King’s Speech

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Crawley]

Moved on Wednesday 13 May by

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows:

“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.

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

My Lords, it is a privilege to open this debate on the Government’s plans for home affairs, the justice system and the union. I express my gratitude to His Majesty for delivering the most gracious Speech.

I want to say at the outset that, in the 15 months since I came into your Lordships’ House, I have been awed by the amount of expertise, experience and wisdom to be found here. On that subject, I am sure that many noble Lords will have noted that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, is to make his valedictory speech today after 16 years in your Lordships’ House. We shall miss him. His contributions, like his books, have always been learned, penetrative and eloquent, and he has never been afraid to tell us straight what he thinks. To have leading political historians in this House has added knowledge and quality to our debates. Because the noble Lord has already said this publicly, I am sure he will not mind me referring to the fact that he suffers from Parkinson’s disease. In fact, so does my own father, who was 90 last weekend and is going strong. I am sure your Lordships will all join me in wishing the noble Lord good health, long life and continued happiness.

I also look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Case, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

In opening this debate, I have two themes: the protection of the public and rebuilding trust in our public institutions. We will do this at the national level but we will also work with the newly formed devolved Governments because people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and here in England, expect to see their Governments working together to deliver for them.

We all long for the sunlit uplands where the economy is so strong that there is money to pay for everything that we want and deserve. While I, as a proud member of this Labour Government, firmly believe that we are on the right path to greater economic strength, we all have to accept that at the moment we cannot afford everything that we want to do, so hard choices have to be made. But the lodestar for this Government is these two principles: fairness and opportunity for all people across the United Kingdom.

I start with the protection of the public, because keeping our citizens safe is the most fundamental duty of all. This Government have two objectives: to ensure that law enforcement bodies have the tools to tackle emerging dangers while maintaining the trust and confidence of the communities they serve. This Government are introducing the biggest reform to policing in two centuries, designed to do three things: to respond to rapidly changing threats, to give confidence at a local level that communities’ priorities are listened to and acted on, and to increase democratic accountability.

Crime is evolving fast. Sophisticated criminal gangs are working both here and internationally, smuggling drugs and trafficking people into this country. The online world is making it easier than ever for sexual abusers and online fraudsters to operate—90% of crime today has a digital element, and fraud now makes up nearly half of all crime. We no longer live in the world of “Dixon of Dock Green”. I knew I could make that reference safely in your Lordships’ House, but when I said it to my children I got rather a blank stare. That rather makes the point for me that policing must evolve to tackle modern realities.

The police reform Bill will restore trust in policing. It will strengthen local policing by driving down waste, cutting bureaucracy, empowering officers in their communities and equipping forces with the technology and skills they need to keep pace with crime as it evolves. We are creating the national police service, which will provide a unified response to the most serious crimes, set stronger national policing standards and ensure that there is more consistency in how the police go about their work. While operational independence remains a crucial cornerstone of modern policing, this Bill will ensure that there is greater accountability to the public through their elected representatives. To achieve this, the Home Secretary will set national priorities, improving police performance and ensuring that standards are met across the country.

In addition, as part of protecting the public we must keep up with modern dangers. That is why the most gracious Speech also included proposals to tackle two of the greatest emerging threats: those posed by hostile states as well as by individuals. The tackling state threats Bill creates a powerful new tool to disrupt and deter the activities of state-linked entities and those acting in concert with them. This follows a recommendation made by the independent reviewer. Hostile states sponsor terrorism and create insecurity, so with this Bill we will create a new power for the Secretary of State directly to address organisations engaged in state-linked threats with new criminal sanctions.

But it is not just other countries that represent an evolving threat. We also need stronger protections against individuals who become fixated on violence and can and do cause serious real-world harm. The Southport attack in July 2024 was a stark reminder of why this is needed. We must protect the public from those who plan to commit a mass casualty attack, even if they do not have an ideological motive, so we will introduce a national security Bill with measures to tackle online extreme violence. We all know that exposure to the most graphic and extreme violent material can escalate to planning and conducting an attack. This Bill will criminalise the creation and sharing of extreme violence content, give law enforcement updated powers to take down cyber criminals, including introducing a cyber crime risk order, and criminalise the planning of a mass casualty attack such as the Southport attack.

