Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendment 270 makes a change to Clause 87. In making this change, the Government are responding to the concerns raised by some of your Lordships in Committee.

Clause 87 itself is vital; it removes the current three-year limitation period for personal injury claims brought by victims and survivors of child sexual abuse in respect of the abuse committed against them and gives effect to a recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. This is needed because many victims and survivors are not able to talk—or even think—about the abuse they suffered until many years afterwards, which is a direct consequence of the abuse itself.

Clause 87 inserts new Section 11ZB into the Limitation Act 1980 because it is that Act that makes provision for the dismissal of actions which are outside the time limit for personal injury claims. Under new Section 11ZB(2), if an action is brought outside the usual three-year limitation period, for it to be dismissed the defendant must satisfy the court that a fair hearing cannot take place. Under the current drafting of new Section 11ZB(3), the action may also be dismissed if the defendant demonstrates that allowing the action to proceed would cause them substantial prejudice.

We have listened carefully to the testimony of victims and survivors, and reflected on the amendments debated in Committee, all of which raised concerns about the substantial prejudice test. We decided that they were right. The retention of Section 11ZB(2) alone both implements the relevant IICSA recommendation and ensures that those accused of child sexual abuse maintain their right to a fair hearing. I am therefore pleased to say that Amendment 270 removes new Section 11ZB(3) from Clause 87.

Many have spoken about this, and I pay tribute to them all, but I make special mention of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and Mr Stephen Bernard, who brought this to our attention swiftly. Mr Bernard spoke to me most movingly about his own experiences, and I thank him for this; he has played a big part in ensuring that the Government reached this decision. I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, as I mentioned at Second Reading, I am very proud that with Clause 87 this Government abolished the time limitations in historical Church child sexual abuse cases. Survivors such as my friend Stephen Bernard, whom my noble friend the Minister referenced, were concerned that the clause, as originally drafted, added a new substantial prejudice, especially for historical cases. This created uncertainty, delays and an extra hurdle for survivors.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for listening to the concerns of survivors such as Stephen, and for tabling Amendment 270. With the removal of lines 31 to 39, the IICSA recommendation has now been adopted in full, thus ensuring better access to justice for the survivors of historical sexual abuse. I am very grateful to my noble friend.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I supported the amendment in Committee, and I echo the thanks given by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, to the Minister for listening. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who tabled the original amendment. This is a really important clarification, which will help victims and prevent injustices happening in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

I say again how grateful I am to all those who have spoken. These issues are so important. The Government are with you. We must make the online world a safer place, especially for women and girls, but we have to get it right. I hope all those who have tabled amendments today will understand why the Government cannot support those that I have spoken to, but I and my ministerial counterparts in other departments are keen to continue and build upon the helpful discussions we have already had. In the meantime, I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I am sure the whole House agrees with, in essence, what Amendment 273 says, but I also noted from my noble friend that it is much more complex than I had understood. I am sure that she is as frustrated as everyone else that these things take time, and I wonder whether she is able to give us any timeline. Sorry, I am an optimist, but this is an extremely important amendment. I will be supporting the Government, but it would be good to know if we are talking about months or whatever, because obviously we want to see this in statute as soon as possible.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I do not think I can quite express how unpopular I would be if I suddenly, on the hoof, came out with a time. All I can say is that we are committed to doing this quickly.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, following consideration of amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Royall and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in Committee, the Government have brought forward amendments to the stalking provisions in Part 6.

Amendments 308 to 313, 314 and 315 explicitly provide for the civil standard of proof to apply when a court is deciding whether to make a stalking protection order, or whether to include a particular prohibition or requirement to an order in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. This includes when the courts are deciding whether to impose an additional prohibition or requirement on the variation or renewal of a stalking protection order. This will promote consistency and improve clarity in understanding of the standard of proof applicable in cases of stalking protection orders.

In addition, I am very happy to accept Amendment 316 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which will convert the power conferred on the Secretary of State to issue guidance about stalking into a duty to do so. This will align the provision on guidance in the Stalking Protection Act 2019 with that in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, promoting consistency in the legislative provisions which aim to tackle violence against women and girls.

