Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch]

307: After Clause 105, insert the following new Clause—
“Restriction on applying for gender recognition certificateAny offender who has been convicted of a sexual offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 may not obtain a gender recognition certificate.”

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 307 in my name. I spoke to it in Committee and have brought it back because it is an important issue. The amendment would simply ban any convicted sex offender from obtaining a gender recognition certificate. I remind your Lordships that a gender recognition certificate would enable this individual to legally change their gender from male to female. That means they can live legally as a woman and access women’s and single-sex spaces.

When we debated this before, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, responded to my remarks and I thank him very much for his letter to me. I have tabled a number of Written Questions on this issue. I will make a couple of points about why this amendment is still needed and why I am not satisfied with the Government’s assurances.

In my discussions with the Government, they have rightly highlighted their tightening up of the requirements and safeguards to protect the public when people are changing their name. That may be the case with a gender recognition certificate. If somebody is changing their gender, they may wish to change their name—not necessarily, but it could happen. The Government are tightening up those requirements, putting in enhanced notification requirements, restricting changes to identity documents and bringing in closer requirements for police supervision. All those things are good, but it still requires the sex offender to notify the police of any changes to their personal information. It happens after the event; it is not a blanket ban. The onus is on the criminal to go to the police and say, “I have changed my name”. This is a convicted sex offender, so many would say that it stands to reason that there is a low level of trust in them anyway. To me, it is not a satisfactory answer.

The other objection the Government mentioned when I was bringing this forward and tabling Questions was that the scale of the problem is very small. That may be true, but the numbers are as follows. Almost 10,000 gender recognition certificates have been issued since 2004. Last year alone, 1,169 were granted. Nobody is saying that every single person who has been granted a gender recognition certificate is a sex offender or criminal—not at all—but the issue is that we do not know whether any of them are. There may be individuals within that population who are convicted sex offenders. I say that this is possible because, as the Government have confirmed, a criminal conviction is not disclosed in the process of applying for a gender recognition certificate. Apparently, the panel assesses risk and looks at a number of factors regarding that individual, but a criminal conviction is not part of that process.

I found that very strange, and various members of the public who have written to me have also found it rather strange. The argument that this is a small number of people is not adequate to reassure the public that we would not have somebody who has been convicted of a horrific crime—sex with a child, rape, paedophilia—go on to potentially obtain a gender recognition certificate. What possible reason could that individual have for changing their gender? There would be only one reason: they want to access more vulnerable people and commit horrendous crimes.

To me, it seems a matter of common sense that you could make the process of applying for this certificate something that has a step somebody must go through to say “I am not a convicted sex offender”, or the panel should require that evidence in its deliberations to ensure that somebody who has been convicted of rape or sexual offences of a serious nature should not be permitted to change their gender. The Government say that these issues are judged on case-by-case basis, but they do not keep the information that would really inform those decisions. The questions I have tabled to the Government show that applicants are not required to provide details of criminal convictions, and only 6% of those applications are refused for any reason. So it does look like a reasonably permissive process that people are able to get through quite easily.

If a person has successfully changed their gender and name, the onus is on them to go to the police. This is a system that is full of loopholes. It is not satisfactory to say “Well, it’s only a small number of individuals”, because even one person being able to do that is too many.

I will very briefly come back to the absolutely horrendous case I mentioned before. A perpetrator called Ryan Haley sexually abused a girl who was only 13 years old; she had to go to court and watch him on trial for sexual abuse, where he insisted that everyone call him Natalie Wolf and said he was celebrating his body and his choice. What about the body of the young girl who was abused under horrific circumstances? Why should he get to stand up and be treated as a woman when he committed disgraceful acts on a 13 year-old girl? That is the reason for my amendment, and I look forward to the Government’s response.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, for outlining her reasons behind Amendment 307. However, I approach this from a somewhat different perspective. I do not sit behind the fact that there is a very low number of transgender people who are convicted of sex offences; I turn it around and look through the other end of the telescope. This is why I found the Government’s updated guidance called Crime and Policing Bill: Management of Offenders Factsheet extremely helpful.

First, the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, referred to names. The factsheet very clearly says that sex offenders may not make name changes without the permission of the police; if they do not have permission, they are committing an offence. They also have to notify the police of any contact with children. In the past, that has meant that, whenever they spend 12 hours or more in a household where children are present, they have to notify the police of the address, the date on which they are going to stay and when residence began.

