rightly says it's not the first time that he's brought this issue before the House or before Parliament. Indeed, he's been a formidable campaigner on the issue for a number of years. And from on these benches, we think he's absolutely right about it. It's a very difficult area on which to propose legislation in precise or specific terms. And in this amendment he seeks to require a review of the whole area of fraud, bribery and money laundering.

Lending, money laundering are both within the UK and abroad. The background is the inadequacy and, I think, inevitable inadequacy of existing civil proceedings in this jurisdiction or elsewhere, not only from a jurisdictional point of view, but also because of the inevitable cost of civil proceedings, the difficulty of valuation, and the difficulties of enforcement for the victims of substantial economic crime. And they cannot be properly compensated by the existing regime of compensation orders, so that a review is needed to consider how compensation might be ordered to consider the principles that are brought into play by complex economic crime for criminal activity both here and abroad, and not always just in one jurisdiction, but often across countries and in multiple jurisdictions.

The Netherlands, learned Lord highlights our poor record as a country. The rightly, he says, we're better than many in providing compensation for victims of economic offences. And he highlights the fact that there may not just be individual or corporate losers, but there can also be organizations or states which deserve compensation, but for whom? Presently, our law, and really the law elsewhere makes no proper provision. These are very difficult issues and there are very difficult issues concerning quantification and the inadequacy of the way in which we fail.

The victims of overseas corruption and other economic crime effectively amounts to our holding our hands up and admitting defeat in the face of those issues, so that the review for which Lord Garnier calls needs to be illuminated and energized by some extremely innovative and imaginative thinking, which holds out the prospect of real improvement of the position and accepts that we may not be precise in any award of compensation, but a real attempt to provide adequate compensation can be made and should be made.

And I'm bound to say that I also agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, that grasping this issue could enhance the business reputation of London as a centre of economic and business excellence, where others have failed in this area. Turning then to the amendment number 67, in the name of Lord keen and Lord Sandhurst, they seek a review of sentencing guidelines to insist on compensation which is commensurate with the value of stolen items, although I appreciate that the way the amendment was opened goes wider than cases of theft, I frankly disagree with the way in which that amendment is put, because the sentencing guidelines and the Sentencing Councils publication on compensation orders seems to me to grasp the issues in a more subtle and appropriate way than does the amendment.

We are on these benches, of course, fully in favour of compensation orders in the right cases, and that meet the requirements of justice. But this amendment is, frankly a blunt instrument. The amended amendment is predicated on the view that the valuation of stolen items is simple. It's certainly the case that valuation by victims of theft, who are the losers in the police terminology, is not a precise art. The value of the stolen items may not be known with the best will in the world.

It may be exaggerated and often is for insurance purposes. We've seen valuations on charge sheets that bear little relationship with what one might think of the of as the street value of the items that were unfortunately taken, but the basis of valuation may be uncertain. What might be recoverable from insurers may be very different from replacement cost or saleable value. Furthermore, opinions on all these valuations will differ and necessarily differ between two parties, and so it's very difficult to ask a criminal court to award compensation on the basis of valuations when the valuations are so uncertain.

And it would be wrong. And the Sentencing Council is right to say that it wouldn't be wouldn't be sensible to enter into detailed exercises of valuation to assess compensation orders before they're made. That sort of exercise is best left to civil proceedings, where both parties have the opportunity to argue on properly prepared evidence about valuation issues. Furthermore, the amendment has no regard to the ability of an offender to pay or to the question of an offender's means, nor to the question of an offender having other commitments which have to be met before considering whether the compensation order can be met.

And it's also important to consider when a compensation order is made. The likely effect of other penalties. How much is is appropriate for a compensation order of an employed individual may completely change when that employed individual loses his employment or her employment, and becomes the subject of a custodial sentence, which is going to keep him out of any earning power for a considerable time. So that it's important that also that the compensation or any compensation order is not a civil debt.

