Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 17th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, I am very grateful that the Conservatives have already expressed their thanks for the Bill. We echo that thanks. I welcome the very constructive engagement from all sides of the House. I particularly thank my noble friends Lord Marks and Lord Russell, with whom I have worked closely on victims’ issues for many years. I also thank the House more generally. The timely passage of this Bill is unusual, and I am very pleased that we were able to conduct our business in the time allocated and still come to the end of the Bill and feel that real progress has been made.

This is where I thank the Minister and all her officials because, despite the fact that a number of votes were won on Report—we look forward to continuing to work with her—many of the items we discussed in private between Committee and Report have been resolved to some extent or another. On behalf of all the groups and the individual victims who got in touch, not only now but in the run-up to the Bill, we are grateful for the progress that has been made. That does not mean, however, that everything is done; I and many others will continue to work on those particular issues. From our side, as has already been mentioned, we particularly want to see some movement on court transcripts, homicide abroad and unduly lenient sentences. We are very grateful for the discussions that are already beginning between now and ping-pong.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, I readily start with praise and thanks for my noble friend the Minister for her entire conduct on the Bill throughout its passage in the House. I particularly thank my noble friend for her willingness to hold meetings with us on a number of occasions, despite her very heavy and busy diary.

The Bill does well in strengthening the position of victims in our judicial processes and in strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. However, there is unfinished business relating to the victims of trafficking of women and girls, particularly related to the provision of sexual services. As I told your Lordships in Committee, the numbers are large. They are not in the hundreds but in the thousands.

As this is Third Reading, I do not seek to repeat arguments made in Committee or on Report. It suffices to say that these women and girls, who are often illegally brought into this country, are in a fraught and difficult position. For example, they are terrified, when they are drawn to the attention of the authorities, that they will be deported. They need our help. Help, I have to say, is not being provided to them either in this Bill or in the Crime and Policing Bill.

The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner produced an excellent report, which I strongly commend to your Lordships. I strongly urge those responsible in the Home Office to read it as obligatory reading. As she rightly says in her foreword:

“Tackling modern slavery is everyone’s business”.


Indeed it is. I recognise, when speaking to your Lordships and to my noble friend the Minister, that modern slavery is in the remit of the Home Office and not the Ministry of Justice, but I ask my noble friend to speak strongly in government of the need to give the victims of modern slavery the support that they are not currently receiving and which they need.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly—conscious of my noble friend to my left—to pay tribute to the Minister for how she has handled her first Bill through your Lordships’ House with good humour and considerable judicial skill. It is always slightly challenging to put an amendment or an argument to a Minister when it is quite clear that she has understood exactly what you are trying to say and all the flaws in your argument before you have got past the first paragraph.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for our working together so effectively. I also congratulate the Minister on the extraordinary achievement in having, on occasion, got the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties to be on speaking terms, let alone voting terms.

Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hacking]

6: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Victim navigators(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make provision for each police force in England and Wales to have access to one or more independent victim navigators.(2) The purpose of an independent victim navigator under subsection (1) is to—(a) liaise between the police force and potential victims of offences relating to slavery or human trafficking, and(b) assist in the provision of specialist advice for either the police force or the potential victims.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide further guidance on the functions of independent victim navigators.(4) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument, and may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause seeks to implement the recommendation of the House of Lords Committee on the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (HL Paper 8) by introducing provisions for Independent Victim Navigators to be in operation on a national level in England and Wales, acting as a liaison between the police and potential victims of slavery or human trafficking in accessing the appropriate support.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I am happy to disclose that I am being supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who has been kind enough to sign my amendment.

I think it would be helpful if I began by telling your Lordships the major features of modern slavery. It affects principally those in the agricultural industry, domestic employment and the provision of sexual services. It impacts mainly on immigrant labour. Immigrants are brought to this country by their exploiter; in the case of sexual offences, it will be by their pimp. When here, they continue to be controlled by their exploiter, having to give, for example, a portion of their earnings to the exploiter.

I think it would also be helpful if I explained the role of the victim navigator. Their role is to protect the victim, particularly in the prosecution process. They are often former police officers who understand the processes to which the victim is subject. In gaining the confidence of the victim, they gain most valuable information that can lead to the prosecution of the exploiter. In the provision of sexual services, this will be the prosecution of the pimp.

We must understand the scale of the problem relating to sexual services and the current increase in sexual exploitation. The figures are difficult to obtain, but it has been estimated that in the years 2020 to 2025 there was an 86% increase in the sexual exploitation of women, from 1,114 victims to 2,076. It has also been estimated that there has been a 61% increase in the exploitation of girls, and I understand that to be women who are under the age of 18.

Sex provides, and this is very alarming, a very big market on the internet. For those accessing ASWs, as they are called, there can currently be found 63,000 listings for women. These sites attract—this is another awful figure—no fewer than 41.7 million visitors.

I do not see her present, but my noble friend Lady Goudie spoke to this amendment in Committee. I was not able to be in Committee. It is important to remind your Lordships of the major points that my noble friend made.

She referred to the report of the House of Lords Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee, which was so ably chaired by my noble friend Lady O’Grady. I do not see her, either, in the Chamber. My noble friend Lady Goudie cited paragraph 46 on page 77, which was the conclusion of our committee report, which reads:

“Victim navigators should be rolled out nationally. The objective must be that they are available in all cases”.