My noble friend Lady Royall also has Amendment 313A in this group. I will respond to it once she and other noble Lords have contributed to the debate, but in the meantime, I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, before speaking to Amendment 313A, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward amendments in response to my amendment in Committee. These amendments clarify the evidential threshold for obtaining an SPO, bringing this in line with the domestic abuse protection orders, so ensuring swifter and less onerous access to these protective orders, and it will make a real difference to the protection and safety of victims.

I am grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for meeting me, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and to the Victims’ Commissioner and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust for their support.

Amendment 313A is very similar to the one I moved in Committee, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It would introduce stalking protection notices—SPNs—to provide an immediate safeguard to prevent unwanted contact or communication from a perpetrator until a full SPO is granted, thus mirroring domestic abuse protection notices. In response to the debate on that amendment, my noble friend the Minister suggested that the amendment as drafted would be disproportionate, since it would criminalise the breach of a police-issued notice without court oversight. I have therefore updated the amendment so that a breach of an SPN would not be a criminal offence, ensuring that it reflects the framework for DAPOs.

Why is this amendment necessary? Because, as highlighted in the Suzy Lamplugh Trust super-complaint and its report on experiences of the CPS and the courts, the use of full and interim SPOs is currently inadequate, including lack of applications by the police and the time that it takes to obtain one, given that both the full and interim orders have to be granted by a court. Victims say that when police do apply for SPOs, the judiciary do not recognise the need for an SPO, particularly if other orders are already in place.

In response to the super-complaint, HMICFRS highlighted the arduous application process for the police and their frustrations over their inability to issue orders themselves. It called for the Government to use the DAPN framework as a template to legislate for a new stalking protection notice, which, like the DAPN, would not require an application to the court and could be issued by the police to offer protection in stalking cases.

The length of delays in cases varies from months to years. For victims of stalking, a delay in taking their case to trial means a continuation of the stalking behaviours, especially if no protective orders are put in place. The failure to put in place an interim or full SPO at the earliest opportunity puts victims at risk of further acts of stalking, which increases the potential psychological and physical harm that they are likely to suffer. Data on SPOs is also limited and outdated, making it hard to establish how many are refused by the courts.

It is both right and logical that SPNs should be enabled and put in place following a similar approach to DAPNs. They would offer immediate police-applied protection in stalking cases and set a timeframe for the courts to consider a full order. It cannot be right that, at the moment, a woman who is at risk of violence from a stalker has less protection than a woman at risk of violence at the hands of her domestic abuser, so steps must be taken to bring this into line.

The hour is late, but I will cite one case study from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust relating to delays in SPOs and the harm caused. This case opened in January 2025. The client was subjected to criminal damage, vexatious complaints to her employer and an online campaign aimed at discrediting her. The offender also moved house to be closer to the client. This has had a significant impact on her quality of life. The case has had four different OICs and different teams from the outset, which has caused considerable delay—to the detriment of the client. An SPO has been considered throughout the investigation, but there has been little progress or ownership of responsibility across the police force.

The advocate has pointed this out on numerous occasions. Several complaints have been made to the police and the local MP but, as far as the advocate knows, no response has been received. Legal services within the force had been contacted about an SPO in February 2025. Multiple witness statements had been obtained to support the application. The police stated that the SPO application was submitted in March 2025, but this turned out to be incorrect. The judge, in a separate non-molestation order request hearing, asked why after six months the force had not secured an SPO. At the time of writing, the SPO application was sitting with the force’s legal services awaiting a court date. Due to the time that has elapsed, the perpetrator has now been on bail for so long that it has required a magistrate’s application to secure a bail extension.

This and hundreds of similar cases demonstrate the need for swift action and the introduction of stalking protection notices. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for setting out the details of her amendment, which I signed. I will not repeat any of the things that she said. I completely endorse them. I thank the Government for their amendments. Moving from the criminal level of proof to a civil standard of proof is important. We have been arguing for this for some time, so I am very grateful that the Government have taken this on board.

