Lords Chamber

Wednesday 15th April 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
None Portrait Oral questions: Changes to Zimbabwean constitution: third presidential terms
-

Second Oral Question Baroness Hoey.
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
None Portrait Oral questions: NHS adult gender identity clinics: patients under the age of 25
-

My Lords, for 20 2324 5624
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:50
None Portrait Business of the House
-

>> My Lords, we now come to an instrument previously debated in grand committee conservation of grand committee conservation of habitats and species. (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

2026. Baroness Hayman of Ullock. My Lords, I beg leave to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Order Paper. The question is that this amendment, this motion be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Third Reading of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I have it in command

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be. Now read a third time. The question is that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be. Now read a third time, if any of that content of the contrary, not content. the contents have it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not content. the contents have it in clause 110, amendment one. Baroness Scott of Bybrook my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords. I have. Amendments one, two, four.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:53
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Almost. My Lords, to be really clear, amendment five removes a clear, amendment five removes a reference to a clause in a schedule which will remove from the bill at Report stage on Monday. It is a consequential amendment which I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move formally. Informally. The question is that amendment five be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment six Baroness Scott of Bybrook move Baroness Scott of Bybrook move formally. The question is that amendment six be agreed to as many of that content, not content. The contents have it. Amendment seven contents have it. Amendment seven Lord Freyberg move formally, the question is that amendment seven be agreed to as only that opinion will say content, not content.

The contents have it. It may be with the convenience of the House of amendments, 8 to 11 are moved formally. En bloc Baroness Scott of Bybrook. The question is that amendments 8 to 11 be agreed to. En bloc, as many of them have been, will say, content should not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. The contents have it. Apologies. Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. My Lords, I beg to move that this bill do now pass. I'd like to thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and thoughtful contributions and engagement during the passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill through Community Empowerment Bill through this House. I am particularly grateful to the opposition frontbench, the noble Baroness Scott of Bybrook, the noble Lord Jamieson and the noble Lord Moylan for their constructive challenge
15:55
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
throughout the debate. I'm very aware of the challenges of opposition frontbench and can I say how much I appreciate the approach how much I appreciate the approach of clarity about points of difference, concise, clear and consistent speeches in debate, and consistent speeches in debate, and of all the work that goes on behind the scenes with myself and officials, as well as with officials, as well as with opposition peers. My noble friend Baroness Boycott deserves much credit for from the House for her credit for from the House for her approach.

Can I also thank the noble Lord Shipley, the noble Baroness Pinnock and noble Baroness Thornhill and pigeon for all their work, and particularly to the noble Lord Shipley, who stepped in admirably to fill the shoes of Baroness Pinnock when she couldn't get her own shoes on because she'd fractured, she had a fracture. I'd like to thank him very much for his sort of last minute work on the bill, but his contribution was highly valued. Can I also thank my noble friends, Lord Wilson and Lord Leong, who have supported me on the whips in the whip's role throughout the bill, and the noble Lord Hendy, whose very considerable expertise and knowledge on taxes and licensing have made this bill a lot easier for me to deal with.

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

We may disagree at times on how devolution and community empowerment are best delivered, but I believe we are in broad agreement that a change is overdue. Local leaders and communities should have a greater say in shaping their areas so they can deliver growth and improve the local public services that people want to see. This bill is a fundamental step towards achieving this ambition. And finally, I would like to place on my on record my thanks to all the officials who have worked on this bill.

The bill manager, Hannah, Cara, Gina, Marie, Guy, Simon, Alice, John, Wendy and Rachel. And to Nadia, Bethan, Anna in my private office. And finally pay tribute to the many parliamentary staff who support the work of this House. That's the clerks, doorkeepers, security, Hansard, public Bill office and our excellent whip's team. We haven't had so many late nights on this bill as we did on the planning bill, but I know we were all very grateful when we were here till 1:00 in the morning that we had our whole team supporting us as we did.

So, my Lords, I'm very pleased to have been part of some very productive and constructive discussions in this House, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. The question is that this bill do now pass.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now pass. My Lords, may I begin by thanking all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive engagement with this complex bill of both committee and report stages. Whilst there have been a wide range Whilst there have been a wide range of concerns and differing proposed solutions, I do think there has been a shared sense that this bill been a shared sense that this bill falls short of its title in several of its measures. Instead of local devolution, we're seeing regional centralisation and instead of community empowerment, we're seeing yet more direction from central government.

To many, it's still not clear why the government have decided to pursue this course of action, or what the underlying vision is behind the bill. It goes without saying that all of this comes at a cost, and we're seeing with local government reorganisation up and down the country. We said this from the start and I believe we're beginning to see it now. That said, we on these benches do believe that the Bill has amended, as amended at report, leaves this House with better legislation than when it came into your Lordships.

I'm pleased that this House has agreed to prioritise brownfield land when it comes to development, to integrate new development with existing businesses and facilities, to promote parish governance for unparished areas, and to amend schedule one to safeguard local consent. When it comes to local governance changes. In addition, in light of the government's amendments to increase the number of commissioners and mayors can appoint, I'm glad that our amendment to ensure they are appointed through a fair and transparent selection process was agreed.

I would also like to thank the noble Lords on the benches to my left for their work, and shared concern about the provisions for rural affairs in this bill, about protecting local authorities right to choose their own governance models and making Greater London Authority more democratic in its voting requirements. But I am disappointed that we couldn't rely on the cross-party support for our amendment to ensure that the government complete its long awaited review on open spaces, before proceeding to remove statutory trusts for recreation.

Of course, there were several other areas where we would have appreciated better assurances from government. It would be in no one's interest if local people end up having to pay higher council taxes. If local service delivery becomes less efficient and the role of local councillors is increasingly sidelined by mayors as a result of this bill, my Lords, I'd like to pay tribute to the work undertaken by my noble friends. Lord Moylan Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Lord Lansley, Lord Borwick, Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Coffey.

Also Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Lucas and I urge the government to give due consideration to their concerns. I'd also like to say a big thank you to my noble friend Lord Jamieson, who has sat beside me through the whole lot and taken over at least half, if not more of the work. And a special big thanks to Molly, Richard and Henry in our office for all their invaluable support throughout the whole bill. Finally, I'd like to say thank you to the noble Baroness, the Minister for the time she has committed outside of this chamber, and for responding constructively on very on a number of matters.

From experience, I know that how demanding the process can be, and we're very grateful to her for to her, for her engagement throughout this bill and the way she has conducted it through the House. Whilst we do agree with the government's direction, we are committed to engaging further to improve the system of local government in the interests of the well.
16:02
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lord, can I extend the thanks of these benches to the Minister of these benches to the Minister and to all of her staff and to the bill office? And she was right, I think, to point to the amount of work that's gone into getting the bill to Third Reading, reading. And I want to thank the Minister for her engagement with the bill. It is of major constitutional importance, and for that reason, it really has got to be as good as we can make it.

And I'm personally very grateful for all the Minister did to improve the clauses on scrutiny and on audit, which I think are going to make a big difference. But could I to extend my thanks to the Liberal Democrat Bill team, a number of people who've done a lot of detailed work? And can I pay tribute to in our whip's office to Adam Bull for the excellence in his support to the bill team over many months. My Lord, I see this bill as work in progress.

I think I said at the outset that it gave a sense of direction and we want it to succeed. So everything that we have said at each stage of the passage of this bill has been about trying to get it better, because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said, the Bill is entitled devolution, but actually it's about decentralisation and it doesn't say very much at all about community empowerment. But my Lords, we are, you know, a glass half full group on these benches and we really do want the government to succeed.

You cannot manage 56 million people in England out of London. And so I see this as being part of a renewal of our democracy. And I wish the government well. And I just hope that when those amendments, which are not many in number, but are considered in the other place, that actually our proposed changes will be taken seriously. There is one about rural issues, which I think should be Commons strategic authority competence. It's the processes which were moved, as I recall, by Baroness Scott of Bybrook on the appointment processes for commissioners.

How are they appointed? I think this needs to be on the face of the bill, not in guidance. I think, thirdly, that it is for local people, as we said on Monday, to decide governance structures that they think are best for them rather than having a single model which is imposed out of out of Whitehall and the government. And I think absolutely crucially, to demonstrate that the government is serious about devolution, there should be a duty to promote parish and neighbourhood governance, because what the government is doing in this bill is creating very large democratic units, which are increasingly remote from people.

So in all that we have said about neighbourhood, parish and town governance, it's all trying to bring decision making closer to people who, after all, are paying the bill for it. So, my Lords, with those comments, we shall see what the Commons does at ping pong. I would say I think these benches are pretty firm on some of these issues. So I just hope the government is going to be flexible in its approach. But with that, I want to say thank you to the Minister for the leadership that she has shown and to her staff, and to say that I think that we have something which is a major improvement on what we have had in recent years, and I wish the process well.
16:07
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I'm very grateful for those >> I'm very grateful for those contributions, and I think they were in the same tone that we've had all through the Bill of had all through the Bill of constructive challenge, where where it's appropriate. I would say, to both of the opposition benches that I think there are some further discussions to take place on the outstanding matters before we get through ping pong, and I hope those discussions will be conducted in the same spirit as we've dealt with the rest of the bill.

I've been in local government now for a very, very long time, and they have over the years been numerous attempts at reorganising, devolving. But still, most of the power sits here in this very small part of London, which should be out there with local people. And I hope that as we go through the final process of this bill, we will end up with a piece of legislation that does exactly what we all want it to do, which is to make sure that there is power and funding and decision making devolved to our local areas out of Whitehall, back to local areas where the people who are taking the decisions actually have skin in the game and are connected at that very local level, to take the right decisions for the people that we all serve.