It ends up with a as a criminal sanction with a penalty for failure to pay. And a sentence in default in cases worth more than £20,000, so that you're converting effectively by making a compensation order. What is a civil a civil penalty or a civil compensation in the terms of the amendment into a criminal sanction with no real justification. And I would also invite the government to comment. And the noble Lords who moved the amendment to think about the effect on rehabilitation of the offenders concerned, of compensation orders that are plainly excessive and which they cannot meet.

So while this amendment may have some superficial attraction to expect the criminal courts to act as civil courts in imposing and quantifying compensation orders is neither sensible nor just, and I suggest that the Sentencing Council in its present approach, which embodies the kind of submissions that I've made, has got it about right and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

should remain undisturbed. And I apologise once again to the noble Lord, Lord Mark, sir, standing up just before him a few moments ago. I start with amendment moments ago. I start with amendment 40, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, which raises the important issue of compensating victims of economic compensating victims of economic crime. I really mean it when I say that I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his continued interest in this matter.

No one could accuse him of not being
21:35
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
consistent, and indeed he and I are due to meet, I think, after the recess, to discuss his amendment recess, to discuss his amendment further, and I'm looking forward to that. As he knows, I practised at that. As he knows, I practised at the bar in the area of economic crime and other frauds and other kinds, and I want to make it clear that the government takes the that the government takes the compensation of victims of economic crime very seriously. It is of critical importance in limiting the harm of these often ruthless and cruel crimes.

We are committed to ensuring that wherever possible, funds are taken away from criminals and returned to victims. As things currently stand as the noble and learned Lord knows, there are already several mechanisms that enable victims of economic crime to be compensated. For example, the asset recovery Powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 already provide the court with the ability to prioritise the payment of compensation orders to victims, and your Lordships may be interested to learn that where both the compensation order and a confiscation order are imposed, but there is not enough funds available to satisfy both, then the court may direct that the compensation order be paid out of the confiscation order funds, in order to ensure that victims are prioritised.

My Lords, a total of £47.2 million was paid in compensation to victims from the proceeds of confiscation orders in the financial year ending March 2025. But I do, of course, acknowledge that we could do better further the Economic Crime Transparency and Enforcement Act, introduced in 2022, allows applications for stolen crypto assets or funds and accounts to be released to victims at any stage of civil forfeiture proceedings through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, the then government legislated to require the Payment Systems Regulator to introduce mandatory reimbursement for authorised push payment scams in the first nine months of the App Reimbursement Scheme, 88% of eligible losses were reimbursed, with £112 million returned to victims.

This further protects victims and provides incentives for firms to prevent these scams in the first place. Victims of unauthorised fraud where payment has been taken without the victim's permission, are already reimbursed by payment service providers. But we do want to go further. The government does recognise the serious financial and emotional impact that fraud can have on victims, which is why we will shortly be publishing a new fraud strategy, which will improve how we safeguard and respond to victims of fraud.

I am, of course, acutely aware that one of the noble and learned Lords, major considerations is overseas victims. As far as they're concerned, the Serious Fraud Office, Crown Prosecution Service and the National Crime Agency compensation Principles have committed law enforcement bodies to ensuring that compensation for overseas victims of economic crime is considered in every relevant case, and to using whatever available legal mechanisms to secure it whenever appropriate. Internationally, victims interests also continue to be a priority issue for the United Kingdom.

As a signatory to the UN's convention Against corruption, the UK places great importance on the recovery and return of the proceeds of crime, proceeds of corruption to those affected by bribery, embezzlement of public funds, money laundering, trading in influence and other abuses of official functions. The UK is required to return funds where the conditions for mandatory return are met. However, the UK also exercises its discretion to return funds in appropriate cases, even when it is not otherwise required to do so.

The noble and learned Lords amendment calls for a review, but the government has already publicly committed to reviewing UK policies and procedures for compensating victims of foreign bribery in the UK. Anti-Corruption strategy 2025, and we look forward to the results of this review expected in 2027. In addition, I refer to the Crime and Policing Bill, which will introduce a new measure to redirect funds to victims when a confiscation order is increased. If it's identified that the defendant has additional assets with which to satisfy it.

