Lords Chamber

Tuesday 10th March 2026

(began 3 weeks, 4 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:38
14:39
None Portrait Oral questions: Implementation of section 106 of the Equality Act 2010.
-

>> I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper. >> My Lords, the government is
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:49
None Portrait Oral questions: Raising awareness of dyscalculia among educators, including Special Educational Needs Coordinators, and ensuring dyscalculic pupils have specialist support
-

Second, Oral Question Baroness Bull. Bull. >> Beg leave to ask the question, standing in my name on the Order Paper. My Lords, we know some children face real challenges in maths, particularly those with
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:23
15:23
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos (Labour)
-
-
can I just say that we now Report stage on this bill and it's a relatively short bill, but there are some important topics for discussion. So I thought it might be helpful if I just drew your Lordships attention to section 8.151 in The Companion, which says arguments fully deployed in Committee of the whole House or in Grand Committee should not be repeated at length on report. In clause three, amendment one Baroness Brinton.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I want to thank the Minister and her officials for her helpful meetings between committee helpful meetings between committee and Report stage and correspondence as well. I have relayed my as well. I have relayed my amendment at committee, which places restrictions to parental responsibility in amendment one, as responsibility in amendment one, as well as signing Lord Meston amendments two and three, which I support. I listened very carefully to the noble Lady, the Minister, and was grateful to be able to discuss the matter with her.

And we do thank the government for recognising that there must be a clear position on when convicted offenders of child sex abuse abuse lose their parental rights. Because, my Lords, it has been iniquitous that parental rights have trumped the safeguarding of children, even when the person with parental rights has been convicted of child sexual abuse. However, we aren't convinced that this is strong enough, and amendment one includes all convicted child sexual abusers. And my Lords, this is not about the punishment of the offender.

This is about protecting all children. The organisation we stand told us that research from Centre of Expertise for Child Sex Abuse shows that natural parents are the highest offending group of intrafamilial child sex abuse, which accounts for two thirds of offences and as a result, children of convicted child sex offenders are at the most risk. Any non abusing or protective parent has a legal duty to protect their child from any child sex offender, and at any level of offending.

Too many have to fight the Family Court assumption about the rights of a parent, even one who is a convicted child sex abuse offender. Everything is stacked against the protective parent, little or no legal aid to fight to protect their children, no right to know where the offender is, which also means court papers cannot be served to them. They have no right to the rehabilitation or risk assessments of the offender. And that is also extraordinary. How can they comment on them or ask for assessments to be made? So contrast that with the offender, who has the right to make multiple applications to vary or overturn protective orders, and to make repeated requests for contact with the children.

And this is especially problematic in households where there has also been coercive control and domestic abuse. As repeated requests continue the abuse. But too often the family courts have seen it only through the eyes of the offending parent, trying to assert their rights. Judges and other authorities, such as social services and cafcass, are forced into a legislative anomaly. They must balance potential harm to a child from a convicted sex abuser parent, with legislation stating that both parents involvement in the child's life further welfare further supports the welfare of that child.

This leads to inconsistent outcomes even if the presumption is repealed. This fundamental belief is still enshrined in the Introduction and Guidance to the Children Act 1989. Key principles. Children of a child sexual abusing parent are often at greater risk than other children, who are automatically protected by criminal restrictions, such as sexual harm prevention orders and registration requirements. And my Lords, on a technical point, the serious sexual offences listed in schedule FCA, one of the Victims and Courts Bill include both indecent imagery offences and contact offences.

Imagery offences have a minimum sentence of a community order, and this means that we could well argue that section three serious offences could be triggered at any sentencing threshold. However, the majority of sentences for indecent imagery tend to fall between three months and a year, and sentencing guidelines for contact offences started a minimum of one year. Those convicted of these offences would be excluded from the government's proposal in clause three. So my Lord, surely for safeguarding reasons, now is the time to change the legal responsibility for the offending parent having to prove why they are safe, to exercise parental responsibility through rehabilitation courses and, of course, assessment by professionals.

But the position of the court must surely start with the assumption of the protection of the child, not the rights of the offender parent. I beg to move. I beg to move.
15:28
15:29
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
offences against a child. The bill is currently drafted requires the Crown Court to prohibit convicted offenders from exercising parental responsibility, and it does so by requiring that the court makes an requiring that the court makes an order. When the court sentences the offender. However, this would not offender. However, this would not and does not cover children convicted offenders who are born after the sentencing hearing. As the current law stands, a convicted child sex offender could still acquire parental responsibility automatically for a child after sentencing, even one day after sentencing, leaving the mother and child unprotected from controlling or obstructive interference by the convicted father.

Now, my Lords, one accepts that many of the convicted fathers in such cases might not automatically acquire parental responsibility because they are not married to the mother. And it's very unlikely that the mother would then agree that the father's inclusion should actually be put onto the birth certificate. However, if the father and mother were married and were still married to each other at the time of the child's birth, the father would automatically acquire parental responsibility. And to change that, under current law, the mother would have to apply to the Family court on notice to the father.

This amendment would ensure that children born after conviction have the same level of protection that, as the Bill intends to provide to children born before the the offender is sentenced and this amendment would remove the offenders eligibility for parental responsibility at birth, but would preserve his ability to apply later to the family court where the child's best interests remain. The test. The important point is this would not leave it to the mother to have to apply to the family court herself, as would currently be the case, and it is relevant to both clause three and clause four of the bill.

As a child may be conceived out of rape, but may not be born until after the offender has been sentenced. The duty to notify the local authority under the proposed new section ten in clause four, under the current wording of the bill, does not apply to a child who has not yet been born. I now move to amendment three. Current bail arrangements allow police and courts to impose conditions to prevent re-offending or interference with victims and witnesses, but children are rarely included, raising concerns that fathers accused of rape and serious sexual offences can manipulate, intimidate or coercively control their children or their children's mothers.

This amendment would add an automatic condition that bail granted to a person accused of Rousseau would prohibit direct or indirect contact with any of the accused children. Current bail arrangements under the act 1976 allow police and courts to impose conditions to prevent re-offending or interference with victims and witnesses, and although children affected by domestic abuse are recognised as victims under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, they are rarely included in bail conditions, even when their parent is accused of rape or other rape and serious sexual offences.

The proposed. These are related and growing concerns that fathers accused of these sorts of offences retain direct or indirect contact with their children, potentially enabling witness intimidation, manipulation or coercive control of the mother. The proposed amendment would require that whenever bail is granted to a person accused of one of these offences, an automatic condition must be imposed prohibiting direct or indirect contact with any of the accused children. This would help guarantee the children's protection from witness tampering and the children's parent from intimidation and coercion.

I beg to move.
15:33
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her amendment number one. This addresses the issue of thresholds proposed in this bill. As she knows, we on this benches have similarly expressed concern about the current threshold proposed in the Bill. This restricts the effect of clause three to those offenders sentenced to four years or more. Given the evident consensus against the current threshold, we on this side look forward to the Minister's response. Turning next to amendments two and three, now moved by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, these are of Liverpool.

These amendments raise interesting and entirely reasonable points, revealing potential gaps in the present legislation. So I look forward again to what the Minister will have to say. This brings me to amendment four in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Keen of Ealing. This seeks to extend the safeguarding framework in clause three, so it applies to those convicted of the most serious child cruelty. And I emphasise the word cruelty offences, not just sexual offences. It should be noted that in respect of the Crime and Policing Bill, we understand that the government have tabled a new schedule.

This lists child cruelty offences, taking the step to treat sex offenders and child cruelty offenders. Analogously, our amendment uses the very same definition of child cruelty, so it is wholly consistent with the government's thinking. My Lords, our amendment only seeks. The government only asks the government to take the same stance in this bill to ensure that the parental responsibility of offenders is restricted where serious child cruelty has been committed. If the government is not inclined to support this, we ask why.

I ask the House again regarding parental responsibility. Why should our approach to a child who has suffered cruelty differ to cases where a child has been sexually assaulted? I look forward to the noble Baroness. The Minister's response? Thank you.
15:35
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. The government >> My Lords. The government appreciates that this group of amendments is driven by a desire to safeguard the children, who are, safeguard the children, who are, quite rightly, at the centre of these difficult and sensitive cases. As I said at Committee stage, this As I said at Committee stage, this aim is one I share. My Lords, I want to begin with amendment two in the names of the noble Lords Lord Meston and Lord Russell, and the noble Lady Baroness Brinton.

This seeks to apply our proposed parental responsibility measures to as yet unborn children. There are complexities to this because there are three distinct groups of as yet unborn children who would be caught by this measure. These are as follows. First, a child who has been conceived as the result of the rape of the victim by the defendant, but who is as yet unborn at the date of sentence. Secondly, a child who's been conceived but is as yet unborn when their father is sentenced to a sentence of four years or more imprisonment for a child sex offence.

And thirdly, a child will be conceived at some point in the future, but has not yet been conceived, and different considerations apply in relation to each. We thank the noble Lords and the noble Lady for their amendment, because in the course of our consideration of it, we have realised that an unborn child who has been conceived as a result of rape is not covered by clause four as currently drafted, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Russell, referred as my hon. Friend, Minister David Jones, said in the other place, there are safeguards in place through the Family Court which could restrict parental responsibility in these cases, but I think it is a serious gap in clause four, and I've asked my officials to look further at this and consider how we can best protect this group of children.

This is complex. I cannot address it today, here and now, but I will write to you, Lordships, with an update on this as soon as I can. The second group, to which I've already referred in outline, consists of women who are pregnant by a man. To who? By a man who at the time he is sentenced to four or more years imprisonment for a child sex offence. I appreciate, too, that these children are likely to be at the same risk as the living children for whom he already holds parental responsibility, and so, again, in relation to this category, I've asked my officials to consider what approach may be possible in these cases.

It is the third group that calls us causes us difficulties. The third group is any or all future children of someone who has received a four year sentence for a child sex offence in perpetuity. This would cover a child conceived, say, 50 years after that sentence had been imposed and served. And it's this last cohort that is the reason the government cannot accept this amendment. We cannot know the circumstances of each of what the circumstances of each case will be for future children, particularly when decades may have passed between the sentence and their birth.

And we cannot therefore be sure that we are acting in the best interests of a child who may not be conceived for many decades. Hence, by automatically preventing the offender from acquiring parental responsibility. My Lords, it's important that I restate what has already been said by the noble Lady Baroness Brinton. These measures are not an additional punishment for the offender. The point of them is to offer rapid protection to the offenders existing children, who are deemed to be at immediate risk, right there and right then in the Crown Court.

And that is why, under the government's proposals, the restrictions can and should have an automatically at the point of sentence. But a child conceived many years later is a much more complicated and challenging proposition. In general terms, the proper decision to proper place to make decisions about the welfare of future children is in the family court, and so in most cases, it is in the Family Court where these application should be determined. My Lords, as I have said before, criminal court judges do not have the training, the experience or frankly, the time to consider in each individual case whether the restriction of parental responsibility is in the best interests of that particular child.

That kind of consideration should be made by the expert and experienced judges of the family court judges, like the much respected noble Lord Lord Meston, who will have the benefit of reports from, for example, expert social workers. Forgive me. It is self-evident that this kind of determination just can't be made in advance of the child's birth, possibly many decades in advance. Finally, as the noble Lord Lord Meston and probably other noble Lords are aware, parental responsibility can be acquired in multiple ways.

And whilst it may be the noble Lords intention that this amendment should only apply to parents who automatically acquire parental responsibility, it would not prevent an unmarried father from obtaining parental responsibility for future children by being named on the birth certificate, if the mother wished to do so. My Lords, it is a fact that not all mothers accept the guilt of their partners, even post conviction and sentence. So this would create a situation in which some offenders would never acquire parental responsibility for a future child without a separate order being made, whilst others could.

And that would be a significant inconsistency in the law, which we cannot accept. So for these reasons, my Lords, we cannot accept this amendment. But again, I do thank your Lordships for bringing to my attention the cases where the mother is pregnant at the time of sentencing. Those as yet unborn children require protection and we will look at how best to do so. My Lords, I now turn to amendment three, also in the name of the noble Lord Lord Meston, but spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Russell.

This amendment seeks to create mandatory bail conditions preventing defendants from contacting children for whom they hold parental responsibility whilst they are under investigation or awaiting trial on bail. My Lords, we all want to ensure children are protected when a parent has been accused of a serious sexual offence, but the government cannot accept this amendment. The existing legislation already provides the police and courts with the powers to emboss robust, impose robust bail conditions. These can include requirements not to have any unsupervised access to children, and not to live and sleep at an address with children living there.

And it is absolutely standard for there to be a condition not to contact prosecution witnesses, which would of course include children in a case where those children are giving evidence against them. And if there's a real danger to witnesses or to children, then it's very likely that bail will be refused. But in the real world, there will be some cases in which there plainly is no risk to the suspects children. So to remove the judge's discretion would probably be incompatible with article eight.

My Lords, as the law stands at present, there are no mandatory bail conditions for any of any kind, for any type of offence. So to start introducing them would restrict the discretion of the police and courts to apply conditions on a case by case basis to address real risks. It would also interfere with the presumption of innocence and the presumption of entitlement to bail, both of which underpin our criminal justice system. This amendment also seeks to impose a condition which would require the accused to disclose the nature of any bail conditions imposed whilst they are under investigation, whilst on trial to the Family Courts, if they are existing children.

Proceedings. But the Joint Protocol on the Disclosure of Information between Family and Criminal Justice Agencies and Jurisdictions already provides a clear framework for sharing of information, so there is no need for such a statutory provision. For these reasons, I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I now turn to amendment one in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton. I've had a number of very useful conversations with the noble Lady, whom I greatly admire, and I understand the aim of this amendment, I think, and I hope that she understands, that I share her wish to protect as many children as possible.

But, my Lords, clause three is not a marker for when parental responsibility should be restricted. It is about when such a restriction should happen automatically at the point of sentence. That is to say, without the usual consideration by the Family Court. Forgive me any individual who poses a serious risk to children should not be able to exercise parental responsibility, but to restrict it automatically. We must be absolutely certain that that restriction is in that child's best interests. The seriousness of the offences in the scope of our measure, marked by a sentence of four years or more, ensures that we can be confident in those cases that that is the case.

That's not to say that an offender who has committed sexual offences against children, but has received a lower sentence, one of less than four years imprisonment, cannot or should not have their parental responsibility restricted. In some cases, that's exactly what should happen. But then an application to restrict parental responsibility can be made to the family courts in exactly the same way as it can now, which will consider all the circumstances of the case and make a decision in the child's best interests.

I turn now to amendment four in the names of the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst, which seeks to introduce an automatic restriction on the exercise of parental responsibility for offenders convicted of child cruelty and sentenced to four years or more imprisonment. My Lords, the government believes that the aim of this amendment is a sound and principled one. One child cruelty offences are heinous, and we all wish to protect as many children as possible. And so we of course understand why the noble and learned Lord seeks to extend the government's measures.

But, my Lords, these new provisions in this bill are novel and untested, and we do need to understand how the current measures we are proposing will work in practice before we consider expanding them any further. We do not know, for example, how many offenders will apply to the family courts to seek to vary or discharge the prohibited steps order that is made automatically at the Crown Court, and therefore we do not know the impact this will have on the Family courts.

We cannot take the risk of overwhelming the family courts with an influx of cases arising from the new automatic restriction, the Family Courts are involved in difficult cases every day, and it's important that any changes we make don't delay those cases and thereby put other vulnerable children who are already in the system at risk. We are going to monitor how these provisions operate. Once they are implemented, officials are going to develop a system which allows us to understand the impact they are having, how they work in practice, and how they can be improved.

But my Lords, we should be cautious and not expand these measures further. Without this insight and understanding. There are already existing routes for child cruelty cases to apply for the restriction of parental responsibility. For these reasons, I urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment. Finally, and not on the subject of these amendments, but on a related subject, I would like to take this opportunity to update your Lordships House about the implementation of section 18 of the Victims and Prisoners Act, 2024, commonly known as Jade's Law.

I am pleased to restate the government's firm commitment to bringing these important measures into force, and I am glad to be able to announce now when Jade's law will commence. Can I just add a caveat? The reason it's complicated is because delivering this legislation requires a substantial and carefully coordinated programme of work. It will require secondary legislation, which in all probability will include amendments to both the Criminal Procedure Rules and the Family Procedure Rules, updates to judicial guidance, and significant significant procedural and training changes across the police, the legal profession, local authorities, CPS, HMCTS, Cafcass, Kafka's and the Prison Service.

This body of work takes time. So the officials gave me the date of 6th of April 2027 for the implementation. Due to the scale of the task and the steps that will need to occur between laying the commencement, Statutory Instrument and commencement. But I was concerned that that was too far away. And so I have good news. I'm very grateful to officials in the Ministry of Justice who have made a huge effort, and as a result, I am delighted to say that the implementation date has been brought forward and is planned for the end of December 2026.
15:48
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I want to thank everyone who has spoken during this everyone who has spoken during this fairly short debate, but I think we have managed to get the essence of the issues that were remaining from Committee stage. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lady, the grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, in her explanation about the children born by rape and conceived Pre-sentencing, and I really welcome her comments on that. And I think from across the House, we want to thank the noble Lady, the Minister and the government for delivering on Jade's law, and we're not quite there yet.

At the end of the year, given there is a considerable amount of work to do. I think everyone across the house accepts that's the case. More important to get it right when it actually starts on my amendment, amendment one, I understand exactly the points that the noble Lady makes, and this goes to the heart of this set of amendments. I spoke about the difficulty still between the criminal court system and the family court system, and why children are falling between the gaps.

I accept, and I will not I will not call a division on my amendment, and I accept these issues. But I'm really hoping that the government will be able to bring forward a bill where we can discuss both the family courts and the criminal courts and actually get some understanding and change on these very sensitive and difficult issues of safeguarding children. I beg to withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment two. Lord Russell did not move. Amendment three Lord Russell move. Amendment three Lord Russell not moved. Amendment four Lord Sandhurst not moved. Amendment five Baroness Brinton.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Brinton. My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, for her helpful meeting between her helpful meeting between committee and Report stage, and as a result of her concerns about the practicalities of summing up for victims, I've amended my amendment five following discussion with others outside your Lordships House from these benches, I want to say again that both the previous government and the present government undertook the pilot scheme to provide victims with judge's sentencing remarks, and that is encouraging that this pilot scheme will now be rolled out across England and Wales.

It is certainly better than nothing at all. At Committee stage, I argued that there are a number of reasons why sentencing remarks alone might not, well not provide the help that a victim needs. Whether this is information to explain what's happened, when they may not have been present, or to give them an understanding that it might help them to lead to closure after whatever the incident was, or it might help them to decide whether or not to challenge the sentence as an unduly lenient one.

The subject of the last group on this Report stage later today. So yesterday I submitted a revised amendment which deletes the summings up and replaces them with the route to verdict. Those I discussed it with said that this has to be done anyway, and it should be cost free, as it will be produced as part of the court process for others, and should provide victims with an extra understanding of what has happened and why. And that cost free is very important because of course, at committee we heard of the extraordinary amounts of money that some victims have been asked to pay when they've asked for transcripts of courts, court hearings.

And that could in one case, I think it was quoted at £7,000. My Lords, that is too much. So I'm grateful that the Minister says the Ministry of Justice will look at how technology can be harnessed in the future to ensure that victims are not charged thousands of pounds. If they need to see a full transcript or even a partial one. And I will hold the noble Lady to that in the future. Amendment five also says that the victim should be informed about bail conditions, and this is important, especially if there is a restriction placed on the defendant from not approaching the victim.

Too often, victims are not told of bail conditions. We know they should be, but they are not, which can cause chaos, especially when changed at short notice and without the knowledge of the victim. Amendment 16, laid by Lord keen, sets a framework and timescale for the publication online of sentencing remarks, and we would hope that if this is accepted, the government would also undertake to ensure that the victim is told as soon as they go up online. The amendment also says that the victim must be aware that they have the right to request anonymity.

Now, I believe that this is already covered in the rights of victims set out in the victims code for the entirety of the process, and not just at the end, but it's helpful. It is clearly stated here. I beg to move. Amendment five.
15:52
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed. After clause seven, the following new clause is printed on the Marshalled List. My printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords, amendment five in the name of the noble Lady. Baroness Brinton does, of course, reflect a commitment to ensuring victims are entitled to free transcripts on the route to verdict and bail decisions and conditions that are relevant to their case. And at committee, we supported the broader amendment, which included sentencing remarks as well are on the amendment now before us, which includes transcripts of the route to verdict.

Our position has not changed. If anything were even more supportive. And I am grateful to the noble Lady, the Baroness, for bringing this matter to report, my Lord. Similarly, amendment 16, in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, is also designed to enhance access to important transcripts without charge, at this time focusing on sentencing remarks. I will not rehearse the arguments and evidence for this, as I think we've all heard. The benefits of this are and how it would help the interests of victims, and indeed underlines our open justice system.