That's what we all want to do. And I hope as we progress through the final stages of the bill, we'll get to a good place on that. I beg to move.
16:08
16:08
None Portrait Legislation: Victims and Courts Bill – consideration of Commons reasons and / or amendments
-

Commons reasons on the Victims and Courts Bill Baroness Levitt. >> I beg to move that the Commons

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the Commons reasons be now considered. The question is that the Commons reasons be now considered, as many reasons be now considered, as many of them have been also content, not content. The contents have it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion a Baroness Levitt. My Lords, I beg to move motion a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion a that this House do not insist on its amendment one to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons. 1AI shall also speak to motions B, b, one, C, and c one. This group concerns amendments made in this House relating to access to court transcripts and homicide abroad, and in relation to each. I shall set out why the government cannot accept these amendments. I will speak first on motions A and C, which relate to amendments one and three, originally tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord Keen and the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, both of which concern access to criminal court transcripts.

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

That said, I am disappointed and frustrated that I have not been able to get a meeting with the opposition frontbench, despite making numerous attempts through various channels to do so. I hope the noble Lady Baroness Brinton knows that I am sincere when I say that the government agrees that it is extremely important for victims to be able to access information relevant to the Criminal Court proceedings in their case. But as we made it clear at both committee and report stages, these amendments would not achieve the meaningful benefits that victims are seeking.

And in the case of the noble and learned Lord Sewell amendment, the government believes that they could in fact undermine victims experience rather than improve it. And with that, I turn to motion C1 in the name of the noble and learned Lord Low Lord Keen of Elie. We've also. We've already set out in previous debates the operational and financial implications that this amendment would have. Our first reason for not accepting it is that whilst the government is firmly committed to strengthening transparency. This
16:11
16:12
None Portrait Amendment:A Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-

will be traumatised. I just want to start putting what has happened behind them. So what would happen behind them. So what would happen should a victim of a horrifying crime request that their sentencing crime request that their sentencing remarks not be published at all? By denying victims a right to determine whether remarks relevant determine whether remarks relevant to their case, often containing highly personal and sensitive information, are published online. information, are published online. For the world to see, this loss of agency significantly risks being distressing rather than empowering.

It's unlikely to feel like an improvement in transparency or experience, and it may in fact compound the harm caused by the offence. My Lords, this government believes that transparency is not served by measures that risk causing further distress to victims or undermining confidence in the justice system. Government does not accept that this amendment strikes the right balance between openness and protection, and believes that it would, in practice, do more harm than good. I have made the point already that we are focussed on delivering the substantial commitment made earlier this year, and by spring 2027 we will provide all victims with Crown Court sentencing remarks relevant to their case, free of charge upon request.

And I do thank all members of your Lordships House from all parties and groups, including the opposition Front Bench, for their constructive engagement during the debates on that amendment during the passage of the Sentencing Act, 2026. The significant expansion will deliver meaningful benefits and represents an important step forward in helping many victims better understand their case. It will, we accept, genuinely enhance transparency in the justice system. That said, we do recognise that there remains a need to consider what more can be done to support victims access to information about court proceedings relevant to their case, particularly in cases that do not result in a conviction.

And that's why I'm pleased to confirm that the government is undertaking a study to explore the use of AI transcription in criminal courts. This is another step towards greater transparency and improving access to court transcripts by examining how artificial intelligence transcription could support the production of court records more quickly and at a lower cost. Because many of these cases involve sensitive personal information, and we must ensure that the use of AI transcription delivers high levels of accuracy, upholds the integrity of court proceedings, and protects information where necessary.

The findings of our study have the potential significantly to reduce fees and improve access to court transcripts, and this will mean that further reform will be evidence based, workable in practice and underpinned by confidence in accuracy and appropriate safeguards. I now turn to motion B and B1, both tabled in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, and they concern support for victims of homicide abroad. Again, I want to thank the noble Lady for her for her efforts in advocating for others on this issue and for the positive and constructive engagement we have had over recent months.

My Lords, the government fully recognises the challenges faced by families bereaved by homicide abroad, and we remain committed to strengthening the support available to them. The previous Lords amendment sought to create an appendix to the victim's code, setting out how it would apply to these families, and this issue has been discussed at length. The government recognises the underlying intention, which is to improve the experience and the outcomes for families who find themselves in this unimaginably awful situation. But, my Lords, the proposed approach would risk undermining the effectiveness of the code for all victims, and it would place obligations on relevant agencies in England and Wales to provide services that actually it would be impossible to deliver in practice.

But we do agree that more needs to be done. And so under the draft new code, we have included clear signposting to the relevant support and guidance available to these families. Motion B1 proposes a review of the effectiveness of how the code applies to these families, and whilst I understand the intention, the code only applies to those families where the case is capable of prosecution in England and Wales. The motion, as framed, therefore risks limiting the scope of any review to the support available to these families.

So instead, the approach that we're going to take is to build on our existing commitments to improve consistency through reviewing FCDO, consular training and improving access to translated documents. I'm pleased to confirm that the Ministry of Justice will also work jointly with the FCDO and the Home Office to undertake a review of how support is provided to these families, and assess how current arrangements are operating. Importantly, it will also allow us to identify further improvements can be made.

My Lords, we want to get this right. The review will be robust and comprehensive. Its findings are to be published in 2027. Taken together with our commitment to ensure that there is independent oversight by the Victims' Commissioner when particular issues arise. These actions demonstrate the government's clear commitment to strengthening the support available to families as they navigate these awful situations. For these reasons, the government do not consider legislative change to be the best way forward. And so we do not support these amendments.

But I hope that the House can support our intention to address these issues via non-legislative means. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion A be agreed to? My Lords, Baroness Brinton is taking part remotely. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

invite the noble Baroness to speak. My Lords, I want to start by thanking the Minister, her ministerial colleagues in the Justice Department and officials and staff who have been available
16:18
None Portrait Amendment:B1 Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-

and staff who have been available for conversations both during the passage of this bill and especially since reports. Stage and the helpful discussions reflected in the government motions in front of us today. My motion B1 on the horrendous issue of homicide abroad differs from the amendment that I laid at earlier stages of this bill, because I had listened carefully to the noble Lady, the Minister, both in the chamber and in our meetings, and I have accordingly removed the element about enshrining the rights of bereaved families.

And they, of course, are also victims because their loved one was murdered. From the victim's code. I do still believe that it is possible to draft something that reflects that. But my Lords, time is not on our side. And to pay tribute to this government. The new code of practice being just brought in for use by the Home Office, the Foreign Office and other government departments and officials such as coroners, is much more comprehensive and should, as it's now being implemented, improve the experience of families found in this horrendous position.

The one area that I do not want us to lose is the ability to review how the new code of practice is actually working. So my amendment today set out a mechanism to ensure that within 18 months of the section on these arrangements coming into force, the Secretary of State must review the effectiveness of how the victim's code applies to victims who are close family members of a British national resident in England and Wales who was murdered or a victim of manslaughter or infanticide, and that the Secretary of State must lay a report of that review before both Houses of Parliament.

However, I am very grateful to the Minister for our discussions and in light of what the Minister has said at the despatch box, that the government will set up a joint review with the FCDO and the Home Office that will focus on access and experience for the families of those murdered abroad, and it will be published next year. And it's especially welcome that the government will work with the Victims' Commissioner and I hope victims organisations that help these families too. The Minister knows that from these benches we will continue to talk to the victims groups and if concerns remain in the future from these benches, we will be raising questions and as appropriate, amendments in future legislation.

But until then, we look forward to seeing the government's review next year, and I will not be taking my motion any further today. I now turn to motion a on court transcripts. My Lords, over the years, we have been laying amendments about the ability for victims to access part of court transcripts. It's been too easy to gloss over why too many victims feel excluded from the court process, whether by accident or worse. And this can be through poor advice, for example.

And I'm afraid far too frequently victims are told that if they sit in the court after they've given evidence, it's a bad look and it might harm the views of the jury. Because victims are seen as ghoulish or worse, vindictive. But also, my Lords, too many victims are not aware of what they are entitled to. And here I want to pay my respects to the Minister for her outrage at an earlier stage of this bill at the despatch box, when she outlined her fury about when arrangements for victims are not followed properly in court.

In theory this shouldn't happen, but, my Lords, it does. And for those who also don't have the support of professionals to guide them through what is happening in a court case, there is bemusement, often a lack of knowledge, and it really affects whether or not they feel that the process has been as fair to them as it has been to the defendant. And by the way, the amendments on court transcripts are invisibly but inextricably linked to the amendments on reforms to the unduly lenient sentences.

But because of parliamentary procedure and the way the bill is laid out, they are separated. However, access to information and support to understand it is at the heart of whether a victim feels the need to submit an appeal to the Attorney General for a sentence to be considered unduly lenient, and I'll talk about this more in the next group. But that link is there. So getting both matters right is vital. I'm very grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, for her helpful discussions on the practicality of making court transcripts available to victims and for the government announcement yesterday, which she's just outlined in her contribution, that the government will conduct a study to look at how AI transcription can be used accurately, including, importantly, appropriate redactions for the safety of victims and witnesses, and considerably cheaper than the vastly expensive current arrangements.

And from these benches, we understand the pressure on the court system from imposing the current extensive system further. So we will watch for the outcomes of this study and any consequential actions. And as the noble Lady, the Minister knows from our benches in both this House and the Commons, we will be holding the government to account to deliver, including an amendment that my honourable colleagues have already laid in the Courts and Tribunals Bill. But I am very grateful for the progress we have made, and that's why I didn't relay my original amendment today.

Turning very briefly to Lord Keen's motion C1 for sentencing remarks to be published online within 14 days of a request being received by anyone at Report stage, we were very concerned that this particular action would lead to victims and witnesses being much more vulnerable than they would under the proposals that we've been discussing on other amendments, where the transcripts are specifically for the victims and would have to be carefully redacted to keep them safe. This amendment takes us back a complete step, leaving a victim having to receive notification within a short period of time.