And the bill will also reinforce that compensation orders are to be prioritised over confiscation orders. So, my Lords, there are already significant measures in place and there is already further work being done to strengthen the rights of victims of economic crime to compensation. I hope that this provides the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, with some reassurance. I look forward to discussing this further with him, but for now, I invite him to withdraw his amendment. I turn now to amendments 46 and 47, in the names of the noble Ladies Baroness Brinton and Baroness Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell.

This government shares the strength of feeling in this House, and in the other place, about the importance of supporting the victims of child sexual abuse. The proposed new clauses would implement a recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, about which the previous government consulted. But in April last year, the government announced that we would not take it forward. The reason is that such changes would benefit only victims of child sexual abuse, and that would undermine the scheme or schemes core principle of universality.

In other words, that it compensates all seriously injured victims of violent crimes. And the payments are based on the injury suffered rather than the crime type from which they resulted. We are very concerned not to create a hierarchy of victims in which some are seen as more deserving than others. Different support for different violent crimes would imply that some victims are less important than others. It would also put the scheme under more financial pressure. It is taxpayer funded and it is already facing record and increasing demand.

But we do agree that the scheme needs reform and it is our intention to decide how best to support all victims with the resources that we have. We will update members of both houses as our work progresses, dealing very briefly with amendment 47. In the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, I am going to ask the noble Lord to leave that with me for the time being. I do want to give this some further thought. He and I began to discuss it when we met about a week ago, and we didn't make an awful lot of progress on that occasion, but I would like to talk to him about it further.

I know he sent me some literature, and I will look at that and consider it further. I'm grateful to noble Baronesses and the noble Lord for ensuring that we remain focused on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. I invite them to withdraw their amendments. I turn now to amendment 67, in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Ely and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. Their amendment would require the revision of sentencing guidelines, so that the court would have to award compensation to a victim to the value of the items stolen.

My Lords, when a judge passes sentence, she or he is already required to consider making a compensation order, which requires the offender to make financial reparation to the victim for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from an offence, and that includes the offences captured by this amendment. Magistrates are subject to the same duty, but for simplicity, I'm just going to refer to the judge the rest of my remarks. If the judge decides not to make such an order, then she or he must explain why they're not doing so.

My Lords, there is no set amount for compensation because that would fetter the discretion of the independent judge. What the law says is that compensation may be ordered for such an amount as the court considers appropriate, having regard to any evidence and any representations made by the offender or by the prosecutor. For adult offenders, there is no limit on the value of a compensation order, and compensation is paid to the victim first, before any other financial orders made by the court are satisfied by the offender.

The noble Lord, Lord marks, has already powerfully made the point that it is not always a straightforward process to determine the value of the loss. So I'm not going to repeat those, but I am going to add this to what he said earlier as the second part of his concerns about this, as part of the process of deciding on the level of compensation, the court must also consider the financial circumstances of the offender, so far as they're known, and the reason is to ensure that the offender has sufficient means to pay, because what this amendment would do is require the judge to ignore the fact that it may, in some cases, be absolutely no prospect of the offender being able to pay.

And this would create a system requiring the authorities to spend time and money chasing people for money, which they are never going to be able to pay, and in the process causing a cycle of unnecessary harm and emotional distress to victims whose expectations had been raised that they were going to receive compensation in full for the full amount. I want to reassure your Lordships that most judges will order the full amount, unless the defendant does not have sufficient means.

So for these reasons, the government is satisfied that the existing system allows courts to strike an appropriate balance between seeking compensation for the harm caused to victims in a way that is enforceable, and ensuring victims are not left waiting for debts to be paid to them, which were always unrealistic. The Sentencing Council has issued explanatory information on compensation which outlines these matters, which help sentencers when considering or making compensation orders, and for these reasons I therefore invite the noble Lord Leonard Lord, to withdraw his amendment.
21:45
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
Sir, I begin by apologising to those noble Lords who had other amendments in the group for not amendments in the group for not addressing their arguments, but I don't think they needed my assistance. I am, though, very grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandhurst and to the noble Lord, Lord Marx, for their support for my amendment 40. As has been pointed out, my amendment asks for a review and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marx, that we need to be imaginative and inventive.