She also drew attention to the economic benefit provided by the use of victim navigators. It was estimated that the financial gain for each victim who benefited from this process came to £150,000. She cited the chief executive of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, who stated in reference to the victims:

“That means they’re better able to get help, and it also helps us when we’re taking people to court, because they understand the process better, they understand how to engage, and they feel supported. It has made a real difference to us”.


The other compliment came from a detective sergeant in the Metropolitan Police, who commented as follows:

“I am in no doubt that a dangerous predator would not have received a 31-year jail sentence without the support of Justice and Care ... I led the police investigation into the case and think that the Victim Navigators’ work was nothing short of exceptional”.


I am citing my noble friend Lady Goudie because it is very important that we understand this.

The government response to our committee report, from the Home Office, reads as follows:

“The Government recognises the importance of supporting victims to engage with the criminal justice system and the positive impact an independent support worker, working alongside law enforcement, can have on securing this engagement”.


It goes on to refer to research on victim navigators:

“The Government is keen to build on this research, working in partnership with NGOs and law enforcement, to identify how to best support victims to engage with the criminal justice system”.


So the Home Office certainly responded positively to our report.

The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Ms Eleanor Lyons, supports this amendment. My noble friend the Minister kindly met her last week, on Thursday, so she has heard directly the views of no less a person than the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner on this amendment.

I refer to the first annual report of the commissioner, which came out only a few days ago, because its foreword states that

“modern slavery is still with us. It lurks in the shadows, hidden in industries, supply chains, and even in our neighbourhoods. The victims, in rural communities as well as big cities, continue to suffer in silence”.

In short, this continues to be a major matter of concern. The report, from a very small office, is remarkable. Its 58 pages identify the commissioner’s strategic plan of prevention, protection and prosecution. To summarise the importance of victim navigators, I refer to the most recent survey—

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I invite my noble friend to move his amendment as he has now been speaking for 10 minutes.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I think I am allowed 15 minutes.

The commissioner summarised her strategy in this excellent report. It is the protection of victims, and 724 have been supported. As a result of the activities of the victim navigators, 1,420 police investigations have taken place, and 74 convictions have resulted in a total period of imprisonment of all those convicted of 522 years.

I recognise that modern slavery is under the remit of the Home Office, not the Department of Justice. This inevitably restricts the Minister and what help she can provide. If she cannot accept this amendment, could she kindly convey to her colleagues in the Home Office the strong views that I have expressed and that I hope others will express in this short debate? The Home Office did very well in introducing the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which put us at the forefront internationally of anti-slavery legislation, but it did slip up rather badly. This was identified in the Independent in, I think, January 2024, which had a headline:

“Commissioner: Modern slavery no longer Home Office priority”.


There was also a very serious failure by the Home Office in leaving the post of the anti-slavery commissioner vacant for, in the words of Ms Lyons, “a staggering 20 months”. This was taken up as a point of criticism in our Select Committee report. So can the Minister, if nothing else, get the Home Office to start paying attention again to modern slavery and its problems? I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, especially when he is so right on an issue. This is an interesting group. Clearly, the Government are going to have a choice of routes to increase human rights for victims, because we need a justice system that puts victims first. We have to understand that many, particularly in the cases we are talking about, are frightened, traumatised and very much deserving of care. For many survivors, the moment they come to the attention of the authorities is not a moment of relief: it is a moment of fear and confusion. They may have been controlled, threatened and abused for months or years. They may not trust the police—many of us do not—they may not speak English and they may be terrified about what will happen next.

In those moments, survivors are asked to engage in an intimidating criminal justice system and to relive traumatic experiences, often without truly understanding what is happening or why. Too many fall away from investigations not because they are unwilling to help but because the process feels overwhelming, frightening and isolating. Victim navigators exist to meet people at that point of fear and vulnerability. They provide a trusted person who stays with the victim, explains what is happening, listens to their concerns and helps them feel safe enough to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

Under the victims’ code, victims must be informed about restorative justice and how to access it. As part of the consultation on a new code, which is currently live, we are engaging widely to ensure that victims are offered restorative justice at the right time. I would very much welcome the noble Baroness contributing to the consultation. However, placing referral to restorative justice for all victims on a statutory footing would be neither necessary nor appropriate. The safety and welfare of those involved is paramount, and automatic, or certainly repeated, referral would therefore not always be suitable. The Government already receive regular reporting from police and crime commissioners as part of the Ministry of Justice grant management process, which includes information on restorative justice. A further national assessment would simply duplicate what is already in place. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for her reply. She said that the Government are supportive of Justice and Care and the victim navigator scheme; the problem is that they are not prepared to fund it and thereby bring it in as a national scheme. I have to be satisfied with that reply. It is disappointing that the Government are not going the whole hog, as there would be financial benefits for them in taking on this scheme, but one has to accept the crumbs offered to one. I accept all the crumbs that my noble friend has offered and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I join the Minister’s fan club and thank her for her engagement on this, which has really helped get this to a better place. I am grateful for that. I believe we will hear from her what the Government’s plan is, but can she also assure me on a couple of points?

First, whatever the new process is to be, how will a person subject to a glitch or misinformation assert their case without having proper access to the system from which the evidence emerged? How will we ensure that the court is quick to understand and question the validity of the information and the system that produced it, and how will we educate the legal profession on the depth and breadth of information that seems plausible but is false? How will we do all that in sufficient time to save the next set of victims?

I too recognise the problems raised by the Minister in those meetings around the ubiquity of computers, but there is an equal and opposite concern that, in an age of AI where hallucinations, deepfakes and melded information are a norm, if we are willing to continue with the presumption, as the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, said, that information from a computer is reliable, that not only is untrue but creates distrust in the law. When this moment has passed, could there perhaps be a piece of work looking forward to challenge the presumption in law in a more careful and considered way, which this quick fix does not quite reach?