We know this fails on other issues, and having to formally request anonymity. This makes victims the afterthought in the process, rather than putting their safety as judged by experts at the heart of publication of any information. And that, I'm afraid, information. And that, I'm afraid,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is why we cannot support it today. My Lords, motion C1 in my name

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, motion C1 in my name would insist in my amendment from Report stage regarding the publication of court transcripts, and it would require sentencing remarks by the Crown Court to be remarks by the Crown Court to be freely published online, whilst also informing applicants of their also informing applicants of their right to request anonymity if they wished it. My Lords, open justice is a fundamental principle both to the institution of democracy and the public confidence in that institution.

This motion would make it easier for victims, journalists and the wider public to understand exactly what is happening in the court system. This is of particular relevance for the grooming gangs and its formal inquiry, which the government launched just this week, and my amendment would help facilitate the transparency required to hold those guilty accountable. My Lords, as faith and
16:25
None Portrait Amendment:C1 Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-

confidence in public institutions continues to dwindle, many believe the state does not operate to serve their best interests. The Sentencing Act now has the effect of an automatic presumption of short sentences, a policy which in practice effectively abolishes custodial sentences of one year or less. It is more important than ever that the public can access the reasoning behind sentencing decisions, so that confidence in the rule of law and the integrity of judicial decision making is preserved in the other place, a Labour MP said, and I quote, I'm confused about why the Minister is not accepting Lords amendments one and three at this point, end quote, the Minister said in reply.

The government are willing to go further and we will look to see what more we can do in the Lords. And yet, my Lords, the government had taken no action on this issue other than to reject my amendment in its entirety, and I therefore feel compelled to move motion C-1. My Lords, I would thank the Liberal Democrats for their consistent support for this amendment and the principle which it upholds. It was the combined effort of 160 conservative and 55 Liberal Democrat peers that saw this amendment successful passage.

I also thank the 56 Liberal Democrat MPs who supported the amendment in the other place. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat justice spokesman said, and again, I quote, I urge all colleagues to vote for all these excellent Lords amendments, which are incredibly important to victims and their families, unquote. There may have been a little wobble, since I'm not clear why, but I would hope that our efforts in the voting lobby today will compel the government to act. And, my Lords, I beg to move.
16:27
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Yes. >> Yes. >> My Lords, I'm grateful to noble Lords for their contributions and indeed the thoughtful way in which they've engaged with this issue, they've engaged with this issue, and I recognise the commitment and valuable contributions all have made during the passage of this bill. Those who spoke powerfully about the need for victims. Better to understand what's happened in court and why the government is absolutely aligned with that objective. And I thank again, the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, for raising that point about victims either being explicitly told or made to feel that they should not attend court to hear the rest of the trial.

It is a powerful point. I've had experience of it personally. I shall take it away and see what I can do to improve the situation. As I've set out, Lord's amendments, one and three would impose statutory duties that risk being unworkable and will create, delay and have effects that would not serve victims well. Our priority must be to ensure that the commitments we make are ones that we can deliver, and that is why the government has focussed on delivery through the Sentencing Act 2026, and why we're now going further through the study in artificial intelligence transcription, about which I spoke a moment or two ago.

Just turning very briefly to support for victims of homicide abroad, I want to repeat my absolute assurance that the government shares the ambition of strengthening the support available to families bereaved by homicide abroad. My Lords, the commitments I outlined today do go further cross departmental work to improve consistency and support through a comprehensive review will put families at the centre so we can ensure that they get the support they need. My Lords, I urge noble Lords to support motions A, B and C

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I beg to move. Motion A, B agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Motion B Baroness Levitt.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. Motion B Baroness Levitt. Already spoken to motion B that this House do not insist on its amendment two, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons. Too-a. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Too-a. I beg to move. The question is that motion B be agreed to. Motion B one Baroness Brinton not moved. Not moved. The question is that motion B be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content, not content. The contents have it. Motion C Baroness Levitt.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I have already spoken to motion C that this House do not insist on its amendment three, to which the Commons have disagreed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which the Commons have disagreed for their reason. 3AI beg to move. The question is that motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion be agreed to. Motion c1 Lord Keen of Elie. My Lords, I beg to move. Motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

c1. The original question was that motion C be agreed to. Since when motion C be agreed to. Since when motion C1 has been moved as an amendment to motion C leave out from house to end and insert to insist on its amendment three. The question, therefore, is that motion C1 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content. Content contrary, not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. That's a bit much. Very weak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's a bit much. Very weak. Lord Sewell. As many of that opinion will say, content. Content

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion will say, content. Content To the contrary, not content. Not content. The question will be decided by division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now
16:31
16:42
None Portrait Amendment :D Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-

amendment four, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason for a. I shall also speak to reason for a. I shall also speak to motions d1 e, f and g. My Lords, this group concerns amendments made in your Lordships House relating to private prosecutions and the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and in lenient sentence scheme, and in relation to each. I shall set out why the government cannot accept these amendments. I begin with motions D and G relating to amendments four and seven, originally tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord Low Lord Keen of E.li.

These amendments would have removed clause 12 from the bill entirely, meaning that the Lord Chancellor would not have the power to set the rates of cost recoverable from central funds in private prosecutions. My Lords, in 2024 to 2025, the Ministry of Justice spent £6.3 million on private prosecutions. Over the past decade, this figure has increased significantly. It's also proved to be highly variable. There is some evidence that near certainty of substantial cost recovery can create incentives for prosecutors to pursue cases that are disproportionate, or are an unsuitable remedy for the legal issues in the case.

And we have seen litigation costs far exceed what a privately paying client would consider reasonable, and which are wholly out of proportion to any loss incurred. We have also seen private prosecution used as a no lose tactic in civil or commercial disputes, by way of example, in an effort to gain leverage in what is, in essence, a civil dispute by bringing a criminal prosecution. As the noble and learned Lord has said before, 6.3 million is, of course, a small proportion of overall Ministry of Justice spending.

That may be so, but it's still a great deal of money, and this government is committed to ensuring the proportionate and responsible use of taxpayer's money, regardless of the scale of the expenditure. My Lords, clause 12 will allow for Lord Chancellor to set rates for recoverable in private prosecutions, but only when informed by extensive stakeholder engagement and public consultation. We will set rates that are proportionate to the complexity and seriousness of the case, ensuring consistency, clarity and transparency, but all the while safeguarding the vital right to bring a private prosecution.

I wish to make it absolutely clear this government has no intention of trying to curtail that right. That is not what this clause is intended to do. I turn now to motion D one in the name of the noble and learned Lord Keen of Elie. The government recognises the importance of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny, and I can confirm that we will publish an impact assessment alongside the secondary legislation which sets the rates. We do not believe it's necessary to set this out on the face of the Bill, and therefore, we do not think that amendment four B is necessary.

I also fully recognise the desire for parliamentary scrutiny, and the government is committed to ensuring that any use of this power is subject to proper oversight. The government believes that the procedure is appropriate and proportionate. In this case, it strikes the right balance, ensuring that the regulations are laid before parliament and are subject to scrutiny, including from the Secondary Legislation scrutiny Committee and may be challenged where concerns arise. If Parliament chooses to grant an enabling power, it should be capable of being exercised in a workable and proportionate manner.

The negative procedure achieves that and maintains effective scrutiny, and for these reasons the government cannot accept amendment four C motions E and F relate to amendments five and six, both tabled originally in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton. My Lords, she's been a tireless advocate for changes to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and I want once more to express my thanks to the noble Lady for her continued engagement. We've been seeing quite a lot of each other, as your Lordship will have understood, and her valuable insight.

And during our discussions in relation to many parts of this bill, we have talked and sometimes I've been able to persuade her, but sometimes she has persuaded me and we have changed our minds, and it is due to the noble Lady's efforts that these amendments have been introduced, and that this bill will have been improved throughout its passage in this House. My Lords, we are a government which listens. We want to get things right. So we have listened and we have heard the experiences and views of victims and bereaved families.

And with the the ULS scheme, it's no different. And in this context, I want to pay tribute to Tracey Hanson, who after her son Josh was murdered in an unprovoked knife attack in 2015, set up the Josh Hanson Trust, which focuses on supporting victims of violent crime and delivers educational programmes aimed at preventing youth violence and knife crime. She has campaigned tirelessly for reform of the unduly lenient sentence scheme to ensure that victims and bereaved families are made aware of the scheme and have a longer period in which to ask for a review.

She has worked for over a decade with academics and campaigners to create this change in the law, in order to ensure that no other bereaved family suffers an injustice like that that was suffered by her family when they were not notified in time about the existence of the unduly lenient sentence scheme. I've not yet had the pleasure of meeting Tracey Hanson, but I would like to do so. She's clearly a remarkable woman, able to use her energy to campaign for changes to the criminal justice system in memory of her son, Josh, so that other families in her position can benefit from her work.

I am also grateful to other victims campaigners, the current victims campaigner and to the late victim's current Victims' Commissioner and to the late Victims' Commissioner Baroness Newlove. All of them have played such a significant part in educating us about the problems with the ULS scheme. We know that at the heart of the campaign by victims, they simply want to be told what their rights are and to be able to exercise them. My Lords, it's not a lot to ask and we accept that.

That is the purpose underlying the amendments tabled by the noble Lady. Whilst agreeing with the objective, we've been clear that an exceptional circumstances model will not meet victims needs and this is for technical reasons, legal reasons, exceptional circumstances is a very narrow legal test and routine non notification would not qualify, meaning that most of the victims calling for change would not in fact benefit. So instead, we propose an amendment in lieu to deliver what victims and your Lordships' House have called for and out of time interests of justice root.

And the key points are that it will apply only to victims and close family members of deceased victims. It will support victims and bereaved families who could not act within 28 days because of their circumstances. So, for example, because they were not notified of the scheme in time or in hospital, something like that. Applications may be made up to six months from sentence. And I pay tribute to the noble Lord Lord Marks for his discussions with me on the subject of the appropriate time limit and having listened to him, we've settled on six months.