Those aren't his precise words, but I think that's the thrust of what he was saying. And I suggest that doing nothing or doing a little slowly, or patting ourselves on the back for what we might have done or sort of might have done in the past, is not any longer acceptable. I know that the noble Lady, the Minister, in her response, is sincere, and I'm also aware of her professional experience, both in private practice and at the Crown Prosecution Service.

I look forward with gratitude to our meeting. I'm also aware of the terms of the 2002 act to which she referred, but it doesn't meet the problem I have identified. As I know from my own professional experience. Furthermore, the provisions of Fisma are untested or insufficiently tested, in my view, and I'm not sure that reliance upon that statute answers the problem that we have been discussing. The review that or the work that the noble Lady of the Minister spoke about is not due to report until 2027.

So everything is always tomorrow, everything is always the week after, the month after, the year after. But nothing is ever grabbed now and answered. And this is my experience. Having spoken about these questions for many years in the past. And so forgive me, I asked the House to forgive me if I come across as just a little bit cynical. That said, I look forward to having a positive discussion with the Minister during the recess and seeing if we can.

After all, there we are, a week after a week, after a week after. The great God delay is the one we all worship. For goodness sake. Thank you for the meeting. But I think, I think we spoke about this meeting before Christmas at Second Reading, and that slipped and slipped and slipped. I feel like a ice skater. Who's running out of bad jokes. Thank you. I thank the noble Lady for her forbearance. I know she's relatively new to her post and will have not had the joy of having to deal with my repetitive strain injury over the last several years.

But anyhow, let's try and make some positive advances. Let's try and produce some practical answers, and let's try and not just push this thing further down the road, because there are victims out there whose lives have been ruined by corrupt criminal behaviour. There's a Treasury. I appreciate our Treasury's should be in special measures, but it's it's the one that's been sucking in all this money in London. Whereas people in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere are suffering, having got that off

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my chest again, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordship's pleasure that this amendment is withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn after

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is by leave withdrawn after clause seven, amendment 41. Baroness Brinton. Lords from these benches, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords from these benches, the Liberal Democrats have for a long time been very concerned about the victims rights to be able to access victims rights to be able to access court transcripts. And we've made amendments in a number of bills, including, most recently, the
21:49
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Victim and Prisoners Act 2024. And I now have amendment 41 in this I now have amendment 41 in this bill, and I want to thank open justice for contact that we've had justice for contact that we've had with them since during the Victims and Prisoners Act and since then, during the Victim and Prisoners Bill, the then Minister finally agreed to a trial in certain locations which would ensure that locations which would ensure that victims could have access to sentencing remarks, but to nothing else.

Ministers of both this and the last government have said it will just cost too much to extend the scheme. But as we have said, the process that is used is extraordinarily expensive and technology should be our friend these days. Just to give you a feel of some of the figures that we've been made aware of, we've seen people quoted £30 for a copy of sentencing remarks to over £300 for an original transcript, and where victims requested a transcript of the entire court case.

We've seen figures of £7,500, even £22,000 victims and their families are in principle able to access remarks at no cost. I mean, I'm not just talking about since the pilot, I'm talking about some of the other things. I'll come on to the detail later on. They can get sometimes get access at no cost. But the problem is the paperwork, which some courts have required families to fill out is very burdensome and intrusive, requiring families to declare salaries, debts, bank balances and more.

And that really shouldn't be the case when they're getting to the end of a trial with all the burdens that that has brought them. Amendment 41 goes beyond sentencing remarks, but not as far as our amendments in the Victims and Prisoners Act. It includes judicial summings, up bail decisions and conditions that are relevant to their case, and it also sets a time limit for the Secretary of State to ensure that the transcripts are provided within 14 days. We thank the government for confirming that the judge's sentencing remarks is being rolled out across the country, but we do remain concerned that some victims actually need access to some more.