My Amendment 316 is another attempt to draw parallels between all the protections for victims of domestic abuse and those of stalking. It felt an odd decision that a Secretary of State might be able to report but not have to report on conditions. So I am very grateful that the Minister has signed my amendment. I look forward to seeing the statutory reports in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

313A: Clause 109, page 153, line 36, at end insert—
“364I Stalking protection notices and streamlined process for stalking protection orders(1) A senior police officer of the rank of Superintendent or above may issue a stalking protection notice (“SPN”) where they have reasonable grounds to believe that—(a) the defendant has carried out behaviour associated with stalking as described in this Act,(b) the defendant is aged 18 or over, and(c) it is necessary to issue a notice to protect another person from the risk of stalking.(2) A stalking protection notice may—(a) prohibit the defendant from engaging in conduct which amounts to stalking, or from contacting or attempting to contact another person (“the protected person”) in a manner associated with stalking behaviour,(b) include a direction for a defendant to attend a magistrate’s court within 72 hours for an application for a Stalking Protection Order, and(c) remain in force until that hearing takes place.(3) A stalking protection notice must—(a) state the grounds on which it is made,(b) set out the terms of the notice, and(c) inform the Defendant of the date, time and location of the court hearing.”

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the response from my noble friend the Minister. I did not really understand the point about age, so I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I look forward to reading Hansard and to receiving a letter likewise.

It is great to know that there is an internal review taking place, and of course we look forward to Richard Wright’s review. I note that the Government have said that they will respond to the review within four months, so we look forward to a response before the summer. With that, I am happy not to press my amendment.

Amendment 313A not moved.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 27th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, to some extent this group of amendments goes to the core of a lot of the potential downsides of this Bill because, whether we like it or not, it is going to be a source of coercion.

If we go back a few weeks to the issue that was drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, concerning the role and the purpose of the National Health Service, clearly, that would need to be changed because we are talking here about a mechanism for ending life rather than a service that does its best to preserve life. To anybody who has had to spend a lot of time around hospitals—be it as a consumer of, or a relative of a consumer of, NHS services; or if you have had any role in government, even at regional level, dealing with health services—it is inconceivable that looking at the balance sheet is not going to be an issue for a clinician and a trust. That is the nature of the beast if you are the finance director of a trust and it is over budget, as they nearly all are. In Canada, we see that some people are boasting about the money they have saved by providing assisted deaths. I do not believe for one moment that that factor can be airbrushed out of this equation as far as this legislation is concerned. While I do not necessarily accept or agree with every amendment in this group, it draws our attention to the principles at stake.

It is in those circumstances that we have got into the habit in this debate of euphemisms. We call one thing by a certain name, but we know it actually means something else. In that regard, I draw the attention of the Committee to a debate on assisted dying that took place during the last iteration of this Bill, proposed by Lady Meacher, on 22 October 2021. This is the point I want to try to get across. Incidentally, that Bill had 13 clauses and 10 pages, compared to the 59 clauses and 51 pages we are looking at today. After Lady Meacher proposed her Bill at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, who I think is not in his place, spoke. He said that the Bill should refer to “euthanasia” rather than “assisted dying” as the Bill’s title did not represent what was intended. He went on to provide the Greek definition of what the word “euthanasia” means.

These amendments go to the core of a couple of issues. The first is the rationale behind the National Health Service in the first place, and how it would be changed and turned if it is carrying out a service which is anything but—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, the point that the noble Lord is making is very interesting, but he may have heard my noble friend Lord Winston say previously in the debate on the current Bill that he has changed his mind. He may well have changed his mind about the words that we use in relation to assisted dying.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I accept that that may well be the case. I am simply referring to what was in Hansard in 2021. The noble Lord may have changed his mind, as we all do over our lifetime, and rightly so—if you have a completely solid view of everything throughout your life, it is not a good thing. I am not in any sense trying to demean his position in any way; he is a very highly respected member of your Lordships’ House. My point is that his reference to the euphemism is still valid in my view.

Coming to the nuts and bolts of how things would work in practice, at Second Reading of this Bill, and indeed in previous iterations in which I have had any role, I drew attention to one of the key issues: changing the nature of the service that we are funding. If we decide as a Parliament to make assisted dying, or whatever phrase one wishes to use, a legal activity, that does not necessarily mean that the National Health Service has to pay for it. Can you imagine the finance committee of a trust discussing its budget and getting into an argument? The sums may be modest, but to even put something such as that in this context, when we are talking about life and death, is fundamentally flawed, morally and in every other way. The noble and learned Lord needs to reflect on some of these matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Murphy (CB)]

My Lords, as a clinician for 50 years in the NHS, I find the noble Lord’s suggestions quite offensive. We have been asked to be kind today and I would ask him to be a little kinder to NHS clinicians in their decisions to try to help people at the end of life.