The Court of Appeal will remain the final decision maker on whether an out of time application may be accepted, and may request evidence explaining why the deadline could not be met, and it will apply to sentences passed after the act comes into force, so it will not operate retrospectively. We expect that it will commence later this year once resourcing and operational guidance are in place. This change in the law means that where victims are not notified in time, as regrettably we are told, happens too often, they will for the first time have a route to request a review outside the 28 day limit.

I am also pleased to have tabled a further amendment in lieu, which will introduce a statutory duty to notify victims of the ULS scheme. The operational detail will sit in the victim's code because keeping all victims rights together in one central document ensures coherence, but it also allows the code to be updated as practice evolves. Because, of course, primary legislation can't be amended nearly as easily as the code can be. My Lords, this amendment addresses the core problem.

Too many victims not being notified about the scheme. Witness care units will continue to inform all victims of the ULS scheme, supported by service improvements that we are developing with the police. Bereaved families will receive an enhanced notification requirement building on the existing CPS Bereaved Families Scheme, which provides direct engagement at the point of sentencing. And that's my Lords, the natural moment to explain the ULS scheme to this cohort in person and to do it clearly together. These amendments deliver what victims have been calling for a robust statutory duty to notify them and a fair out of time route.

I beg to move.
16:51
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
The question is that motion be agreed to? Motion D one Lord Keen of E.li. >> My Lords, I beg to move motion D

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion D one as an amendment to motion d at the end. Insert and do propose the end. Insert and do propose amendments four B and four C in lieu. My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness Carr Minister for moving motions E and F. These two motions are an important step forward for victims. They provide for more time to submit an unduly lenient sentence application, as well as create an exceptional circumstances clause when it is in the interest of justice to do so.

Secondly, motion F will ensure that the victims code is amended to ensure that victims are notified of their right of access to the ULS scheme, an issue which has unfortunately acted as a barrier to the scheme in previous cases. But I must confess I'm a little surprised to see motion E in the name of the noble Baroness, the Minister, she did say in response to my amendment at report, and I quote, the victims asked us not to bring forward our amendment, extending the time limit to 56 days.

And so we have not done so, unquote. And I do wonder, is that still the view of the victims now that we have an extension to six months? My Lords motion D one in my name concerns the issue of private prosecutions. And whilst it's not my intention to repeat the debate at committee and Report stage on the importance of private prosecutions for charities or for dealing with the scourge of shoplifting, we on these benches, continue to harbour serious concerns about the manner in which clause 12 is drafted.

It was therefore unfortunate that the government had not acted on any of the arguments raised by myself, by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, or by the noble Lord Lord Marks with regard to these issues, the government have stated before any rates are set. There will be extensive engagement with stakeholders and a full public consultation, and yet clause 12 is drafted will give the government the power to cap the amounts payable for prosecutors for their costs prior to any consultation actually taking place.

And as the noble Lord Lord Marks said, report that is the wrong way round and we on these benches agree with that sentiment entirely. However, as the government have cited financial privilege as a reason for opposing our amendment, that clause 12 does not stand part of the bill. I have instead tabled motion D1, which contains two amendments in lieu. The effect of these amendments is threefold and seeks to mitigate the consequences of clause 12. First of all, they ensure that an impact assessment is launched on the potential effect of clause 12, with particular regard to its consequences for charities and victims of regarding access to justice.

And that need is underlined by the observations that the noble Lady the Minister made about there being some reservation about the way in which private prosecutions are being pursued. It's only appropriate, therefore, that these matters should be addressed. Secondly, that my amendments ensure that the government has published a response to that impact assessment before they exercise the regulatory making

**** Possible New Speaker ****

powers under Clause 12. And thirdly, the amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And thirdly, the amendments ensured that such regulation is subject to the affirmative procedure of both houses, which I would suggest is entirely appropriate in these. The government have themselves said government have themselves said that they have no intention of exercising the regulatory powers exercising the regulatory powers under clause 12 until after their own public consultation. So I really see no reason why they should oppose these amendments. They've been drafted with transparency and open justice in mind.

And if it is the government's intention to resist these simple amendments, then I will seek to test the opinion of the House. My Lords, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question. Was that motion be agreed to? Since when motion be agreed to? Since when motion D one has been moved as an amendment to motion D at end. Insert the words as printed on the Insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The question, therefore, is that motion D one be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. My Lords, I'll deal first with the issue of private prosecutions,
16:56
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
the issue of private prosecutions, which is the contentious area in this group, and I say at the outset that on these benches we agree with motion D one and the amendments for B and for C in lieu proposed by the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen. My Lords, I start with a brief general point that we've made before. Private prosecutions are important, particularly against a background that police and other prosecuting authorities often have insufficient resources or in some cases, insufficient will to investigate and prosecute offences themselves.

It is wrong that decisions to invoke the criminal law should be exclusively in the hands of the state and its agencies. Private prosecutions offer a way for commercial organisations and for charities and others to bring prosecutions, and that's important in the cases of shop theft in particular, but also in cases of frauds against charities and in other criminal matters. But it is essential that those who bring such prosecutions successfully should be able to recover their reasonable costs. Otherwise, we risk their being deterred from doing so by having to bear the whole of the costs themselves, without the prospect of objectively reasonable reimbursement.

Clause 12, as it stands, looks very like an attempt to give the government power to bring in regulations to limit the costs to be reimbursed. Now, it may be that there are some private prosecutions where lawyers are overcharging for those prosecutions. And if that is the case and there is evidence to establish that, then there may be some need for further regulation. But it is, as a general rule, I suggest, unwise for Parliament to give Ministers the power to make regulations without their first establishing that such regulations are necessary, and in this case, there is no hard evidence that we have seen to establish that regulations limiting the recoverable costs of private prosecutions are necessary.

So Ministers should not be able to bring such regulations into effect to limit recovery of such costs without their first establishing the necessity for such regulations. Hence, the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord are right. I suggest right to insist that an impact assessment, considering the likely effect of the regulations and a response by the government to that impact assessment, are made public before any regulations can be brought into effect. That would mean that Parliament can be properly informed of the need for them and the accompanying amendment.

Requiring an affirmative resolution is entirely consistent with that principle. So we will support those amendments in new. My Lords, I turn next to the unduly lenient Sentencing scheme, and we fully support the government's amendments in lieu. And we're very grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister for meeting with my noble friend, Lady Brenton and me to consider our concern about the rights of victims and their families to refer sentences for consideration if circumstances where they've not been informed about the detail of the scheme, or if they've not had a reasonable time to consider making such a referral.

At a time when circumstances for those victims are traumatic in the extreme. My Lords, the scheme is of no help to victims who would wish to challenge unduly lenient sentences if they do not know about their right to challenge them, or if they have had insufficient time to make a referral. The present time limit of 28 days as it stands is, quite simply too strict. Motion F will ensure that the victims code makes it mandatory to inform victims of their right to seek a referral of an unduly lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal.

So victims will know about the scheme. Motion E will mitigate the injustice of an unduly strict 28 day time limit on seeking such a referral and as the noble Lady, the Minister said the motion enables an extension of time where the interests of justice so require. While the six month long stop respects the right of offenders to finality in knowing the sentence that they are to serve, I'm very grateful to the noble Lady for her acceptance of our suggestion that six months should be the time limit, and the gracious way in which she dealt with that today.

These amendments will, we think, make the unduly lenient sentence scheme a much more effective and just protection for victims and their families than the scheme as it has operated to date. And we're very grateful for what the government has done to ensure that happens.
17:02
17:03
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Brinton is contributing remotely. I invite the noble Lady to speak now. to speak now. >> My Lords, I'm very grateful to my noble friend Lord Marks comments on private prosecutions, and also on private prosecutions, and also for the discussions that we've had over the course of the Bill with both the Minister and also separately with Lord keen. And from these benches, I want to echo the points that Lord Marks made, the two important points from our benches, where Lord Keen has helpfully reflected in his motion today.

An impact assessment on these specific regulations is absolutely vital, and that would assess how workable they are, especially for the charitable and voluntary sectors, and also for access to justice. And his second point was equally important, and one that we often talk about from these benches. And that is the risk in giving Ministers the power to use regulations without any transparency or reference back to Parliament. In this particular case, to recover costs. And we absolutely think that the government needs to think really hard before it brings that into force.

My Lords, I now turn to motion E on unduly lenient sentences, and I repeat my thanks to the noble Lady, the Minister and her officials, as well as the late Helen Newlove, the current Victims' Commissioner, the new current London's Victims' Commissioner and all their staff over the many years that I and others have been laying amendments to improve the arrangements for victims to be able to submit a claim to the Attorney General for reviewing an unduly lenient sentence. And I want to pick up where I left off in the previous group when I outlined how the criminal justice process can seriously let down victims, including in the few occasions when they are left distraught by a sentence that really doesn't meet the level needed for the horrendous experience that they were put through.

And I'm very grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, for her comments about the extraordinary work that Tracy Hanson has done to ensure that after her family's experience, changes should be made and her experience was an appalling failure of public service to victims like her and her family. Over ten years ago, her 21 year old son, Josh, was the victim of an unprovoked knife attack. In Josh's case, it took four years for a conviction and sentencing to be reached, she said.

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

Now, my Lords, I have heard a little of the energy that the indomitable Tracey Hanson, Clell Waxman and others found on that single day to try to get an appeal in on told by another bereaved parent, which was, as has been mentioned, a deadline day. That formal notice did not give a notice of an hour by which an appeal had to be submitted. And frankly, my Lords, it was appalling that the Attorney General's Office chose to reject it because their idea of the end of the day was Friday hours, i.e.

4 p.m. even though it was posted by hand through their doors after that deadline, but on Friday. And that is why during the passage of this bill, our amendments have consistently asked for special arrangements. Firstly, that there must be a duty on on official body. Excuse me, on an official body to notify a victim as soon as possible after sentencing, and that in the event that a victim has not been informed in that time, special arrangements should be made. And that is why I am so grateful to the Minister for government's amendments in E and F.