This is because for far too long, victims are advised by the police and prosecutors, as we discussed in an earlier group, either not to attend a trial or to to frame their own remarks very carefully. And we I've got three very brief quotes here. I wanted to go and watch the trial after I'd given my evidence, but was told by the prosecution barrister it would not look good with the jury. The police said the same. I didn't really question it. I was so scared to do anything that might have a detrimental effect on the outcome.

Someone else said we were advised not to attend because it may make us look bitter. And someone else said I was told I couldn't watch the court case after giving evidence, as I'd looked like I wasn't scared of the perpetrator, and that could harm the jury's decision. Open justice. Say that this advice from professionals is in direct contrast to the judges that we meet, who very much want the victims to attend hearings. So there's a gap there, my Lords.

So, my Lords, I think the real reason that we we are looking at judicial summings up and bail decisions is for judicial summings up. There's often more excuse me, everyone's losing their voice tonight. There's there's more detail in things like bail decisions and conditions that affect the victim directly. I've been involved in advising a family recently where there was bail condition that required the alleged perpetrator not to go within two miles of the victim, they were changed without the victim's knowledge, and suddenly she found the perpetrator nearby and couldn't understand why.

So for a victim in that sort of instance, to to be able to ask for the details of those, it's very clear to them she was just completely unaware that the bail conditions had been changed after the perpetrator's solicitor had asked for a hearing for judicial summing up. There's often more detail in there that can actually help the victim come to terms with the entire process, and that's one of the reasons that we are pushing for that. We would still like occasionally for some victims in really traumatic cases, particularly where a therapist advises this is not in the amendment, and there's a reason for that to be able to access the court transcript.

But we recognise that is very unlikely until technology can provide that at virtually no cost to the court. I think we are nearly there. But at the moment, the structure of the way people can apply for help and the way that transcripts are made are overly expensive. Given that the world that we're living in in 2026, I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move. Amendment proposed after clause seven, insert the new the following

**** Possible New Speaker ****

new clause with the words imprinted on the Marshalled List. My Lords, I rise to speak in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of amendment 41, tabled by the noble Lady Baroness Brunton, and in support of amendment 73, tabled in my name. Both of these amendments are designed to amendments are designed to strengthen victims engagement with the justice system by enhancing access to, and the availability of
21:55
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
transcripts of important court transcripts of important court decisions. We give full and indeed unequivocal support to amendment 41. This is a broader right than the This is a broader right than the one we were able to secure in the sentencing bill, where our amendments sought to ensure victims amendments sought to ensure victims access to sentencing. Remarks. Transcripts. Initially, that amendment was opposed by the government, who argued that government, who argued that embedding a statutory duty for universal access and universal publication would create significant operational and resource pressures and risk increasing judicial workload.

However, the importance of these amendments has been further underscored by the report released, I believe today that the Ministry of Justice has instructed the deletion of a substantial archive of court records held by Courts Desk, a data analysis that supports journalists and civil society in scrutinising the justice system. That archive has long been relied upon to track sentencing outcomes and judicial decisions, and its removal has understandably raised concerns about the future accessibility of court information and the practical operation of open justice.

In that context, the case for clear, structured and victim centred access to sentencing information becomes even more compelling if independent archives and informal routes to transparency are diminishing, then it is all the more important that Parliament ensures formal mechanisms exist to guarantee access to core judicial material, particularly for victims whose lives are directly affected by these decisions. In previous debate, Ministers made clear that they supported the principle of transparency and of victim access to sentencing remarks, and that the sentencing remarks can already be published as the case in high profile cases.

But the government maintained that expanding those limited provisions into a broad statutory requirement, as initially table, was not necessary to achieve the objective of openness and could impose burdens that the current system was not equipped to bear. We therefore tabled a more diluted version of our amendment to extend free provision of Crown Court sentencing transcripts to victims who request them. The importance of this measure cannot, in my view, be overstated. Sentencing remarks explain the judge's reasoning, as well as the factors taken into account when aligning legal judgment behind a sentence for victims and their families.