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the three other noble Lords who signed Amendment 21. I also support Amendment 22. Concerning Amendment 21, mention has been made of the Post Office/Horizon scandal. As we all now know, this was a very defective computer. The law must in future be on the side of truth and accuracy, in relation to computers or to anything else.

--- Later in debate ---

Further, to ensure transparency, the CPS will also convene a national scrutiny panel examining the use of drill and rap music in prosecutions. This panel will include third-sector representatives, legal professionals and academic experts, who will review anonymised past cases involving the music, answer questions, gather feedback and help the CPS to refine its approach. I repeat my thanks and gratitude to my noble friend for her concern and efforts in relation to both these areas of evidential reform. I hope she will be content not to press her amendments.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very sorry to interject at this stage, but I am a bit puzzled as to whether changing the rules of the Supreme Court will impact on county courts and magistrates’ courts.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My noble friend will forgive me, because this has nothing to do with the rules of the Supreme Court and the county courts. He will forgive me.

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions, not least for being an exemplar of how Report should be dealt with—notwithstanding the broken clock, which I hope will be fixed by tomorrow’s no doubt lengthy business. I am particularly grateful to the supporters and co-signatories of this amendment, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Arbuthnot and Lord Beamish, who have done, and continue to do, all that doughty work on behalf of the postmasters.

I am grateful also to Justice and Art Not Evidence for their help with both amendments. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend the Minister, because not all Ministers respond with this level of detail and positive engagement. The crack is how the light gets in. Of course, the devil will be in the detail of the rules and the CPS guidance, but I trust her to keep going with this. I certainly trust my noble friends and co-signatories to keep up their doughty campaigning and to accept her invitation to stay involved in the discussion. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to which I have added my name. I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord has said, but this is not an attempt to encourage lots of challenges to unduly lenient sentences. It is, above all, an attempt to achieve a degree of parity between the way offenders and defendants are treated.

The intent of the amendment it to suggest that a government department nominated by the Secretary of State should do the informing. It would need to be a body that was viewed as genuinely neutral, but it would be perfectly possible to inform the victim of their right and make quite clear the orbit within which an appeal against an unduly lenient sentence is likely to be successful and the parameters beyond which it would be highly unlikely to be considered, so as to make very clear to the victim, from the very beginning, the possibility of their having a case that might be over the threshold as opposed to being clearly below the threshold. It is entirely possible to imagine that one could create that.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, when I say that I will be brief, I will be very brief. I have listened carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. He is quite right in his observations, and particularly about the ultimate test of whether a sentence is set aside because it is unduly lenient. However, I think the answers have already been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell: this is a notification. The CPS is not taking a position on the merits of making the application; it is just setting up a timetable.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I will deal first with the existing time limit. We are listening—I am making a “we are listening” speech—not just to the strength of views in this Committee and in the other place on the time limit for the unduly lenient sentencing scheme but to the victims themselves. We are consistently hearing that this time limit is simply not long enough when victims are processing the outcome of the case, and I am extremely sympathetic to their representations. A ticking clock is the last thing that they need at a difficult time. The Government have been persuaded by arguments that something needs to be done, but we want to make sure that we get this right. Currently, we have been given a number of conflicting views on the best way to go about this. I would like to meet all noble Lords who have tabled amendments, and indeed any other interested Members of your Lordships’ House, to discuss the best way forward.

Turning to the question of notification, it goes without saying how important it is that victims are made aware of the ULS scheme. It is another subject that comes up over and again; it is not much of a right if you do not know that you have it. I am afraid that I am not persuaded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, saying that we should not tell people that they have this right in case they want to use it—if that is not what he meant to say, I apologise and withdraw the remark. The way it is supposed to work is this. Under the victims’ code, police-run witness care units are required to inform victims about the unduly lenient sentencing scheme within five working days. However, we are hearing that this is not happening, so we need to ensure that it does. The question is how best to go about it.

At present, I am not persuaded that putting the obligation into primary legislation is the best way. The first reason is that, usually, if you create an obligation, you have to create a penalty for the breach. The second is that if you want to change it, you have to amend primary legislation in order to do so. The victims’ code is a statutory code of practice. Last week, we launched a consultation to ensure that we get it right and that the code is fit for purpose. Again, we would welcome your Lordships’ engagement with that consultation before it closes on 30 April, and any other ideas before we reach our final conclusion. For now, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

As my noble friend will recall, I raised this issue at Second Reading. I support Amendment 14, in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and Amendment 15, in the name of my learned friend, if I may refer to him in those terms, the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I add that I have sympathy towards the drafting of Amendment 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

As I say quite frequently in this House—the issue of sexual offending arose in the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and I said it then and I repeat it now—sexual offences in the family environment are appalling. The offence of a father—it is often the father, rather than the mother—sexually attacking, which I think is the right word, his own son or daughter, who are as young as 14 years-old, is absolutely appalling. It is beyond most of our comprehension that any father would do that—it is certainly beyond my comprehension.

The important thing here is the value of the prohibited steps order made in the family court, because that can be carefully fashioned to the particular needs of a family. Therefore, it is welcome that the family court has this provision. The use of this prohibited steps order is most valuable for the protection of children and spouses in the family.