We have listened carefully and after further thought, have revised the amendment we brought forward at Committee stage. Whilst we have not changed our position on this amendment, focusing on sentencing remarks, the amendment now gives the relevant victims the right to anonymity rather than non-publication. And in addition, it still requires the court to make victims aware of this right before sentencing remarks are published. With this crucial and indeed pragmatic safeguard in place, we hope that the House finds this to be a well-considered and indeed reasonable amendment which focuses on how this will work in practice, and not only on the principle of transparency, on which I believe we are all agreed.

In these circumstances, I would intend to test the opinion of the House with test the opinion of the House with respect to amendment 16.
15:55
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lady Baroness Brinton and the noble Lady Baroness Brinton and the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst for their constructive engagement. About the subject of court transcripts over recent weeks, as the noble Lord noble and learned Lord Low Lord Keen has said, there is nothing between us as far as the principle of increased transparency of criminal court proceedings is concerned. As your Lordships will know, the government recently announced that we are going to be providing free transcripts of sentencing remarks for victims whose cases are heard in the Crown Court.

It's one of the provisions of the Sentencing Act. Delivering this new entitlement is a significant operational undertaking. It's essential that we get it right so that victims can receive the information they need in a timely way. But these new proposals in the amendments tabled in this group, taken either individually or together, would put that commitment under strain. I begin with amendment five in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, who wants to include an entitlement to transcripts of bail decisions and the route to verdict.

My Lords, the first. There are two difficulties with this. As far as the transcripts of bail conditions, bail decisions are concerned. This would involve extra resource. Transcripts are not free and producing even those from short hearings, if extended across England and Wales, would be expensive. The second is that it would not provide significant benefits over and above the systems already in place. My Lords, as far as bail conditions are concerned, transcripts are rarely informative for victims. They usually just set out the decision whether judge either says bail granted and lifts the conditions or bail refused, with rarely any kind of reasoned judgement.

And as I've said, it would come with cost implications. And under the victims code, victims already have the right to be informed of bail outcomes and and release conditions. We recognise that when information is not provided in a timely and consistent way, this can cause distress and anxiety for victims and add to what is already a difficult experience. And the experience is spoken to at Committee stage by the noble Lady are clearly not what we expect or wish, and nor are they, as I am pleased to say, the norm.

And we are currently exploring how responsibilities under the Victims Code are being met by the relevant service providers and how better to support them in the delivery of the code. We are also going to seek victims views on access to forgive me to bail information, and whether the current processes are working correctly through the ongoing Victims Code consultation. To strengthen this further, the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 will introduce a compliance framework requiring criminal justice bodies to keep their delivery of the code under review, so the legislation needed to drive improvement in notifying victims of bail conditions is already in place.

Because this amendment arrived a relatively short while ago yesterday, I've not had an opportunity to discuss the question of routes to verdict with the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, but I think it's possible she may have been misinformed about what a route to verdict is and what it consists of, because it's our view that a route to verdict is also unlikely to add significant, or indeed any value for victims. It's usually a very short document. In most trials, it typically is about ten lines long.

Very rarely would a route to verdict be longer than two pages. It sets out a few questions that the jury should ask themselves in private, when they're applying the law to the facts of the case. But the jury never gives its answers to those questions, because we don't have reasoned judgements in criminal trials. So the victim is not going to be any wiser as to what the answers were. They will simply know the questions that were asked. These routes to verdict are almost always unless the print is broken, provided to the jury in hard copy.

So transcript isn't needed and would add nothing. The noble Lady also raised concerns at Committee stage about victims being asked to leave the courtroom after giving evidence. And this, I agree with her, is a real issue. I agree this should not happen and I want to give the noble Lady my assurance that I will work with the appropriate officials to ensure that victims understand that they are generally entitled to remain in court if they wish to do so, and that arrangements such as the use of screens or remote observations, that they can't be seen and they don't have to see the person that they accuse, can be made in some, if not all, circumstances.

My Lords, this is a practical and immediate step that we hope will make a real difference to victims experience without requiring further legislation. I turn now to amendment 16, in the name of the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst, requiring the Crown Court to publish transcripts of sentencing remarks within 14 days of a request for such remarks being made. My Lords publishing sentencing remarks online is significantly more resource intensive than simply providing them to the victim.

Public release demands a higher standard of anonymisation to remove both direct and indirect identifiers of victims and witnesses. What is known as jigsaw identification, where a number of apparently innocuous pieces of information when put together, particularly by people who have, for example, some knowledge of the local area, can in fact identify the victim. Even the location where a shop is something like that. If there are people around who could tell them who the victim is doing, that kind of anonymization is detailed and skilled work.

Current AI based tools cannot reliably carry out anonymization for the complex and sensitive material heard in the criminal courts, and the cost of getting it wrong is profound. It requires trained staff manually to review each transcript, and research suggests it takes around 45 minutes of staff time to review. Every hour of a transcript before publication is possible. That means that even a modest increase in publication volumes would create disproportionate pressures on in operational capacity in the Crown courts that cannot take any further pressure.

Furthermore, requiring the court to make the victim aware of their right to request anonymity to make the appropriate redactions, and then publish the transcript online within 14 days of any request is just not viable. My Lords, our priority must be delivering sentencing remarks for victims as set out in the Sentencing Act properly and at pace, before taking on any further changes that could undermine or delay that work. Finally, I would like to reassure your Lordships that we have listened to what we said at Committee stage and work is already underway to improve the transcripts application process to make the system more accessible for all users.

Again, thank you Lordships for raising these important issues. We all agree about the principle of transparency. The only issue between us is the best way to deliver it. We believe these issues can be and are being addressed through non-legislative means. And I ask all noble Lords if they're content to withdraw their amendments. Thank you.
16:02
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Very grateful to Lord King and the noble Lady, the Minister, for their contributions. And I thank Lord Keen. >> For her.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Support of our amendment five. And we on our benches absolutely agree that his amendment does help agree that his amendment does help the interests of victims right to anonymity. And we're very grateful for that. And as he said, it's practical. And I think I want to preface my reply to the Minister by saying what we are seeking through these amendments is ensuring that the problems that victims have at the moment are resolved, and the difficulty that we have is being told it's all too expensive and it's all too difficult and it's all too complicated.

And I have been sitting in your Lordships House for probably at least six years getting that sort of response. Victims are very grateful for the pilot that's gone through on on the sentencing notes. But the issue is that there are other things that victims need to here. We appreciate there are significant issues that need to be evolved, but it was only through pressure from your Lordships House during the Victims and Prisoners Bill that we got the pilot that is now being rolled out.

So I'm really hoping that we can convince the government that they should be doing another pilot to look at at least some of the issues that either my amendment or Lord Keen amendment tackles, because we believe that to be important. However, my Lords, in the meantime, because we think that this is just too far in the future, I would like to test the opinion of the House EA.
16:03
None Portrait Division
-

Question is that amendment five be agreed to? As many as of that be agreed to? As many as of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The question will be decided by a division. I will be decided by a division. I will alert the House when voting is will alert the House when voting is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, the My Lords, the question My Lords, the question is My Lords, the question is that amendment five be agreed to. As amendment five be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content, not content contents not content, not content contents will go to the right by the throne,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To To find To find out To find out what To find out what it To find out what it is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, the My Lords, the question, My Lords, the question, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the question, the question is that amendment five be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because. Because. Accomplished.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted contents 273, not contents 180. So My My Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment six Lord Hacking. I stand.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand. To move amendment six in my name, and I'm very happy also to disclose and I'm very happy also to disclose that I am being supported by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, who's been kind enough also to sign who's been kind enough also to sign my amendment. My note I think it would be helpful if I began by would be helpful if I began by telling your Lordships the major features of modern slavery. It affects principally, my Lords,
16:15
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
those in the agricultural industry, domestic employment, and in the domestic employment, and in the provision of sexual services. It impacts mainly on immigrant labour. Immigrants are brought to this Immigrants are brought to this country by their exploiters. In the case of sexual offences, it will be case of sexual offences, it will be by their pimp, and when here they continue to be controlled by their continue to be controlled by their explorer, having to give, for example, a portion of their earnings to the exploiter.

I think it is also be helpful if I explained what the role of the victim navigator their role, my Lord, is to protect the victim, particularly in the prosecution process. There are often former police officers who understand the processes to which the victim is subject in gaining the confidence of the victim, they gain most valuable information which leads to, or can lead to the prosecution of the exploiter in sexual. In the provision of sexual services, this will be the prosecution of the pimp relating, for example, to sexual services.

We must understand the scale of the problem and the current increase in sexual exploitations. My Lords, the figures are difficult to obtain, but it has been estimated for the years 2020 to 2025. That has been an increase in sexual exploitation of women by 86%. That's from 114 victims to 2076. My Lords, there also has been it has been estimated there's been a 61% increase in the exploitation of girls. And I understand that to be those women who were under the age of 18 years, my Lords, sex is provides and this is very alarming, a very big market in the internet for those assessing the, the, the adult as w as as they are called, they can be currently found, they can can they can currently be found 63,000 listings for women.

And these sites attract. And this is another awful figure. These sites are. Visited by no less than 41.7 million visitors. My Lords that are in committee Baroness Goldie and I don't see her present an amendment in the House that move this amendment. I wasn't in committee. I wasn't able to be there. My Lord, it's important, I think, to remind your Lordships of the major points that that Baroness Carberry made. She referred to the House of Lords modern slavery report, which I hold in my hand, which was so ably chaired by my noble men friend Baroness O'Grady, and she I don't see her either in the chamber, and she cited paragraph 46 on page 77, which was the conclusion of our Modern Slavery Committee report, which reads, victim navigators should be rolled out nationally.

The objective must be there, available in all cases. So that's the conclusion, my Lords, that we've reached in our Modern Slavery Committee report. She also drew attention to the benefit, that economic benefit of which is provided by the use of victim navigators. And it was estimated that the gain, the financial gain for each single victim who benefited from it. From this process, the process of victim navigators present. She also cited My Lords, the chief executive of the Gangsters and Labour Abuse Authority, who stated as follows that means there are better able and that's in reference to the to the victims.

That means that they're better able to help. And it also helps us when we are taking people into court because they understand the process better, they understand how to engage and they feel supported. It has made a big difference to us. The other compliment came from a defective, a defective, not a defective. A detective sergeant in the Metropolitan Police who commented as follows I'm in no doubt that a dangerous predator would not have deceived a 31 year jail sentence without the support of justice and care.

I made the police investigation into the case and think that the victim navigators work was nothing short of exceptional. My Lords, that I think it's important that that, and I certainly am citing Baroness Gohir. I think it's a very important that we understand my knowledge I should. Turn now to the government response. And I just read it to your Lordships. So no, I haven't made it to your Lordships. I'm just about to do so.

The government response to our committee report reads as follows. The government recognises, and this is the Home Office response. The government recognises the importance of supporting victims to engage the criminal justice system and the positive impact and independent support worker working alongside the Lord Faulks can have on securing this engagement and the government goes further. Response goes on as follows. The government is keen to build on this research that's referring to the Victim Navigators research. Working in partnership with NGOs and law enforcements to identify how best support victims engage with the criminal justice system.

So the Home Office, certainly as far as our report is concerned, came out into a positive position. My Lords, the independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner supports this amendment. That's Miss Eleanor Lance and indeed the Minister, my my learned friend, my noble friend, the Minister very kindly met her last week on Thursday. So she's heard directly from no less a person than the anti-slavery Commissioner. Her views on this amendment. I refer to the first annual report that the Commissioner gave.

It was only came out a few days ago, and I hold it in my hand. And I refer to this report because she stated in the foreword to the report that as follows. Modern slavery is still with us. It lurks in the shadows, hidden in industries, supply chains, and even in our neighbourhoods. The victims in rural communities as well as well as big cities continue to suffer in silence. So in short, my Lords, this continues to be a major matter of concern.

My Lords asked me to get back to my notes. And I just have to say of this report, which I am holding in my hand from a very small office, it's quite remarkable. 58 page report identifying the commissioners to Plan of Preventing protection and prosecution. My Lords, that just to summarise the importance of victim navigators, I refer to the most recent survey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I invite the noble Lord to move his amendment, as he's now been speaking for ten minutes. I think I'm allowed 15 minutes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I'm allowed 15 minutes, my Lords. No. Ten minutes. Oh, I'm sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ten minutes. Oh, I'm sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ten minutes. Oh, I'm sorry. It's 15 minutes. Yes. Right. But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's 15 minutes. Yes. Right. But the the as I was just saying that that the Commissioner summarised in this excellent report the, the her strategy and it's the protection of victims and 724 have been supported. It's the as a result of the activities of the victim navigators, 420 police investigations have taken place. 74 convictions resulted in a total period of imprisonment. Of all those convicted of 522 years. Now, I do recognise that modern slavery is under the remit of the Home Office and not the Department of Justice, and this inevitably restricts my noble friend, the Minister, and what help she can provide.

So if the Minister cannot accept this amendment, could she kindly convey to her colleagues in the Home Office the strong views which I have expressed and I hope others will express in this short debate? The Home Office did very well, my Lords, in, in, in, in introducing in 2015 the Modern Slavery Act, which put us in the forefront internationally of anti anti-slavery legislation. But they did slip up and slip up rather badly.

And this was I that identified in the, in the independent I think in January 24th, which had a headline Commissioner Modern slavery no longer home Office priority. My Lords there was also a very serious failure by the Home Office in leaving the post of the Commissioner for Anti-Slavery vacant, for, in the words of Miss Lyons, a staggering 20 months. This point was taken up with as a point of criticism in our select committee report. So could the Minister, if nothing else, get go to the Home Office.

That and sorry, I more than get the Home Office to start paying attention to the modern slavery and its problems. I beg to move.
16:28
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause seven. Insert the new clause printed on the Marshalled List. It's a pleasure to support the noble Lord Lord Hacking, especially when he's so right on an issue. This is an interesting group, actually, and clearly the government is going to have a choice of routes to actually increase human rights for victims, because we need a justice system that puts victims first. And we have to understand that many, particularly in the cases we're talking about, are frightened, they're traumatised and very much deserving of care because for many survivors, the moment they come to the attention of the authorities isn't a moment of relief.

It's actually a moment of fear and confusion. They may have been controlled, threatened, abused for months or years. They may not trust the police. Many of us don't. They may not speak English and may be terrified of what will happen next. And in those moments, survivors are asked to engage with an intimidating criminal justice system and to relive traumatic experiences, often without truly understanding what is happening or why. Too many fall away from investigations not because they're unwilling to help, but because the process feels overwhelming, frightening, and isolating.

Victim navigators exist to meet people at that point of fear and vulnerability. They provide a trusted person who stays with the victim, explains what is happening, listens to their concerns, and helps them feel safe enough to continue. What makes victim navigators so special is their unique position. They're situated within police forces, which means they can be present when victims are first found, including during raids on sites of exploitation. Survivors can receive clear, accurate information and at the same time, victim navigators are also independent of the police.

That independence matters enormously to survivors who may have been harmed by authority figures in the past, or who feel fear. Retaliation. Navigators are trusted because their loyalty is to the person in front of them. This amendment reflects what survivors themselves have told us. Works the victim navigate a programme from Justice and Care has helped people stay engaged with investigations, feel less alone and begin to recover their sense of dignity. And of course, it also frees up police time and reduces costs.

So I, I would like to urge the Minister to, to accept this amendment so that compassion, trust and continuity aren't dependent on postcode or on charity funding. I think that keeps me well within my ten minutes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'd like to speak to amendment seven in my name and thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell and my noble friend Lord Farmer for supporting. It is the government's own intention with this bill to, and I quote, strengthen support for victims and deliver a justice system that puts the needs of system that puts the needs of victims first. These are crucial aims, ones which I wholeheartedly aims, ones which I wholeheartedly support. However, I do not see how it can achieve such goals without addressing the concerning lack of specialist support services available to victims and survivors of abuse and exploitation across our country, something the bill is notably silent upon and therefore I urge the government to accept amendment seven.

The amendment proposes to introduce a duty on local agencies to commission specialist support services for victims of abuse, which would help to put a stop to victims and survivors being denied their right to access support. It is backed by 16 charities who work every day with victims of exploitation and abuse. This is an urgent issue. Every year, millions of victims and survivors suffer horrific abuse and exploitation, including sexual abuse, domestic abuse, stalking and many other forms of harm.

These are staggering numbers. We can't ignore them yet. Right now, the amount of support services available don't come close to matching the scale of abuse and exploitation. Support services are vital for enabling victims and survivors to process what they have experienced and begin and begin to to move on with their lives. My Lords, the lack of provision has left victims and survivors facing a postcode lottery of access to support less than 1 in 10 women and 1 in 10 children who have experienced experienced domestic abuse are currently receiving support from a refuge or a community based support service.

Similarly, according to the centre for Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, there are estimated 55,000 adults and children in England and Wales who are currently on waiting lists for child sexual abuse support services. There are just 363 services remaining across the whole of England and Wales, providing the necessary specialist support, which leaves an estimated and frankly unworkable, 16,500 victims and survivors for each service. Additionally, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust has found that less than 1% of all stalking victims are supported by specialist stalking advocates.

Due to limited capacity and funding. We cannot allow this undeniable trend of patchwork provision to go on, my Lords. And whilst I welcome the recent announcement in the government's freedom from violence and abuse strategy of funding for victim services, including the roll out of child houses for young victims of child sexual abuse. According to the sector, this will simply not be enough to address the current gaps in provision and in addition, too often of this kind of funding gets diverted from specialist care to more generic services that simply lack the knowledge to support survivors in their time of need.

And I must emphasise that the specialism of these services is crucial to their success. Specialist service, my Lords, are best placed to provide the wraparound support that survivors need, and instead of leaving victims to be passed around from service to service, having to retell their stories often not being believed, specialist Victim Support understands the needs of survivors and ensures that they get the right care and support when they need it most. Support specialism is not a luxury for survivors, it is a necessity and without a statutory imperative to commission these services and clarity on what organisations should be funded, specialist community based service will continue to go under commission and the support available to victims and survivors further diluted.

We not only have a moral duty to ensure victims and survivors receive these services, it is their right under the Victims Code of Practice, a right which countless victims are currently being denied. Now, recent government activity has made it clear that they know commissioning. Commissioning is in desperate need of reform. And with the announcement of the abolition of police and Crime commissioners, police reform, White Paper and the actions committed to improving commissioning in the freedom from violence and abuse strategy, now, I would argue, is the crucial time to reshape our commissioning landscape into one that works for victims and survivors.

To do this, there must be clear systems in place that guarantee victims and survivors the support they are entitled to, no matter where they live. We need to seize this opportunity we have in front of us to ensure that we will not only preserve current provision for victims, but make the system better for all. And in conclusion, it is a simple and harrowing fact that our commissioning system is letting victims down. We as a country have allowed this dearth in services to go on for far too long, and we owe it to the victims and the survivors to act with urgency to rectify our current failings.

By doing so, we can work together towards ensuring that every victim of abuse and exploitation has guaranteed access to the specialist therapeutic support that they are owed, and I urge the government to incorporate this in the bill.
16:36
16:37
16:37
16:37
Lord Farmer Portrait Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
-
put their victims front and centre. About a year ago we were discussing child rape gangs in this house, and child rape gangs in this house, and I flagged to the noble Minister, Baroness Anderson, how the recent tragic news of the death of Virginia Guiffre demonstrates the long term effects of child sexual abuse. I declared at that time my interest that my sister had actually suffered serious sexual abuse as a young girl, and thereafter, for the rest of her life, she suffered long term depressive and self-destructive effects.

I mentioned this again simply to explain why I have signed this amendment. We can say victims that should be at the forefront, but without taking action. This could sound very much like virtue signalling. Now I understand my Lords and my noble friend Lord Pollock has highlighted it. Specialist domestic abuse and other trauma focussed services, particularly those supporting child victims of sexual abuse, have very high waiting lists and where counsellors with the necessary expertise are practising, funding is always inadequate to the need.

I suspect, even if sufficiently high levels of money were forthcoming, that workforce shortages would become even more apparent. So may I ask the Minister if the government has done a needs analysis that would identify prevalence, the scale of the staff shortfall, how many more specialists are needed, how they could be trained, and how potential candidates could be identified. Prevalence certainly appears very high. So could all professionals interacting with victims, including teachers, nurses, GPS, police and prison officers be given appropriate training in trauma informed practice? So there was more of a whole society approach? I understand this is straying a little from Lord Polak amendment, but it does give us the opportunity to hear from the government how they will put the victims of perpetrators like Epstein and child rape gangs at the forefront, as they have promised to do.

Thank you.
16:39
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
Very happy to put my name to Lord Polak amendment, not least because he and I, every Thursday morning in the Post-legislative Scrutiny Committee for the Domestic Abuse Act, are hearing from the sector exactly what is going on and perhaps more pertinently, what is not going on. The noble Lady, the Minister like me, is a great fan of the child house approach to treating children who have had the most appalling direct physical and sexual abuse, and it demonstrates what best practice looks like.