Yes, the Minister and I have had extensive discussions and yes, we've agreed on some things and disagreed on others. But I also want to thank Ministers in the Justice Department for the round table meeting with a number of victims last month, when four Ministers were able to hear firsthand from victims about their experience. I hope that, too, played a part in the decision to change things. Government motion E and F are very helpful, steps forward to resolve problems and change an intransigent process that has blocked access to justice for victims, and we hope that this will experience.
17:07
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I start by touching briefly on the unduly lenient sentence scheme, and once again, I'm grateful to your Lordships for I'm grateful to your Lordships for the care and consideration brought to this debate, not only today but throughout the passage of this Bill. My Lords, these measures matter. They will make a meaningful difference to those who have already endured so much. I now turn to the question of private prosecutions and reiterate that I recognise the concerns raised in relation to clause 12, and I want to make it clear again things that I have said before.

The vast majority of private prosecutions do not result in claims on central funds, and will remain entirely unaffected by this measure. Also, it is absolutely right that a number of respected charities make use of the private prosecution route to protect the public and to prevent and to pursue wrongdoing. But those cases account for only 10 to 15% of claims made on central funds. I want to make this absolutely crystal clear that we have no issue with the points made by the noble Lord Lord Marks.

This enabling power does not restrict who will may bring a private prosecution, nor does it narrow the types of cases that may be pursued. And nothing in the clause alters the long standing statutory right to bring a private prosecution. My Lords, it's been suggested that the government must first consult in order to understand the landscape. But the need has already been established. The Justice Select Committee's 2020 report published 42 accounts of written evidence, and it expressly recommended that the government take a closer look at the private prosecution landscape, particularly where public money is involved.

Sir Brian Leveson's independent review of the criminal courts, also heard evidence of private prosecutions being misused and imposing significant burdens on the courts. Clause 12 responds to these findings and I thank my noble and learned friend, the noble and learned Lord Maude Thomas, for his support in relation to this. Having said all of that, we will engage thoroughly with stakeholders and we will hold a public consultation before any secondary legislation setting the rates is brought forward. And as part of that process, we will also undertake and publish an impact assessment.

I have stressed the importance of prescribing rates, which address the issue of disproportionate costs, without chilling the private prosecutions market. And I also bear in mind that in recent years, your Lordships' House has expressed concern about the quality of impact assessments, and so we will work hard to develop an impact assessment which allows the government to make good evidence based decisions. We believe that this is what the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen is referring to, and he seeks to compel the government to respond to an impact assessment in full.

Be part B, though I'd be grateful if you could let me know if you mean something else. Had he accepted my invitation to have a meeting, we might have been able to resolve that in advance. But in closing, I urge noble Lords to support the government's amendments on the ULS scheme and support motions D, E, F and G. I beg to move. You're here. John.
17:11
17:11
None Portrait Division: Victims and Courts Bill: Motion D1
-

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very Thank you very much.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion D

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I think I think so.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think so. I think so. Yes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I have I have voted I have voted contents I have voted contents 270, I have voted contents 270, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have voted contents 270, not contents 200. So the contents have contents 200. So the contents have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, My Lords, motion My Lords, motion e My Lords, motion e Baroness Levitt Lords. I've already spoken to motions E

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've already spoken to motions E to G with the leave of the house. I beg to move them en bloc.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that motions E to G be agreed to. En bloc as many as be agreed to. En bloc as many as are of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lords, this might be a convenient moment for any noble Lords who wish to leave the chamber to do so Lord Lord Watts Lord Watts questions Lord Watts questions on Lord Watts questions on the statement made in the House of Commons on Monday, the 13th of
17:24
None Portrait Statement: Southport Inquiry
-

April on the Southport Inquiry.
17:24
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the Honourable Lords Minister for today's Lords Minister for today's statement. Repeat. There are, of course many things to learn, but our foremost concern must be with the victims and their families. My Lords, this report is one littered with evidence of institutional failure. Time and time again, public bodies were presented with the evidence and given the chance to act and intercept Rudakubana Rudakubana. And yet they failed to act. It is in retrospect, unfathomable that Rudakubana was referred to prevent three times, and each time the referral was closed.

I am therefore delighted that the government has now updated its prevent assessment framework and that oversight of repeat prevention referrals has now been strengthened. That basis now must be built upon, beginning by reviewing Sir Adrian Fulton's Prevent recommendations. The importance of investigating online activity and ensuring Neurodivergence has a place within practitioner training and must now be prioritised. When can this House expect an update from the new Prevent Commissioner on incorporating these suggestions into the system? There is also evidence that shortfalls in information sharing between agencies was one of the key failures amongst public services, particularly on behalf of the police.

Sir Adrian has outlined that the police should progress to the multi-agency channel programme and has made several other important suggestions on general police practice. Given the fact that the Secretary of State acknowledges that this step should have been taken, can the noble or the Minister today offer a timescale in which we can expect to see measures to ensure that guidance on channel referrals referrals is followed consistently? My Lords, it was also noted that Rudakubana autism was a key factor in the police not taking action on early warning signs and following a report by his parents in 2021, the police concluded that the suspect suffers with autism and it is not in the public interest to prosecute.

The report found that Lancashire Constabulary, whilst responding appropriately to calls, did so on a quote without any real consideration or understanding of what his autism might mean for his criminal responsibility or risk. End of quote. My Lords, this was an approach mirrored by the social services. The Child and Youth Justice Service reduced their contact time with Rudakubana, and later began to accept his attendance at school as qualifying contact time due to his autism. This was despite the fact that he had failed to adequately engage with his social worker.

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

My Lords, another important revelation of this report, and one that was missing from the Home Secretary's statement, was a similarly institutionalised practice to consider race as an important factor in agency work. Rudakubana headteacher, Joanne Hodson was encouraged to water down his education, health and care plan by both his father and social services. His social worker at the time even went as far as to accuse Mrs. Hodgson of racially stereotyping Axel Rudakubana as a black boy with a knife. My Lords, this is becoming a worrying trend.

The same practices were made apparent in the inquiry into the tragic murders in Nottingham in 2023. Mental health professionals had not sectioned Valdo Calocane due to his concern due to the concern. Rather, they placed on the overrepresentation of young black men in detention. My Lords, this mindset within institution filters through into public conscience. A security guard present at the Manchester Arena suicide bombing avoided confronting Salman Abedi, despite having a bad feeling about the soon to be suicide bomber.

For fear of being called racist, my Lords, the institutional obsession with ethnic or racial variety must end. Immutable identity cannot play a role in agency work concerned with protecting the public. Public bodies must act if and when there is ample evidence to suggest a risk to the individual or to the public, as was the case with Rudakubana. Regardless of who they are, if that leads to disproportionality, then so be it. If outcomes suggest an overrepresentation of this or that community, then I'm afraid the responsibility.

Responsibility must lie with the individuals in question, not with the public bodies reacting to their actions. We cannot continue with this current mindset. The consequences are far too dire. That much has been made tragically clear. I hope that the noble Lords Minister can agree with me on this specific point. My Lords, I hope that in light of these findings, the relevant agencies will now be spurred on to making the necessary changes to their operations to ensure that an atrocity like this will.

This will not result from their failings again. In particular, international sharing must be sorry. Information sharing must be made a priority and I hope the noble Lords Minister will make this assurance today. I would also like to acknowledge the monumental shortcomings of the attackers parents past the failure to seek adequate help regarding Rudakubana behaviour, the refusal to alert the police of his purchase of weapons, and the lack of accountability that Adrian Fulford highlighted in their testimonies. Their actions in the week leading up to the attack are unforgivable.

The report leaves no doubt that the parents had the express knowledge that Rudakubana was planning to commit an attack, and yet did nothing to prevent it. It will do little to prompt criminal proceedings, nor will it offer much comfort to the families of the victims. But I think it is an important point to place on the record. My Lords, this report must serve as an inflection point. We owe it to the victims, survivors, families and communities affected by this atrocity. So I very much look forward to hearing the noble Lord, the minister's response.
17:31
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I commend the statement made in the Other place. Our thoughts remain with the families of L, C, Dot, BB and Alice, and with those still living with the physical and psychological scars of Southport. The Liberal Democrats welcome the first phase of Sir Adrian Fulford's inquiry. Its findings are indeed unsparing, but tragically not unsurprising. How often have we stood here after inquests and inquiries, hearing once again of the same systemic failures, poor information sharing and missed opportunities.

The report describes the state's failure as belonging to everyone and therefore to no one. In the five years before the attack, the perpetrator came into contact with almost every arm of the state mental health services, children's social care, three schools, Lancashire Police and the prevent programme three times. No comprehensive risk assessment was ever made, and each agency assumed someone else would take the lead. This was not only a failure to join up the dots, but a failure to share life saving information.

As Sir Adrian warns that culture must end because until it does, tragedies like this will happen again. The government now say they will legislate to strengthen accountability between agencies. This is welcome, but it's hard to understand why they are overlooking an opportunity already before them in the Crime and Policing Bill, a bill which, ironically, could help deliver exactly what the inquiry calls for. The bill proposes youth diversion orders to support young people who pose a risk of serious violence or radicalisation.

Precisely. The cohort at the centre of this inquiry. Properly framed, these orders could address the very gaps Sir Adrian identifies. When police apply for an order, the court should be able to see all the relevant information from schools, social care, health services and police to build a complete picture of the child's needs and risks. But as drafted in the bill, that will not happen. The police will consult only the youth offending team. There'll be no legal duty to involve schools, health professionals or social services, and no guarantee the court will ever hear from them.

Judges will not see the full picture. That could mean the difference between prevention and disaster. That's why I have tabled an amendment to introduce a clear multi-agency consultation duty, which would build exactly the structured accountabilities, Sir Adrian said, is essential. Had such a duty existed before Southport, the perpetrator's autism might not have been repeatedly misunderstood as an explanation for his behaviour. Police might have known more about the support available, and agencies might have felt obliged to share vital information.