I am a little puzzled by the provision in Clause 3, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to reply to this, under which it is obligatory, within the circumstances set out, for a prohibited steps order to be made. I would be grateful for guidance—I am sorry I have not researched this—on whether the power to make a prohibited steps order is a matter of discretion by the Crown Court, or whether it is the situation that a prohibited steps order can be brought into force only under the drafting of Clause 3? I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could answer that.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I will make a few observations. No one can doubt the revulsion towards sexual offenders who have attacked their own children or have the potential to do so, but there are two practical points that we must bear in mind.

First, the criminal justice system and the criminal courts, and the family justice system and the family courts, have been starved of resources by both Governments—there is no doubt about that. When sentence lengths are increased by both parties, we end up with a situation in the prisons that is a crisis. In deciding what orders to make in this kind of case, it is of paramount importance to have regard to the resource implications. It is no use saying that there is money for this. There is not. The courts system is starved, and the result of that is victims suffering in a whole host of other cases by the tremendous backlog. Both this Government and the last Government are responsible for the position into which the courts have been placed. When we look at this, please have regard to resources.

The second point, a point made by the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Meston, is that it is important that we get correct the balance as to what the Crown Court is to do and what the family court is to do. I am not sure, having listened to this debate, that that is a matter that has been sufficiently addressed. The one thing you cannot have—because it is a waste of resources and does not deploy expertise correctly—is the lines not clearly drawn. I hope very much that, before this comes back, there will be the opportunity for those who have day-to-day responsibility in the judiciary and the Courts Service, together with the ministry, to be sure that we have got the most effective and efficient use of resources and the right kind of drawing the line. It is very difficult, but we cannot ignore the bankrupt state of the courts. It is a regrettable fact, and we must not make the mistake we have made in relation to sentencing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government understand that the aim of this group of amendments is to ensure that the children, who are at the heart of these cases, are protected. We share that objective, but these amendments may cause more problems than they are intended to solve. The amendments are all intended to be made to legislation, either proposed or already enacted, which deals with slightly different situations—convictions for certain serious sexual offences, children conceived as a result of rape and where one parent has been convicted of the murder of the other. However, all these pieces of proposed or enacted legislation have one thing in common. They are not intended to be additional punishments or to replicate—far less, replace—the experience and expertise of the family court. They are intended to protect children who are caught up in these very serious situations as quickly as possible.

In each of these three situations, the Government have identified issues in which the crime for which the relevant person has been sentenced is so serious, with them usually serving a long prison sentence, that it is relatively straightforward to conclude that a prohibited steps order will be in the best interests of the child. These proposals allow the Crown Court judge automatically to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility at the time of sentence. At the moment, following sentence the remaining parent must apply to the family court to do the same thing, but this inevitably takes time and causes distress.

It is known that some perpetrators use their parental responsibility to continue to exercise control, even though they are behind bars. In relation to a parent serving a life sentence for the murder of the other parent, it is axiomatic that there will be no other parent to make the application. What this legislation does not do is automatically restrict the exercise of parental responsibility in all cases forever. The defendant who has had it restricted can apply to the family court to have it restored. It does put the onus on them to do so. These provisions merely provide a quick and convenient method of protecting children and victims. However, restricting the exercise of parental responsibility is an extremely serious thing to do. For this reason, the Government must give serious consideration to how to balance the competing principles that are involved.

Against this background, I turn to Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 22 and 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. They seek to broaden the offences that are within the scope of this measure and reduce the minimum sentencing threshold from four years. The Government believe that any individual who poses a serious risk to children should not be able to exercise their parental responsibility. For the avoidance of doubt, I make it clear that the Government’s view is that parents do not have rights. The only rights are those of the child.

However, to create a power allowing the automatic restriction at the point of sentence, we must be sure that to do so would be in the best interest of the child. That is why we have set the threshold at sentences of four years’ imprisonment. In our judgment, if the behaviour of the defendant is sufficiently serious to warrant a sentence of four years or more, it is safe to assume that it would be right to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility. We have set it at four years because this is already a threshold for seriousness used for other purposes in criminal sentencing. For certain offences, including sexual offences, an offender who is sentenced to four or more years serves two-thirds rather than a half of their sentence in prison. It already recognises the particular seriousness.

This pre-existing legislative provision is why we have chosen four years as the indicator of seriousness. If we were to lower the four-year threshold, we could risk moving away from where we can be sure that restricting the exercise of parental responsibility will always be in the best interests of a child into territory where it is less clear. Equally, we must ensure that these measures are not in contravention of a person’s human rights. In particular, we need to ensure that any interference with a person’s right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European convention is a justifiable and proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim. We have set the threshold at four years for serious child sexual offences as we are of the view that, given the risk of harm to children, this intervention is justified.

That is not to say that the parental responsibility of offenders who have committed sexual offences, whether against their own child or someone else’s, but have received a sentence of less than four years, cannot be restricted. In those cases, an application can still be made to the family court, which is best placed to consider all circumstances, including what is in the best interests of the child.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised a number of issues about shortcomings in the family court. With the greatest of respect to her, this is perhaps not the time and place to expand on those, though they are of course serious points. As I think the noble Baroness knows, I have responsibility for family justice policy within my department, so these are issues that perhaps she and I can discuss on another occasion.

When we met, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, asked about appeals, and it has been raised again today. I promised him a reply. In cases where there is a successful appeal and an offender is acquitted or the sentence is reduced below four years, the Bill provides a clear process for the review of the prohibited steps order. The relevant local authority will be under a duty to make an application within a very short time to the family court, so that the family court can consider, exercising its expertise and experience, whether the prohibited steps order imposed by the Crown Court should be varied or discharged.