I turn to my second subject: confidence in our public institutions. This Government are bringing forward several measures to rebuild that trust, to make sure that systems work as they should and to restore fairness and predictability. I start with a subject close to my own heart: our criminal justice system. Whether your Lordships belong to a particular political grouping or to none, I think we can all agree that our criminal justice system is struggling. We might disagree about who is to blame, but we all know that things are not how they should be in a mature democracy. There are grotesque delays in cases being tried, victims who feel that the system is weighted against them, guilty defendants gaming the system and innocent defendants whose lives are ruined by the many months, if not years, waiting to be cleared, by which time they may well have lost their jobs, homes and families.

All these things are closely intertwined: the delays make it worth while for the guilty to string things out, which in turn makes victims feel that the system is broken. Today, the backlog of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court is over 80,000. Without action, that backlog will continue to rise beyond the point of recovery, so we must act.

We are implementing a package of reforms. The first element is a record financial investment in the criminal justice system. We are funding unlimited sitting days in the Crown Court this financial year; as many courts as the Lady Chief Justice can give us, we will fund. That is part of a record £2.78 billion settlement for the courts and tribunals this year, which includes significant increases to legal aid to attract and retain the excellent lawyers upon whom the system depends. The second element is improving efficiency. We are working hard to give our response to the second part of the Leveson report but, by way of example, there will be more blitz courts, and we are making greater use of technology and artificial intelligence.

The third element of our package is to introduce modernising reforms. We will do this through the return of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. For reasons that, I must confess, I have been a bit mystified by, this has attracted huge controversy. The reason I am mystified by it is that this Government are doing only what pretty much every other Government have done in the past, including Conservative Governments. Let me explain what I mean. It has always been the case that only 10% of criminal cases are dealt with in the Crown Court. There are obvious reasons for this: jury trial is much slower and more expensive than in the magistrates’ court, which is why every Government reserve jury trial for the most serious cases—and what is meant by “the most serious cases” changes over time. Let me give a little illustration.

Picture the scene: on a sunny morning in 1971, a 23 year-old barrister set off to the Birkenhead Quarter Sessions to conduct his first jury trial. The name of that young man was Alex Carlile, known to this House as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and, as some of your Lordships know, my noble kinsman. In case your Lordships are wondering why I have embarked on this recounting of ancient history, the reason is this: the offence for which his client was being tried was driving with excess alcohol. It was a breathalyser case. I think your Lordships will now have the point. We do not try breathalyser cases in the Crown Court any more; they go only before the magistrates. As for the reason for that, I can do no better than to use the words of the late, great Gareth Williams QC, Lord Williams of Mostyn. In 1999, speaking in your Lordships’ House when he was Minister of State in the Home Office, he said:

“Things are not set in stone. Your Lordships will remember the introduction of the breathalyser provisions and the right to trial by jury. I remember that with perfect satisfaction and happiness because it kept many of us going in south and west Wales for many years running completely bogus defences—I can say this now—about whether the policeman was wearing his cap and, if not, whether it constituted full uniform. Eventually, the right to elect trial in breathalyser cases was wholly removed and transferred to the magistracy. One cannot set these matters in stone; one must take a sensible balance and build in judicial safeguards”.—[Official Report, 19/5/1999; col. 366.]


The party that had removed the right of jury trial for these cases was, of course, the party opposite. I do not say that to criticise them, but merely to make the point that this is what Governments do to keep up with modern life. They just move the line as to which cases are tried in the magistrates’ court and which require the greater time and resources of judge and jury in the Crown Court. We are a Labour Government. We did not come into office, and I did not come into your Lordships’ House, to remove jury trial. This is a sensible and proportionate response to the changing nature of criminal offences and the way in which they are prosecuted in the public interest, because the modelling is clear: investment and modernisation alone are not enough. We also need to reform.

