Victims and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall and Baroness Brinton

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to make a virtual contribution.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Marks for his comments on private prosecutions, and for the discussions we have had with the Minister, and separately with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, over the course of the Bill.

I echo the two important points from our Benches made by my noble friend Lord Marks. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has helpfully reflected in his Motion, an impact assessment on these specific regulations is vital. It would assess how workable they are, especially for the charitable and voluntary sectors, as well as for access to justice. My noble friend’s second point was equally important, and one that we on these Benches often talk about: the risk of giving Ministers the power to use regulations—in this case, to recover costs—without any transparency or reference back to Parliament. The Government need to think hard before they bring that into force.

I now turn to Motion E on unduly lenient sentences. I repeat my thanks to the Minister and her officials, as well as to the late Helen Newlove, the current Victims’ Commissioner, the new Victims’ Commissioner for London, 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 to review an unduly lenient sentence.

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 on the occasions when they are left distraught by a sentence that really does not meet the level needed for the horrendous experience that they were put through. I am very grateful to the Minister for her comments about the extraordinary work that Tracey Hanson has done to ensure that, after her family’s experience, changes should be made. Her experience was an appalling failure of public service to victims like her and her family. Over 10 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. 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 outside office hours. That decision was final. I had no right to appeal”.


I have heard a little of the energy that the indomitable Tracey Hanson, Claire Waxman and others found on that single day to try to get an appeal in, after being told of it by another bereaved parent, which was, as been mentioned, on deadline day. That formal notice did not give a notice of an hour by which an appeal had to be submitted. Frankly, it was appalling that the Attorney-General’s Office chose to reject it because its idea of the end of the day was Friday hours—namely, 4 pm—even though it was posted by hand through its doors after that deadline but on the Friday.

That is why, during the passage of this Bill, our amendments have consistently asked for special arrangements. First, there must be a duty on an official body to notify a victim as soon as possible after sentencing, and in the event that a victim has not been informed in that time, special arrangements should be made. That is why I am so grateful to the Minister for the government amendments in Motions E and F. Yes, the Minister and I have had extensive discussions and, yes, we have agreed on some things and disagreed on others, but I want to thank Ministers in the MoJ for the round-table meeting with a number of victims last month, when four Ministers were able to hear at first hand from victims about their experience. I hope that, too, played a part in the decision to change things.

Motions E and F are very helpful steps forward to resolve problems and change an intransigent process that has blocked access to justice for victims. We hope that this will now signify a real change to their experience.

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Amendment) (Provision of Information) Order 2025

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall and Baroness Brinton

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, just before I contribute, are we not doing both SIs together?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

That is not what my brief indicates, but of course, if the noble Lord wishes to do that, he can propose it.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I apologise.

The first reading of this brief regulation and the Explanatory Memorandum is misleading. It appears to be a minor correction to ensure that access to DBS barred list details will now include non-territorial and specialist police officers. Nothing to see here—or is that the case?

Once again, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its 14th report of this Session, in which it set out the real background to this SI and the previous history of errors in law by this department being corrected by regulations—but with Explanatory Memorandums lacking in information to inform those parliamentarians wishing to scrutinise regulations. It points out at least 10 SIs for this period since July 2024 that have been unsatisfactorily presented to your Lordships’ House—referenced by the committee in its third, fourth, eighth and 10th reports. This SI now needs to be added to that list.

The reality of this SI is that highly confidential information under the DBS legislation had been passed on to police bodies even though they were not permitted to receive it. The original Act, passed in 2006 under the previous Labour Government—nearly 20 years ago now—has clearly not been reviewed in detail since then. One must commend the new Government for dealing with not just this issue but the other ones as well. However, it is a real shame that the somewhat underhand tactics of the Explanatory Memorandum, designed to elicit confidence in the reader, are misleading as to be against the spirit of the relationship between a Government and the Parliament that is there to ensure that it can hold that Government to account. Can the Minister say whether the systems have been changed in the Home Office to ensure that this type of obfuscatory approach is now ended and that all such legislation that needs to be updated has been updated?

On the SI itself, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raises the issue that the implication of the draft order is that unlawful sharing of data may have happened, even if it did not concern very many people. Individuals on the list may have been affected by being denied a job or made the subject of a protection order. So can the Minister tell the Grand Committee how many individuals—even if the number is small—may have been affected by the unlawful activity, and, perhaps even more importantly, whether those individuals have been told?