This explanation is essential to understanding why justice has been administered in the way it has, and becomes particularly important in the context of, for example, unduly lenient sentence appeals. My Lords, Amendment 73 complements the amendment passed and the sentencing Bill, now the Sentencing Act, by addressing the publication of sentencing remarks online, it would require that when a request is made for sentencing remarks delivered in the Crown Court, those remarks are made available publicly online within 14 days, subject to an important safeguard, the court must first inform the applicant of their right to request that the remarks not be published, and if such a request is made, the remarks must not be published.

This opt out mechanism is a proportionate and indeed pragmatic response to the government, concerns that prevented broad publication being adopted. Previously, Ministers explained that while they support the principle of transparency, they could not accept a universal statutory obligation to publish all sentencing remarks, citing the risk of significant workload increases and resource pressures on an already stretched judiciary and court system. By allowing individuals to choose not to have their own remarks published. This amendment preserves transparency for the public, while safeguarding privacy and individual choice, and reduces operational risk.

My Lords, we stand in favour of open justice, the principle that justice must must not only be done but be seen to be done when victims and the wider public can access the reasoning behind sentencing decisions, confidence in the rule of law and in the integrity of judicial decision making is strengthened. My Lords, a criminal justice system that is opaque risks undermining the very legitimacy that it seeks to hold. If victims cannot see the reasoning behind the rulings that affect their lives, they and the public will struggle to have confidence that justice has actually been done.

When sentences are handed down with discretion and complexity, the need for transparency is greater, not less. The Lords. For these reasons, we support amendment four, and we look forward to the Minister's response to amendment 73. Thank you.
22:00
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords. My noble friend quoted >> My Lords. My noble friend quoted from a briefing from the victims Commissioner, I think from when she was the London Victims Commissioner was the London Victims Commissioner about the cost of. That have been charged and costs for transcripts of the whole case, which have been perhaps requested rather than actually charged for obvious reasons. And she mentioned paperwork. I had that this briefing and the it refers to a form which some courts are asking bereaved families to fill out.

So I had a look at the form. I'm appalled. I think it's four pages. The amount of detail that is requested is so intrusive. It's unclear to me why it's necessary, why disclose for this purpose the rental you're paying on a home, all your assets in a whole number of categories. Does it matter what how many premium bonds you've got? The your expenses 14 categories ranging from council tax to TV licences to well, you can imagine everything.

And I just wanted to express that even though it's late and I won't take longer on it, the noble and learned Lord has just talked about open justice, and it seems to me sad. If the courts were talking about cannot continue to cannot go in the same direction as other courts where the lady Chief Justice talks about the work that's being done to issue press releases, to explain the decisions of the courts elsewhere in our justice system.

I absolutely he's looking puzzled, but I'm actually saying I agree with him. I know that may be unusual. But on this occasion I am the direction of travel, which is a horrible phrase, really suggests that we should be going much faster than a trial pilot from next spring. Which brings me to my question when is spring for this purpose? We have known that the seasons of the year are somewhat false when it comes to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what government proposes to do. My Lords, I start with amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I start with amendment 41, in the name of the noble Lady as Baroness Brinton and Baroness Hamwee. As your Lordships are, of Hamwee. As your Lordships are, of course aware, the government recently announced the expansion of the provision of free transcripts the provision of free transcripts of sentencing remarks to victims whose cases are heard in the Crown Court upon request. That's now contained in the recently passed contained in the recently passed Sentencing Act 2026. The detail of time frames and processes for providing these transcripts will be set out in regulations, following a review of current operations, and I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Ely, for his work with the government during the passage of the Sentencing Act, which has brought this about.

My Lords sentencing remarks have been chosen because the way they are structured and what they contain can give victims a real insight into what happened in the sentencing hearing. They're always structured in the same way. They start with a summary of the case and the facts. They go on to explain the background of how the plea came to be entered. If it's a plea or how the conviction came about. And then they set out why the sentence was imposed, which guidelines have been referred to and applied, if not applied, why? And the various calculations that go on as to what the starting point was and whether it's been increased or decreased.