I turn to the better and fairer immigration and asylum system that we promised the British people. We will not hesitate to remove those with no right to be here and ensure that our immigration rules are enforced. But I also say that this Labour Government will never shirk the responsibility of providing refugee status to those fleeing war and persecution. We will continue to meet our international obligations, while encouraging those who want to build a life in the UK to do so via safe and legal routes. What we see on our television screens unfolding in the English Channel is grotesque—vulnerable adults and children being exploited and put in danger—and it must stop.

We have made a good start: we have cut £1 billion from the asylum Bill, and we have increased the return of illegal immigrants by 31% since coming into office. However, it is absolutely clear that we cannot solve this by incremental measures alone; the task is too urgent and too big. The immigration and asylum Bill will introduce the most significant changes to the immigration system in a generation. It will restore order and control by tightening the application of Article 8, ensuring that “family life” means only the core family unit and addressing the misuse of the modern slavery framework. It will speed up the removal and deportation of illegal migrants and foreign criminals, as well as reducing the pull factors driving illegal migration.

We will create a new independent appeals body and a system that is fair and fast and commands public confidence, which will ensure the immediate forced removal of those who have exhausted all their appeals. We will ensure that refugees who do integrate, contribute and play a full part in our society will be able to come off basic protection and settle more quickly. These proposals will make our immigration system fair and fit for purpose and allow us to focus on those who genuinely need support.

A failure in accountability of those who serve or should serve the public has worn down public trust. His Majesty confirmed the carryover of two Bills designed to right past wrongs. The first will fulfil our manifesto commitment to get the public accountability law on the statute book. We are determined to deliver for the Hillsborough families after 37 long years, as well as the victims of other tragedies where the state was at fault, including infected blood, Horizon and Grenfell.

The Bill will introduce a duty of candour and individual accountability, and it will require honesty and frankness when things go wrong. It will put powerful new obligations on public bodies and officials to help investigations to get to the truth, and it will make sure that there is parity of arms at inquests, representing the largest expansion of civil legal aid in a decade. Taken together, the measures in this Bill will give individual citizens real and meaningful ability to challenge the state.

His Majesty confirmed the return of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. This Bill is also designed to rebuild public trust, as well as ensuring dignity for the families of victims. Many of those families have suffered so much down the years and simply want answers about what happened to their family members killed in the Troubles. We will therefore reform the current system of addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. This includes measures to enhance next-of-kin participation, safeguard witnesses, including our veterans, and bolster confidence in the reformed legacy commission. This is a proportionate and workable approach to addressing this dark period in our history.

I know that, in the best traditions of your Lordships’ House, the debate to follow will allow for a full and interesting discussion of this Government’s agenda. I would welcome discussion with any of your Lordships, from whichever party or group, about any or all of these plans. This Government are keen to draw upon the experience and wisdom in this House, about which I spoke at the beginning of this speech. Where we can achieve consensus, we will do so. The most gracious Speech set out this Government’s approach to keeping the public safe and restoring trust. We are determined that, by doing so, we can build a better future for us all.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will be brief, but as my name was on the original amendment I wanted to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for her passion and persistence in ensuring that the Bill will now be the vehicle for finally making threats to share intimate images a criminal offence. Thanks also must go to the Government and to the Minister for really listening—not only to the campaigners and those of us who spoke in Committee but, far more importantly, to those many millions of women who have been subjected, and continue to be subjected, to this invidious behaviour.

We have heard today of how an entire town has been sent intimate images of young women from that town. This is a growing crime, as online sites grow and more young people are betrayed and humiliated. As the chair of Refuge put it, changing the law to criminalise threats to share could not come soon enough for those one in seven young women who experience this form of abuse in the UK. This will finally provide them with the recourse to justice that they deserve.

[Lord Judge (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I too acknowledge with enthusiasm and, if I may say so, admiration the dedicated energy of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, to resolving this issue and achieving this reform. This is a simple amendment, or will be a series of simple amendments. The clause in question addresses what everybody who has spoken in the past, whether in Committee or at Second Reading, knows is pernicious and malevolent behaviour. It should be criminalised and now it will be; good.