I turn now to Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. The offence of having sexual communications with a child carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, so this could not be added to the list unless the requirement of a four-year minimum sentence were removed.

I turn now to Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, put her name and has spoken. This would expand Jade’s law, which provides for the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility in cases where one parent kills the other. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness wish to amend the legislation so that it includes cases of attempted murder. I am grateful for being told that that was at the suggestion of the Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman, for whom I have the utmost respect.

I entirely recognise that, in order to be convicted of attempted murder, what the defendant has done will have been truly horrific—after all, a defendant can be convicted of this only if they had the intention actually to kill—and nothing I say is intended to minimise that. But I repeat what I said earlier. The automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility is not intended to punish the defendant, far less to act as a mark of societal disapproval. It is about children. I repeat that Parliament must be satisfied that restricting the exercise of parental responsibility will be in a child’s best interests.

The sad but determining factor in these killing cases is that the child is going to have only one parent left, and that parent will usually be serving a life sentence. There is no other comparable situation. Where the defendant did not succeed in murdering the other parent, although they intended to do so, they will usually be serving a long sentence, but there will be a surviving parent. In most cases, the surviving parent will be able to make an application to the family court if one is felt necessary. This lessens the need for an automatic referral to the family court.

It would also be difficult to justify why, if attempted murder were included, other serious criminal offences such as Section 18 wounding, which also carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, were not. Your Lordships should also be aware that adding a further measure into Jade’s law at this point will risk delaying its implementation, which has already taken a lot longer than the Government would have wished.

I have been asked for the reasons for that, and I will give them as quickly as I am able to. It is a complicated situation, but this is a unique piece of legislation. There is no existing process that we can import or learn from. There has been significant engagement with various partners that will be involved in the delivery of Jade’s law: local authorities; the Crown Prosecution Service; the National Police Chiefs’ Council; and His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service. The Government also have to make changes to criminal and family procedure rules, and we also have to develop broader guidance for practitioners and families. But we are on it. We must bring Jade’s law into force as soon as possible to protect the children who need it most. We must be cautious about doing anything at this stage that could extend this process.

As with the measures we are bringing in through this Bill, officials are developing a robust system to measure how Jade’s law works in practice. We want to understand how it works in practice, and from there we can properly consider whether other changes can be made to it. For all these reasons, I invite your Lordships not to press these amendments.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

If I understood my noble friend correctly, the protected steps order can be made only if Clause 3 is activated, and there is no discretion in the Crown Court to make a prohibited steps order in other circumstances, particularly where the offence did not, as drafted, carry a four-year imprisonment. In fact, I think my noble friend then said that parents can apply to the family court for the protected steps order. I find that rather awkward. Surely, when the Crown Court has all the facts in front of it and is in a position, therefore, to make a prohibited steps order, it should do so because it has the necessary knowledge. Of course, the prohibited steps order could be adjusted in a separate application to the family court.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The short answer to my noble friend’s question is that he is right: there is no discretion. The reason that there is no discretion is because, in fact, the Crown Court is the one court that does not have all the experience and all the knowledge—it will not have Cafcass reports or anything like that. It is simply making an automatic order when there is a certain level of seriousness that has been reached. It is for the family court to consider all the important factors in other cases about whether such an order is in the interests of the child. The Crown Court judge does not have the expertise, and it will cause delay. I have said it once before today—I may have already said it twice—the one thing the criminal courts do not need is any further delays.

Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I will say a few words in the gap; I have notified the clerk. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, because I spoke in the gap very recently just before he was about to speak. I ask for his tolerance.

I did not put my name down for this debate, because I thought other speakers would cover all the essential features. The Minister did a marvellous job to cover all the major issues in the Bill in her opening speech, so I was right about that. Led by the Minister, this House has done very well to cover all the major points of the Bill. However, while I sat and listened to this debate, my attention was drawn to Clause 3, in which the Crown Court is under a duty to make a prohibited steps order where a serious sexual offence has been committed. Effectively, that means that contact is prohibited between the offender and the damaged child or their family. When one contemplates it—for example, when a father commits a vile sexual offence on a son or daughter—one can see exactly why the introduction of this offence in Clause 3 is to be greatly welcomed.

However, my concern is the stipulation that the offender must have had a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of four years or more. Surely this clause should be drafted differently; it should be when a sexual offence has taken place and the offender has been convicted for that. There is a loosening up in new subsection (5), which states that the prohibited steps order can still be made when

“the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal, or … the sentence is reduced, on appeal, so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment … of 4 years or more”.

There is a loosening up. It seems that the straightforward principle is that, when an offender has been convicted of a serious sexual crime, it should be sufficient to trigger the right of the Crown Court to introduce prohibited steps.

I end by saying that this is a very difficult area. I am heavily involved in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, in which there is a provision preventing a parent, under certain circumstances, having contact with the child. In that case, the party who approached me explained that the father is the offender but he has not yet been convicted because the DPP’s decision has not yet been made to make that conviction. There is always a difficulty of proof when a young child has been molested. I wonder whether this provision should not be further extended when there has not been a conviction.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise in support of all the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge. I signed two of the offences in relation to the time-limit extension, and therefore I share the noble Baroness’s pleasure that the Government have effectively accepted that principle and brought forward their own amendments as I understand it.

The noble Baroness’s other amendments, it seems to me, are worthy of an equivalent response. I need not repeat the reasons for this, because her speech was so comprehensive and clear. I will just say that, in a still relatively short period of time, not just in this Committee but in this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has raised herself to one of the leading human rights campaigners in this country. Let that silence all those who think that relative youth is a disqualification for being in your Lordships’ House.