Best practice really does make an enormous difference and is incredibly efficient, very incisive, can work very quickly. And, you know, that is partly why Her Majesty's Government has thankfully decided to roll this out throughout England to a large degree. And that is a great step forward. What we are hearing again and again, as we are taking evidence is there are examples of really, really good practice. I recognise that it is, you know, it is unrealistic to imagine that Her Majesty's Government is suddenly going to be able to find coffers bursting with money, which will enable them to enable the whole panoply of support services that one would wish victims to be able to access.

That's not going to happen. However, what I would appeal to the government to do and for the, you know, the officials of the government is to identify those examples of really good or best practice, which is making a difference, because rather than taking a blanket approach and saying we need to try and cover all support services, there are some clearly which are dramatically more effective than others. And my appeal to the government would be to really try and strategically identify those particular support services which are making a huge difference, for example, to particular areas which do make an enormous difference are the independent domestic violence advocates and the independent stalking advocates, and the proof of the pudding in both of those areas is when those individuals are involved and work with the victim from very early on.

First of all, the victims experience is transformed for the better. But secondly, and more pertinently, from the point of view of the Ministry of Justice, there is a much, much higher chance of that actually coming to court and there being a successful prosecution. So not only is it helping the victim, it is actually helping the government achieve its laudable aim to reduce violence against women and girls. So I'm not expecting the government to sort of say there's a magic wand, and Rachel Reeves is the minister's new best friend.

But what I am hoping is that a more strategic approach to identifying services similar to the lighthouse, which really, really do make a difference, could be identified more strategically and and assisted more proactively and more in a more focussed way.
16:43
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I want to focus on Lord Hacking and Baroness Jay amendment. We seem to have done a bit of mini regrouping within the group, but I checked with my noble friend Baroness Brinton and I think she'll wind up the group while introducing her own amendments. At the same time, the Minister at the last stage resisted the proposal for more victim navigators on the basis that the service is already provided. But victim navigators are quite distinct in what they do from the Salvation Army and their subcontractors.

Funded by the Home Office. As I said, I supported the amendment at committee. I did express a reservation about the ambitious six months period within which they could be rolled out. Victim navigators are co-located with police in the forces where they work. Actually, the term embedded with the police seems to be used quite often. I was a member of the Modern Slavery Act committee, and the comments on victim navigators were under the heading in our report of evidence gathering.

And I think that that describes quite a lot of what they do. The link I will try not to repeat what other noble Lords have said, but the link between support, support of the victims and the criminal justice system is their job filling a very specific gap with access to details of cases, but with the independence to build trust. So there are great value to the police, and we know how difficult it is to get convictions in this area.

The report quotes the chief executive of the Glaa, which is one of the organisations with which navigators are co-located as supporting the this their rollout and the then National Police Chiefs Council lead on modern slavery, who said that the police dearly hope they will be rolled out across the country. It was very sad, very surprising that the Minister, when we, the then Minister, when we took evidence from her, had not heard of victim navigators, Justice and Care, who developed the scheme and run it, commissioned an independent cost benefit analysis and as the noble Lord has said, it was found that one victim navigator has an economic benefit per year of just under £150,000.

I found that quite staggering, but it's what we're told. I asked justice and care why more forces don't involve victim navigators, and I was told that modern slavery and human trafficking has not been a political priority. So it's dropped down. The priorities of some police leadership. They're unwilling to pay for them. Those who work in Scotland are, in fact funded by the Scottish Government. In England. Most are funded by Justice and Care's own charitable funds.

A couple have funding or co-funding from their host agency or from their office or PCC. Finally, again, to answer the point made from the Dispatch Box at the last stage, support available under the victim Care contract does not continue throughout the case. Participation in an ongoing criminal case is not regarded as justification for ongoing support. After basic recovery. I understand the Salvation Army has a reach in service for people who are in that position, but it only gives signposts.

It doesn't reconnect the victim with a support worker. And given that the court's backlog and the increased speed of NRM decisions, victims are very likely not to receive Salvation Army support for quite a long period before the case comes to trial. So I have a question for the Minister, which is not possibly the one that you would be expecting. It's an invitation, really, assuming that her brief says resist. I know she'll interpret that as resist nicely. Would she be prepared to meet representatives of justice and care who can explain the scheme much better than I can? I checked with them this morning and the answer was we very happy to meet the Minister.

We could even host a visit with victim navigators and the police they work with, so I. I don't expect her to get her diary out now. I'll leave that with her. Turning to the noble Lord Lord Polak amendment, I think I really just want to comment on it. Personally, I have often found the best value for money in providing support comes from the third sector, which I wish were much, much better funded and generally they are specialist.

They do a lot with very little. I thought what connects police, health services and local authorities? Well, one of the things is budget or lack of. I thought that Lord farmer's phrase, a whole society approach was very, very, very apt. I think before I leave it, I should declare that I chaired the domestic violence charity refuge for many years, though, when it was in a rather different place, certainly in my early years from where it is now. But we must continue to support the need, the to pursue support for people who have been abused, exploited, victimised in the way that is coming from all the right around the house, here, here, my Lord.

This group. Lord. This group.
16:50
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Is simply entitled Victim Support. But in the discussions so finding that there is pressure from all around the House to say, could you speed that up a bit, please? My Lords, I have three amendments in this group. Amendment 11 on the provision of support for parents and carers of victims of sexual or violent offences, and then also amendments 12 and 13 on restorative justice, which I will speak to in a minute. My Lords, I've raised the problems of facing that are facing the parents and carers of some victims of sexual or violent offences on a number of occasions.

The problem is that there is a fault line in the current victims framework that doesn't understand the role of a parent. It is usually a parent or carer of a victim of sexual and violent offences, who have been traumatised by what's happened to their child. Too often, the distraught victim returns to the family and not infrequently, family members provide essential support and sometimes the trauma is so great that at least one parent has to give up work to look after their adult child.

Now, these family members provide the essential safeguarding and recovery role. Research has shown that many carers experience significant psychological, practical and financial difficulties with no support or redress at all for themselves. Now the Victims Code allows parents, guardians or carers to receive rights where the victim is a child and provides more limited recognition in cases involving vulnerable adults. In practice, these rights are framed primarily around acting on behalf of the victim, but the code does not establish a clear, standalone entitlement to support for the parent or carers own trauma, wellbeing, capacity to sustain safeguarding and unfortunately, delivery can be discretionary and inconsistent, so this amendment recognises that some parents or carers of adult victims may require some proportionate support as a consequence of the offence and justice process, and requires relevant authorities to commission and make that support available, while distinguishing caregiving support from evidential witness support.

What it does not do is create new victim categories for sentencing or compensation, and nor does it dilute the primacy of the effect on the victim or expand the isva role. And I'm very grateful for the conversation that I had with the Minister, and I do hope that she will agree to meet with Restitute, the small self-help group that is trying to help parents and carers navigate a world in which their child has been severely traumatised. The loophole in the law about not qualifying because they are witnesses is very real to them.

Amendment 12, in my name sets out the rights for a victim of an offence to make a referral to restorative justice services not only the victim, not the offender, the noble Lady, the Minister and I had a debate about that before, but the amendment is very clear. This would not put the victim at risk from being approached by the offender. An amendment 13 gives the Secretary of State a duty to report on the use of restorative justice services and laying a report before Parliament, and at Committee stage, I set out the experience of my hon.

Friend Paul Kohler MP, who was brutally attacked in his own home, witnessed by his wife and daughters. Somewhat reluctantly, they all went through a restorative justice process, which they actually found helped all of them. Now, these amendments are not general, so that's why it's important offenders would not be able to request restorative justice under them. But we also know they do help a number of offenders. There is good faith, sorry. There is also evidence to show that when offenders engage in good faith, it can be transformative for them too and reduce the rate of recidivism.

The final benefit is to society as a whole. Restorative justice works. Not only can it reduce re-offending by up to 27%, it can save society money in the future, in reduced costs in police, courts, prisons and probation services. We Liberal Democrats have championed restorative justice for many years. It's been in our manifesto for many elections, as I can remember, and we support the work of Why Me and the Common Ground Justice Project. We recognise that the criminal justice system is under considerable pressure at the moment, which is why we won't be testing the opinion of the House on any of these three amendments.

But I do hope that the Ministry of Justice might look at running a restorative justice pilot to actually assess the benefit to society, as well as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the victims and the offenders. My Lords, the important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the important amendments in this group address real issues for victims and victim real issues for victims and victim support. Amendment six in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking seeks to introduce independent victim navigators on a national basis, to act as a liaison between basis, to act as a liaison between the police and victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. The principle behind this amendment has force. Victims of these offences often face complex barriers to accessing support to navigate the criminal justice system can be daunting for those who have experienced exploitation or coercion.

This specific service is needed. The amendment reflects recommendations made by the House of Lords Committee on the Modern Slavery Act. We on these benches, therefore, hope that the government will give careful consideration to the proposal, and we look forward to hearing the Minister's response. Amendment seven in the name of my noble friend Lord Pollock, and moved so eloquently by him, echoed by my noble friend Lord farmer, and others, likewise focuses on strengthening the framework of support available to victims.

It places a duty on relevant authorities to commission both sufficient and specific services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and child criminal exploitation. The principle that victims should have access to appropriate and specialised services is widely shared across this House to ensure that support provision responds to the varied needs of victims, including children and those with particular vulnerabilities, is an important objective. Lord Polak Amendment Number seven also draws upon the recommendations made by the House of Lords Committee on the Modern Slavery Act.

It seeks to translate those recommendations into a more structured system of support. These are serious matters that have careful reflection. We hope that the government will consider the intent behind this amendment. With that in mind, amendments 11, 12 and 13 tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Brinton, address different but
16:58
16:58
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. Amendment six, in the names of my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Lady Baroness Jones, would require the government to implement modern, independent, modern slavery victim navigators within every police force in England and Wales, and it would also define their functions. The government welcomes the interest shown in modern slavery and in providing assistance to survivors, and I am grateful to my noble friend for meeting me to discuss the issue. And I was pleased to meet Eleanor Lyons, the independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner.

I have also been extended an invitation irresistibly put by the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, and I shall hope that I can respond in an equally irresistible manner by saying, of course I'll make a commitment to meeting, particularly since I think I'm committing Lord Hanson to doing so, rather than if, however, it is me, I will be delighted to meet them and indeed would be genuinely interested to do so. But my Lords, I'm sorry to disappoint Lordships government cannot accept this amendment because this clause would duplicate existing services.

So statutory funding is not an effective use of taxpayers money. But we are not saying that victim navigators who are widely valued cannot or should not be used. They are already successfully funded through the Police and Crime Commissioners and through central government grants like the Ministry of Justice's Victims Fund and charitable donations. Local areas can, of course, continue to use them. It's right that each local area should determine the value and provide funding if it is appropriate to do so. Each police force and other law enforcement bodies like the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority have the autonomy to fund a victim navigator if it is considered a necessary resource to help them carry out their functions.

In addition, it would not be right for government to specify central requirements for the modern slavery victim navigator role as would be required by this amendment. Keeping this kind of support flexible and responsive to local needs strengthens our ability to combat modern slavery and provide the right help to survivors. And in the light of this, I hope my noble friend will consider withdrawing his amendment. I turn now to amendment seven and 11, in the name of the noble Lord Polak and the noble Lady Baroness Brinton.

And may I, may I pay tribute to all of your Lordships who have spoken movingly about the importance of these kinds of services, and I am thinking particularly of the noble Lord Lord Farmer and what he said about his sister. We are all moved by hearing that kind of story, and it's important that we should continue to be reminded of this. My Lords Government entirely agrees with the objective of better supporting victims. Indeed, the government would say that we have consistently put victims absolutely at the heart of what we are and what we do, but we don't think this amendment is the best way of doing so.

We don't agree that relevant authorities should be statutorily required to commission certain support services for certain groups. Rather, we believe that improved, multi-agency working on commissioning is the best approach to address any issues with the commissioning of victim support services, and that is the way that you target the provision most effectively. The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 contains a duty to collaborate and once commenced, this will require commissioners to work together to form a better understanding of the needs of victims in their area, and this will include victims of abuse and of exploitation, and the caregivers of those victims in due course, allowing them to target resources and provision of services most effectively.

This new duty to collaborate specifically highlight highlights and requires relevant authorities to consider child victims of exploitation and abuse and victims with specific needs. Ensuring the needs of these victims are considered when services are commissioned, and this may result in the commissioning of specialist or by and for services. If commissioners decide that that is what is most needed to best meet local requirements. Furthermore, the Ministry of Justice will be investing £550 million in victim support services over the next three years.

This includes ring fenced funding for sexual violence and domestic abuse support, as well as annual grant funding via the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund to over 60 specialist organisations offering support to both adult and child victims of abuse and exploitation. And often these services will also offer support to family and caregivers of the victim, particularly where the victim is a child. The noble Lady Baroness Brinton has invited me to meet with restitution. This is an invitation I think I would be accepting on my own behalf, rather than committing somebody else to doing so, and I would be very pleased to do so.

I'm very interested. My Lords, victims of abuse and exploitation are also being supported through nationally commissioned services, including the Home Office's Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract for adults and the Independent Child Trafficking Guardian Service for children and the Ministry of Justice Commission. 24/7 Rape and Sexual abuse support line. But we do intend to go further as part of the strategy this government has. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell said, committed up to £50 million to transform support for victims of child sexual abuse through expanding the use of child houses.

I agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, says. Anybody who has visited the existing one that provides provision in London at the moment cannot fail to be deeply impressed. And I am really proud to be a member of a government that is expanding this. It's going to offer vital wraparound support to non abusing parents and carers in one physical location. So I hope that this has provided some reassurance to your Lordships that services for these victims are already considered and provided for, without the need for a specific statutory duty.

I turn now to amendments 12 and 13, in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton. I am grateful, and I mean it to the noble Lady for raising the subject of restorative justice again today, and I would like to thank her again for her recent engagement with me, and for her continued commitment to championing this important subject. As I've said before, this government is committed to the effective use of restorative justice where it's appropriate because we entirely agree that when delivered in the right circumstances, it can improve victim satisfaction, reduce reoffending and bring benefits to victims, offenders and the wider community.

Under the victims Code, victims must be informed about restorative justice and how to access it. And as part of the consultation on the new code and that consultation is currently live, we're engaging widely to ensure that victims are offered restorative justice at the right time. I very much welcome the noble Lady's contribution to the consultation, but placing referral to restorative justice for all victims on a statutory footing is neither necessary nor appropriate. The safety and welfare of those involved is paramount and automatic referral.

Certainly repeated referral is therefore not always suitable. The government already receives regular reporting from police and crime commissioners as part of the Ministry of Justice grant management process, which includes information on restorative justice. A further national assessment simply duplicate what is already in place. For these reasons, ask a noble Lady to withdraw her amendments.
17:06
17:07
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
>> My Lords. >> Noble Lords will remember the Noble and learned. >> Lord Lord Garnier moving his amendment in the terms of the amendment now moved in committee, and he is indeed the mover of this amendment of this Report stage. However, he's unable to be here today, and he has asked me and the other signatory to this amendment, the noble Lord Lord Murray of Blidworth, to present the case for his amendment. This amendment seeks a review of the issue of compensation for the victims of economic crimes such as fraud, bribery and money laundering, without the need to have to take civil proceedings.

Noble Lords will also no doubt remember the frustration that the noble and learned Lord Lord Garnier, expressed at committee that after all his years of campaigning on this issue, and for all the warm words of support that he's received from successive governments, he's not made progress with getting acceptable provisions enacted. My Lords, the arguments in favour of this amendment are extensive, and they were extensively canvassed in committee. So I hope that at this Report stage, I'll be forgiven for setting them out in reasonably staccato form without the academic support that they received at committee.

First, my Lords, the present arrangements for the victims of economic crime are unsatisfactory, and in the vast majority of cases of serious fraud, bribery, money laundering and other economic crime, very few victims of these crimes. And this is particularly true of overseas victims receive compensation. Secondly, my Lords, resort to civil proceedings is difficult and expensive. The costs are often prohibitive. Potential claimants inevitably have difficulties in finding and calling evidence on economic crimes for a host of reasons, again, particularly true of overseas claimants.

Successful claimants, even after winning cases, face serious difficulties with enforcement of judgements against fraudsters and other economic criminals, particularly again overseas victims. Then fines which are awarded as a result, which are which are levied as a result of prosecutions in the UK, go to government and derisory small amount is awarded to victims in the form of compensation, and that is also true in the case of deferred prosecution agreements and arrangements made pursuant to them, which the noble and learned Lord Lord Garnier was active in introducing when he was Solicitor General.

My Lords, it was agreed around the House at Committee, and is the reason for the form of this amendment, both then and now, that it is not yet clear what the best arrangements for providing adequate compensation for criminal cases involving economic crime might be. And that is the reason why a review is essential, and the reason why the amendment calls for a review. Then it may be that a new scheme to enable compensation to be awarded in cases involving overseas victims might just involve arrangements to award compensation not only to the direct losers who might qualify as claimants in civil proceedings, but also, or alternatively to some governments abroad, some NGOs, some other organisations who might not be claimants in civil proceedings or even entitled to be claimants in civil proceedings, but may well nevertheless be substantial, actual and identifiable losers and victims of such crimes.

My Lords, it is certainly the case that, as Lord Garnier said, successive governments have reacted to the call for sensible and fair compensation arrangements for victims of economic crime with warm words but no action at all. So the need for a review of what should be done to fill this gap is urgent, which is why the amendment has a tight timetable for public consultation, for undertaking the review itself and for a report to Parliament. Finally, my Lords, a set of sensible and respected arrangements for providing such compensation would enhance the reputation of this country as a financial centre.

We are already leaders in many fields in insurance, in legal services, including arbitration, the quality of our courts and judiciary and banking, to name just a few. Arrangements for proper compensation for economic crime could raise our international standing even further. My Lords, I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause seven, insert the following new clause as printed on the Marshalled List.
17:13
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
Gives me great pleasure to say that I agree entirely with the that I agree entirely with the noble Lord Lord Marks. Not something that perhaps I say terribly frequently in this chamber. There is one material distinction between the clause that the noble and learned Lord Lord Garnier brought at committee, and the clause before the House today, and that is in subclause three of the provision which requires that the Secretary of State must conduct a public consultation on the review, which must be published no later than the 1st of June this year, and which must open on that date and close on the 1st of September 2026.

Members of the House might think, why is that so specific? Well, the reason is simple one I know that the noble and learned Lord met the noble Lady, the Minister and Lord Hanson to discuss this issue and was told that a review was going to be conducted, but that it wouldn't report until 2028. And given the fact that this campaign has been going on for some time, I think the noble and learned Lord Lord Garnier had a justifiable point in trying to bring forward that date by this amendment.

As he rightly said in his Second Reading speech and at committee, that it is important that the United Kingdom government makes it possible for victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences both here and overseas to recover compensation from the offending person or company, rather than the fines. Simply going into the system here in the UK. And just one final point that I draw from the noble and learned Lords Second Reading speech and perhaps warrants repetition here. The African Union estimated in 2015 that 25% of the continent's gross domestic product was lost to corruption.

Every company convicted of overseas corruption in this jurisdiction should be ordered to compensate the communities it has harmed. And can any of us disagree with that, my Lords?
17:15
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 14, and I'm very grateful to the noble Lord Lord Polak and noble Lady Baroness Kidron for adding their names. This seeks to clarify what the definition of a crime of violence is in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, when it refers to abuse of a child. That has happened online. And I'm hoping that perhaps there might be a response to, to to the arguments that are being put forward, not dissimilar to the noble Lady.

The minister's response to amendment two, which is there does appear to be a gap, and this is something that is worthy of being looked into properly and systematically and well. Survivors of technology facilitated child sexual abuse. I'm afraid it has an acronym taxa and other coercive online sexual offences may be refused compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, on the basis that the injury did not result from, quote, a crime of violence. End of quote. Despite the seriousness of the abuse and the criminal offences involved, an amendment 14 seeks to clarify that cases that involve coercion, domination or compelled sexual acts do fall within the scope of the scheme.

My Lords, the scale of online child sex abuse, which I'm afraid will probably not surprise your Lordships, is going up dramatically. There have been over 7000 sexual communications with child offences recorded during 2023 2024, and there have been 122,768 child sexual abuse and exploitation offences recorded in 2024, of which 42% had an online element. So almost half. The Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme in the applications that have been made to it for support.

You know, it obviously cannot accept all and year on year it has been increasingly not allowing some of the applications that are made. But if one looks at the increase in the number of those applications for support, which involve sexual abuse and sexual assault, that is going up even even more quickly. So, my Lords, 1601 applicants who reported sexual assault were refused compensation in 2024 2025. The number of refusals under this threshold has increased by just over a quarter in two years, but the scheme does not record detailed offence categories, so we don't know exactly how many of these referred to child sexual abuse situations.

But also, just to illustrate, I will quickly give an example of of of exactly what this involves. And I'm we are working with a Northern Ireland based charity called the Marie Collins Foundation, which is particularly focussed on trying to help victims of this. The foundation recently supported a child who was subjected to sustained online sexual coercion by an adult offender, who used manipulation and threats to compel the child to perform sexual acts via digital communication, and over time, the offender established control through grooming, emotional manipulation and threats to expose the child if they did not comply with further sexual demands.