I just point out to the noble Lord, Lord Harper, that when you are talking about a fully funded palliative care service you are talking about millions and millions, and what has to be allocated. It is exceedingly difficult for the NHS to come to that decision, particularly in light of the fact that insufficient clinicians have been trained in that area, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will agree. Certainly, for the assisted dying service we are talking a few thousand—not anything like the sums of money that a palliative care service costs. Let us be realistic about what we are asking for.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

I shall briefly intervene. I am sure that my noble and learned friend will answer this later, but I want to put on record that nobody who is a supporter of this Bill—an amended Bill, as it goes forward—would ever put costs as the major reason for supporting it. I just want to put that firmly on the record.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Could I come back on that? I never said that it was a major reason: I just said that it was a consideration that had to be made. Budgets are very strapped in the NHS at the moment and, if it can ensure that people who are blocking beds vote for assisted dying, that will save the hospital money. That is just a fact of life.

Domestic Abuse: Emergency Accommodation

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The fact that it does not all happen on one day in Trafalgar Square does not make it any less of an outrage. I think every noble Lord in this House will hear the anger in the noble Baroness’s voice and, I hope, in my own voice. There is a profound commitment from across this Government to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. There are various departments engaged in this, all pulling together to try to deal with the three strands I mentioned earlier: prevention, support for victims and robust interventions against the perpetrators. We are determined to do this, and we are going to.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very proud of what my Government are doing and their ambition to reduce violence against women and girls, and I am very proud of the record of my noble friend. However, as we know, tech-facilitated abuse is growing and growing. What initiatives are there to train police officers, including first-line responders, on identifying, investigating and gathering evidence for tech-facilitated abuse?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her question. I think there is a broad acceptance, even by the police forces, that the police response to domestic abuse in the past left something to be desired. The Home Office is investing £13.1 million in the National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection to strengthen police training. Working with the College of Policing, new research-based programmes will equip officers at all levels to investigate all forms of offences and to support victims.

Prisoner Release Checks

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Decisions such as on the noble Baroness’s last point are far above my pay grade, but I shall just mention two points. First, on release in error, any release in error is far too many and there is clearly a problem here that needs to be addressed. My style is very much, “Let’s deal with it and let’s work out what the problems are”, and I think that the investigation that Dame Lynne Owens will do will be very helpful as part of that process.

On the question of data, and making sure that we are effective and accurate in the work that we do, I spend a lot of time focusing on how we can embrace technology to ensure that, specifically, the Prison and Probation Service—which I know is within Justice, not the Home Office—has the ability to get things done more accurately and enables front-line staff to focus on what they do best, which is to rehabilitate people, not to fill out forms. Justice Transcribe—which uses AI to dictate what happened in a meeting with an offender, rather than the probation officer having to spend an hour writing it down afterwards—may sound like a very straightforward addition but is making a big difference already, saving hours of probation officers’ time. As someone who has come here from the commercial world, I am convinced that the more we embrace technology to enable our front-line staff to deliver excellent public services, the better.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his explanation about the £500, which has been all over the media and was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. It makes eminent sense that this was an operational decision; it has saved vast amounts of money and enabled this vile person to be put on a plane and got out of our country as soon as possible. I very much hope that my noble friend’s answer will be picked up in the media to counter some of the contrary stories that have been out there today.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her comment. We need to make sure that we support our operational civil servants on the front line—whom we trust with a huge amount of responsibility—when they make a sensible and commercial decision such as this one.

Humanist Weddings

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I think it was the previous Government who asked the Law Commission to do its report. The Law Commission came up with 57 recommendations for changes to marriage in England and Wales and we want to take our time to look at those.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that reforming marriage laws is a complex business, but in terms of removing discrimination against humanists who wish to get married, as their religious counterparts do, why do the Government not lay an order, just as an interim measure, which would enable humanists to marry?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. I think the answer is the same as that I have given to others, which is because solving this anomaly for humanists would create other anomalies. That is why we want to take our time, although we are working at pace, to resolve the anomalies with weddings in England and Wales.