The changes will remove the time threshold and the responsibility not only on the offender but of those involved in monitoring the offender, whether it is the police or probation, meaning that any contact with children in the future will be monitored. Further, if they are away from a previously notified address, that is an offence, as the other items are under the Sexual Offences Act, if they do not notify authorities. The police will be watching for people who are on the sexual offences register to make sure that they comply, and I suspect they and probation would be very concerned if there were gaps in appearances and would chase them.

Is the Minister satisfied that the public would be safe from any sex offender on the register who is caught by the terms of this factsheet—which is a very good practical document for police, probation and others—whether they are transgender or not?

--- Later in debate ---

In the nicest possible way, I am not quite clear how the noble Baroness’s amendment would strengthen the measures in the Bill and what are already well-tried, well-practised management arrangements, through the Probation Service, the police and MAPPA, to manage registered sex offenders. I cannot give her any comfort, I am afraid, but I will take her intervention.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his comments. Just to be very clear and direct, it would be one less individual for the MAPPA arrangements to worry about, because that individual would not have changed their gender. They would still be living in their previous gender and there would be a very straightforward process there. There would be no risk of loopholes and that person falling outside the MAPPA arrangements.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I again draw the noble Baroness’s attention to Clause 98, which says:

“A relevant offender must notify a new name to the police … no less than 7 days before using it”.


Again, criminal or not, if people wish to identify in the way in which they identify, I think they are entitled to be allowed to do so. I give way again.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I said this in my opening remarks, but I will repeat myself to enforce what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said: the arrangements in place ensure that offenders are monitored and managed according to the level of risk they present, not according to their gender. That is the key point that I put to the noble Baroness. The gender issue is covered by Clause 98. The management of risk is covered whatever their gender happens to be at any time. People still have the right to change their gender and identify as they feel right, according to their own circumstances.

I say again to the noble Baroness that the vast majority of people who apply for a gender recognition certificate are not going to be sex offenders. They are going to be ordinary people walking round the streets and living in communities and never even thinking of being sex offenders. I do not wish to tarnish those individuals who have a full right to live their life as they choose, so I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

I will not detain the House. I have heard what the Minister said and I am unsatisfied, but I will withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 307 withdrawn.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 27th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 145 and 439 standing in my name. It is good that I previously gave way to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who is no longer in her place, because she covered a lot of the points that I was going to make about care homes.

This is the first time I have spoken in Committee, even though I have attended virtually every day of the proceedings. Lots of people spoke earlier about their personal experiences. I do not intend to go into extensive detail, but I want the Committee to know that I have, for the past eight years, had power of attorney for my 88 year-old mother, who has been in a care home for that time. She has advanced dementia. She cannot speak, read or write. She does not know who I am. So, I have first-hand, practical experience of fluctuations in capacity and how that can be dramatic, from one day to the next. I come at this from a very practical, family-based perspective as well. Those of us who are former MPs have seen those family situations in our surgeries. That is where I am coming from. We need to make sure that family and care home staff always have the best interests of patients, such as my mother, at heart, as I know that they would wish to—but we just do not know what those interests are in my mother’s case, given that she simply cannot communicate.

My Amendment 145 is very much in line with what has already been said about the appointment of the very important role of the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others have already mentioned ways in which we can ensure that public trust is commanded by the appointment of this person. It may well be that there are better ways of achieving this than my amendment. I urge the sponsor of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to come back to the points raised by a good number of us.

I suggest that the Cabinet Office should create and maintain a register of interest for the commissioner’s office and the panel members. This appointment is solely in the authority of the Prime Minister, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, remarked. This is very important for public trust. It does not matter which Government are in office; we must have transparency and confidence when this person is appointed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, suggested that this should be an appointment by His Majesty. It may be that that is a more effective way of achieving the end result.

My Amendment 439 has not been discussed in detail so far in this group. It would require the commissioner to notify specified and interested parties of a person’s referral to an assisted dying panel. Here, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will be aware of practice direction 9B in the Court of Protection Rules. That is where we are coming from with the amendment. It states:

“The applicant must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application form has been issued”.


The direction goes on to make clear it that ordinarily, although there are some exceptions, close family are

“likely to have an interest in being notified”.

This can then enable them, if appropriate, to submit a formal witness statement to the court.

I cannot understand why it should be any different here. Assisted dying panels are given extensive powers to make judgments under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, just like the Court of Protection. Surely the same powers of notification and, for that matter, summoning witnesses should apply. If the sponsor does not agree with this or cannot accept it, perhaps he can explain why he thinks that the panel process should be more secretive than the Court of Protection proceedings.