The abuse caused significant psychological harm, including anxiety, shame, and trauma consistent with other forms of child sexual abuse. When the victim applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, the claim was initially refused on the basis that the injury did not arise from a crime of violence, but the decision was subsequently overturned on appeal, recognising the seriousness of the abuse and the harm it caused. So this case does illustrate the uncertainty in how coercive online sexual abuse of children is interpreted within the scheme, and the additional burden that it places on victims who have to pursue appeals for the scheme to try and get their case heard.

So this amendment seeks to provide clarity by confirming that cases that involve coercion, domination or compelled sexual acts, including those for solicited online, fall within the scope of the scheme, and this amendment seeks to provide clarity rather than an expansion of the scheme. It would simply ensure that cases involving coercion, domination or compelled sexual acts, including those facilitated online, are recognised as crimes of violence for the purposes of compensation, and this would help the survivors of serious sexual abuse and ensure they're not excluded due to uncertainty of the interpretation of the scheme.

And I'm hoping we don't have any children in the public gallery at the moment, and I will just briefly describe what some of this involves online. I've already mentioned blackmail, coercion, threats, domination, emotional and psychological abuse, the creation and sharing of sexual images, live streamed sexual activity and other sexual acts, fear, loss of autonomy, erosion of agency, long term psychological harm. The children are sometimes asked or invited to insert various objects into parts of their body.

I mean, some of the things that happen are simply unspeakable. So the purpose of this amendment is to draw this to the attention of the government and to ask that this be looked at carefully and seriously, not least because, as we know, in so many cases of what is happening in the online world, the volume of abuse and the type of abuse is increasing exponentially. I beg to move.
17:22
17:24
17:25
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
Frontbench. >> Frontbench. Frontbench. >> My Lords, I'll start first with amendment number eight. In the name of my noble and learned friend, Lord Garnier, but introduced so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames and my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. This seeks to insert a new clause. It would require a review into how domestic and overseas victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences could be better compensated. Crucially, such review must look into how this can be done without the need for civil proceedings, which we all know would be drawn out, expensive and not always fruitful.

I have supported this concept since Lord Garnier first started arguing for it, certainly as long as I've been in the house, and since I was a member of the Select Committee of Inquiry into the into fraud four years ago, something must be done. We hope that the government have given this serious consideration since committee, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what steps the government is taking to address the issue and whether conclusions will be reported to Parliament.

Warm words of which we've heard. Butter no parsnips. We want to hear on this side that something will be done. And if it is true that a review has been offered, which will report in 2028, that is far too long. As Mr. McEnroe would say, you can't be serious. Turning to amendment 14, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. This also addresses an important issue which we should not overlook. The amendment creates a clarification to support recognition of certain forms of online only child abuse.

It would bring them into the scope of recognition of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. And we can only ask why on earth not, as I said at committee, the scheme must keep pace with the way in which and the places in which criminal activity now takes place, and we look forward to hearing for an update from the Minister. Thank you.
17:28
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. Amendment eight in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Noble and learned, Lord Lord Garnier, noble Lords, Lord Murray and noble Lord Lord Marks. It's been spoken to most persuasively as ever by the noble Lord Lord Marks and I, to join him in thanking the noble and learned Lord Garnier for his ongoing commitment to this matter. I'm sorry he's not in his place today, but he and I met recently with my noble friend Lord Hanson to talk about this in more detail.

My Lords, there is a review and it's a priority for all of us, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord Lord Garnier, for his continued drive to champion victims and his expertise in this matter. Government takes the compensation of victims of economic crime very seriously. We are committed to ensuring that wherever possible, funds are taken from criminals and returned to victims. And as I've said on several other occasions and won't repeat now, there are several existing mechanisms that enable compensation for victims of economic crime.

We do accept they're either not used sufficiently or they don't go far enough. So the government has an existing existing public commitment through the UK Anti-Corruption strategy 2025 to review UK policies and procedures for compensating victims of foreign bribery. There is a review, it's comprehensive and I have happy news for the noble Lord, Lord Murray. It's not 2028, it's 2027 and that's next year. So whilst I understand the noble and Leonard Lord Lord Garnier desire to see this matter addressed as soon as possible, and I completely understand his frustration, which he has expressed both in this chamber and privately when we met.

Given the existing review and the other current and future measures, the government does not believe it's appropriate for a legislative, legislative, legislatively required review to be introduced at this time. I turn next to amendment 16, in the noble Lord, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, Lord Pollock, and the noble Lady Baroness Kidron, I hope, and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, knows that the government shares his desire to support victims who have been harmed by child sexual abuse.

And, my Lords, I want to clear up something about the way that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme works. Online abuse will already be regarded as a crime of violence, where it escalates and involves actual physical violence or the immediate threat of it. But this is a scheme that does not and was not set up to compensate for harm. In the wider sense, it compensates for injury caused, rather than by the type of violent crime that caused the injury.

And were we to include other forms of online abuse, this would broaden the scope of the scheme and extending it to some types of crime only would send a clear message that some victims are more deserving than others. This would be quite wrong and is something this government cannot support. Broadening the taxpayer funded scheme would also put it under more financial pressure. It is already facing record and increasing demand. There is also a further aspect. This amendment would not achieve what the noble Lord intends.

And that's because, although the Secretary of State creates the scheme, he does not exercise any other functions in relation to it. That is the job of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which already considers, when assessing every application, whether the conduct in question amounts to a crime of violence, because that is a core eligibility requirement, it's considered on a case by case basis. So I reiterate, we wish to support all victims of crime with the resources that we have. We are considering the current scheme and we will update members of both houses as our work progresses.

But for now, I invite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Lordships to withdraw their amendment. The Minister sits down, could I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister sits down, could I just request that given the incidence of appeals where incidence of appeals where initially it has been ruled, it was not a crime of violence, but in investigating it further, it was investigating it further, it was acknowledged that it did count as, as, as a, as a crime of violence. as, as a, as a crime of violence. Could I ask that the government request that that be looked into more carefully and more closely, because the incidence of such crimes, which may or may not be viewed as crimes of violence, are increasing rapidly.

And I just think clarification from the from the board as to exactly what criteria they are using so that those people who have suffered have a much clearer idea of whether or not that might be included, would be extremely helpful to them, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would save a lot of time and anguish. I'll certainly take that away.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'll certainly take that away. And I think probably the best thing is that I write to the noble Lord in answer to that, because there are a number of things in issue here. For example, I don't know how actually how many appeals across the board are successful. It may be the board are successful. It may be that this is a greater number for this category of cases. It may be a smaller number. I simply don't know.
17:33
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
smaller number. I simply don't know. So I will write to the noble Lord. >> My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, for her comprehensive response on the comprehensive response on the question of a review. And I know Lord Garnier was grateful for for Lord Garnier was grateful for for the meeting, though I believe his frustration and ours is continuing frustration and ours is continuing about the timescale. Lord Morrow about the timescale. Lord Morrow and I are very pleased to hear that 27 is there rather than 28, but I think the noble Lady can take it that we both know that's next year.

And we also know that now is March of 26, and we would be even more grateful if there were a commitment to finish the review and produce results this year, because there will almost undoubtedly, for a comprehensive scheme, require to be legislation that takes time, as we all know, and therefore as soon as we can get on with this, the better it is, the sooner we can get on with this, the better it is. But meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Is it your.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment nine Lord Keen withdrawn. Amendment nine Lord Keen of Elie. My Lords, within this of Elie. My Lords, within this group there are amendments from the noble Lady Baroness Brinton with regard to the Victims Code and with regard to the Victims Code and with regard to incidental matters thereto from the noble Lord Russell. thereto from the noble Lord Russell. And if I could begin with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord Russell, these address the important question of how hospital managers exercise their discretion when responding to requests for information about offenders detained under the mental health
17:35
None Portrait Amendment:9 Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-

legislation. Amendment 17 seeks to ensure that when hospital managers consider whether it is appropriate consider whether it is appropriate to disclose information, they explicitly take into account the explicitly take into account the potential risk of further physical or psychological harm to victims. If that information is withheld. The purpose of providing information to victims is in large part to enable them to feel safer and to plan appropriately for an offender's discharge. So we support the principle underlying this amendment.

Amendment 18 would require hospital managers to provide written reasons when information is not disclosed to transparency, and decision making can help build confidence in the system and ensure that victims and probation services understand how such determinations have been reached and amendment 19 would create a clearer route of appeal for information. Requests are refused, and this amendment raises the question of whether a more structured and independent route of appeal might provide additional clarity and reassurance to victims. Lord Burnett amendment ten.

Amendment ten would require the Secretary of State to create an appendix to the Victims Code, which outlines how the code applies to victims whose close relative was the victim of murder, manslaughter, or infanticide outside the United Kingdom. And this is a proposal with which we are at least sympathetic. Amendment 15, in my name, would extend the victim contact scheme to include victims whose offenders are sentenced to less than 12 months for violent and sexual offences, as well as bereaved families in manslaughter or death by dangerous driving cases, where the offender is sentenced to less than 12 months.

My Lords, much has been said about the sentencing bill in this chamber. In light of that legislation, it is undeniable that many victims will be captured by this amendment or by those amendments will have to face the reality of their offenders living in their communities. It is therefore only appropriate that victims of violent and sexual offences should be eligible for the scheme for stalking. The government are happy to extend the Victim Contact Scheme with no limitation on sentence length.

There should similarly be no such limits for narrowly drawn lists of serious offences in this amendment, and I look forward to hearing the noble Lady. The Minister's response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. My Lords. I have amendment ten

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I have amendment ten in this group on bereaved victims of murder abroad and have also signed Lord Russell's three signed Lord Russell's three amendments on victims of mentally disordered offenders. And speaking briefly to Lord Russell's amendments, which we are happy to amendments, which we are happy to support from these ventures, it's very important that hospital managers and senior clinicians take managers and senior clinicians take a balanced approach regarding. I'm so sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise. My Lords amendment proposed article seven insert. The following new clause was printed on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

following new clause was printed on the Marshalled List. And now I invite the noble Baroness to speak. As well. I did look at the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As well. I did look at the Deputy chairman. I was expecting something, but I apologise. So, something, but I apologise. So, speaking briefly to Lord Russell's amendment, which we we are happy to support, it's important that hospital managers and senior clinicians take a balanced approach regarding victims of offenders who are detained under the Mental Health Act, but unfortunately, hospital managers and clinicians are often withholding data that could be released, which would assist victims and worse, not even telling them that they're withholding it.

So these amendments set out a balanced approach for hospitals and a requirement for written reasons to be given to the victim, for any decision to withhold some or all of the information requested. And the Third Amendment creates an independent route for victims to appeal. Where a hospital manager has decided not to share information. Turning now to amendment ten in my name on seeking a pathway for bereaved victims of murder abroad. We had an extensive debate at Committee stage, and I'm very grateful to the Minister for the very helpful and informative meeting with Home Office and FCDO staff who specialise in this area, including those who liaise with the Coroners Service, and also supporting victims whose family members have been murdered abroad.

With around 80 British nationals being murdered abroad each year. The number numbers may appear low, but families are not just navigating the horror of a murder bad enough at home in the UK, but in a country where legal systems will differ. And there are also likely to be language barriers. And
17:40
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
even worse, my Lords, is managing the complex logistical issues of repatriation of the body, which, repatriation of the body, which, speaking from personal family experience, is hard even with a natural death. As well as coping natural death. As well as coping with limited police updates from afar. The problem is that this group of people are not recognised group of people are not recognised as formal victims of crime because the murder occurred outside the the murder occurred outside the United Kingdom, nor do they receive any of the relevant protections and entitlements given to their UK equivalents.

So from these benches, we want to thank the government for their recently updated Family Information guide on murder and manslaughter abroad, and how the differing parts of the government will work. And we believe this is a good start, and we understand that these new arrangements will take time to bed in. The Minister mentioned during Committee stage that the homicide service, currently run by victim Support, is being retendered at the moment. So can I ask the Minister if there's any news yet as to whether the budget for that homicide service is being absolutely sustained? I realise times are hard, but we cannot have a service that can't function and support these families because it hasn't got the resources that it needs.

And it's clear from the guide that the homicide service is the key. That keeps on top of all the different moving parts, keeps the victims informed. But it is early days and talking to murdered abroad. There are still real concerns about how this is going to work effectively and too often at present, despite the best intentions of the very willing staff across the board, families are still struggling for information, support or translation services. So that's why we've relayed our amendment, which sets out the application of the victims code in respect of victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad.

And we don't seek for these families to be treated exactly the same as UK victims. Rather, it seeks an appendix to the victims code that sets out which services they can access and only those. I hope that the Minister feels this is a supportive mechanism, which will give a core strength to the excellent but invisible work of those in the Home Office, the FCDO and our embassies and the Coroners Service, as well as homicide abroad. But above all, it supports the bereaved families at the worst time of their lives.

At present, I'm minded to test the opinion of the House, but I'm really hoping for a more positive response from the Minister on the recognition of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

status of these victims. My Lords, I was pleased to add

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to amendment ten, together with the noble Baroness Baroness Brinton. I'd like to thank the Brinton. I'd like to thank the noble Lady of the Minister for the very helpful meeting that we had with the FCDO and the officials with the FCDO and the officials charged with this and the the the person in charge of it, who is very person in charge of it, who is very impressive, who has the slightly alarming job title, which is director Consular and Crisis, which
17:43
17:43
17:43
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
clearly, I think, one of the effects of those of us who have been pushing repeatedly in different pieces of legislation for to acknowledge the fact that these to acknowledge the fact that these the families are the victims of those who are murdered abroad, have slightly been left out in the cold, and it's been rather Russian roulette as to whether they have been fortunate enough to have been interacted with. Consular team who have been on the ball, have been helpful, have been proactive.

That does appear. The message does appear to have, have have taken root. And we were reassured on questioning them in quite a lot of detail about the sort of training they do and the sort support they're able to give. So I'm extremely grateful for that. But I do, you know, agree with the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, that I think to have a more holistic, clearer and more more efficient process to to allow the victims who are usually living in this country to access, help, support, advice quickly and to to have some processes in place, similar to what victims in the UK of other crimes receive under the victims code.

I do feel that having a more sort of proximate approach for those families, of those people who are murdered abroad is a cause that is, that is justified. And I'm hoping that in her response, she will be able to clarify slightly more than she was able to give at Committee stage. Turning briefly to amendment 17, 18 and 19, which is about the response that victims of mentally disordered offenders get, or the response they don't get, because there are various systemic problems within the NHS and the NHS, own sort of rules about the type of information they're able to give, and a slight lack of clarity in terms of people understanding exactly what they can and cannot do, what the noble Lady of the Minister did say at Committee stage, very helpfully, was, she said that her officials are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to consider routes by which this could be improved, and I am hoping when she comes to reply, she will be able to update the House on what progress they're making and whether there will be any positive outcomes from that.
17:46
17:47
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I begin with amendments nine and 15, in the names of the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen and the noble Lord Lord Lord Keen and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst, which seek to extend the eligibility for the Victim Contact Scheme as far as victim nine is concerned, as I said, Committee stage victims of coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking and harassment are already eligible for the updated scheme, regardless of sentence length and victims of violent and sexual offences and dangerous driving, where the offender receives a sentence of less than 12 months imprisonment, will be able to request information through the new dedicated helpline.

My Lords, the bill already includes a mechanism for providing information about an offender to victims of any offence, irrespective of sentence length, where probation considers them to be at risk of physical or psychological harm if they are not given such information. But my Lords, this government has a duty to safeguard taxpayers money and to ensure that it is used in the most effective and proportionate way. Our approach targets finite public funding on those most in need of the proactive contact through the Victim Contact Scheme, while still providing the helpline for all victims to request information.

Any expansion of the scheme would require diverting public funds from other essential parts of the criminal justice system. That said, we will keep the eligibility under review. The bill includes regulation making powers for the Secretary of State to amend the list of offences and the specified lengths of sentence of such offences, which determine eligibility for either sentence. My Lords, the government believes that secondary legislation is the much more effective way of being able to tweak the scheme should it prove to be needed, rather than requiring primary legislation, which, of course, if it has an unintended consequence, is much more difficult to deal with.

Each of these amendments contains a requirement that information should be communicated in a timely and sensitive way by Lords. Of course, this matters, but we believe that this is best achieved through guidance and training, not primary legislation. Finally, on the subject of these two amendments, I want to reassure your Lordships that we will be monitoring the scheme through the Victims Code Compliance Framework under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, and this will include an annual report. This in mind, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

I turn next to amendment ten, in the names of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton and the noble Lord, Lord Russell. My Lords, I thank the noble Lady and the noble Lord for their tireless work for victims and for continuing to raise this important matter. We have had a number of helpful and constructive meetings about this, and it is common ground between us that when the unimaginable happens and a relative is a victim of homicide abroad, the help available to their families and loved ones can be patchy.

We know that and we all agree that is not good enough. As is so often the case with the noble Lady and the noble Lords amendments, we entirely agree on the objective. There is less consensus, perhaps, about the right way forward, my Lords, because we think we can do this a better way. And we are. In addition, as the noble Lady knows, because I have discussed this with her, worried about unrealistically raising victims families expectations at what is an enormously sensitive and difficult time for them.

Basically, my Lords, the difficulty with this amendment, attractive though it may seem, is that many of the provisions of the Victims Code cannot and do not apply to most homicide homicides abroad because they can't be prosecuted in the UK. In the cases where the offence can be prosecuted in the UK, then the code already applies many aspects of the support in these cases depends upon overseas judicial systems. They fall outside the scope of the Victims Code and including them in appendix risks, creating unrealistic expectations.

We do not want families to feel, having looked at a very stressful and dangerous time, had a quick look at the code and not been able to take in all the detail. To have got the impression that their guaranteed support and then feel let down. Because decisions are made by foreign authorities over which the UK has no control. Police in England and Wales can only become involved if they are formally invited to do so by the relevant overseas authority. So, by way of example, under right, six of the victims code, victims have the right to be told by the police when key decisions on the investigation are made.

But in cases, overseas updates and access to information are determined by the processes and timelines of the foreign jurisdiction. And this means that fixed reporting requirements, such as those in the victims code, just can't be guaranteed. That said, we are all in agreement that these families can experience particular challenges in navigating overseas criminal justice processes. For that reason, the government published the victim facing guidance in January 2026. And I'm pleased to hear from the noble Lady that she regards this as a good start.

It brings together clear and accessible information for families in these difficult situations, setting out the services that can support them and directing them to the help they need. And as the new victims code is developed, we will review what further signposting information can be included to support all families bereaved by homicide abroad. Our feeling is that it should be a bespoke thing, rather than tacked on to a victims code, most of which won't apply. But the code consultation went live on the 5th of February.

We'll be interested and encourage everybody to contribute to it. In addition, the newly updated Organisational Roles and Responsibilities document, published in February 2026, sets out how the FCDO, the National Police Chiefs Council, the Ministry of Justice, the Chief Coroner and the Coroner Service will work together when a British national is the victim of murder or manslaughter abroad. Whilst every case is considered individually, this document seeks to ensure a consistent level of service for bereaved families. Within this, the Homicide Service can and does support families bereaved by homicide abroad, including emotional and practical support such as covering the cost of translated documents.

I suspect that the noble Lady Baroness Brinton will not be surprised to hear that I can't confirm anything today about the long term future and the budget of the Homicide Service. I'm sorry I can't do that here and now, but I'm sure she understands. During the committee stages of the bill in this place, I have Committee stage of the bill in this place. I've heard concerns that families accessing homicide service abroad, homicide service support for translated documents are, again, not always having a consistent experience in the delivery of the next multi-year homicide service contract.

From April 2027, the Ministry of Justice will work with the provider to look again at how translation services are provided for this group of victims. We want to ensure that their needs are properly met when documents require translation, and that this is reflected in the contract. In addition to address concerns from members of your Lordships House, the FCDO will review and refresh the training provided to consular staff in relation to supporting families bereaved by homicide abroad. Finally, I'm grateful to the office of the Victims Commissioner for engaging with the FCDO and other agencies through the Murder and Manslaughter Working Group, which brings together stakeholders from across government, policing and the third sector to share expertise, to align efforts and to drive meaningful improvement and, where appropriate, the FCDO Senior Officer for Consular Services will offer to meet the Victims Commissioner herself or her representative when issues arise that merit further discussion.

And indeed, I have already put the Victims' Commissioner in touch with those representatives who the noble Lord and the noble Lady met at our meeting. I turn finally to amendment 17, 18, and 19, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, before moving on to the operational issues which concern the government, there is a drafting issue. So I have first to raise a technical point. These amendments apply only to clauses 44 and 40 4k in part two of schedule two of the bill.