With that in mind, and as a brief reminder of the two new sections of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that are really down to the campaigning of the noble Baroness, I wonder if my noble friend the Minister, in her reply to the group, could give the Committee some insight into the timetable for implementing what will be, I believe, Sections 66E and 66F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. These are the new offences of creating, and of requesting the creation of, sexually explicit deepfake images without consent. These were passed in the Data (Use and Access) Act earlier this year, after a great deal of sweat, toil and solidarity from around the House for the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will be keen to get these implemented as soon as possible. In the light of frustrations expressed in earlier groups about the speed of implementing these policies, I wonder if we could hear on that.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I enthusiastically join my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti in praising the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. I was in the House—it was on a Friday—when she first moved her Private Member’s Bill. The Minister then was the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and he promised that the Government would review and come to the assistance of the noble Baroness. What she is doing now is quite amazing, with a number of very detailed amendments. I will hold myself here to await what my noble friend the Minister will say in reply, but I do hope she will be very positive.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to add my voice to the praise for the noble Baroness, Lady Owen—me too—and to put on record my support. I believe the noble Baroness did such a detailed, forensic laying out of her amendments. I would just like to make a couple of points.

During the passage of the Online Safety Act, we had a lot of discussion about an ombudsman. It was very much resisted. At the same time—in the same time- frame as that Bill took place—I was an adviser to the Irish Government, who put in an ombudsman. I think we are missing something. It was a very big part of the previous discussion about chatbots and so on in an earlier group. I very firmly agree with what the noble Baroness said as she laid out her amendments: we really need a way of alerting the regulator to what is going on, and it is not adequate for the regulator to have only an emerging harms unit that is waiting for us to fill in a form, which is the current state of play. I leave that with the Minister as a problem that needs solving.

Crown Court Criminal Case Backlog

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my new colleague, my noble friend Lady Longfield, on her maiden speech and give her a very big welcome to your Lordships’ House.

I rarely speak in Thursday Back-Bench debates, for I fear that I do not have the necessary expertise. I am not sure that I have the necessary expertise for this debate, but, long ago, I practised as a young barrister in the Courts of Assize and the Courts of Quarter Sessions—later the Crown Courts—in the 1960s and 1970s. At that time, I was not aware of any backlog at all of criminal cases waiting for trial, but it is now a big problem. As is recorded in the briefing notes provided by our Library, 73,205 criminal cases were awaiting trial in September of last year.

A Bar student, who was my guest last night, told me that he worked recently in the Birmingham Crown Court, which has 12 courts altogether but only three ushers. The result was a great underuse of those courts. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, made that point in relation to other courts, and I endorse all that he said. Clearly, something is wrong.

The great difference between those days of long ago, when I was in practice at the Bar, and these days, is the length of trials. Murder trials then seldom went over a week and were often much shorter; now they are double or treble the time, or even longer. It is exactly the same with other criminal trials. Indeed, a colleague who works on civil matters told me the other day that he could not make further commitments because he was about to start a trial that was scheduled for a year. That was quite unheard of in those days of long ago.

It is very difficult to cut down the length of criminal trials—it will be perceived that there is too much at stake for both the prosecution and defence—but we have to play our part in reducing this terrible backlog. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, identified in his excellent opening speech, greater efficiency in court processes could be of real help.

Prison Capacity Strategy

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord was not present at the start of the debate and therefore, according to the Companion, should not be speaking.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Go on, let him speak.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

No.

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Hacking Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly add to the thanks, with one exception, that the Minister gave this morning. I give particular thanks to Professor Sarah Green and to the clerk of the Special Public Bill Committee, Joey Topping, who, in the short timescale into which everything had to be compressed, did an outstanding job.

I thank the current Leader of the House and Chief Whip for getting this back when we did not get it through last time, despite their enormous efforts. They really deserve immense commendation, as does the Minister, for having put up with lawyers seeking to build perfection on perfection—something that I am sure many in this House feel inappropriate. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, who really smoothed over some of those difficulties but did not quite get the time for matters I suspect he did not even contemplate, bringing this so speedily to a conclusion.

I will make two more general points. First, as I did not have the opportunity to thank the Senior Deputy Speaker and Duncan Sagar for getting us a bit more time in the Special Public Bill Committee—because the matter moved so quickly—if it is permissible under the rules of the House, I express on everyone’s behalf our thanks for the small change to the procedure. It should make a huge difference, because the more time there is for clever lawyers to think of points in the committee, the speedier it is to get the Bill through the House—something I hope will appeal to the business managers.

Secondly, I have a hope for the future. This morning has reminded us, if we needed any reminding, of the need to remain highly competitive. This is a good day for England, Wales and Northern Ireland—I leave Scotland out because it has its own system. We have brought our law up to date. We must find a means of doing this very rapidly, as we must keep English law— I say English law deliberately—attractive and at the forefront of use internationally, for the benefit of our whole economy.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I give personal thanks to the Minister for his very kind words to me and more general thanks to the Government for pressing forward with this Arbitration Bill. It is very befitting that the Government should have championed this Bill through, as they are at the moment, because it was a Labour Government 46 years ago who brought forward the arbitration reform that brought about the 1979 Act.

I join other noble Lords in thanking the prominent members of the Special Public Bill Committee and the prominent Members who took part in debate in this Chamber for all their contributions. I also thank the Ministers, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and—I keep calling him my learned friend—my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. Special thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who quite excellently presided over the Special Public Bill Committee, and to all the supporting officials.