Importantly, if I may just digress, the achievement of this objective by recasting Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 means that every potential victim will fall within the new protected ambit of the offence, whether or not she—it is, of course, nearly always she but sometimes may be he—forms part of any domestic arrangement or personal relationship, or none. They may be a total stranger. Behaviour like this causes distress, anxiety and offence by whomsoever and in whatever circumstances it occurs.

In the context of the debate we have just had on Amendments 46 and 47, it would apply to someone in the position of a carer. I wonder why that is strange in the context of the debate that has just happened; for the purposes of this amendment, it is not strange at all. I thank the Minister for reflecting, for accepting that there is no time to waste and for an approach which will be welcomed on all sides of the House.

I will add a footnote: like the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, I shall hope to continue to examine the ingredients of this offence, and in particular the state of mind currently required on the basis of the new clause inserted by Amendment 48—old Section 33 of the 2015 Act—just to make sure that it satisfactorily addresses how strong an intent is required. I feel that having a positive, specific intent to cause distress is not appropriate. It certainly would not be appropriate for someone who had acquired the intimate photographs, perhaps without paying for them if they were sent through modern technology, and just decided to publish them. I think “intent to cause distress” is too strong, but that is a detail for today. We will come back to it and trouble the Minister about it, no doubt, in discussions.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 162 is in my name and the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, Lady Crawley and Lady Grey-Thompson. I thank them, and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, for their support. I am grateful to all noble Lords who indicated their support to me for this change in the law. I also thank Ministers in both Houses for their constructive engagement on this matter so far and, in particular, the Secretary of State for Justice, who was himself involved in securing the change to the law in 2015 to criminalise the sharing of intimate images, otherwise known as “revenge porn”.

As I said on Second Reading, more and more of us are using technology and living our lives online, and never more so than in the last 12 months. I want to thank the charity Refuge which, with its Naked Threat campaign, has a specific tech abuse team. It launched its campaign because one of the abuses reported to them in more and more cases was the making of threats to share intimate images. Even before the pandemic, 72% of women accessing Refuge’s services said they had been subjected to technology-facilitated abuse. Most often, these images had been taken in the course of a relationship, and the majority of women who had been threatened in this way had been threatened by a current or former partner. That is why I would argue that this Bill is the right place for this House to recognise and criminalise these threats.

At its core, this is an issue about the exercise of control by one person—the abuser, the maker of the threats—over another. Too often, the threats are followed by physical abuse. If anyone should doubt the prevalence, the research conducted by Refuge as part of its campaign found that one in 14 adults in England and Wales had experienced the threat to share. That is equivalent to around 4.4 million people, and younger women were disproportionately impacted by threats to share, with one in seven having experienced this form of abuse.

What is the impact of the making of such threats? Figures from Refuge show 83% of threatened women said the threats to share their intimate photos or videos impacted their mental health and well-being. About 78% said they changed the way they behaved as a result of the threats. But more worrying is that one in 10 women said the threats had forced them to allow the perpetrator to have contact with their children, and almost one in 10 said they were forced to continue or resume their relationship with the perpetrator and/or tell them where they now were.

I want to pay tribute to those victims who have told their stories and been prepared to come forward. The hour is late, and I do not want to detain the House, because I know there are other noble Lords who want to speak on this amendment, too. But I want to mention one victim who has come forward. Natasha was threatened by her ex-husband. He is now in prison and I am pleased to say she is happily remarried. She said:

“Knowing an abuser has intimate photos feels like you’re being violated. Those images were for his own gratification and a tool to keep me compliant. I had no way of proving my ex had shared these images but the threat of sharing them was equally distressing and compounded my isolation.”


The reason these brave victims and, sadly, millions of others, are not getting the protection they should is that they are too often told that no police action can be taken until the images are actually shared. Of course, the actual sharing of the images might take place, but just as likely, if a partner or ex-partner wants to exercise control over and play havoc with their victim’s life, they will leave the threat hanging out there, often for many years. So the police and everyone else need to know and be clear in their own minds that the making of threats is an offence and should be prosecuted, in the same way as the actual sharing of intimate images was made a crime by this Government under Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. I should also point out that in Scotland, the threat to share is already an offence.