Those clauses apply where a restriction order or a restriction direction is not made at Committee stage. Noble Lords indicated their concern is with cases of homicide entirely understandably, but in homicide cases the offender will almost certainly be a restricted patient, and so those victims would be eligible for the Victim Contact Scheme and would not need to request information through the helpline. The provisions updating the Victim Contact Scheme are in part one of schedule two. So as drafted, these amendments cannot achieve their aim because it's homicide cases, which are the ones about which I believe the noble Lords are concerned they would not be covered.

But turning to the wider points of principle, I listen carefully to the contributions made in your Lordships House and to the powerful arguments made to me by Emma Webber and Julian Hendy, of 100 families whom I was privileged to meet. These three amendments I entirely accept are motivated by a desire to improve the provision of information to victims of mentally disordered offenders, disordered offenders. But my Lords, the challenge we face is not a legislative gap. Most effective way to secure better outcomes for victims is to ensure that clinicians have the understanding, confidence and the tools to get it right first time that's not achieved through more primary legislation, nor through complex, costly bureaucracy.

It's achieved through improving decision making in the first place, increasing awareness and embedding a clearer understanding of the responsibilities and ensuring that there is not a knee jerk defensiveness about supplying information. That is why I am pleased to announce that we will be bringing forward a comprehensive capability building programme, and it will have three core strands. First, we will make sure that clinicians understand their duties. To do that, we're going to work together with the Department of Health and Social Care to update the statutory Mental Health Act code of practice.

We're going to add victim liaison requirements to the NHS Secure Service specifications, introduce a detailed joint protocol for clinicians and HMP staff, and work with the Caldicott Guardian Council to support Guardians roles as expert information advisers to clinicians. Second, we will improve victim liaison officers understanding of this complex area and we will provide training to bolster the role of specialist, mentally disordered offender victim liaison officers. And thirdly, we will produce victim facing materials so as to explain clearly what information both is and isn't usually provided to victims of mentally disordered offenders.

And this will also explain the routes by which they can make a complaint, including if they did not receive the information they expected. I consider that these measures will significantly improve the consistency of information provided to victims, and therefore, I ask the noble Lord Russell to withdraw his amendment.
17:58
17:59
18:00
18:02
18:13
18:13
18:24
None Portrait Amendment:20 Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-

>> My Lords, in this group there is amendment 20, in terms of which I move, that clause 12 should not move, that clause 12 should not stand part of the bill. Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lady 23 in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton to extend the period, a case can be discontinued in the Crown Court to bring it into line with the Magistrates Court and then amendment 29 a my name, which deals with exemptions to early release for sex offenders.

Could I begin with amendment 20? My Lords, clause 12 would represent a major departure from the long established practice of private prosecution, with damaging consequences for access to justice in England and Wales, where the state fails or indeed is unable to act. Private prosecutions provide an alternative route for victims, be they individuals or corporations or, in many instances, of course, charitable organisations, and this is plainly in the public interest. And private prosecutors should therefore receive a reasonably sufficient compensation for the costs that are incurred.

And indeed the victims should not have to meet the costs of having to vindicate their rights. In the absence of a public prosecution. As I observed earlier at committee. The total reimbursement of private prosecution costs, which come from the Legal aid Fund, amounts to 0.18% of the Legal Aid fund. It would hardly pass muster in the stationery department. It is a tiny proportion of overall costs. Clause 12 would give the government power to impose a cap on those costs, although the saving would obviously be minimal.

But the result would be to make many private prosecutions quite untenable. If you take the example of charities, they do have to take action on a very regular basis to protect their reputation in circumstances where they have been the victims of fraud, very often very minor fraud, but nevertheless something that can be highly damaging to their reputation and their ability to raise funds. In the present circumstances, the solicitors they engage to carry on these private prosecutions recover a reasonable amount of costs.

The court can award costs it is not bound to, and thereafter they can be determined by the senior costs. Judge. They're not going to take up alternative judicial time. Now, could I just touch upon the explanatory notes that were issued by the Ministry of Justice on this? They acknowledge that the costs are generally those of the senior courts cost office guidelines. Those rates, as they say here in the explanatory notes, are intended to reflect civil market rates of pay.

Yes, they are, and these are the very lawyers who step forward to carry out these private prosecutions. The relevant guidelines or rates are set by the master of the rolls. They didn't move for 11 years, but now they are subject to annual review and quite rightly so. And they are assessed in line with the service's producer price index, which is entirely appropriate. Now, the problem for the Ministry of Justice is the disparity between that reasonable rate of pay for those who carry out the private prosecution and what is paid to the defence under the Legal Aid Legal Aid scheme, which is, quite frankly, outrageously low and hasn't changed to any material extent during the last almost two years of this government.

And the result is a vast disparity between one party's costs and another's. And so the explanatory notes go on to tell us this. This is going to be an enabling power. This measure, I quote, seeks to address this inequality, to reduce the disparity between the amounts which may be paid to private prosecutors and legally aided defence lawyers. Now, my Lords, if you believe as the enabling power is going to be used to somehow increase legal aid rates or increase the payments for private prosecutions, then I must confess I have a London Bridge to sell you.

Clearly, this is an enabling power intended to bring down the rate of remuneration, the reasonable rate of remuneration paid to those who undertake private prosecutions. And the result, I'm afraid, will be adverse to the interests of the many companies who bring private prosecutions, for example, in the retail trade, the many companies that bring private prosecutions with regard to intellectual property, the many companies that bring private prosecutions in respect of fraud, but more particularly the many charities.

And they are many who rely upon this mechanism to protect not only their funds, but their reputations. I move on to amendment 23, in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, which simply seeks to bring consistency between the Crown and magistrates courts regarding the period in which cases can be discontinued. And I would simply express my support for that amendment. Amendment 29, which has been placed in this group and is in my name, would exempt sex offenders and domestic abusers abusers from being eligible for early release at the one third point of their sentence.

Under the new sentencing regime and across the House, we've already discussed the seriousness of sexual offences and domestic abuse, and the need to improve the way these crimes are handled. At committee, noble Lords were told that most offenders would not be eligible for early release. At the one third point, my Lords, unfortunately, this is not the case. The vast majority of sexual and domestic abuse offenders will not be serving extended determinate sentences and will therefore be eligible for early release under the present scheme.

So in these circumstances, unless the noble Lady, the Minister can provide appropriate and sufficient assurances, I will be minded to test the opinion of the House, both with regard to amendment 20 and with regard to amendment 29.
18:31
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Keen amendment proposed. Leave out clause 12. Leave out clause 12. >> Lords, I rise to express support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I rise to express support for amendment 20 moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord keen, noble Lady, my noble friend Baroness Lady, my noble friend Baroness Brinton will address the other amendments in the group. Amendment 20 to remove clause 12 from the bill may be technical, but it is important because the regrettable fact is, as is now well known, that the relevant authorities and the police lack the resources to prosecute all crime that is reported to them as a result of a significant proportion of reported crime, goes insufficiently investigated and too often unprosecuted.

And that's true across a whole range of offences, from shop theft to some offences of violence and many cases of fraud. There is therefore a practical need for private prosecutions, and that practical need is complementary to the traditional, and, we would say, justified, view that it is not and should not be solely for the state to prosecute breaches of the criminal law. It is also open to private citizens and organisations to bring private prosecutions, and that is an important aspect of access to justice.

It's certainly true that there are some cases where prosecutions require the consent of the DPP or the attorney general, but those tend to be special cases where Parliament has decided that that restriction is appropriate. But an important feature of private prosecutions in this jurisdiction and of their successfully being brought, is that the prosecution is entitled to recover the bulk of the prosecution costs from central funds by payment at a reasonable rate, and the noble and learned Lord has stressed the importance of the reasonable rate.

And he's right to say that a significant proportion of such prosecutions are brought by charities, including Macmillan's and Help for heroes and others, and those charities are often the victims of fraudulent schemes. Other private prosecutions are, of course, brought by commercial organisations, notably retailers, who suffer substantial losses as a result of theft from shops. They may be commercial organisations, and they may have a commercial motivation for the prosecutions, but both as a matter of simple and instinctive justice and as a matter of principle, it is not, and should not be the sole responsibility of the state to initiate initiate prosecutions, and nor should the state fail to assist financially.

Those who bring meritorious prosecutions against those who transgress the criminal law. And when I say assist financially, I mean bear the costs of successful prosecutions in large part. And the fact is that organisations may be deterred from bringing private prosecutions if their costs recovery is capped at a level that makes them unaffordable or uneconomic. And furthermore, if frauds against charities or offences against others, whether a not for profit or commercial cannot be prosecuted, then the prevalence of those offences may be increased and that is to the general detriment of society as a whole.

Yet clause 12 of the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen said, would introduce a mechanism for capping the amounts payable to prosecutors for their costs, and it cannot be read in any other way. My understanding is that the government say that they will consult on this proposal to cap prosecution costs recovery, but that they want to see a reserved power in this bill first. My Lords, we think that's the wrong way round. The government should carry out its consultation.

And then, in the light of the in the light of the consultation, either, as we would hope, abandon the idea of a cap on costs recovery or introduce any necessary legislation following and taking into account the results of the consultation. My Lords, it follows that clause 12 is an utterly undesirable clause. It's not a clause worth saving and cannot be saved, and we therefore support amendment 20, which would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

remove it from this bill. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly just to comment on amendment 29 during the passage on amendment 29 during the passage of the Sentencing Act, we discussed the concern about early release scheme for those categories of scheme for those categories of offenders in in some detail. And as a result of that, the the Minister a result of that, the the Minister Lord Timpson kindly had a meeting after the passage of the act, which
18:37
18:38
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords. Just a. >> My Lords. Just a. >> Brief observation about. Clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Brief observation about. Clause 12, the cost of private prosecution mean that money disappears from the mean that money disappears from the overall Treasury contribution to the justice system. I think we should pause long and hard before we remove the power of the government to control those costs. My own experience of dealing with it was that the cost of private prosecutions can, in many cases, be excessive. They're not subject to the rigorous discipline which the CPS costs are.

And I would think that to deny the government the power to regulate is something that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we will come to regret if we do it. For these benches, I have relayed the amendment on the relayed the amendment on the victims right to review in the event of discontinuance of proceedings. Amendment 23 would proceedings. Amendment 23 would extend the period. A case can be discontinued in the Crown Court to bring it in line with the Magistrates Court, and this would Magistrates Court, and this would mean that the CPS could discontinue a case at the Crown Court, with the option to reopen it following a option to reopen it following a successful victims right to review application.

It concludes that it made if it if it concludes. Sorry, I beg your pardon that it made an error in stopping the prosecution. I was grateful for the noble Lord, the lady, the Minister's response at committee, when she explained that this amendment would mean wide ranging implications for both victims and defendants. And I relayed it because I hope that the noble Lady, the Minister, will be able to clarify the timescale for the government's response to Sir Brian Leveson's important report on wider court reforms and improving efficiency, and perhaps even more importantly, will this issue of victims right to review be, at the very least, including in discussions in the Moj, in the context of Sir Brian's report and the wider court reforms? And whilst appreciating that all of this may take time, this is a pressing, unequal arrangement at the moment.

We will continue to lay amendments on this and question Ministers in the future. My my noble friend Lord Marks has supported Lord Keane's Amendment 20 on private prosecutions and as he said, we will support the Conservatives if they should choose to divide on it. Turning briefly to amendment 29, laid by the noble Lord Keen of Elie, which creates exemptions to the early release scheme for sex offenders and domestic issues at the Committee stage, the Minister referred to enhanced supervision when offenders of sexual crimes are released, that is, the use of tags, bail conditions that can impose wide restrictions on an offender, visiting or travelling in areas that pose risk for the victims, and that is as it should be.

But the movers of this amendment say that this has not been working well in recent years, I have to say, including when they were in power. So can I ask the noble Lord lady, the Minister. So sorry, that's the second time I've done that. This speech must be getting late. The noble Lady, the Minister. If that is the case, then how can we protect victims from their offenders? And I also want to ask a question about whether those convicted of stalking and coercive control would be included in this category in amendment 29, given that they are now included in the
18:41
18:42
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
There are two points that I want to make at the outset. The government's motivation for introducing this provision is not introducing this provision is not to save money, and we do not wish there to be a chilling effect on private prosecutions. Indeed, we are supportive of the long standing right to bring a private prosecution and we recognise the important parts such prosecutions play in the criminal justice play in the criminal justice landscape. Indeed, expenditure on private prosecutions is, as the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen, has already said, a very small proportion of overall Ministry of Justice spending.

But what does matter, regardless of the scale of expenditure, is clarity, consistency, proportionality and value for money. The Justice Select Committee in its 2020 report Private Prosecutions Safeguards, invited the government to take a closer look at the private prosecution landscape, particularly where public funds are engaged. My Lords, an enabling power, as in clause 12, allows us to do precisely that in a careful and evidence led way, the Justice Committee highlighted three key principles which should underpin reform.

These are first, addressing the disparity between defence resources and those of private prosecutors. Second, whilst safeguarding the right of individuals to bring a private prosecution and thirdly, ensuring the proportionate and responsible use of public funds. And we agree with the Justice Committee about these principles. At present, there are no prescribed rates for private prosecutors recovering costs from central funds, which is public money. This results in significant uncertainty with the courts and the legal aid agency required to assess claims case by case, often by reference to civil guideline rates leading to disputes, appeals and judicial reviews.

Adding to costs and delay in the courts. The courts play a vital role in overseeing private prosecutions and have made a number of important changes. But as a noble and learned, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd said during the debate, a Committee stage. This is a matter with which the government has to grapple the question of the amount of costs recoverable in principle is a matter of public policy, and it is appropriate that such policy decisions are made by a democratically accountable officeholder, rather than developed incrementally through case law.

So the enabling power in clause 12 ensures that any framework adopted has a clear statutory basis and is subject to parliamentary oversight. My Lords, the majority of private prosecutions do not result in any claim on central funds and will be entirely unaffected by this measure. Moreover, most private prosecutors are assiduous in applying the full code test set out in the code for Crown prosecutors and in the overall conduct of the case. But there is some evidence that at the margins, the near-certainty of substantial cost recovery may cause private prosecutions to be pursued, which are either disproportionate or an unsuitable remedy when the issue in dispute is essentially one which requires a civil law adjudication.

Charges for litigation work can be far in excess of those which are privately paying. Paying client would consider reasonable, and may in some instances be disproportionate to the losses incurred. For example, in one fraud case, the Ministry of Justice received a claim for a private prosecutor costs of £90,000, despite the loss amounting to £5,000 and there being fewer than 400 pages of statements and exhibits to consider by Lords, clause 12 only allows rates to be set in order to make it clear through secondary legislation, what the state considers to be appropriate remuneration.

The rates proposed would be subject to extensive engagement with stakeholders and a full public consultation aimed at ensuring that they reflect the complexity and the seriousness of cases, whilst also improving certainty and efficiency. We entirely agree with what the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst said at Committee stage and repeated by the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen today about a number of respected charities making use of the private prosecution route, where this is necessary to protect the public and to pursue wrongdoing.

But these cases account for only 10 to 15% of all private prosecutions that make applications for costs from central funds. My Lords, I say again, nothing in this clause alters the fundamental right to bring a private prosecution. It's long standing. It's preserved in statute. The government has no intention of changing it. This enabling power does not limit who may prosecute, nor does it restrict the type of cases they may bring. It simply ensures that there is a clear statutory mechanism for setting what costs may be recoverable from central funds, and it is a power that will only be used following full consultation.

I also want to repeat the assurances I gave at Second Reading and at Committee stage that the government has an open mind about where the rates should be set. The purpose of taking this power is to enable a proper assessment of the landscape, informed by evidence and consultation. The government is bringing forward this enabling power now in order to make efficient use of parliamentary time, with an already full legislative programme. Legislating for the power at this stage ensures that once the consultation is concluded, the government can act promptly and avoid delay or the need for additional legislation.

My Lords, this clause represents a measured first step towards reform that will improve clarity and efficiency and help ensure the responsible use of taxpayers money, whilst safeguarding access to justice and the fundamental right to bring a private prosecution. But, my Lords, I am a little bit worried about the noble and learned Lord Low Lord Keen. I fear he may have a touch of amnesia because he complains, quite correctly, that the legal aid rates for defence lawyers are far, far too low, but appears entirely to have forgotten which government was responsible for that.

And with that, I hope your Lordships will join me in supporting the clause 12 stand part of the Bill. I turn now to amendment 23, in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton. My Lords, the noble Lady has identified a very real problem with the Victims' Right to Review Scheme, and it is one which, as she knows, has troubled me personally for a number of years. That is, that if the prosecution offer no evidence without notifying the victim first, then the victim right of review is rendered nugatory because the case cannot be revived, it is finished.

And even if the prosecutor's decision turns out to have been wrong, there is nothing that can be done. My Lords, to paraphrase a legal truism, if there is no remedy, it is not much of a right. So once again, I thank the noble Lady for putting the spotlight on a really important point. But where we disagree is whether extending the power to discontinues the right way to deal with the issue. My Lords, the noble Ladies Amendment would permit discontinuance to be used in a much wider range of situations, far beyond rectifying any errors that arise through the victim right of review process.

By allowing discontinuance up to the start of trial in every Crown Court case, the amendment would in effect, make discontinuance the default mechanism mechanism for stopping prosecutions in the Crown Court that could affect up to 10,000 cases a year that are currently brought to an end by the prosecution, offering no evidence it would be a major change, and one that might be to the significant disadvantage not just of defendants, but of victims as well. I hope your Lordships will bear with me for a minute or two, when I give a little bit of detail about why we feel so strongly about this discontinuance of proceedings up to trial happens in the Magistrates Court, where the cases are less serious than the length of time until trial is usually shorter than in the Crown Court.

But this proposal seeks to extend this part of the Crown Court. For all cases that would include terrorism, it would include rape. It would include even murder. The significance of this is that discontinuing a case is not pressing the pause button. It brings the case to a complete halt, but with no conclusive result. Contrast this with what happens when the prosecution takes the final step of offering no evidence. Then the prosecution is required to explain its position openly in court, and it results in an acquittal, after which the case cannot be restarted.

But discontinuance, by contrast, is an administrative administrative step. The prosecution simply writes a letter saying that they are discontinuing. They do not have to give any reasons to the court, or to the defendant, or to the victim for stopping the prosecution. That reduction in transparency and judicial oversight is an important constitutional change, particularly where it would apply to cases like terrorism, rape and murder. I repeat, discontinuance is not a pause. It ends the proceedings without a verdict. But the proceedings can be restarted just with no time limits and no supervision.

So everyone is just left in limbo. And importantly, the defendant would not be on bail, simply free with no conditions, so no possibility of protecting victims or witnesses at the moment when proceedings are live in the Crown Court. If the prosecution wants an adjournment to give them some more time to do something, they've got to persuade the judge who will listen to what both sides have to say, and then make a decision in the interests of justice. There is a significant risk with this amendment that if the judge refuses an adjournment, the prosecution will simply discontinue leaving everybody in limbo, possibly forever.

At best, there is a risk of significant delay and uncertainty for both victims and defendants. My Lords, it has been suggested by some that Crown Court judges could regulate this by use of the doctrine of abuse of process. And whilst this is true in theory, in practice it's highly unlikely to happen. Staying an indictment for abuse of process is a remedy of last resort, to be used only in exceptional circumstances. It is not to be used for judges to express disapproval of the prosecution's behaviour, except in the most extreme cases.

In my experience, it is highly unlikely that the courts would stop a viable trial because they felt the prosecution had misused the power to discontinue. And indeed, many victims groups will be up in arms for that to happen in the Crown Court. Any widening of the discontinuance power would require robust safeguards and clear oversight in order to maintain confidence and transparency in the system, avoid unnecessary disruption, and ensure that the legitimate interests of both victims and defendants are properly balanced.

We would, for example, need to think carefully about how this would affect child defendants if proceedings were discontinued and then restarted after. After the defendant has turned 18, that young defendant would then be prosecuted as an adult through no fault of their own. This amendment has been framed as bringing the Crown Court into line with the Magistrates Court, but in fact it would go considerably further in the Magistrates Court. The extended discontinuance window is balanced by a statutory safeguard, which is that the defendant can refuse to allow the prosecution to discontinue, and can require the proceedings to continue to ensure legal finality, and then the prosecution has to decide whether to go ahead or to offer no evidence.

But there is no equivalent safeguard proposed here, or indeed any other safeguards, such as judicial oversight or a time limit, or when proceedings can be reinstated. Applying the Magistrates Court model selectively without its balancing protections, would therefore be a departure from established principle and would create a host of problems for victims as well as defendants. But that does not mean we should not do anything about the position of the victim, who has not been told that the prosecution will offer no evidence until they have already done so, and by then it's too late.

Practical steps are already being taken to address the circumstances that have prompted the noble Lady's concerns. These include enhanced senior oversight in rape and serious sexual offences, where the CPS proposes to offer no evidence, and the expansion of a pilot to enable victims to request a second opinion by a different prosecutor before any final decision to offer no evidence is made. These are important steps to help prevent cases like that of Jade Blue Mccrossen Nethercott from happening again.