Particular thanks should also go to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and I am sorry he is not here to receive them. When he was the Minister, it was he who referred the arbitration issues to the Law Commission. That really was the beginning of the recent story on the Arbitration Bill.

This Bill is not as fundamental as the 1979 or 1996 Acts, but it deals with some very important issues. Perhaps the most important is Clause 7, giving power to arbitral tribunals to make summary awards. Those of us who practise in the courts—I am looking across the House at the moment—are well familiar with Order 14 proceedings, and this introduces into the arbitration world the Order 14 summary judgments.

It also clears up issues relating to the seat of the arbitration, arising after the unfortunate division in the Supreme Court in the Enka Insaat case, with two Supreme Court judges on one side and three on the other. I would have preferred new Section 6A(2) not to have been included, because I believe it complicates that issue, but none the less it is there, and I am very happy to support the Bill in that condition.

However, there is unfinished business. I suggest that the corruption issue should have further consideration. We know that the ICC has a commission on this and we must wait to hear what it says, but it is certainly a matter that needs further attention.

Other matters should have consideration, including expedited hearings and dealing with the length of written submissions, which sometimes stretch over 100 or 200 pages and argue every point under the sun. There is also the use of third-party funding and the question of what disclosures should be made, as well as the power to order parties into mediation, which is used successfully in litigation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Yes, this is Third Reading.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I am sorry if I am taking a little time; I hear the Deputy Chief Whip. But it is important that we should look to the future and realise that this Bill is unfinished business.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I simply associate myself, on behalf of these Benches and as the previous sponsor of this Bill in the previous Government, with the thanks that have been given to the entire team, not only to the special committee and its chair but to the civil servants who have supported the work. I thank the Government and the Minister himself, who worked very hard in the special committee, collaborated very closely with the previous Government and myself and has, as has been said, managed to bring the Bill forward again with remarkable speed. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, of course there is always unfinished business and we must look to the future, but we now have an extremely good base on which to do so.

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Hacking Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th September 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hacking]

1: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Safeguarding against fraud and corruptionIn section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (general duty of the tribunal), after subsection (1)(b) insert—“(c) safeguard the arbitration proceedings against fraud and corruption.””

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, before I address my amendment, I would like to express to your Lordships complete support for this Bill. I had the honour to be a member of the Special Public Bill Committee, so ably chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. I sat through all the hearings and then sat with my co-members of the committee throughout our deliberations.

Perhaps I can do no better in expressing my support for the Bill than to quote from the Explanatory Notes. Paragraph 6 reads as follows:

“The intent of the Bill is to further the principle found in section 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996: to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense. Thereby, the aim is to fulfil the policy objective of ensuring that the Act is fit for purpose and that it continues to promote the UK as a leading destination for arbitrations”.


I now move to my amendment and, as I do so, I express thanks to my learned friend—or rather, my noble friend—the Minister. Unfortunately, he does not take the “learned” with his name, although he is very learned. I am very grateful to him for his letter to me of 15 August on the corruption issue. I have read the entire contents of that letter and express gratitude without reserve, but I am afraid to tell your Lordships—for reasons that I will now develop—that the reply in this letter is not complete.

First, we must look at the extent of corruption and I am afraid that it is bad news. There is the Nigeria case and the judgment of Mr Justice Robin Knowles on 23 October 2023; nobody in this Committee knows more about that case than the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, KC, who took the role of a senior counsel throughout the long hearings before Mr Justice Knowles. The fact is, however, that in the arbitration proceedings resulting in that case, there were two very distinguished English arbitrators—former judges of the High Court—who made a very large award of $11 billion. Because of the corruption that was found by Mr Justice Robin Knowles, that very large award had to be set aside in its entirety.

Moreover, this is not the only case where corruption has evidenced itself. The charity under the title of Spotlight on Corruption has identified three recent cases in which serious corruption was found. There was the Mozambique case before the UK Supreme Court in September 2023; the Steinmetz case before the ICSID tribunal in Paris in May 2022; and the BSG case before the LCIA in April 2019. So this is a serious problem and I remind your Lordships of what I said at Second Reading: that I have had experience as an arbitrator in commodity arbitrations relating to Ukraine and Russia, where corruption was most evident, often with the bribing of officials to obtain export licences.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for welcoming me to my current position; I am very glad that he has 20/20 eyesight and is looking at these matters so closely. I am also thankful to my noble friend Lord Hacking for initiating this debate. He said very clearly when he introduced his amendment that he supports the Bill, and I am grateful for that. He is again raising the issue of protecting the arbitral process against corruption, and of course that is extremely important. Having considered this very carefully, the Government’s position is that our framework already provides a robust regime and that no law reform is necessary. A tribunal, like a court, must always guard against fraud and corruption, and I will explain what mitigations our existing regime already provides.

Under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1996, the tribunal is already under a duty to “act fairly and impartially”, and to

“adopt procedures suitable to the circumstances of the … case”.

An arbitrator who is corrupt would fail in their duties under Section 33. Furthermore, the arbitrator’s appointment can be revoked by the parties under Section 23, or an arbitrator can be removed by the court under Section 24. An arbitrator who acts in bad faith loses their immunity under Section 29 and can be sued.