I made these points at Report stage, but the government resisted the amendment, preferring to rely on guidance. I do not doubt the minister's sincerity at all, but we risk seeing once again fine words followed by inaction. My Lords, it's not too late. The Bill returns to this House tomorrow. I urge Ministers to look again in the light of the inquiry's finding, and to act swiftly to ensure the law reflects what Sir Adrian has so clearly set out that lives depend on joined up responsibility and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

real accountability. Yeah. I'm grateful, my Lords, for the opportunity to repeat the statement opportunity to repeat the statement that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made in the House of Commons yesterday. My thoughts and Commons yesterday. My thoughts and those of the whole House I know will be with the families of the three girls who were killed, and to three girls who were killed, and to the ongoing victims who are still suffering the trauma of those suffering the trauma of those events.

The events of Southport on the 29th of July 2024 were completely shocking and I welcome today Sir Adrian's Fulford report on the findings that he's made, and I want to thank him and his team, who I have met on a number of occasions during this first stage of the inquiry. And I just say to the House as a whole, first of all, that the government will consider the recommendations in full, and we will respond to phase one of the report by the summer. And I do thank Sir Adrian again for his work.

Sir Adrian inquiry identified five main areas of failings which again, the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower has highlighted. Those failings are clear and are very strong criticisms which we need to examine and address in the response to those recommendations. But he has indicated that there was a failure of organisation and ownership of risk with the perpetrator themselves. There was poor information management and sharing. There was an excuse for the behaviour of the perpetrator. Due to the diagnosed autism spectrum disorder, there was failure to oversee and intervene in the perpetrator's online behaviours and the role of the perpetrator's parents, as identified by the noble Lord, was a major failure.

Now, as I've said, we will consider those recommendations and formally respond to the inquiry in the summer. I note and appreciate the pressure and comments put on me by the noble Baroness Doocey. But I do say to her that I think it is important that we do get this right, that we do consider the recommendations in full. The Crime and Policing Bill is up for tomorrow. It will potentially subject to its passage in the Commons, complete its passage and in here by potentially the end of
17:37
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
this session. I don't want to use that week now to rush a decision, that week now to rush a decision, which is why we've said we will respond to the inquiry by the summer. We've also established, as the House will know, phase two of the inquiry, which will begin immediately. We've issued terms of reference for phase two and that will look at whether there are will look at whether there are multi-agency systems are fit to assess and address the risk posed by young people who are fascinated by extreme violence.

Now that will again complete its passage, and I will expect to receive the recommendations from Sir Adrian in due course. But it's certainly an important area to look at, whether not just in the case of the individual who I remind the House has faced now a 52 year minimum term sentence in prison for his horrific crimes. But it will look at whether there are other systemic issues that need to be examined. The inquiry has put 67 recommendations in full, and we will respond to those.

And I don't wish to. With due respect to the noble Baroness Doocey made her points rush those responses today. Now the noble Baroness Barran Lord Davies of Gower also mentioned the issues of prevent. We have already. Since the attack made improvements in the Prevention and Prevent programme. This was the most likely framework that could have addressed the risk the perpetrator posed to strengthen. Prevent. We've launched a new prevent risk assessment tool. We've changed the approach to repeat referrals.

We've looked at new guidance to individuals working with people. Under the prevent framework, we've expanded the range of interventions available, and we've also introduced the role of independent Prevent Commissioner, independent Prevent Commissioner, which has been held initially by. A colleague, noble Lord, in this House, but also has now been approved on a permanent basis, with Tim Jakes being appointed as the Prevent commissioner. The government will examine those issues in detail and will continue to learn and look at the responses to the recommendations in due course.

But I want to give thanks also for May to the noble Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who has been holding that role at the moment, and I welcome his contribution to date in helping us to improve the prevent response. And the noble Baron Lord Davies of Gower also mentioned the question of autism that was identified by the Fulford initial recommendations. The perpetrator was autistic and clearly this increased the risk he posed to people in the community. But the question is that it's not necessarily autism itself that has caused the events that happened on July 29th.

Risk needs to be assessed on an individual basis, and in the case of the Southport perpetrator, clearly autism spectrum disorder added to the risky pose. The inquiry found that too many professionals were willing to excuse their behaviour because of this. What we will do is to make sure the practitioners working, particularly in prevent, understand that a referral should not be dismissed and that action should be taken. There is no excuse for the behaviour on autism. The inquiry highlights serious concerns and just for information for the noble Lord.

Independently of this inquiry, the government has committed to develop a new autism strategy following recent House of Lords reports on the Autism Act 2009, and work is underway to develop a cross-government national autism strategy, and the inquiry's findings will be carefully considered as part of this proposal. And the noble Lord Davies of Gower also mentioned the question of the parents. I have to say that the inquiry has examined the role of the perpetrator's family. It has been extremely critical of the perpetrator's family.

Sir Adrian makes clear findings on moral failings that should have been reported with regard to the perpetrator concerning his behaviour, his collecting of weapons and his approach to both his family life and to the community around him. It is a matter ultimately for the police whether there is any criminal action taken in relation to the parents and the parents are British citizens and do have the right of abode in the United Kingdom, as was the perpetrator. But certainly, again, I think there are lessons to be learned from that, and we will respond to the recommendations in due course.

The noble Lord Davis also mentioned the question of race. Can I just say to him that in this case. That that may be a factor of where individuals have not taken the action they should have taken because of the individual's race? But I want to make it clear to the House as a whole that the type of individual action that was taken by the perpetrator, who is now serving 52 years in prison, could have been taken by anybody, regardless of race.

And I don't want to bring the issue of race into this, but I do understand the point. The noble Lord has made that professionals need to ignore race when they look at the actions of an individual, and that is the important issue that has come out of this report. I just want to say, finally, if I may, that the government has already as well taken further action to ensure that we establish ourselves internally, a working group, to look at the recommendations that have been made.

As I've said to the House, we will make a report back by the summer on those initial recommendations. Phase two has begun. Now it has our full support. I will continue to meet as the Minister sponsoring the inquiry with Sir Adrian, to ensure that he has both the resource and support to achieve his final recommendations, but I think it is clear to the House as a whole that the individual concerned undertook appalling acts. Our thoughts remain with the family of those victims, and it is our duty as government to look at where the failings existed that contributed to this attack.

The responsibility lies solely with the perpetrator, but factors that contributed to the attack and we need government proposals in due course, both for phase one and for phase two.
17:44
17:45
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
It's an absolutely fair point >> It's an absolutely fair point that the noble Lord makes. And again, I put to the House, Sir Adrian's recommendations are clear. Adrian's recommendations are clear. There are clear five areas of failing. We are looking at those recommendations and we'll report on the summer. The second phase is looking at the wider picture, and we will look at those recommendations in due course. But the Home Office is not complacent. So what we have done is establish a violence fixation task force, which is now looking at a range of issues in the Home Office, looking at the recommendations itself, but also looking at the government's response, but also looking at the developments of the very issue of the noble Lord mentions, which is identifying individuals at risk who are fascinated by violence, managing that risk, and looking with other agencies as to what we need to do now, pending a formal response to the recommendations in due course.

It is very difficult sometimes if individuals appear from nowhere and we cannot necessarily legislate against that, but it is important that we review now what the priority approaches are to make sure that if there are people in the system, we examine that very clearly, very quickly, and the Home Office Task Force is now being commissioned by my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, to establish some general examination of the very issues the noble Lord mentions, and I hope that, again, I will be able to report back to the will be able to report back to the House in due course.
17:47
17:48
17:49
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Very much. My Lords, I think I can't imagine what it's like for the parents of those three little the parents of those three little girls and the other injured children to hear the key word that was used in relation to the inquiry was that these events were preventable. That is the most chilling idea. They could have been stopped. The butcher behind the slaughter was hiding in plain sight, a known risks since 13. But somehow state bodies did nothing.

Zilch. So I'd like to ask the Minister, how will those state agencies that so failed here be held to account? I mean, will people be sacked? Surely there must be some consequences. It can't just be a vague. Lessons must be learned. And secondly, the Minister said that we shouldn't bring race into this. But I'd just like to point out that actually, I don't think anyone did except the state agencies that said that action should not be taken because of the race of the individual.

And I'm referring as well to the Nottingham inquiry that's ongoing. Sure. The minister's following it where Calocane murdered also three innocent people and nobody wants to talk about the race. But as Barnaby, one of the murdered people's mothers, says, Emma said, I don't want to talk about race, but mental health treatment was not given to him because it was said that that would be seen because he was black. So I just think a bastardised anti-racism has not helped us here and won't help us hold people to account either.

We have to be honest and frank. We're not bringing race into this. The institutions and the state bodies did.
17:51
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I hope I was clear, I thought I >> I hope I was clear, I thought I was clear to the House that when I said about the issue of race, I said to the House that the said to the House that the characteristics that led to the individual perpetrating this awful attack are characteristics due to mental health issues and obsession, and a range of other issues that were identified in the report. And there was an element where people did use the issue of race to not necessarily follow through on some of the points that they could have done, but the perpetrator and the race of the perpetrator, in my view, is an issue which, again, I think we need to be very careful about examining that per se.

But there are issues, obviously, within that. And when we look at the Adrian Fulford recommendations in due course, there are obviously failures around the management of the individual. We're going to look at those recommendations. Some of the individuals who have been criticised, there will be a discussion with local authorities, I'm sure, and others about how they improve that performance. But I want to say to the noble Lady that I pleased we had this report yesterday at 12 noon. I think it's important that we do assess the recommendations.