And that's all in the judge's own words. But my Lords, bail decisions and summings up are very different. In addition, extending provision of free
22:04
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
transcripts for victims to a wider range of hearing types does risk range of hearing types does risk creating significant operational burdens on the court. May I deal first with bail decisions? The victims code sets out a victim's right to be told the outcome of any bail hearing and any relevant conditions imposed within five working days. This is carried out working days. This is carried out by witness care units, who are also supposed to provide victims with other timely, tailored updates about proceedings.

So therefore, in that sense, we are already delivering the information the victims need in a proportionate and effective way, without the cost and risk that mandatory transcript provision would entail. Because, my Lords, bail decisions are rarely delivered in a structured way that would tell the victim any more than they will already have been told by the witness care unit. Normally, what happens is that the judge listens to both sides and then simply says bail refused to fear, failure to surrender, fear.

Failure. Commission of further offences or I am prepared to grant bail subject to the following conditions and then just rattles off the conditions, which is exactly what they're going to be told anyway, by the Witness Care Unit. The noble Lady, Baroness Brinton. I don't know what more information. In my experience, there's nothing more contained in it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly, the problem is that the. Victims care unit, whatever it is, doesn't always provide that information.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

information. Well, then that's. Something that needs looking at. And actually providing transcripts And actually providing transcripts is not going to solve that in a way that it wouldn't be solved by making sure that the witness care unit does what it's meant to do. I mean, the example that the noble Lady gave of the the the victim who had not been told that the bail conditions had been amended in order to allow that that just simply should not happen. But it's not a transcript issue.

I should suggest it's a witness care unit, but that is something that plainly needs looking at. If it's a if it's a problem. In addition, magistrates court, which is courts which are of course, where the vast majority of bail decisions are dealt with are not currently recorded and therefore they cannot be transcribed without that recording ability in place, it would not be operationally feasible to create a statutory entitlement of the kind proposed. We can't extend an entitlement that the system is not yet equipped to deliver.

As the noble Lady will know, one of the proposals that the government seems likely to accept from Sir Brian Leveson's review of the criminal courts, is that all proceedings in the magistrates courts should be recorded, and it will become a court of record. At that point the situation may change, but at the moment we simply cannot provide transcripts of bail decisions in magistrates court. Summing up my Lord, in the government's view, a transcript of the summing up is unlikely in most cases to add significant value for many victims.

Summing up consists of two parts. It consists of a set of directions on the law, which are written out and handed to the jury, and could be given to the victim without any difficulty at all, if it would help the victim see them. Most victims are not really interested, I think, in what is said about the application of the law, and the only other thing it contains is a summary of the evidence where the judge decides what level of detail to include and what to put in, and what to leave out.

The important thing to note is that the summary has to be even handed, and the judge is not meant to make any comments one way or the other. So the summing up is not going to help the victim to understand how or why the jury reached their verdicts, and as they're not an explanation of the outcome, victims may well feel that the summing up bears little resemblance to their lived experience of the case. So there is a real danger of summing up being misunderstood, and in some instances providing causing further distress rather than providing clarity or closure.

So for these reasons, we do not propose to extend free provision to include summings up in cases where the defendant is acquitted. Expanding access further would also create significant operational and funding pressures, providing transcripts of bail decisions and summings up free of charge would require a substantial increase in resources, diverting key and limited resources away from core court functions, and, importantly, take resources from implementing our existing commitment to provide free sentencing remarks to all victims who request them.

That what the noble Lady said to me said to the to your Lordships House about victims being discouraged from attending the rest of the trial. I have heard this on many occasions. It shouldn't happen. When I was a judge, I used to say to the victim, once they had completed their evidence, would you like to observe the rest of the trial? I can have arrangements made for you to do so. We encourage you to do so. And that includes attending remotely where you can't be seen.