When arbitral proceedings are tainted by fraud or corruption in the arbitral process, any arbitral award can be challenged in court under Section 68 for serious irregularity, as indeed was successfully done in the recent case of Nigeria v P&ID, which we heard about earlier. Indeed, the reason why arbitral corruption is currently a talking point is that the court identified corruption and prevented abuse in that case. Arbitral awards can also take account of corrupt conduct and deprive a corrupt party of any arbitral award which is sought to permit fraud or corruption. It would be unenforceable as contrary to public policy under Section 81. It is possible for an arbitrator to publish their award and denounce the fraud publicly. In ruling an award to be unenforceable, the court can also publish its judgment publicly. The scheme under the 1996 Act is sufficient and has not revealed any deficiency in practice.

The Government oppose legislative reform here precisely because it is unclear what additional benefit it would provide over the current regime, which provides both parties and arbitrators with routes to challenge and address corrupt conduct, as well as duties on the arbitrator to ensure fair and proper proceedings. A new, untested measure may simply introduce uncertainty for both parties and arbitrators.

The 1996 Act and the modernising impact of this Bill are designed to ensure robust and efficient arbitral proceedings. Our framework provides this balance and well equips the tribunal and courts to deal with corruption. The Government will continue to support the sector’s efforts on arbitral corruption. We will keep track of initiatives that are under way, such as that of the ICC anti-corruption task force, to which a number of noble Lords referred, and engage with the sector to push for the swift adoption of best practices as they are developed. I hope that this explanation reassures my noble friend and that he will withdraw his amendment.

To go a little further, as noble Lords are aware the previous Government wrote to leading arbitral institutions seeking views on the mitigations that are currently in place and whether more are needed. I understand that responses were received from the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the International Chamber of Commerce, the London Court of International Arbitration, the London Maritime Arbitrators Association and the Grain and Feed Trade Association, in addition to the Law Society and the Bar Council.

All those institutions mentioned mitigations they had in place against corrupt conduct. None expressed support for amending the Arbitration Bill to strengthen anti-corruption. In addition, concerns were raised that a one-size-fits-all approach would be ineffective and risk unintended consequences. Nigeria v P&ID was raised as a highly unusual case where the court effectively performed its proper role in setting aside the award. Where a role was suggested for the Government, it was in ensuring that the courts continue to be equipped to provide checks in cases put before them, as they did in the Nigeria case, and to engage in discussions with the sector and promote its work combating corruption.

The noble and learned Lords, Lord Bellamy and Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, raised the issue of the letters and whether they could be published. I am unable to share those letters. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, can see the letters that were responded to when he was a Minister, but they were written specifically to him in that role. I would not necessarily be able to see those letters, which would create a difficult situation. I understand that a couple of letters came in when the new Government were formed. But I can say with complete confidence that the substance of those letters was explained and explored within the letter that I wrote to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, which is in the public domain. I am confident that if I was wrong somehow in asserting that the substance was inaccurate, those various bodies would be able to draw that to my attention. I am confident that the substance of the letter I wrote on 15 August is completely accurate. I hope that noble Lords will accept that.

A number of noble Lords spoke of their reasons for opposing my noble friend’s amendment. They said that it might well be duplicative, unnecessary and problematic in various ways, which they explored. I have to say that I agree with the noble Lords who made those points.

In closing on one point, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, asked about relevant arbitral bodies being given a nudge regarding corruption. They are of course perfectly able to do that. It would be beneficial, and maybe they should remind themselves that they have that responsibility to give a nudge if they suspect corruption in particular cases. So, having said all that, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, it is my intention to withdraw my amendment, but perhaps I could say just a few words after a fairly long debate on it. First, I thank those noble Lords—there were several—who accepted the principle that I sought to express. It was nice to have that support but, as was very clear, not one noble Lord accepted my amendment. Therefore, I am not exactly in a strong position to press it now, or indeed on Report.

I did not realise when I cited three cases put before us by Spotlight on Corruption that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, was counsel on every one. So he has extensive knowledge—greater than that I gave him credit for in my opening words.

One thing that has been missed in this debate—it was the first point I made—is that I wanted us, by legislation, to set out our standard. I described the first importance of my amendment as putting a flag in the ground so that the world may know that, in arbitration proceedings where England is the seat of the arbitration, we will not countenance corruption and fraud. I still think that is an important point.

I did not know when I got up to speak that there would be such a formidable line of noble and learned Lords alongside me, including the former Lord Chief Justice, who has not actually spoken but who has a devastating commitment to good argument, so I am not inviting him now to make any interventions because he will make some argument that will totally defeat what I am trying to say.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, said that he thought my amendment was impractical, and of course arbitral tribunals do not have the power of investigation. The point I was making was that, at the commencement of the arbitration, the arbitral tribunal could speak to both counsel and the parties who should be present at the inaugural meeting and remind them of the seriousness of rooting out any corruption or fraud. I also point out, as a former counsel and solicitor, that when you take instruction from a client, and statements from clients’ witnesses, you have a lot of opportunity to know what is going on. So there is a role for counsel and the parties in rooting out corruption, and that is why I thought it useful to have this revision.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said that the committee—which was so well chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas—had not reached any view about corruption. There was in fact a reason for that. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, is listening, but we received these two reports from Spotlight on Corruption at his instigation, and his view, and that of the committee, was that under the timetable we were working to, this was too big an issue for us to take on. That is why we made no pronouncement on that subject.

My Front Bench is getting a bit restless, but I am sure that there will be plenty of time to consider the next amendment. I rather get the feeling that there will be an intervention now in Committee on the Arbitration Bill and we will debate another excitement. I am withdrawing this amendment, but I hope that noble Lords have heard and agree that this is a continuing matter. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for his promise to keep this under review—and may it continually be kept under review.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.