We do look at them. I've given a commitment that we will report back by the end of the summer, and that is one thing that we will do. So if she will allow me, I will not comment on the issues that she's raised pending the examination of those inquiries in detail.
17:52
17:53
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Well. >> Well, I'm grateful for my noble friend. I mean, I think he's made the very important point that there the very important point that there are issues which we need to examine in relation to obsession with violence, serious violence, which maybe are outside of the prevent program, but which need to be examined as part of the characteristics of someone being referred to prevent part two of the inquiry from Adrian Fulford has got very clear terms of reference to look at the very issues of how individuals are being radicalised, how individuals are being obsessed with violence.

Sometimes that violence obsession is not linked to an ideology, it is linked to the whole principle of I want to be involved in in violence. That's a new element that we need to examine. And part two of Adrian Fulford's report is designed to look at that very issue. We've already reviewed the prevent agenda and we've widened the scope of prevent. The independent prevent Commissioner has already prevented produced a report for us on those issues. And we're going to continue to look at how we improve, prevent.

But I just say to my my noble friend as well, that prevent has been a significant intervention in, you know, almost 6000 cases to date, which has turned many people's lives around. And it's had cross-government support from all parties and I'd want to continue to use it. But there are certainly lessons to be learned, which is what we will be doing in relation to our examination of these issues.
17:54
17:56
17:57
Baroness Foster of Oxton Portrait Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, just a brief query from me. This has been one of the most horrendous cases that we we have witnessed, and I believe, actually, that the public have lost confidence in so many areas of the authorities who should be looking after our children and looking after all of us. Frankly, when we take the examples, I recall going back to the Victoria Climbié case and then many children over the years that were subject to being murdered and tortured.

And there were always lessons to be learned. And this isn't just pointed at one government, by the way. This is just a fact of life. We had the Manchester Arena bomber and all of those children that were murdered again, and then we've had rape gangs. And this situation that's gone on for the last 20 or 30 years, and here we are now in Southport. And my view is the public have lost confidence, frankly, because nobody is ever held to account. This isn't about just pointing a finger and wanting to see somebody that's in authority end up in court.

But the cover ups that have gone on in some of these awful circumstances, with nobody at all being brought to account or being brought and feeling the full force of the law cannot continue. And until this is dealt with, in my view, far more open, in a far more open manner. And those who are accountable are feeling the full, full force of of the law. I don't think we're going to get any further forward and there will be no lessons learned, because we'll be probably having this sort of conversation in another year or two's time.

So can I just urge the Minister? I know that he is a a good Minister, and he is very thorough. And I know all of us in this House want to resolve these awful issues. He does have our full support, but we really do need to regain the confidence of the public.
17:59
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Well, can I say to the noble Baroness that I agree we need to give confidence to the public and the purpose of the inquiry that the then Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, launched was to ensure that we draw out some lessons. They will always be in a cycle of any particular government at any particular time. Things that are throwing up and showing failures. This inquiry has found that no single agency or multi-agency arrangement took ownership of the risk.

That's unacceptable. There was poor information recording, management and sharing of agencies and professionals. That's unacceptable. The behaviour of the individual was excused on the basis of his autism. That shouldn't have happened. There was failure to understand that intervene in online behaviours both at home and at school. And his parents particularly had major failings in excusing his behaviour. Now can we make some changes on those things? The recommendations that Sir Adrian has made are a guidance for us. We're going to enhance again to the noble Baroness Doocey earlier question.

We're going to reflect on those in due course. A whole range of issues might come out of that, including how we hold individuals to account. But the key thing is, having had those recommendations literally 12 noon yesterday, I think it's important the government has time to consider them properly and to bring back a forward plan for both Houses of Parliament. But what we have done is, as soon as those recommendations have been received by government, we've brought them to this House and to the House of Commons to share them in an open, public way so that colleagues will know that we share those concerns we have, that, I hope, full support of the House to address them, and we will do our best to make sure that those systemic failures are addressed and if need be, individuals are held to account.
18:01
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I know we want to go so quickly. >> I know we want to go so quickly. I don't usually call for bans, but I'd like to call for a ban on the phrase lessons must be learned, phrase lessons must be learned, because that's what makes the public feel cynical, because I've been here for a few years and lessons must be learned. It's been said so often to me, and none of them have ever been learned as far as I can see. So can we just stop saying that phrase because everyone

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just goes rolls their eyes? That was. Excuse me, it's not time for a joke, but statements should be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

about questions to the Minister. Thank you. Well, let me give the noble Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, let me give the noble Lady an answer. If she thinks that we're not going to take this issue seriously, bring forward a proposal plan, respond to the plan, respond to the recommendations, and yes, learn some lessons from that. Then she's dealing with the wrong Minister in the wrong place. My job is to make the wrong place. My job is to make sure that we respond to this in an effective, constructive way. I'm trying to reach out to the whole House to say that there is, I hope, a unified approach to these recommendations.

I will report back. And yes, if lessons have to be learned, I will use that phrase again, because the whole purpose of the government's action is to prevent this happening as far as possible in the future, and that's what this government is trying to do here.
18:02
18:02
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker Baroness Pitkeathley (Labour)
-

knife crime plan.
18:02
Lord Davies of Gower Portrait Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, we meet at a time when too many people in this country too many people in this country still feel less safe in their streets, less confident in the criminal justice system. My Lords, criminal justice system. My Lords, we know the threat of knife crime in committee on the Crime and Policing Bill. We pointed out on Policing Bill. We pointed out on this side of the House that in the year ending March 2025, there were 528,582 stop and searches in England and Wales, including 5572 under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, while in the year ending 20th June 2025, there were still 51,527 knife offences and 1.1 million incidents of violence with or without injury recorded by the police.

The government, of course, now say they will halve knife crime in a decade and we all want that. Of course we do. But targets without a clear plan is not enough. So can I ask the Minister to say how Ministers are going to empower police to tackle knife crime with confidence? If the government want officers to act decisively to prevent violence, they must also ensure that officers who act lawfully and proportionately feel properly backed. That is why we must prevent Independent Office for Police Conduct from reopening an investigation into the same conduct after a police officer had been prosecuted and acquitted.

Unless there is substantial new evidence, and we have made this argument forcefully in debates on the Crime and Policing Bill, and we will revisit that tomorrow. The government must not undermine police confidence when we need more proactive policing. While the government speaks of neighbourhood policing expansion, the fact is that overall police officer numbers have fallen by more than 1300 since the government took office, including particularly sharp falls in the Metropolitan Police, where knife crime is at its worst. So can the Minister tell us what impact the falling police numbers has had on overall crime levels, and what impact it has had on perceptions of safety and communities, and what steps are Ministers taking to expand the numbers of police officers, and when will they deliver on their manifesto commitment to recruit more police in committee on the Crime and Policing Bill, we proposed lowering the threshold for section 60 from anticipated serious violence to anticipated violence, and fortunately, the government declined.

So what was the government's answer? Well, the Minister said in response, if we wish to reduce knife crime, stop and search as a tool in extremis and that better education, youth futures programs and policing hotspots are far more effective ways of reducing the problem overall. While I can say with every confidence that hotspot policing and targeted funds are all very well, but hotspots cannot police themselves and they have still not gone far enough in strengthening police powers or in giving forces the numbers they need.

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

And that brings me to youth hubs, youth centres and the wider youth offer. We want there to be investment in youth outreach and early intervention. Can the Minister say how the money will be spent, how success will be measured and how resources will be redirected if schemes do not work? This matters all the more because the government's broader economic policy risks undermining the very stability it claims to be building. And my Lords, young men do not drift into gang culture and street violence in a vacuum where there are few opportunities to prosper.

Young people are more vulnerable to exploitation and more likely to join illegal gangs. That is why it is entirely proper for this House to ask whether the government government's wider tax and spend choices are making matters worse. And if you make it more expensive to hire and more expensive to take a chance on a younger worker, it is entry level jobs that disappear. First, it is the vulnerable young person who finds legitimate work just out of reach. Gangs do not recruit in prosperous conditions.

They recruit where the formal economy has receded and the illicit economy looks to a teenager like the only market left. Now, my Lords, I'm not claiming that every unemployed young person turns to crime. That is not true. Far from it. Nor do I diminish the individual's responsibility for their actions. But a weaker youth labour market creates more fertile ground for exploitation, including by county lines, gangs and organised criminal networks. Indeed, we have consistently been challenging Ministers directly on youth unemployment and the effect of the government's economic choices on hiring Lord Oates the public deserves better and this government, I believe, has some way to go yet.
18:08
Baroness Doocey Portrait Baroness Doocey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My. strategy. In broad terms, it's the right direction of travel. There's much in protecting lives to support the focus on prevention, early intervention, and joined up local action. These are principles the Liberal Democrats have long championed, and it's good to see them reflected in national policy. Knife crime continues to harm too many lives and too many communities. Many areas still feel the effects of reduced youth services and local support. Rebuilding these networks must be central, and I'm encouraged that the strategy recognises this.

The principle behind the plan is sound. If delivered well, it can do lasting good, but success depends on sustained funding. Prevention cannot be turned on and off with budget cycles, youth work and early intervention only succeed when there are steady and trusted resources should be directed where fear and harm are greatest. Knife crime shapes shapes how young people move about their area, how safe they feel and where they go. A data driven approach is sensible, provided its use carefully and does not erode trust or concentrate suspicion unfairly.

Real neighbourhood policing visible, consistent and rooted in local knowledge, remains the best safeguard against that. Technology and crime mapping can help, but it's not the whole answer. Ours is already one of the most severe countries countries in the world. London alone is the most heavily monitored city in Europe. Knife crime, however, is a human problem requiring human connection. Innovation should complement proper frontline presence and strong community partnerships, but never replace them. And we must guard against technology that subtly changes the nature of society or erodes rights and freedoms.

The strategy rightly points to the role of social media glamorising violence and spreading fear, and helping criminal networks to recruit and communicate. But we've reached the stage where policing online platforms requires more than new laws and rhetoric. It demands sustained, visible enforcement. The Online Safety Act for serious criminal penalties sorry, the Online Safety Act provides for serious criminal penalties. What the public now wants to know is how often these powers are used. One area which needs clarity is the future of serious violence reduction orders.