But you will be able to see and hear. And we can have those arrangements made. It ought to happen all the time. If it's not, then again, that's something that we should look at. My Lords, now, turning to amendment 73, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord, Lord keen, and the noble Lord Leonard, Lord, noble, Lord, Lord Sandhurst. Whilst the government remains firmly committed to improving transparency across the justice system, this has got to be balanced carefully against our capacity to deliver existing priorities and commitments, imposing a blanket obligation to publish all sentencing remarks where they have been requested would create significant operational and financial pressures.

At a time when we are focused on rolling out free access to Crown Court sentencing remarks for all victims, a major step towards increased transparency in its own right. My Lords, the level of anonymisation required to protect victims identities in a published transcript is very different to the level required in a transcript provided to the victim themselves. It's not just a question of redacting the name, it's also a question of removing any other details which might permit a jigsaw identification of the victim, that anonymisation cannot yet reliably be carried out using AI.

It has to be done manually, and it would have to be done by a judge taking them away from other duties and inevitably adding to the backlog. Furthermore, this amendment as drafted places no constraints on who may request a transcript. It could be the offender, could be their family, could be a journalist, or simply a curious member of the public. A situation where the victim does not have an opportunity to object to sentencing. Remarks containing intimate details of their case being published online, but another requester does, is not a proposal that this government can support, and it's likely to contravene the victims article eight rights.

So I want to reassure noble Lords that the government's commitment to openness and transparency is ongoing. In cases of high public interest, sentencing remarks are already made publicly available online, and furthermore, broadcasting of sentencing remarks is possible, with the agreement of the judge providing an additional route through which the public may access this information. And we are also actively exploring the opportunities offered by AI to reduce the costs of producing transcripts in the future. So I invite the noble Lady and the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and learned Lord to withdraw their amendments. And I thank. Those that have taken part in this, and particularly my noble friend Bailey Hamwee, for giving the detail behind the ridiculous the detail behind the ridiculous form that victims have been asked to fill in in order to access some sentencing remarks for free. I do hope the noble Lady will will take a look at that and make sure that that doesn't continue in this that doesn't continue in this format.

I also thank Lord keen for his amendment and very much appreciate what the noble Lady the Minister said, but I think we are looking in the longer term for transparency and actually I do remain concerned as he is about the closure or the erasure of the information from courts desk. And I hope in another forum your Lordships House might be able to discuss that, because it's extremely concerning that it seems to be happening very quickly and suddenly. Sorry for that quick diversion given the hour.

I thank the Minister for her explanation. I'm not surprised that she's raised the issue of costs. I do appreciate the issue about magistrates Court, and I really hope that Sir Brian Leveson manages to resolve that issue in his report in a way that will make it make it work. Judicial summings up actually are important. When we meet on Wednesday, we will be looking at unduly lenient sentences and actually judicial summings up are very helpful to victims if they are considering making an application to the Attorney general.

It's it's got quite a lot of information in there. They may not understand it, but if they are going that far, they are likely to be consulting a solicitor or somebody else involved. And I think it's quite likely to be helpful. And I think the issue about bail conditions is important. Barring the example I gave which gave, which may not have been quite correct. Again, it is useful for victims to actually see in writing when something's been gaveled off exactly what all the conditions are.

And this is particularly important in domestic abuse and stalking, where there may be a perpetrator who is particularly following people, and there may have been some, some, some form of abuse. But I'm very aware of the hour, and I do hope we can continue discussions with the noble Lady outside of your Lordships Committee. So I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To your Lordships pleasure. This amendment is withdrawn. It is by amendment is withdrawn. It is by leave withdrawn. Amendments 42, 43 and 44. Baroness Brinton not moved. Amendment 45. Baroness Goudie not Amendment 45. Baroness Goudie not moved. Amendment 46. Baroness Brinton not moved and well. Lord Brinton not moved and well. Lord Russell, amendments 4747 A and 47 B

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not moved. My Lords, I beg to move that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the House be resumed. The question is that the House be resumed. As many as have that be resumed. As many as have that opinion will say content the contrary not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn. House do now adjourn.
14:00
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page