I've already discussed this issue with the Victims' Commissioner, with whom I wish to work further in relation to this, and I hope to meet Mr. Mccrossen Nethercott and other victims to understand fully what more may be needed to reach the right balanced solution. So, my Lords, for all these reasons, I invite the noble Lady to withdraw her amendment. I turn finally to amendment 29, in the names of the Noble and learned, Lord Moore, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst, which seek to exclude all sexual and domestic abuse offenders from the new one thirds release provision.

My Lords, I am suffering from déja vu. The principles surrounding the one third release were discussed at length during the debate on the Sentencing Act, so I'm not entirely clear why your Lordships House is being asked to revisit it, given that Parliament has already made its decision. My Lords, the government recognises the seriousness of these offences and the harm that they cause. Many offenders convicted of the most serious sexual and domestic abuse offences already receive one of the three most serious forms of sentence life sentences extended determinate sentences or sentences for offenders of particularly particular concern.

So none of these cases would fall within the scope of the one third release provision. Beyond this, excluding certain offences from the Sentencing Act, changes would make the new system more operationally complex and increase the risk of inaccuracies in release calculations. No one wants any more releases in error. The government is working hard to reduce these by modernising the legacy paper based systems that we inherited. But anything that increases complexity is bound to increase the risk. And as we have already argued, if we run out of prison places, then no one is safe because the criminal justice system will collapse through the implementation of the Sentencing Act.

This government is putting the prison population on a sustainable footing, ending the cycle of repeated crises presided over by the party opposite when it was in government. Any amendments to this legislation risk this pathway to stability. I hope that we will reassure my Lords that once released, offenders will be subject to a period of intense supervision with a presumption that they will be electronically tagged. The highest risk offenders will continue to be actively supervised until the end of their sentence, and all offenders will remain on licence, with the possibility of recall to custody if they breach the terms of it.

I'm extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for outlining the conversation he had with my noble friend, Lord Timpson. In relation to this. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
18:57
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, could I begin with amendment 20, dealing with clause 12? First of all, I rely upon the explanatory notes from the noble Lady, the Minister's own department, where there's a private prosecution and an award of costs. Those costs are assessed by the Criminal Cases Unit within the Ministry of Justice. If there is a dispute and there shouldn't be because they use an established guideline, the senior courts costs office guidelines. If there's a dispute, it can go to the senior costs judge who's experienced in addressing these matters.

So that's not a problem at all. And there's no real difficulty there. However, the noble Lady, the Minister suggested that there was, and I quote her, some evidence at the margins that people might be overcharging. Well, if you think there's some evidence at the margins, go away and consult. And if you discover that there is evidence at the margins, come back and we can legislate, but you don't legislate and then go looking for some evidence at the margins. It's simply is back to front.

One further point with respect to the noble and learned Lord Thomas Garnett, he mentioned this was money leaving the MoJ. Let's put this into context. A 0.18% of the legal aid budget is £3.6 million, and it's not leaving. It's actually a very wise investment by the Ministry of Justice because by investing that very modest sum, they relieve the Crown Prosecution Service of a vast number of relatively minor prosecutions that would cost them a great deal to pursue. So I don't accept that this is somehow lost money.

It is actually an extremely good investment on the part of the Moj, and it shows results. Turning to amendment 29, I appreciate that these issues were touched upon in the Sentencing Act, but there's no prohibition subject to the clerk's. Of course, to us revisiting it if we didn't get it right the first time. And so we now have an idol ideal opportunity to actually get it right. And there is no reason why, in the case of offences involving sexual offences and domestic abuse, we should not be able to reconcile our provisions with regard to sentencing with other serious crimes.

So, my Lords, I will seek to test the opinion of the House, both with regard to amendment 20 and amendment 29.
18:59
19:10
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Chakrabarti. My Lords, I. >> Can be short on this important group. Why? Because of the detailed scrutiny and cross-party support that I enjoyed at committee. Because of my eminent co-signatories and because my Lords Report stage. Discipline is a courtesy to all noble Lords hoping to do their voting duty and and and get home at a at a reasonable time. This group concerns two dangerous evidential practices that have already led to significant miscarriages of justice.

Amendment 21 addresses computer evidence to easily presumed reliable without appropriate testing or proof. My Lords, I give you the horizon scandal and the Postmasters Amendment 22 addresses the pernicious and discriminatory police and prosecution practice of admitting evidence of people's musical tastes. Young black men, and rap and drill music in particular, as somehow probative of criminal proclivity and and intent, especially in joint enterprise cases. I give you, Adebola Adedeji, the young promising law scholar sent to prison in a case of total mistaken identity, a conviction only overturned after he served three years of his young life.

My noble friend Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon explained that case at Committee Lords. This practice is exacerbated by police officers holding themselves out as expert witnesses in rap and drill music. Say no more. I am so grateful to my noble friend, the Minister, for her repeated and expert engagement with with these concerns, and I so look forward hopefully to her response. And I beg to move.
19:12
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom Portrait Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Conservative)
-
-
Proposed after clause 12, insert the following new clause as printed the following new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords, on amendment 21. The issue of the on amendment 21. The issue of the reliability of computer evidence. I'm grateful to Sam Stein KC for his advice on this difficult issue. I'm also extremely grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, for meeting me and others. Other signatories of this group, which is quite remarkable given her workload. We were earlier today discussing the Modern Slavery Act and I think she has fallen foul of it.

She she understood the urgency of dealing with the issue of the reliability of computer evidence. And I came away from that meeting that with the impression that she is determined to address it through criminal procedure rules rather than through the evidence, rather than through the legislative process that we propose today. Maybe that's right, but I have three questions for her. First, would she agree to further meetings? So perhaps involving Sam Stein KC so that we can do our best to get these rules right, not just dealing with the issue of hearsay evidence, but also dealing with the issue of the admissibility of computer evidence.

Second, in the meeting that she and I had, we discussed an issue which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, at Committee stage, namely international comparisons. And the Minister kindly sent me today a letter setting out some of those international comparisons in which she said that it was clear that in France digital evidence must be shown to be reliable and unaltered. In Germany, systems must meet formal test protocols before their output can be relied upon.

In India, it is required that evidence must be authenticated through a strict statutory process, and so it goes on. In other words, there are much, much more restrictive on computer evidence than we are, and the criminal processes have not ground to a halt. And the third question that I'd ask her is that I raised an issue which had been raised a year or maybe two years ago by the noble Baroness Baroness Kidron, namely, how do civil processes get dealt with through this? And could could the Minister possibly commit to following up not only through the Criminal Procedure rules, but also through civil procedure rules? I'd like to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt on this issue, and I'd like to express my gratitude to her for our meeting.

It leaves in place the absurdity that computer evidence is held to be reliable, even though we know that it often isn't. But we must come back to that. Perhaps some other time.
19:16
Lord Beamish Portrait Lord Beamish (Labour)
-
-
Can I rise. >> Can I rise. amendment? >> We discussed this at Committee

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We discussed this at Committee stage and my involvement, like Lord Arbuthnot, is the experience of the Arbuthnot, is the experience of the Post Office Horizon scandal. And in those cases, you saw the computer evidence put before a court and the presumption that it could not be faulty or in any way questioned in. Now, I accept that the government had started a consultation on this in terms of trying to update the present law. That was last April.

And like all these things, I think it's been put in the too hard to deal with category. But as Lord Crathorne has just said, other jurisdictions and other countries have actually moved ahead on this. And it is, I've got to say, a challenge for any government in the sense that the rapid rate of change in our technology does throw up, you know, these challenges to any system. But when you've got a combination of of a situation whereby you've got a body such as the Post Office, who not only use the law but actually pressed it and persecuted people in a very hard and uncaring way, you get the scandals which face us today with the Post Office scandal.

It is still going on though. We now have the first case in terms of the capture cases, which was the system before horizon going to the Court of Appeal. And even though when I first exposed this, the Post Office had no information on this system, we were able to put together through various campaigners and individuals who came forward, the details of the capture system. Not a networked system like horizon, but still a system which was reliant on, in those days, corrupted floppy disk.

And the program was wrong. Now the first case has been, and the government's position has been, that these cases should go to the CCRC. I think there are only less than 30 cases in this category, even though the government have actually now agreed to pay compensation to the capture cases. The first case is going to the Court of Appeal. And strangely, for some reason, the Post Office has taken upon itself to oppose this case. Now, someone in the Post Office and no doubt will get from Ministers and accept it's not the the the current.

My noble friend who's a Minister whose responsibility you'll get the argument that the post of his arms length. And therefore a decision has got to be taken. What they do with cases such as this. But we saw in terms of the horizon scandal, where the Post Office spent something in excess of £100 million of public money to defend the indefensible. And I am not suggesting they will spend that amount of money on this case. But it seems to me again that they're carrying on with the argument that the computer cannot be wrong.

And that is going on now. Now, to me, and I think to other campaigners, there's a clear precedent set on this is those cases should be set aside like the arising cases were and overturned. But again, in the case of the one case going before the individual is dead, but elderly husband is now facing a more weight and yet another fight with the Post Office using the public money that it has to fight a case where, like I say, when I, myself and other campaigners first exposed capture, they said they had nothing on it.

They seemed to have very quickly found a good reasoning for why they should oppose this case. But again, I think it's the reason why the urgent needs, urgent change needs to happen in what my noble friend has outlined. Can I also join others in thanking the Minister for her engagement on this issue? She realises that this is something that needs to be addressed, and I think the constructive way in which she's engaged with us on this should be commended.

I hope that we can get some change and that the wider issues that arise not just from this case, but, say, the capture cases as well. The government do think, before they actually allow the Post Office again to go down this blind alley of defending the indefensible. But with those remarks, I look forward to my noble friends response.
19:21
Baroness Kidron Portrait Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I'd like to join the >> My Lords, I'd like to join the fan club of the noble Lady, the Minister, and thank her also for her engagement on this. And it her engagement on this. And it really does help get to a better place. So I am grateful. I believe we're going to hear when the noble Lady speaks what the government's plan is. But I wonder when the noble Lady, the Minister, does speak, she could assure me on a couple of points.

The first is that whatever the new processes to be, that a person who is subject to a glitch or misinformation, how will they assert their case without having proper access to the system from which the evidence emerged? How are we going to ensure that the court is quick to understand and question the validity of the information itself and the system that produced it, and how are we going to educate the legal profession as to the depth, breadth of information? That seems plausible, but is in fact false? And how are we going to do all of that in sufficient time to save the next set of victims? And my Lords, I, I to recognise that the issues in the meetings that the noble Lady raised, but there is a about the ubiquity and the problem of computers, but there is an equal and opposite concern that in an age of AI where hallucination, deep fakes and melded information is a norm, that if we are willing to continue to say, as the noble Lord.

Arbuthnot said, that the presumption that the information from a computer is reliable is not only untrue, but I think it creates a distrust in the law. So my final question to the noble Lady, the Minister is perhaps when this moment has passed, there could be a piece of work looking forward to actually challenging the presumption in law in a more careful and considered way that this quick fix doesn't quite reach.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My notes. That I stand to support my noble friend Baroness support my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti, and indeed, relating to amendment 21, the three other to amendment 21, the three other members of this House who signed in support of the the Baroness Carr of support of the the Baroness Carr of this amendment, and I also stand to support amendment 22 concerning support amendment 22 concerning amendment 21. Mention has been made of the Post Office Horizon scandal.
19:24
19:25
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
only formed in 2020, and our first inquiry and report was on the inquiry and report was on the advent of new technologies in the justice system. During at that work, justice system. During at that work, I often asked myself and sometimes asked aloud, how would you feel if asked aloud, how would you feel if you were arrested, charged, convicted, and imprisoned on the convicted, and imprisoned on the basis of evidence which not only did you not understand, but it couldn't be explained? Well, we know now how people felt and feel.

That was in 2022, which is centuries ago. In technical terms. I realise that the lexicon has expanded on this. I hear terms I've never heard before, but the basic issues remain. Our concerns then were about transparency and regulation, amongst other things, and that anyone could be affected. We weren't just talking about, as one witness put it, insider trading and corporate fraud. She said to us very powerfully, the high volume data is mostly about poor people.

We found a lot of enthusiasm for the technology, but not a corresponding commitment to thorough evaluation of it. So from these benches, we support amendment 21, which I thought was very constructive, seems to have been a contribution to taking the issues forward. At the last stage, I supported amendment 22. I do so no less now. I do feel that sometimes we are show that we are not as open as we should be to how society moves on, how people who are younger than almost all of us, what their life experiences are and how they wish to express them.

I don't feel really qualified to say more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

than that. My Lords, I rise to speak to what has been a thoughtful debate, what has been a thoughtful debate, and I thank the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti and her supporters for Chakrabarti and her supporters for their work on these issues. On amendment 21, I would reiterate the sentiments expressed at committee sentiments expressed at committee and indeed by many noble Lords across the House and from all parties in light of the appalling parties in light of the appalling Post Office scandal, and indeed keeping in mind the increasing use of artificial intelligence, the need to remove the presumption of reliability when it comes to computer evidence is, I would suggest now clear.

And I note that the noble Baroness has responded to some of the concerns expressed at committee bringing forward this Redraughted amendment. And again, I would commend her attention to this issue. My concern is that the government has had long enough to look at this issue. The government's call for evidence
19:28
19:29
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. my noble Lord Baroness, my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti, and a formidable trio of other members of your Lordships House, the noble Lord Lord Arbuthnot, the noble Lady Baroness Kidron, and the noble and learned Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who is not in his place. This amendment is extremely important, and I really mean it when I say I want to thank my noble friend, both for tabling it and for the work she's done to refine it since Committee stage.

I also want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, the noble Lady Baroness Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Beamish, all of whom have given up their time to meet me during the last two weeks to discuss this amendment to try and get it right. I know the entire House wants to thank the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and my noble friend Lord Beamish for their ceaseless championing of the victims of the Horizon Post Office scandal. It is thanks to them that we are here taking the steps we are today.

The reason I say I really mean it when I thank my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti, is that this is a really important subject. It's one that's been causing the government and actually me personally, a great deal of anxiety because anyone who has even heard of the Horizon Post Office scandal will have been shocked, both by the wrongful convictions and by the scale of them. And we all agree that this must not happen again. The conundrum that has faced us all is how to achieve this without inadvertently bringing the criminal justice system to a standstill.

Because, my Lords, it is estimated that as at the present day, 90% of criminal cases involve the prosecution relying on some kind of computer evidence. In most cases, that computer evidence is entirely uncontroversial. For example, the CCTV evidence or the notes produced from accident and emergency. But, my Lords, what needs to be understood is that were we to remove the presumption of computer reliability that is not neutral because of the legal maxim he who asserts must prove. What that means is that if you remove the presumption, then the prosecution must prove the reliability of the device in every single case, and defence lawyers are there to make sure that they do.

Forgive me. And I can say this with confidence, because I have been one of them picking away at how to challenge admissibility. If it's in your client's interests, it's what good defence lawyers do. So requiring the prosecution to prove that the computer was working accurately in all these cases could quickly bring the system down. For example, there are many rape and domestic abuse cases in which the prosecution wishes to rely on social media messages sent between the defendant and the complainant.

Computer evidence in these cases would relate both to the individual device used, but also the social media platform's broader system. But my Lords, most of the social media companies are not based in the United Kingdom, so UK law enforcement has no power to compel them to produce a statement saying that the computer was working reliably. So it can easily be seen how this could add to delays in these cases, or might even mean that it was not possible to prosecute some at all.

And I know my noble friend readily agrees that you do not get justice for one group of victims by causing injustice to another group. So we need to find a method of preserving the position in the vast number of cases where the computer evidence can safely be presumed to be reliable, unless there's some real reason to doubt it, whilst ensuring that where justice requires a defendant to be able to mount an effective challenge, the court takes this seriously and the defence is able to make proper submissions.

But my Lords, trust me, this really is not easy to achieve. I understand there is frustration about how long this issue has been under consideration, and the reason is this the call for evidence, which closed in April last year, demonstrated a lack of consensus as to whether there's even a problem. Some argue that what happened in the horizon cases had more to do with the prosecution improperly withholding evidence and important information from the defence than with the computer's not working properly.

And even those experts who support reform cannot agree on how computer evidence ought to be defined, far less what an effective solution might look like. There's also an overlap with the government's ongoing criminal justice system reform programme, so we are anxious to make sure that reform in this area does not interfere with or pre-empt that piece of work. Since the consultation closed, officials have been engaging across government and with public bodies to test options for reform of the admissibility of computer evidence.

My noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti and I have had a number of conversations about this. We agree what the problem is. We both agree that the solution is much harder to find. She's now tabled a new amendment in narrowed form, but the government is concerned that a statutory solution, such as the one she proposes in a fast moving and highly technical area of law, will have unintended consequences across the justice system, with victims bearing the cost. Because if we get this wrong and the provision is enshrined in primary legislation, it is very hard to put it right.

We would have to find another piece of primary legislation where this would be in scope to allow us to amend or repeal. And my Lords, even the noble Ladies new amendment would still capture routine material, such as body worn video or a single downloaded phone message. And this underlines the need to proceed carefully on the basis of evidence. But I absolutely am not saying this is all too difficult. On the contrary, we must find a solution. I am determined that we will, and the government's preferred solution is that we do this by way of procedural reform.

And what we propose is this the Lord Chancellor will write to the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee to develop rules of court that will introduce procedural safeguards and ensure enhanced disclosure in cases where the introduction of computer generated evidence could be determinative of an issue in the case, this would allow safeguards to be strengthened where computer evidence is genuinely determinative, but without creating a rigid statutory regime that risks the unintended consequences. In cases when the evidence is basically routine and not of concern, the criminal procedure rules are binding on prosecutors and on judges who must follow them.

And the great thing is they can be produced quickly, much more quickly than enacting primary legislation. Now, plainly, I can't speak for the lady Chief Justice or the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee as they're independent of government, but I am absolutely sure that they understand the urgency. And I commit today to writing to the lady Chief Justice to ask her if it would be possible to do this speedily. My Lords, the good thing about court rules is they provide a more flexible mechanism because they can adapt as technology evolves, without the need for primary legislation, and the rules can be tested in consultation with experts and those they will affect, and they can be tweaked quickly should it become necessary.

We are confident this is the right way forward to achieve the objectives of my noble, noble friend's amendment in a manner that is both practical and legally defensible. I have discussed this in some detail with my noble friends Baroness Chakrabarti and Lord Beamish, and the noble Lord Arbuthnot, and the noble Lady Baroness Kidron. We can and will continue to discuss it with them to make sure we get this right. I absolutely agree to further meetings, of course, with the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and anybody who wishes to bring them.

And in fact, I already know Sam Stein, I think. I think he may have been called to the bar at the same time, the international comparisons plainly needs more work. I didn't have a great deal of detail, but I wanted to get an answer to the noble Lord quickly, because he had asked me a few days ago for it. And as far as civil processes are concerned, again, I absolutely understand the need for this not within scope of this bill plainly, but I will undertake to talk more to the noble Lord about this when we meet.

As far as the questions raised by the noble Lady Baroness Kidron is concerned, how do they assert their case? The way it will work is that the burden of proof will sort that out. Basically the presumption once, once a defendant raises a real issue, the burden moves to the prosecution, who then have to satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt that the computer is working accurately. That's the kind of issue that we have in mind as far as educating the legal profession is concerned.

I absolutely agree agree that that is essential. I think at the moment simply saying the word horizon will do it. But obviously memories are short and once that has faded, we want to make sure that whatever we put in place endures. To make sure this doesn't happen again. I'm very grateful to all noble Lords for the positive and constructive way in which they have engaged with me. It is not a surprise. I have a huge respect for them all, but it has made it a pleasant experience and one in which I think we have made real progress.

So I thank them. I turn to amendment 22 also in the name of my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti, which aims to prevent unfair prejudice arising from the use of creative or artistic expression. My Lords, again, this is an important subject. Government recognises the concerns about the potential for material that has limited probative value being used in a way that is in fact significantly prejudicial. My noble friends spoke compassionately and persuasively in the past, as have others in particular, about the use of drill and rap music, which in some cases may not prove anything very much saved by what is known as the forbidden reasoning of negative stereotyping of young black men.

I completely understand the intention underlying this amendment, but my Lords are highly prescriptive. Statutory test for admissibility, we suggest, is not the right approach. First reason is that, as drafted, the amendment is extremely wide. It would apply to all types of creative expression, and it is not limited to content produced by the defendant at the moment. Prosecutors currently use this kind of evidence across a wide range of serious crimes. One example is child sexual abuse, where images and writings can demonstrate the intentions of the defendant partly by what it is that they choose to possess or what they write themselves, or terrorism, where possession of certain artistic materials may be evidence of what in fact is actually going on.

All this kind of material will be captured by this amendment, and there's a very real risk that it, as drafted, would restrict the ability of prosecutors to adduce evidence that is needed and should continue to be admissible. But that said, concerns about room for misinterpretation and the unfair prejudice which might follow are taken seriously. And this issue is already being actively considered by the Crown Prosecution Service. I hope it is some reassurance for the small number of cases where music is properly relevant, for example, where it contains only details that the perpetrator of the crime would know.