Having said all of this, and hopefully made the case for why the law should be changed, I do not think that there is too great a difference between those of us who support the amendment and my noble friend the Minister on this matter. I believe that the Government accept that there is a gap in the law which needs to be addressed. The real issue is one of timing. As I understand it, the Government would prefer to wait until the Law Commission has published its consultation on image-based abuse overall and then made its recommendations. But we were promised this consultation early this year; I suspect Ministers hoped that it would be published before we reached this stage of the Bill, but we are still waiting, and this is only a consultation. The recommendations to follow and then the change in the law could take several more years.

I do not disagree that a full review of the law on image-based abuse would be welcome, but in the meantime we have a Bill before us which, as I said at Second Reading, provides an opportunity to tackle this abuse now. Ultimately, this amendment would not make it more difficult to eventually extend the law on broader image-based abuse, but approving it now, and including it in the Bill, would protect millions of women and victims of domestic abuse sooner than some indefinite date in the future. I hope the Minister will therefore accept that the time for action against these threats is now. I urge all noble Lords to support this amendment, and I beg to move it.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and to add my name to her important and transformative amendment, alongside the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson and Lady Grey-Thompson. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has set out with great clarity and passion the urgent need for this amendment to fill the very obvious gap in the current law on sharing intimate images.

In my many years of making the case for women’s rights, both here and internationally, I have come to the conclusion that technology is a wonderful thing—until it becomes an instrument of control and abuse, directed so often at women and girls as they are bullied, harassed and threatened online. We may hear the Government’s response to this amendment asking us—as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, has said—to wait for the relevant Law Commission review. We know that that review began in 2019, following on from a scoping review in 2018, and that it is not going to report until the end of this year, 2021. There will then be a government review, and that will take us into 2022. There is no guarantee that any legislative action will take place immediately, in the medium term or in the long term—or before the next general election, for that matter. This is not good enough.

There can be horrendous consequences of so-called revenge porn: anxiety, depression, life-changing behaviour and, while suicide is not common, neither is it unheard of. Rachel lived in absolute fear of having intimate images taken without her knowledge sent to her family. It left her so hopeless and desperate that she became suicidal. The anxiety also left her unable to report the other horrendous abuse by her partner that she was suffering, because, as is so often the case, the threat to disclose intimate images is part of a pattern of abuse that is extreme. Refuge tells us that one in 10 women said that the threat to share images forced them to allow the perpetrator not only to have contact with their children but to resume the relationship because of the threat. Revenge porn crimes are undoubtedly linked to other forms of criminal behaviour. We know this because the majority of all image-based charges are brought alongside family violence offences.

This amendment specifically relates to an escalation of offending and co-offending that adds up to the domestic abuse that this Bill seeks to address. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, younger women are in the eye of this storm of abuse. Alison’s story is shocking, but not rare. Her ex-partner told her he had drugged and raped her and recorded the incidents on his phone. The police could not act before he did. However, they spoke to him, and he told them that he had deleted the images. Needless to say, he had not. He contacted Alison and told her that he still had the videos and threatened again to share them. I ask the Minister to take the temperature of the Committee tonight on this vital amendment and to work with us and the courageous women—Alison, Natasha, Rachel and all those young women who stand in ranks behind them—to ensure that this amendment forms part of the Bill. It is time to put a stop to this particularly insidious form of 21st-century patriarchal sadism.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and I am pleased to stand in support of Amendment 162, which is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Morgan, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Crawley and Lady Grey-Thompson. It aims to close the criminal loophole that the ease of smartphones and modern technology has afforded perpetrators of domestic violence.

In her introduction to the amendment, my noble friend Lady Morgan set out the sheer scale of how simple threats to share sexual images or videos without consent are being used as a tool of coercive control and domestic abuse with devastating effect. Sadly, this seems to be a growing problem. The time is late, and I do not propose to repeat the statistic that we have already heard: that 4.4 million people are affected. The impact of these threats from current or ex-partners has huge negative results on mental and emotional well-being, creating enormous fear and anxiety, and, sadly, they are very effective. Four out of five women surveyed changed the way they behaved as a result of threats. They feel ashamed, anxious, isolated, frightened and even suicidal.

On Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister acknowledged these concerns and highlighted that the Law Commission has launched a review of the law relating to the non-consensual taking and sharing of intimate images, including, but not limited to, the revenge porn offence in Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. However, as she has already said, waiting for the results of the review may take a long time, because once it is concluded it can take up to six months for the Government to provide an interim response to the findings and a full year before a final formal response. While the Government often accept Law Commission findings, as your Lordships well know, they are then subject to the Government finding a suitable piece of legislation and parliamentary time to make the legal changes enabling a recommendation to come into force. As has already been mentioned, it could be years, so why wait when this Bill provides the perfect opportunity for the change today? We do not need a review to tell us that this is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with, as do our concerns about the effectiveness of the law as it stands. I ask the Minister: why not accept this amendment, even if it is not perfect? This change, which we can make now, will provide victims with the support they need to fight back against such abusive, despicable behaviour as revenge porn and give the police the power they require to be able to act.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern. I support the important Amendments 137 and 138, particularly Amendment 137, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Meacher, my noble friend Lady Wilcox and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I am pleased to be in the company of so much wisdom and experience.

The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, as we know, is the distinguished former Victims’ Commissioner, and I understand that Dame Vera Baird, the present commissioner, and Nicole Jacobs, the domestic abuse commissioner designate, are also committed to these amendments. The noble Baroness has said today that the Police Superintendents’ Association—comprising all chief superintendents, who are in charge of public protection units across the country, which will include domestic abuse specialist officers—also support the amendment. It sees the benefits of a stand-alone offence of non-fatal strangulation or suffocation to charging regimes, to more serious custodial sentences and to better police training and information.

It is very good news that the Government are now openly in favour of filling this gap in the law in future legislation, but our argument today is that we have a completely appropriate Bill in front of us now that could incorporate these amendments and could get this offence on the statute book this year, with all that that could imply for victims and survivors. The highly respected charity SafeLives estimates that 37% of high-risk abuse victims experience non-fatal strangulation. Research in America, where 37 states have introduced a specific offence, estimates that victims of non-fatal strangulation are seven times more likely than non-victims to be killed in domestic abuse incidents, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has said. New Zealand and Australia have also been proactive in this area of law. The Centre for Women’s Justice has argued that this is a gender-specific crime that should be recognised in the Bill.

Dame Vera Baird and Nicole Jacobs, in a joint statement, have called attention to the fact that this terrifying experience of non-fatal strangulation or suffocation can cause significant long-term mental and physical trauma, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has so powerfully described, and that at present the law is not fit for purpose. Non-fatal strangulation is a common feature of domestic abuse and a well-known risk indicator, yet, given the inadequate tools available to them at the moment, the police are often only able to deal with it on a risk assessment form rather than as a crime. When a charge is brought it is often common assault, which does not reflect the severity or hidden scale of the offence, as the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, has said.

Ultimately, non-fatal strangulation is a highly effective tool of power and control, used to engender fear and terror in families, and is no doubt being used today with enthusiasm by perpetrators behind the closed doors of another Covid lockdown. There is really no time to delay in coming to the aid of such vulnerable victims and survivors. We need to see these amendments incorporated into this Bill, rather than waiting for future Bills, especially in these very uncertain times.

I am sure that the Minister, who appears to be a good listener, recognises the urgent need to resolve this matter and to fill this gap in the law. I look forward to his response.

[Baroness Finn (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 137 and 138 and pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Newlove and many others for their tireless work and campaigning. I, too, thank Julia Drown for her help and support, and I very much welcome the Government’s acknowledgement of this issue and thank Ministers for their support.

I stress that this is the right Bill for this offence: non-fatal strangulation is about fear, control and a toxic mix of physical and psychological abuse, and it is often done with the express intent and insidious subtlety of evading detection. As such, it can be protracted and cause lasting and even permanent harm. Crucially, the current law is letting victims down; this Bill is our chance to put that right and protect them.