These powers allow stop and search of known offenders without suspicion. The Liberal Democrats have long had concerns about their proportionality and impact on public confidence. Could the Minister confirm whether they will continue and when Parliament will see the pilot evaluation? If they're not to be extended, we should understand why and if future use is being considered. The evidence should be published in full. My Lords, this strategy contains many of the right, the right elements. The challenge now is delivery, ensuring those commitments lead to genuine, lasting change on the ground.

The Liberal Democrats will support that ambition and work constructively to make it happen.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I'm grateful and I'm grateful particularly for the support particularly for the support broadly from the noble Baroness, Lady Lucy, for the approach of the Lady Lucy, for the approach of the government. This was a manifesto commitment to ensure that we tackle knife crime and halve knife crime knife crime and halve knife crime in the period of the action plan that we've brought forward today.
18:12
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
that we've brought forward today. But I just want to say to the House as a as an opener, that the success to date in the last two years has also seen a reduction in knife crime as a whole. In the year before the start of this Parliament in 20 2324, knife crime rose by 4% and by 4% in the year before that. Since the start of this parliament, overall knife crime is down 8%. Knife related homicides and hospital admissions for assault with a sharp object are at their lowest level in a decade, dropping 27% and 11%, respectively.

Knife enabled assaults are down by 9%. Knife enabled robberies are down by 10%, and over 63,000 knives have been taken out of circulation, including ninja swords. Surrender schemes that we introduced following the ban on Ninja Swords last year. And just to put London into context, as the noble Lord Davies of Gower mentioned it, knife crime in London since this government was elected has fallen by 7% 15,981 offences in the last year of his government to 14,860 offences in the first year of this government.

So there is success, but there is still individual challenge and individual responsibility required. Now the Knife Crime Action Plan is a very substantial document, and I would refer noble Lords to look at it in detail. It reflects a number of the concerns that have been mentioned by both front benches, including the fact that we need to look at prevention, look at targeted hotspot work, and look at supporting young people, particularly to avoid getting involved in gangs. And that's not just aspiration for this government.

We will launch 50 young people's future hubs by the end of this parliament. The first initial eight opened last week. We're putting extra money of £66 million into the Serious Violence Reduction program. We're rolling out 50 young peoples future panels. We've provided 1.2 million for safety in and around school partnerships in 250 schools, where there is knife crime hotspots and we've put £26 million into the knife crime concentration fund. It might be interesting to the House to know that 27 police forces make up 90% of the total knife crime in this country.

So it makes sense, as the noble Baroness Doocey said, to try to focus resources on those hotspot areas. So we've put now in this plan £34 million into funding in the County Lines programme. We've put money into pupil Premium to look at funding violence reduction programs in those hotspot areas. We've put £15 million through the Ministry of Justice into interventions for children who are approaching the cusp of the criminal justice system, but who should be removed away from it. And we're putting money into safer research and safer streets as a whole.

As can be seen. MoJ Department of Education, Department of Health and the Home Office. This is across government strategy to try to ensure that we reduce knife crime and halve knife crime, as in the plan before us. Now, the question of stop and search is important, and we do need to use it proportionally, as the noble Baroness Doocey has said. But it may surprise the House and I hope not horrify them too much to know that 15,955 knives were recovered last year alone through stop and search.

Now, had we not had stop and search those 15,955 knives would have been in people's pockets, potentially being used to additionally attack either at a robbery level or at an assault, or being used for defensive purposes, which leads to injury or death as a result of knife crime. So I think we need to certainly look at the challenges of stop and search, make sure it is fairly approached and done in a proper, effective way. But I can't get away from the fact that 16,000 knives almost were found on people through stop and search, both intelligence led policing.

When we know that potentially individuals might be knife carriers, but also random stop and search, 16,000 or 15,955 knives in one year found on individuals is a both deterrent but also an important issue. Now the question of sentencing is important. The noble Lord Davies of Gower has tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. He knows that tomorrow we will deal with those amendments. The government has reflected on the concerns that he put legitimately on behalf of HMG opposition, and tomorrow there will be amendments that will move some way towards increasing the level of sentence as a whole.

And he will also know that the government has a range of issues to do with prohibiting the purchase of knives online. Stricter laws on age verification, checks on sale and delivery, all of which are in the Police and Crime Bill now, which I hope will receive a favourable consideration for Royal Assent very shortly. And by autumn of this year, we will begin to put into practice the measures that have been legislated for in both houses to help reduce the restriction on knives as a whole.

We've also launched on the 16th of December last year, a public consultation on a licensing scheme for those who sell knives or bladed articles included including importers, retailers and private sellers, and that follows recommendations made in the end to end review on online knife sales to introduce a registration scheme to ensure that we have a minimum standard that we can monitor again on those issues. We've also got a range of measures going forward in terms of the police number issue that the noble Lord has mentioned, one of the purposes of the government's action was to, you know, focus again on neighbourhood policing, local police in local hotspots, and we've put 3100 additional police officers and police community support officers into neighbourhood roles in less than a year.

We've got the plan to bring forward 13,000 additional neighbourhood personnel by the end of this parliament. That's the most important thing. I think neighbourhood police officers know their flock, know the businesses, know the individuals in the community can intelligence led, gather, can provide support to individuals, can look at where gangs are operating, can help coordinate interventions. Along with the funding that we're providing in this plan. And I think, again, we'll have a debate about police numbers, but I think the importance of having police in a neighbourhood is critical, and that's what the government is trying to do with this proposal.

In parallel to the action plan as a whole. So the House will know this is an extremely difficult task. I will look at the points that the Baroness Doocey has mentioned and reflect on those and if need be, respond to her by by letter. But this is an extremely thorough plan. It has new resource going to it to help meet its objectives. It is cross-government. It is paralleled with legislation in this House now, and we will continue to work to improve neighbourhood policing over the course of this Parliament.

Can we stop all knife crime? No we can't. Can we help have an objective to achieve a halving of knife crime? Yes we can. And I want to pay tribute to not just Home Office officials but also the police, community groups, campaigners of victims of knife crime who have helped formulate this plan. And I hope the House will give it its full support.
18:20
18:22
18:23
18:24
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Well, again, I'm grateful to the >> Well, again, I'm grateful to the noble Lords broad support for the knife crime action plan. It's an ambitious target to halve knife ambitious target to halve knife crime within a decade, but it's one that we think is worthwhile achieving. And as has been said in what I've outlined to the House, there are measures about legislation, there are measures about policing, there are measures about stop and search. But there's also a great emphasis on prevention, and the prevention estimates are dealt with by my colleagues, predominantly in the Department of Education.

But the 50 young future hubs were trying to open by the end of this parliament, and the initial eight opened last week, have long term funding and backup for the course of this parliament. He makes an interesting point on the question of detached youth work. I haven't got statistics in front of me today on that, and I wouldn't wish to second guess what they may be, but I will examine that and talk to colleagues in the Department of Education. And if I have information I can share with the noble Lord, I will do so in writing.

But the important point is, in this measure that we've got here, youth future hubs £66 million in serious violence reduction program, the 50 Young Youth Futures panels, the money into schools in the hotspot areas, the diversion of resources to police forces of £26 million into the 27 forces within 90% of knife crime occurs, is a way of trying to focus it down. It's very important we do what the noble Baroness Doocey suggested, which is use intelligence information to determine where this is a problem and to look.

Therefore, then with neighbourhood police, with youth workers, with youth hubs, as to what interventions are required. That's not for me to second guess, but it's the direction of travel, and I hope that the noble Lord will welcome that. And if I can give him the specific information, I will do so.
18:26
18:27
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Again, I agree with the noble Baroness on that. And as I said, as Baroness on that. And as I said, as part of my general contribution, some of the work the MoJ is doing and some of the work that we've got there is for individuals who are on that cusp who might well be getting involved in a gang who might well be carrying a knife, that there's resources in the knife crime Action Plan for the Ministry of Justice to not have a criminal justice outcome for those individuals, but to try and find ways in which we can divert them and support them to choose a different lifestyle or to break that gang culture.

Interestingly as well, I should refer to the House that some 63,611 knives since the general election have been taken out of circulation through the surrender scheme, and that includes weapons through the Ninja Sword surrender, which had cross-party support, the zombie knives and machetes and knives seized by Border Force coming into the country. We're trying to reduce again the type of knife that can be carried or used for those offensive purposes. Every one of us will use a knife in our daily work and life.

We have to look at what we do in terms of the ninja knives. We've banned the import of the wrong type of knife, the measures that we've taken about registration. But the noble Baroness makes a very important point that criminalising young people is not necessarily the best way to help them have a lifetime free of criminal activity, and that is key to the plan, my Lord.
18:29
18:29
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
Mission of the government >> Mission of the government through the Department of Education, to try to look at improving attendance at schools across the attendance at schools across the board. And there's been some I've started a couple of Cabinet committees where that work has been shown to be proving successful at the moment now, and that is a cross-government initiative to get children and young people into school. But my noble friend makes a very valuable point. I did mention it in my earlier contribution, but I think it's worth mentioning again that the pupil premium funding, led by the Department of Education, is now available to use to fund particular challenges where there are state schools where disadvantaged children and school attendance is down, and where there are interventions to support both pupils social emotional behavioural needs.

And the pupil Premium Grant is 3.2 billion this year, and there's a significant evidence that that is, as my noble friend has mentioned, an effective way to reduce the risk of serious violence, including knife crime, and that is the Department of Education led approach. But as I've said here, the knife crime plan has been a prime ministerial objective, and the Prime Minister has brought together the Home Office to lead this. But all government departments involved MoJ Department of Education, Department of Health are playing a role to try to meet some objectives to help that ambitious target of halving knife crime.
18:31
18:31
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page