The CPS is now formally committing to issuing legal guidance. My Lords, I am a big fan of the CPS legal guidance and I do have to declare an interest here, and I did write some of it when I worked there, so it's perhaps a bit immodest to say I'm a big fan of it, but it gives prosecutors a clear, consistent framework, ensuring fairness and transparency is publicly available on the CPS website, and it can be used in court Lord Hall the CPS to account further.

To ensure transparency, the CPS will also convene a National Scrutiny Panel examining the use of drill and rap music in prosecutions, and this panel is going to include third sector representatives, legal professionals and academic experts who will review anonymised past cases involving the music, answer questions, gather feedback and help the CPS to refine its approach. I repeat my thanks and gratitude to my noble friend for her concern and her efforts in relation to both these areas of evidential reform. I hope she'll be content to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

her amendments today. Sorry to interject. At this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At this. Stage, but I'm a bit puzzled. Changing the rules of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Changing the rules of the Supreme Court will impact on the on the county courts and in the magistrates courts.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

magistrates courts. I'm going to I'm going to. My noble friend will forgive me, but because it's nothing to do with the because it's nothing to do with the rules of the Supreme Court and the County court, he'll forgive me. My
19:42
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
Lords, I'm grateful to all noble Lords and for their contributions, Lords and for their contributions, not least for being an exemplar, I think, for how Report stage should be, should be dealt with, be, should be dealt with, notwithstanding the the broken clock, which I hope will be fixed by tomorrow's no doubt lengthy by tomorrow's no doubt lengthy business. Particularly grateful to to the supporters and co-signatories of this amendment, co-signatories of this amendment, in particular to the noble Lords Arbuthnot and Beamish, who who did and continue to do all that doughty work on behalf of the postmasters.

I'm grateful also to justice and art, not evidence for their help with both amendments. I'm particularly grateful to my noble friend the Minister, because not all Ministers respond with this level of detail and positive engagement. My Lords, the crack is how the light gets in. And of course, the devil will be in the detail of the rules and the CPS guidance. But but I'm trusting her to to keep going with this. And I certainly trust my noble friends and co signatories to keep up their doughty campaigning to accept her invitation, that they stay involved in the discussion.

And with that, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

both amendments. Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 22 Baroness Chakrabarti not moved. Amendment 23 Baroness Brinton not Amendment 23 Baroness Brinton not moved. We come now to amendment 24.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Keen of Elie. My Lords, I this group contains

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I this group contains my proposed amendment to increase the unduly lenient sentence deadline to 56 days, and also amendments from the noble Lady Baroness Brinton to allow that time frame to be extended in exceptional circumstances. The whole group of amendments concern both how the unduly lenient sentence scheme operates in practice, and how long the time frame should be for an application, and amendment 24 and 25 in my name would increase the window for applications to 56 days.

These were, in fact, amendments that the government had pledged to table. However, they decided to withdraw them just two days later, and they explained that an increased time frame for the scheme is of little use of victims are unaware of its existence. Well, I would entirely agree with that in principle, but I wonder why we can't have both an increase in the time frame and a suitable means of intimation amendments 26 and 27. In
19:44
19:45
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Was 13 page 16, line 57, paragraph B, and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. >> Stage. We welcome the government's recognition that there are practical issues in ensuring are practical issues in ensuring that victims are told of the sentencing within the 28 day limits and therefore, under the present and therefore, under the present rules, they cannot ask the Attorney General to review the sentencing the sentence as unduly lenient. My amendments 26 and 27 would specifically allow for the 28 day time frame to be extended in exceptional circumstances, which may include, but not limited to, delays in being told.

It also strengthens the route for victims to be told, with a duty to inform victims at committee. We had an extensive probing debate about increasing 26 days to 56 days and amendment 25 from Lord Keen relays that in amendment 24. But my amendment tries to focus entirely on giving victims the right if something has gone wrong, only in the most exceptional circumstances, to ask the A-G to extend the period for a submission. We genuinely think that this safety net is the best way to do it.

And if the government accepts the formal route to notifying victims set out in amendment 27, then the most common reason for not being notified should almost completely stop. Other exceptional circumstances, including perhaps a victim being in hospital during the period, might be permitted. The noble Lady the Minister, was concerned that too many expectations would be raised, but we have not pressed on detail that would be down to the AG's office to provide a guidance note for victims, which would notify them of their rights, but also the type of extraordinary circumstance.

Currently, victims do not have access to this, and because of other problems about who should inform them, their right to ask for consideration of an unduly lenient sentence falls. We think this should be remedied and subject to the Minister's response, I may wish to test the opinion of the House.
19:48
19:48
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I begin the government's response to this government's response to this debate by expressing my thanks to Claire Waxman, the Victims' Commissioner, and to Tracy Hanson and Katy Brett, who have campaigned with great commitment on behalf of victims during the debate at Committee stage, much was said on all sides about the importance of the unduly lenient sentence scheme in ensuring consistency, as all who participated know, it isn't an appeal for victims who are dissatisfied by the length or type of sentence.

Rather, it's a legal safeguard, exercisable by the Attorney General to correct sentences that fall outside the appropriate range. As such, it's a constitutional safeguard vested in the Attorney General as guardian of the public interest. Rather than being a mechanism for anyone to relitigate sentencing. But that said, victims will often play a vital role in drawing cases to the attorney general's attention for consideration. We recognise that, and indeed we encourage it. As is generally known, the time limit is a strict 128 days, with no exceptions.

The government is aware and has listened to the comments of the victims and those supporting them, who have long complained that the system just is not working for them, and in particular, that often they are not told about the ULS scheme. And in any event, 28 days is not long enough. So against that background, I turn first the amendments which the time limits in the names of the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen, the noble Brinton, and the noble noble Lords Lord Russell and Lord Sandhurst.

Your Lordships will be aware that the government had been considering tabling our own amendment in order to increase the time limit, and as I said during the debate at Committee stage, we hope to bring something forward at report. So today I take up the invitation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord, keen to set out why we have not done so. This is, my Lords, fundamentally a bill for victims and unsurprisingly, victims have told us that they want to be listened to by this government.

Both victims and the victims Commissioner have told us clearly that increasing the time limit to 56 days would not address the problem they face. They told us that any time limit, whether it's 28 days, 56 days, 365 days is meaningless if they're not informed about the ULS scheme in the first place. Plainly, all victims should be told there are mechanisms in place for doing so, but we've heard enough from victims to make it clear to us that there are occasions on which this isn't happening.

Slightly to paraphrase what I said today in an earlier group A rights not much of a right if you don't know about it. So to the victims, we have heard you and we will continue to listen. My Lords, the victims asked us not to bring forward our amendment, extending the time limit 56 days. And so we have not done so. And this explains why we cannot accept amendments 24 and 25. I turn now to amendment 26, in the name of noble Lady Baroness Brinton.

I thank her for not only raising the issue, but for the positive and constructive talks we have had. As some of your Lordships may have gathered, noble Lady and I have been spending rather a lot of time together over the last few weeks. I've enjoyed every moment. Of course, I can understand why it is felt that an exception from the strict time limit would be a good thing, but there are a number of issues with it and I will try and deal with these briefly.

First, it seeks to treat a symptom of the problem rather than tackling the cause. The underlying problem is that some victims are apparently not being told about the ULS scheme. The noble Lady's amendment seeks to address that by creating a mechanism to bypass the time limit. If that happens. But my Lords, this government is not here to patch up the symptoms. The government's view is we must address the root cause. Victims are telling us that they are not being informed, rather than create a mechanism that responds only after the problem has occurred.

The second issue is the question of what exceptional circumstances would mean in practice. Government's concern is that this amendment would be self-defeating because exceptional has its ordinary meaning, something unusual, not typical, and cannot be exhaustively defined in legislation, but something that is not genuinely unusual can't be described as exceptional. Given the noble Lady's reason for tabling this amendment is that, regrettably, victims don't get told about it, then if they're not told, then it can't be exceptional. And this is very likely to be the very cases that would not be able to take advantage of the law.

So I hope the noble Lady will understand why the government can't accept the amendment, and that she will work with me and my officials as we look to address the real issue, ensuring victims are notified of the scheme in the first place. I turn briefly to amendment 30, in the name of the noble and learned Lord Keen requiring a public consultation. My Lords, the Law Commission did exactly this. The Law Commission has held a public consultation on the ULS scheme, including specific questions about the 28 day time limit.

Holding another one would be a waste of taxpayers money. I hope your Lordships will will join me in looking forward to the Commission's final report when it is published later this year, and the government will, of course, consider its findings carefully. Turning briefly to the remaining elements, amendments seeking to place a statutory duty on a designated government department or the Crown Prosecution Service to notify the victims. Again, there is no issue between us about the fact that the government needs to ensure that every victim is told.

I entirely agree with the noble Lady is trying to achieve, but I do want to persuade her there is a better way of doing it. The government that the amendments seek to create a duty which already exists. Police from Witness Care Unit are already responsible for informing victims about the the unduly Lenient Sentence scheme, using primary legislation to try and make people do what they're already required to do, is not really the best way of going about things. And these amendments impose a duplicative statutory duty, potentially with different time frames or different differing lines of accountability.

And it must be, my Lords, self-evident that this risks confusion rather than clarity, particularly where concurrent statutory duties could blur operational responsibilities. And the fear is that victims might actually, as a result, end up worse off. I therefore ask your Lordships to work with us, with the Victims Commission and the victims themselves, to get to the heart of the issue and develop practical, workable improvements to notification and awareness. We want every victim to be properly informed in good time, so that they can exercise their rights with confidence.

And our focus is on fixing the long standing problems with notification rather than changing the time limits themselves. We already have the commitment of the Attorney General's Office, the CPS, the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs Council to work closely with us to improve awareness of the scheme. They have all urgently assessed what actions can be taken in their respective areas. There is a plan and it is quite a detailed plan and given the time, I think what I will do is undertake to write to the noble Lady rather than read out the notes.

Four pages of my speech, which I don't think anybody would thank me, but for these reasons, I ask her to withdraw her amendments. withdraw her amendments.
19:56
19:56
20:08
20:09
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
Commons have disagreed for their reason. 1AI will also speak to motions B, c and d. My Lords, before started on the debate. On each motion before the House, I thought it would be helpful to set thought it would be helpful to set the debate in context and provide an update on discussions and progress. Since we last debated the progress. Since we last debated the bill during our 41 hours of debating committee and Report stage, debating committee and Report stage, it was clear that when dealing with this first immediate step of Lords reform, the House was keen to make progress more quickly than the issues of retirement and participation.

Indeed, I think I am correct in saying there are more amendments and more hours of debate on these issues that were not in the bill than the issues that were in the bill. As Leader of the House, I listened carefully and committed to establishing a cross-party select committee to establish these issues and report back to government. That Retirement and Participation Committee is now firmly established and is actively considering how to implement our manifesto commitments on retirement, retirement age and participation requirement.

I understand the committee has received a considerable amount of interest and input from noble Lords across the House, as was intended. My Lords, if noble Lords were worried about progress on this issue, then fear not. As I discovered, the House has been able to take steps on this issue in the past. In 1669. Members who failed to attend were fined £40 a day. That's just over 7500 pounds in today's money. And in 1820 a fine of £100 a day, nearly 8500 pounds.

Today's money was levied for non-attendance at Queen Caroline's trial in 1679, the Sergeant at arms was ordered to take Nonattending peers into custody and bring them to Westminster. Despite such support around the house, I do not recommend these precedents to the committee. But in all seriousness, my Lords, this is an opportunity for the House itself to bring forward proposals and take action and to show that we can lead reforms rather than resist them. We look forward to receiving the committee's findings in the coming months.

Turning to the Bill, my Lords, there were four substantive amendments passed by this House and reviewed by the Other place. I was pleased that they agreed with amendments on the powers of attorney to allow for dignified retirement in certain certain specific circumstances, and I welcome the work that took place across the House to deliver this small but important reform. These amendments demonstrate how we, as a House, can come together to bring about change. This Procedure and Privileges Committee has already considered and agreed draft standing orders, which we presented to the House for approval so they can take effect as soon as possible after Royal Assent.

My Lords, a further amendment stated that all Lords Ministers should be paid a ministerial salary and prohibited future unpaid Ministers from being eligible for membership of this House. The government rejected this amendment as it was not relevant to the bill, and although it raised an important principle, it did not deliver the change needed. The government nevertheless believes it is right that Ministers are paid for the job they are doing, because for some years the practice of appointing Ministers without a salary, particularly to the Lords, has grown, reaching a peak in 2020.

Three of 13 unpaid Lords Ministers out of 30. Being a Lords Minister is a tough job as well as being. It is an absolute privilege. Lords Ministers have the responsibility of their individual portfolios, but they also fulfil their duty to this House by answering questions, managing legislation, speaking debates on any and all issues affecting their department. My Lords, their work is impressive. I know that past leaders of this House have also raised the issue of unpaid Ministers when they have been in government.

I am pleased to be able to report to the House that this government introduced Ministerial Salaries Amendment Bill last week in the House of Commons to increase the number of ministerial salaries that can be paid under law from 109 to 120, reflecting the average size of government since 2010. The cap on the number of Commons Ministers would not be changed and remains at 95, thus ensuring that a minimum of 25 paid Ministers in this House mild. Of course, the allocation of ministerial salaries is ultimately at the discretion of the Prime Minister, and this is a significantly better position for this House.

And recognising the important work of our Ministers, given the support for that amendment at Report stage, I would hope that that Bill will be welcomed by your Lordships House. My Lords, as a result, I now ask that tonight we reject this amendment as being unnecessary. Further amendments to this House provided for all the existing hereditary peers to remain as a matter of right, and to continue to sit in this House as hereditary peers. These amendments would allow for existing hereditary peers to remain for decades to come.

Lord Parkinson's amendment on this was extensively debated in the other place, however, the level of support for those amendments, including from the Official Opposition, was notably limited in both debates and in the vote, only 77 MPs voted to keep these amendments in the bill, and it was decisively rejected by a margin of 259. The government is, and always has been, committed to removing the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords, as was stated in our manifesto.

My Lords, this has never been about the contribution of individuals, but the underlying principle that was agreed by Parliament over 25 years ago that no one should sit in our Parliament by way of an inherited title. Over a quarter of a century later, hereditary peers remain, whilst meaningful reform has stagnated, we have a duty to find a way forward. So making this change, we are committed to ensuring that the House can continue to function effectively. I've been consistently clear this has never been about hampering the ability of the opposition to scrutinise the government.

The government has had constructive conversations with the official opposition in relation to completing the passage of this legislation. Having had those discussions, we appreciate the case that has been made by the Official Opposition that they rely significantly on the experience of peers, particularly on the front bench, but also in committees. Therefore, an agreed number of life peerages will be allocated to the official Opposition and to the crossbenchers who made a similar case in relation to experience. As always, it will be for the party opposite to decide which individuals, either from within or outside the house, they wish to nominate for peerages subject to vetting by the House of Lords Appointments Commission.

On the basis of propriety, my Lord, your Lordships will be aware that the Liberal Democrats have already nominated some from their ranks for life peerages, from their normal allocation of peerages. My Lords, this is an agreement made in good faith for the proper functioning of the House and the official opposition. As I said, when I was giving evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee prior to the last general election, I believe that this House works best when we adhere to the conventions of the House, and that the two main parties are of a similar size.

So after the end of this session, no peer will be a member of this House purely on the basis of an hereditary right. My Lords, I briefly turn to the final amendment, which sought to create a new form of statutory non-sitting life peerage. As with the issue of ministerial salaries, this issue is not relevant to the legislation, and the elected chamber voted to disagree with these amendments by a majority of 331 to 73 and 338 to 74, respectively. That was a clear signal from our colleagues.

In the other place, noble Lords will not be surprised that the government's position to oppose these amendments has not changed, and I urge the House to reject them. Our honours system already recognises and promotes outstanding contributions from individuals across the UK and as I've said before, being appointed as a life peer is not only an honour, it brings a responsibility to serve the second chamber, to use your achievements, knowledge and wisdom to contribute to the House and for the benefit of the nation.

This is something the government wants to encourage through the introduction of a participation requirement, and the Select Committee is now considering that in detail. Adding another layer to the honours system for this amendment would send the wrong signal that life peerages can be granted with no responsibilities. Given recent events, I am sure the public would view us quite quizzically if your Lordships House continued to push this issue. I therefore urge the House to support the government's position in rejecting these amendments.

To conclude, my Lords, this House, as a revising chamber, has provided detailed scrutiny of this important bill. The bill is better for that scrutiny. The House put forward its amendments to the other place, asking them to consider these changes to legislation. As a result, important amendments have been made so that colleagues can retire with dignity when they lose capacity. The elected chamber has clearly indicated its position and rejected the other amendments. Following constructive discussion with the official opposition.

I've indicated how the government will respond to those issues and with this agreement, I look forward to the Bill completing its parliamentary passage. I beg to move to.
20:19
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
The question is that motion A be agreed to?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord, I thank the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, for setting out the government's for setting out the government's position with such courtesy and clarity. My Lords, our position on clarity. My Lords, our position on this side has been clear from the very outset, and that is that we very outset, and that is that we accepted and accept the government's mandate to end the entry of people into this place by virtue of the hereditary principle. That is why I and the noble Earl Lord Kinnock propose the immediate suspension of elections in respect for that mandate and the.

In reality, no one has come here by virtue of the hereditary principle in this Parliament. I also said that we believe there was a better way forward now and in the future for this House to be found by agreement and constructive cooperation, and that we thought that shared principles of how things should be done in this place. Building on the Salisbury doctrine, should be agreed and restated in my submission. Those are endeavours that must continue, and we on this side are committed to that constructive work.

We did argue, and frankly, we still believe, that expulsion of sitting members from a sitting Parliament was unreasonable and would provide a dangerous precedent for the future. A Prime Minister should not choose his or her opponents in Parliament. It doesn't happen in other democracies and it shouldn't happen here. Yet after this example, I fear that it may happen again. I beg to be prove wrong. Mindful of this, your Lordships House did as the noble Baroness reminded us, vote for so-called grandfather's rights.

A majority of your Lordships asked that those who sat here among us and had served this House faithfully should be allowed to stay on the same basis as other peers. But the government used its mighty majority in another place to overturn that request. Now, of course, I regret that. But my Lords, as I said in my first speech from this despatch box, as Leader of the Opposition in this Parliament, I believe we must dial down on eternal ping pong.

So I've advised my noble friends on this side to accept what for many is, I know, a bitter pill. We will not seek to divide the house today, and I recognise the positive arrangement approved by the Prime Minister to avoid an absolute cliff edge that would otherwise result in this place by a total cull of some of the most hard working members of this House. And that builds on a statesmanlike decision to enable the noble Earl Lord Kinnock and others to stay.

Who here truly actually objects to that. Now, this will mean many difficult decisions for those on this side and on the Crossbenches, for dozens of our fellows on this side and on the Crossbenches. April will be a cruel month of cold going, but that is how it will be. And for others, the passage of this bill will be a matter of high satisfaction. And that, too, is how it will be. But let us treat each other's feelings, my Lords, with respect.

That is the way of this House and my Lords. I remember actually, as if it were yesterday. I was sitting in the box, the wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in this chamber on the 30th of March, 1999, when he said that a compromise had been reached, binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent. Like all compromises, it doesn't give complete satisfaction to anyone. That is the nature of compromise.

And so let it be today, with this arrangement, my Lords, I welcome what the noble Baroness said about responding to your Lordships wishes on power of attorney as a way to retirement. That was a proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, not the least of his many services to this House. And I trust, my Lords, not the last. I welcome my Lords, the action being taken in another place, which the noble Baroness told us about to enable all Lords Ministers to be paid, as the House well knows, I as leader, believed that the practice of restricting many opportunities of service on the government front bench to those who have private means had no place in the 20th century, let alone the 21st.

So I tried to secure pay for all Lords Ministers when I was leader of your Lordships House, but sadly I was blocked first by my own party and then by the party opposite. So of course, I welcome the new bill the noble Baroness has told us about, and I can assure her that we will support it. I am disappointed, actually. The government sees no place for life peerages outside your Lordships House. I continue to believe that is a a useful reform.

We don't actually, frankly, need people who come here for a title that then do precious little on that. I agree with the noble Baroness. I think the time for that reform may come, but, my Lords, that's for another day. So here we are at the end of well over seven centuries of service by hereditary peers in this Parliament, they helped to create our parliament, and they brought it back to life in 1660, in this House, 250 years ago, the elder Pitt called for a just settlement for the American colonies.

Well, that didn't work out very well, did it? Here in 1807, Grenville secured the Slave Trade Abolition Act. In 1832, grey moved the First Reform Act, and here too the illustrious ancestor of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, passed Catholic Emancipation. Many thousands of peers served their nation here, and thousands of improvements to law were made. It wasn't all my Lords. A stereotypical history of reaction in ermine. Many of those people, no doubt, were flawed, but for the most part, they served their nation faithfully and well.