Many other noble Lords have already spoken about the horrific nature of non-fatal strangulation, but the current problem of undercharging highlights that the true nature and intent of the crime is not fully understood. As always, context matters: the current narrow approach not only limits the sentencing options but has other serious consequences, as it impacts on future risk assessments and public protection decisions. These include future bail applications, sentencing decisions—including dangerousness determinations—and Parole Board decisions.

As the seriousness of the crime is not currently understood, neither, unfortunately, is the management of its consequences. This is particularly the case when it comes to contact arrangements for children. To protect the welfare of children, these arrangements should reflect the seriousness of the crime; unfortunately, they do not.

I am conscious that, to tackle non-fatal strangulation as effectively as possible, we need all relevant agencies to work together. Early intervention is needed to mitigate damage and even save lives. Unfortunately, current understanding of symptoms and consequences will likely lead to cases being missed and narrow or absent diagnoses offered. If those in the health service seeing patients with the relevant physical and psychological conditions are conscious of the links to non-fatal strangulation, the problem can be picked up earlier and the victims supported.

This would not only save the victims from further and more serious harm; it would also be better for society, as the earlier intervention would be easier and more cost-effective, compared with dealing with the horrific further abuse and deaths of victims. In many of these cases, this will be about protecting children as well as the victims themselves.

It is shocking that, in this country, thousands of victims experience the trauma of non-fatal strangulation every year. Given that the current criminal justice system is clearly not able to protect these victims, we cannot afford to let this Bill pass without addressing this issue. We all know how commitments to introduce something in a future Bill can get derailed through no fault of those making those commitments. There is a suggestion that this new offence could go in the police, crime, sentencing and courts Bill, but that is not the Bill before us now; it has not even started its journey in the other place, and it may well be delayed for months into the future.

We need to get this right, and there is no reason why this offence cannot be included in this Bill to get the victims the protection they need now. If we miss this opportunity to introduce this offence, many women will die, others will suffer unnecessarily and we will be behind most of the English-speaking world on domestic abuse protection.

The UK has been rightly proud of its leading role on the world stage on gender-based violence over many years; this amendment is needed to ensure that we stay ahead and do all we can to protect victims. Rather than have the uncertainties of a future Bill, we can address this issue now in a Bill that will come into law very soon. I urge the Government and Ministers to work with my noble friend Lady Newlove and to include this new offence in this Bill.

European Union Referendum Bill

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

I said at the beginning of my remarks that I did not think it was appropriate to try to guess how 16 and 17 year-olds would vote. In fact, it would probably be a mistake even to begin to speculate—we would probably be wrong about it. Although I am grateful for the interruption, that is not the issue that I am trying to engage upon.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord accept as fact that this cohort of 16 and 17 year-olds is extremely mature and culturally aware? More than 45% of young people in this cohort will go to university or on to further education, whereas 60 years ago 5% of them did so. We have an extremely developed and mature 16 and 17 year-old cohort.

[Lord Faulks]

I am afraid that I cannot accept facts baldly stated—engagingly stated though they are. The answer is that many more people than before are being educated, and it is a different debate as to whether this is appropriate—

[Baroness Crawley]

My Lords—

[Lord Faulks]

Perhaps I could have a chance to answer the question first.

[Baroness Crawley]

Would the noble Lord accept the facts from the House of Commons Library?

[Lord Faulks]

I am not sure that it is going to enlighten the House very much if we try to decide how well educated or not well educated these young people are. One of the arguments was that young people spend a great deal of time on the internet or go travelling. The answer is that some 16 and 17 year-olds are extremely intelligent and well informed; others are not. The bigger point is whether, looking at them as a cohort, they have changed radically since, for example, Parliament considered this matter in the round in debating the Representation of the People Bill.

European Union Referendum Bill

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord may be right about that, but the reason I am against his amendment is because he is not prepared to let the British people decide this by March 2017. He wants to delay because he wants Britain to remain in the European Union whatever the British people think, and if he had his way, we would not be having a referendum at all. As was pointed out, the Labour Party’s position is that we need to get this sorted and out of the way in order to end the period of uncertainty, so he is out of line with Labour Party policy as well.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that in this important debate we must keep our language temperate. Does he believe that the Prime Minister will come back with the kind of deal that he has put to us this afternoon?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

It was not, my Lords. This issue is one on which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and his colleagues—who may have doubtful views on these matters—are just as likely to persuade young people to vote their way as I am. I just think that the judgment should be in the hands of the people who are going to be affected.