Now this bill draws a line under all that, and it is drawn. But, my Lords, we remember them and we thank them just as we thank, and will always remember those of our in this House, on all benches who are being removed under this bill today. Many of us on all sides will miss you, if I may use the you, My Lords, chapter one of the Labour's manifesto plans for removals is now over. As the noble Baroness has reminded us.

Chapter two the debates over the promised removal of all peers over 80 within three years. As the manifesto said, that chapter is now opened. The shadow that hung over the 92 for the last two years now rather lowers over hundreds more among us. We await the outcome of the Select Committee deliberations and welcome the Select Committee being set up by the noble Baroness, and we await all that will follow. There will be difficult waters, but the Labour manifesto mandate is clear and stark, and we will address whatever comes in a constructive spirit from this side.

So, my Lords, the House of the 1958 Life Peerage Act now goes forward alone. There will be no more so-called indefensible others to blame. We will be judged in the years, perhaps the decades ahead, on how we each acquit ourselves. I, for my part, hope and believe that we will do so with a dignity, courtesy and high sense of duty which our departing hereditary colleagues sought to display. And my Lords, as we go forward, we on this side will always join hands across the chamber in a positive manner to contribute to that and ensure the effective operation of this great house.
20:28
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-
Yes. >> Yes. >> Sir. I will be short finding the balance between first, the balance between first, the government's 2024 manifesto. Secondly, the maintenance of the separation of powers among the three legs of our constitutional stool the executive, Parliament and the judiciary. And thirdly, the proper staffing and working of our House has taken a considerable amount of time. Not surprising given the large number of people involved in the thinking about these matters. In the lead of this thinking have been the leader of our House and the shadow leader, and I pay tribute to them both for having found that balance and thank them and the many involved.

This means that this evening I strongly support the leader in her formations and in particular, and taking only a very brief leap motion. Be and as mentioned and surfacing only last week, the Ministerial Salaries Amendment Bill is something that I very warmly welcome, which from the perspective of our chamber, is overdue. I note as well that the progress of this Bill has given rise to that important committee, the Retirement and Participation Committee, which will bring further reform into focus when it reports in the summer.

And I wish them well in their endeavours on behalf of the many Hereditaries as I'm a hybrid function these days, can I thank both the leader and the shadow leader for their very warm words about the hereditaries? I do feel that every hereditary who arrives here arrives here really trying to do the right thing and to work hard on behalf of the house. And I feel that they will hold their heads high in future years, whatever happens to them personally. In closing, I would only note that the mechanics of tidying things up will take a period of time.

Those involved in this I know are moving with as much speed as possible, and accordingly, I hope that people will be patient. I hope also now that the House can move on from this difficult period back to our normal diet of scrutinising the government and its legislation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, at Second Reading of this bill many, many months ago now, bill many, many months ago now, indeed, over a year ago, I said this was a nasty little bill. I this was a nasty little bill. I thought that over the the next few months that it would be improved. Sadly, it is still a nasty little Sadly, it is still a nasty little bill and history will relate that this is a wasted opportunity. There this is a wasted opportunity.

There is no substantial reform, no clear thought about the role of your Lordships' House, and that has all been for no purpose, no real reform,
20:31
Lord Strathclyde Portrait Lord Strathclyde (Conservative)
-
-
no promise of even a nod towards a Democratic House, which many of us Democratic House, which many of us has wanted to see over many years. In fact, this bill offers no In fact, this bill offers no improvement whatsoever on the governance of our country. It does, governance of our country. It does, though, suit those, particularly on the other side of the House, who simply wanted to see a purge from simply wanted to see a purge from them and from another place as well.

Now, like my noble friend Lord True, I wholly accept the mandate given at the last election to end heredity, to end the ability of hereditary peers to sit in this House. But that did not give them the excuse to simply remove people who have served this house over many years, simply by the whim and the shake of a, of a of a manifesto expelling the hereditary peers who themselves couldn't be replaced by a by election is vicious and unnecessary.

Now, my Lords, I very much welcome the appointment of the noble Earl Lord Kinnock. I very noble Lord, Lord Addington, from liberal benches. But we've heard nothing about Lord Stansgate, many of us who hold him in very high regard hope soon to do so. I I I welcome the compromise that has been done so that members of the Conservative Party and the crossbenchers will still be able to to serve. Although I understand that some of the finer details of that still need to be to be done.

I very much welcome, therefore, what the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, has said on on that. But I hope, like many others have done tonight, will pause for a moment at this extraordinary moment where for 800 years, or nearly 800 years, hereditary peers have served in this House, that that process today comes to an end. If we pass this law, which assuredly we will do. So they came here purely by chance, an accident of birth, to choose to serve and to do that duty.

I regret that they've had little thanks for that tonight, my Lords, in 1999, at the last Blairite purge, I called the bill then a scar on the face of history. I'm afraid to say that that scar has not healed, and I fear that as a result of this bill, it never will.
20:34
Lord Rooker Portrait Lord Rooker (Labour)
-
-
I think our language should be quite moderate tonight. There's no quite moderate tonight. There's no crowing from this side of the house. There's no attack on the hereditaries. And I wholly agree with everything that's been said. I've worked with the Hereditaries. I've been been here now, 24 years after 27 in the other place. But I'm not going to do that because as one of our members missing, who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

really should be here tonight, and that is my noble friend Lord Grocott. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. Lord Grocott indisposed at the moment. He's probably watching this from his hospital bed. He hopes to from his hospital bed. He hopes to be home soon. Sends his regards. And 1 or 2 people have spoken to And 1 or 2 people have spoken to him. And while I can't read another member's notes into the record, I'm told I just want to use a few points from Lord Grocott issue and what he did after he ceased to be Chief Whip.

Now he's very sorry he can't be here today to see the completion of this. He says it will mean a a fine farewell to our wondrous system, hereditary peers, something many of my new colleagues, of course, have not experienced, which after that process is called to the century, gave amusement to many. It gave employment to my noble friend Lord Grocott, and the complete bewilderment of the public. He told me that he standout moment was in 2016 by election, when there were seven candidates and an electorate of three.

That's twice as many candidates as voters. The winning candidate received all three votes on 100% turnout. Lord Grocott thought after that I shared a room with him, by the way. So I've lived with a bit of this. I want to see smiles, he thought a private member's bill might be the solution to the whole system, and he thought it would be a doddle. No, he thought no one in the House would want to defend this hereditary peers by elections.

But he admits he got that wrong. He's simple two clause bill. After five attempts, never got further than the Committee stage because there were a few people here on a Friday who knew how to speak without filibustering. But he said at last, the end is in sight. He told me this morning he'll be able to hand over his files to some unsuspecting PhD student, who will have the unenviable task of trying to work out what on earth it was all about.

Finally, my noble friend's message to anyone who's thinking of introducing a bill to reform any part of this House is keep it short, keep it simple, keep it focussed, and above all, be patient. And who knows, one day he said, you might end up as a footnote in Erskine May. It's it's very sad. And of course, you'll get the Hansard pretty quick if he's not watching us from his hospital bed. But I thought we should at least recognise the perseverance that he did and entertained us.

I mean, I say, I'll make this final point to my noble friends. When the clerk read out the result of the ballot we read, it appears that never gave us any figures. They just said so and so has been elected. We got no information. What a whip round the corner to the office to get some figures, because we were interested in the figures and occasionally some of the elections, all of us could participate in those elections. But I join with my noble friend and I will be sad to see it hanging over me now.

I'm born in 1941, so I'm with the group that's next in line. So with that, I'll sit down.
20:38
Earl of Devon Portrait The Earl of Devon (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, given this is the final time we consider this bill, I want to offer some concluding words as a departing hereditary, as a defender of the indefensible, one that has long championed our presence in this House and has sought to shine a light upon the value of our long period of public service approaching 900 years. For some of us, Lord Strathclyde, the passage of this bill is regrettable, and I believe this House, Parliament and the country more widely will miss us, not as individuals but as an essential ancient thread in the complex and fragile constitutional fabric that supports our nation.

It is ironic that a government that prides itself on improving employee rights and enhancing the security of those that work should choose to offer the longest serving members of our constitutional workforce a mere seven weeks formal notice of termination, notably less than the statutory minimum. His Majesty's Government will argue. We've been on notice for 27 or perhaps over 100 years, but as every employment lawyer knows, it is one thing to work under threat of redundancy, but quite another for that threat to be formalised, as when this bill receives its Royal Assent.

But of course, my Lords, this is not of emp were, there would be discriminatory concerted characteristics amongst our hereditary peers. Instead, we serve at His Majesty's pleasure, summoned pursuant to a writ by which we are commanded to attend this Parliament in Westminster and provide counsel. I am concerned that His Majesty, in losing his longest serving constitutional councillors, will be left considerably exposed at a vulnerable time for our hereditary monarchy. And, I repeat, my very real worry that his institution may be next, given the treatment meted out to us, his hereditary partners.

But, my Lords, I do not wish to be negative, and His Majesty's Government are to be congratulated on the satisfaction of their manifesto commitment. I was never a fan of the noble Lord Parkinson's amendment, sent back to the other place that converted all hereditary peers into life peers, so I'm glad we're not seeking to urge that again. I believe that we should be proud to sit here as embodiments of the hereditary principle that has served our nation for over a millennium.

I also believe that we should not use that hereditary privilege to secure for ourselves as individuals life peerages that could and should go to people of a more diverse background that may serve the nation somewhat better. My Lords, I do not begrudge the many devoted public servants among us that honourably wish to continue to serve in your Lordships House after our hereditary right is abolished, the expertise among many hereditary members will be sorely missed. But I do think there should have been a better way to determine who remains and who goes than the political arm wrestling that has taken place behind closed doors and through the Orwellian usual channels over the past 18 months.

Indeed, my Lords, is it not yet further irony that the most transparently selected cohort amongst your Lordships, the elected, accepted hereditaries, each of whom have been through a publicly scrutinised, albeit idiosyncratic by election process, will be subsumed into the ever spreading stain of political patronage that characterises, regrettably, the vast majority of appointments to your Lordships House at a time when the composition of this venerable institution is under scrutiny like never before. And, my Lords, as a member of your conduct committee, I can vouch to the intensity of the brickbats being deployed.

Are we right to add yet more opacity to our operations? As many Hereditaries have said throughout the passage of this bill, we hope that the promise of the 1999 Weatherill Amendment would be fulfilled, and that the remaining hereditary peers would depart this House, leaving it better constituted than we found it. Unfortunately, that is not the case. We are being removed out of political expedience, with only the promise of a modest further reform through the Retirement and Participation Committee.

In exchange, I fear, my Lords, this will not be enough to satisfy the critics. But I do wish the House well in this vital process. In closing, can I thank the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, for her courtesy and patience in dealing with a matter that I know she has found challenging. But in the week of International Women's Day, may I put in one final plea that female succession to our hereditary peerages remain on her agenda when we are gone.

I note that when His Majesty's Government is doing such important work fighting the scourge, the scourge of violence against women and girls, it is anathema that we reserve roles anywhere within our society solely to men, particularly roles with some cultural prominence. I'm sorry to have failed in ridding us of this misogyny, but I hope your Lordships will be willing to take the matter forward once we are gone. I will miss this place and would of course love to return, but only on merit and not by dint of my hereditary privilege.

Your Lordships might think you've heard quite enough of that, and of Devon.
20:44
Lord Hamilton of Epsom Portrait Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I'd like to echo the sentiments >> I'd like to echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about Lord Grocott. I didn't realise that he was ill, and it's realise that he was ill, and it's very sad that he's not with us today, and I know that we'll all wish him the very best of recovery from his problems that he has at the moment. I was a great admirer of the noble Lord Lord Grocott, because he was actually one of the few people on the Labour benches who actually wanted to leave the EU, when almost all his party wanted to remain in it.

And I thought that was an act of enormous courage. But having said that, I didn't agree with him when it came to the whole question of that. It was a farce that people on his side of the House were being elected by three people, because at least it meant they were elected. And most of us, let's face it, my Lords are appointed to this House, and those of us who are political appointees are actually appointed. And this is where I differ, actually, with when I challenged the noble Lord Lord Grocott, he said, oh, at least half a dozen people would have rallied round to say that he should be appointed to this House.

Well, at the end of the day, the appointment of Lord Grocott was made, as it was in my case by one person, and that was the leader of our party. If he'd happened to fall out with the leader of the party on some personal or political issue, he wouldn't be with us now. And we've got to bear that in mind. And so when we condemn elections of three people, which applies, I agree to the Labour benches. There is a rather larger number on this side of the House who elect people, and at least it means that those hereditary peers are actually elected to this House when all the rest of us are appointed.

And I think we're going to miss something terrible terribly much when when actually these people no longer are represented in this House because it is something it's a unique part of the this second chamber that we do have hereditary peers in it. And when they have gone, we'll be left with nothing other than political chances like me and donors and members of the blob of one sort or another. And I think that the House will be very much poorer for that when they have gone.
20:46
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lord, as a relatively new member of your Lord Sassoon member of your Lord Sassoon Lordships House, I was the Liberal Democrat bill whip on the House of Lords bill in 1999. I therefore have my apprenticeship about how the legislation goes through under the tutelage of the noble Baroness Baroness Jay and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. I am therefore, along with Lord Strathclyde, I think, one of only two people who have sat through not only all the debates on that bill, but every debate on this second bill dealing with the hereditary peers.

My principal emotion, therefore, this evening, is one of relief. I believe this bill is long overdue. It's not, of course, the wholesale reform which members of my party and I wish to see, but it is, in our view, a welcome and necessary change. I'm also pleased, the Lords, that the proceedings are to end with a whimper rather than a bang. When we voted on whether all hereditaries should be given a life peerage, the majority was 37. The number of conservative hereditaries who voted was 41.

They made the difference. It was, my Lords, to put it mildly and diplomatically, not a good look. And I'm relieved that there's no possibility of the same thing happening again this evening. I'm pleased that some hard working conservative and crossbench hereditary peers to get life peerages, noble Lords, will have seen that as far as these benches are concerned, we decided to use some of our regular intake of new peers to give a life peerage to my noble friend Lord Addington and my noble friend Lord Russell, who have made such valuable contributions to our work over some time.

And that's out of a mere six new Lib Dems. Since the election, the Conservatives have had 24. Some of those could have been for hereditary peers, and only the noble Lord, Lord are true. And he's a leader in another place. No. Why? This course wasn't followed, but it seems to me, my Lords, that that was an opportunity which was missed. My Lord, I greatly welcome the government's decision to ensure that all Ministers in your Lordships' House should be salaried.

My Lords, I particularly associate this change with my noble late colleague Baroness Sanderson, when she was Welsh Minister and Northern Ireland spokesman in the coalition government. Not only did she not receive a salary, but on days on which she visited Wales or Northern Ireland, she didn't receive an attendance allowance either. My Lord, this was scandalous and I'm pleased that this injustice will not be visited on any future Lords Ministers. Finally, my Lords, I wish to thank outgoing hereditary peers for their contributions to the work of your Lordships' House.

They've been valued members and in some cases they've worked tirelessly on behalf of the House for many years. It is, however, now time for a change and I'm, as I said at the start, relieved that with today's debate, we are able to bring this particular chapter in our parliamentary history to the end. We now look forward to the results of the working group, looking at the committee, looking at retirement age and participation, because that is the next stage in making your house a better functioning and more credible institution, which I'm sure everybody wants to see.
20:50
Lord Moore of Etchingham Portrait Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Amen. >> Amen. >> Sir, I much admired the speech by the noble Lord, the Earl of Devon, but I must say I didn't agree with him. I mean, he spoke with wonderful customary eloquence and idiosyncrasy, but I didn't agree with him, actually, when he criticised the nature of the deal that's been done. I think this House should thank the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this together and and getting on with it, but nevertheless, it is a sad moment.

And the if anyone with a sense of history would have to feel that. And just before we gathered for this, I walked down the Royal Gallery and I looked at the plaques for the noble Lords who were killed, or they or their heirs who were killed in the two world wars. And I noticed that on I read names, all of which are represented in this House in very shortly won't be so Ponsonby on both sides of this house. Actually, Stonor, this is a family name, not the title, but at the same vein, Wellington, bury, Colville, Goshen, Trenchard and of course, Wedgwood Benn.

And that's just a small reminder of something which is very valuable about this House, which is a continuity. And from continuity comes a certain sort of wisdom. And I have a little theory about your Lordships' House, which is that once you feel you lack legitimacy or your legitimacy is in question, you behave a little bit better because you're a little bit doubtful about whether you should be there and you're sort of on your best behaviour. So I actually think the House of Lords has been better since 1911 and better since 1958 than when it really was powerful because it sort of feels it needs to be careful.

And actually a very good balance was struck over those years between and since 1958, between the hereditaries and and the and the life peers. And what that meant was actually the ill feeling against the House of Lords was incredibly rare in the second half of the 20th century. It was hardly an issue at all. And it's rather noticeable, my Lords, that since the Blair reforms of 1999, the reputation of this House to become more and more contested, and people have got crosser and crosser.

So I just want to end by saying that it does present a challenge to us, I think, because the danger is, rather than that we recover legitimacy in the public mind by what's happening, is that we are actually hollowed out in people's minds. We have some trappings, but we don't. We're not. If it were, we're not really the real thing and we're not something else. My Lord, I was walking down into the peers entrance the other day, and I noticed no fewer than ten of those red boxes containing letters patent, which seemed quite a lot.

And I'm sure it's all most welcome additions to your Lordships House, but it just reminded me of the sort of responsibility people are going to go on saying, you know, why are you here? And what right have you to be here? And I hope that we will have an answer. And I think we can learn from the hereditary peers. At least two important things. One is that we must maintain our courtesy in our dealings, and the other is that really the concern for the public good is the big motivator, and the tendency that will tend to prevail after this is that the spirit of party becomes stronger and public spirit becomes weaker.

It's very much our duty to make sure that doesn't happen.
20:54
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
Good Lord, I'm grateful to all noble Lords for their comments and noble Lords for their comments and particularly to noble Lord True and noble Lord McConnell, for their noble Lord McConnell, for their warm reception for the way forward, and also to the noble Lord. For the and also to the noble Lord. For the Liberal Democrat benches, who. I know, I'm just thinking, wasn't it wasn't the leader there today, Lord Newby, because he and I have sat through all of us many, many hours of debate.

Somebody calculated in my office at one point that Apollo 11 got to the moon and back more quickly than we had conducted our deliberations on this issue, but I think it has been worth it. And it's good that we have had those debates. Can I just pick up on a few things? I think we all, my Lords, would want to send our best wishes to my noble friend Lord Grocott. His tenacity in pursuing a particular course to the house to go down.

And that was the ending of the by elections, which caused considerable amusement as well, when he would explain, I think very few other than noble Lord Hamilton think that a an election of electorate of three is very democratic. But he pursued with, I think, charm and intelligence and that and it was a shame he wasn't successful on the bills that he took forward. We sent him our best wishes. I can't agree with the noble Earl of Devon on his comments about the hereditary principle in this House, but I do think that his comments and his campaign about the the rights of succession is an important one that has to be maintained.

I was struck at how complicated this was when I looked at it at his behest. And I will do so. But I will say to him, it isn't seven weeks notice. It's actually probably 25 years notice. For this, the principle of the hereditary place in this house was debated and agreed to 25 years ago, but interim measures were in place that have now come to an end. My Lords, I would just say to the noble Lord, I'm grateful for his comments.

I think he made some very wise comments indeed. We are here to be useful to the country and to be useful to government in how we debate our issues, but wisdom is very important in this House. I have to say to him, wisdom isn't hereditary. How we conduct ourselves, though, is something we should be aware of at all times. And I totally agree that the only reason for us being here is for the public good. And I think all members and I have confidence in life peers also to conduct themselves in that way as well.

My Lords comments were made about the select committee. Can I just say to the House, I'm a great believer in incremental change. I think we make a step and a step and step forward. We make progress in that way. But I do think there is an opportunity for this House to decide how it wants to take change and reform forward, and we can embrace that and show that we can lead on change, or we can decide that we always want to resist change.

I think for this House to lead is a better way forward, and I hope that that committee will establish that principle. But, my Lords, this is historic and I accept the comments made by noble Lords. This historic legislation today. I should think we should feel the moment of that. But I think we should also recognise that in any change, it isn't just a principle. There are members of this House who are departing, and they have many of them given great service to this House and been dedicated to the work that they have done.

And I wouldn't want it to go unsaid today. They should be thanked for their work. They should be thanked for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their service, and they go with our thanks and appreciation. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And whatever differences my Lords, we've had over the passage of this legislation, I think that is something the whole House can is something the whole House can come together and agree on. So, my Lords, I think it's all to say I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Yes. Question. Is that motion A be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question. Is that motion A be agreed to? As many as that many will say content of the contrary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not content. the contents have it motion B Baroness Smith of Basildon. My Lords, I've already spoken to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I've already spoken to motions b to D, and with the leave of the house I beg to move them. En bloc the question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

En bloc the question is that motions b to d be agreed to en bloc as many as that of you will say as many as that of you will say content. Consent contrary not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the House. Do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page