[Baroness Crawley]

Is it not the case that the 16 and 17 year-olds who voted in the Scottish referendum broke fairly evenly between the yes and no camps?

[Lord Tyler]

There is no concrete evidence of that—the ballot is secret. I think that there was a slight margin among 16 and 17 year-olds to vote no to independence. In the next group up, there was a slight increase.

I dare anybody in your Lordships’ House to say to the 16 and 17 year-olds in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that they are not mature or well-enough informed, do not know what they are talking about and would be influenced by the wrong people—yet that the Scots are up to it. I just do not understand how we could do that. It is critical that this bedrock, this foundation stone of our representative democracy—the franchise—should in this respect be exactly the same throughout the country. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Balfe]

I note the noble Baroness’s point. I would say that it is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. Of course, I have had many conversations on doorsteps.

[Baroness Crawley]

It is not a matter of opinion when we are talking about the maturity and capacity of young people, as my noble friend said. If we look back over the span of 40 years since the last European referendum, we will see some astonishing changes. I have figures from the House of Commons Library showing that the number of young people going into further and higher education in the year I was born was just over 3% of the population. Today, all that time later beyond 1950, it is now coming up to 50%—it is 45% or around that figure. Young people today are more fit for purpose than they have ever been. They are fit for purpose on higher education, travel, literacy, computer literacy and cultural awareness, and are the best and most fit-for-purpose generation of young 16 and 17 year-olds that we have ever had.

[Lord Balfe]

I also thank the noble Baroness for her intervention but this is a Bill not about extending the franchise but about a European referendum. I intend to vote yes in this referendum unless some dreadful tragedy happens in the renegotiation. I am not persuaded that extending the vote is part of the purpose of this Bill. It is as simple as that. It will lead to a lot of problems. It may be within the noble Lord’s prerogative, as he appears to be responding to this amendment, so I ask him to raise with his colleagues the need for a fundamental look at the electoral system in this country.

I was recently monitoring an election in a place called Kyrgyzstan, on the border with China. It has introduced biometric testing for being on the electoral register. I learnt when I was there that Mr Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the UN, believes that this is a way of having votes without fraud. There are all sorts of ideas out there and I believe that these amendments, which I might be prepared to support in a Bill extending the franchise, are none the less not right for this particular Bill. I ask the noble Lord to communicate to his colleagues the desirability of a look at the way in which the franchise works. It seems to me odd, and has done for a long time, that people can pay tax and not have a vote, and people can pay no tax at all, can be living in, for instance, Brussels with highly paid jobs for many years, and according to some noble Lords be completely out of touch with reality and the world, yet they can vote in a UK election.

I suggest that we need a fundamental look at the franchise. I have steered three children successfully through the gap from 16 to 18—they are now well beyond it—and they vote for a variety of parties. I look round and see that all three of the major parties represented in this House have had votes from our family in the recent past, so they are certainly capable of making up their minds. I end where I began: I do not think this Bill is the place to extend the franchise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Crawley]

Does the noble Lord agree that given the proportion of young people who access further and higher education now—nearly 50%—those young people have over a number of years gained a great deal of maturity and capacity that might not have been the case for a similar cohort of young people in, say, the 1950s, when only 3.4% of them accessed higher and further education?

[Lord Faulks]

Of course, it was not until 1969, in the Representation of the People Act, that the age was reduced from 21 to 18. It is not the case that young people have changed that radically—notwithstanding the speed of communication, about which we have heard so much.

Public Disorder: Restorative Justice

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

No, I know Horseferry Road. Thank you.

[Baroness Crawley]

Marylebone Road.

[Lord McNally]

Marylebone Road. Thank you. I am about to give the right answer now. I appreciate how convenient it was for Members of both Houses to be in Horseferry Road, but in fact they now have to go to a splendid new court in Marylebone Road.