This brings me to the importance of emphasising how important it is to involve families in these significant decisions. One of the problems with the Bill is that it seems to treat assisted suicide as an entirely autonomous decision that can be considered in isolation from the context of other complex care needs. Those of us who have first-hand experience with loved ones will know that this could well be a patient crying out for further support in some way—with their care needs, how they feel or their emotions in that moment. I raise this because the NHS guidance on complex care planning repeatedly emphasises the involvement of family and how important that is. I quote NHS England’s guidance:

“It is important to involve families and carers in decisions about … someone’s care and support (with permission of the person being cared for) … It is important to be led by the person, with their family, carers or supporters, to make sure they can be involved in decision making”.


Similarly, the statutory guidance under the Care Act promotes a whole-family approach to assessment. That is a principle that I am sure we all recognise—that the provision of care involves several parties, including the family, who also need to be supported. This is significant, because many people who request assisted suicide express the concern that they feel a burden. We have heard that expressed time and again in these proceedings. It may well be that if discussions involved family or carers, which then allowed further support to be offered, that motivation would disappear.

Before I sit down, I will address the objection that there might be circumstances when, it is argued, the family should not be notified, perhaps most obviously in an instance when they express the view that they do not want that. I accept that the Court of Protection Rules I referred to provide a certain degree of discretion as to which relatives are notified, considering who is practically closest to the person. The rules also include a provision that is entirely absent in the Bill:

“Where the applicant chooses not to notify a person listed in paragraph 7 … the evidence in support of the application form must also set out why that person was not notified”.


That same exploration and recording requirement on this point is set out for social workers in the NICE guideline on social work with adults experiencing complex needs, and there are good reasons for this. When a person does not want their next of kin to be involved, it might be a red flag that could indicate coercion, an inheritance dispute or some other significant issue. That should be a material fact that is taken into account by the panel.

This somewhat anticipates Amendment 389 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gray of Tottenham, in another group, which would require the assessing doctor to discuss—although not record—the reasons why a person does not want to notify their family. As it connects to my amendment in this group, I ask the sponsor, if he is not minded to accept my amendment because it does not allow the person to decide whether they want their family involved, why the Bill does not include an explicit recording requirement on their exclusion in line with the usual practice.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, contrary to Amendment 129, I think that the Bill gets it right in requiring, at Clause 4(3), that the voluntary assisted dying commissioner must hold or have held office as a judge of the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. This is quite clearly not a medical role. Its principal functions are to ensure that the statutory processes and safeguards that Parliament would have established are being adhered to.

However, we have to accept that a postholder having been a judge does not automatically mean that they will not come with personal views about the scope of the law that Parliament has passed. Therefore, the debate that the Committee has just had on how to make sure that there is transparency about the views that such an individual might hold before their appointment is ratified has merit.

For example, I was very struck by an important interview that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, the former President of the Supreme Court, gave in Prospect magazine in December 2024. She recorded that, in the case, for example, of Tony Nicklinson back in 2014, who wanted it to be declared that it was lawful for people to assist him to take his own life because he had a disabling illness but was not terminally ill, two Justices of the Supreme Court

“would have been prepared to make a declaration that the current law on assisting suicide was incompatible with the Human Rights Convention”.

She went on to say:

“There were nine of us on the court. Of that, five of us took the view that when the time was right, the court might make such a declaration of incompatibility. But three of those five thought the time was not yet right”.


I infer from that that—at that particular point in time, anyway—five Justices of the Supreme Court would have taken the view that the Bill before us, if passed by Parliament, would fall foul of their reading of the European convention.

It is helpful to think about the mechanisms by which Parliament could know the views of such judges, were they to be put forward for appointment as the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. The thrust of Amendment 127 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, therefore has merit. It would require, for example, pre-appointment hearings by one or more Select Committees in the House of Commons, which would give us an opportunity to probe these questions and make sure that a nominee was going to stick to the faithful implementation of the legislation that Parliament, after such careful deliberation, would have produced, rather than, for example, interpreting the role of the voluntary assisted dying commissioner as in some way akin to that of the Children’s Commissioner, which is clearly an advocacy role for the rights of children.

Victims and Courts Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I always find it slightly daunting, when speaking towards the end of a debate, to follow so many eminent noble Lords. In my short time in this place, I have learned that your Lordships do not like needless repetition, so I will absolutely attempt to abide by that stricture.

The first observation I make, while broadly welcoming the Bill, is that nobody really expects to be a victim of crime. It is not something that ever really appears in our political debates, that politicians major on when they make election campaign promises, or that appears in the media with great regularity. But when someone is a victim of crime they very often find themselves being badly failed by the services that are supposed to be there to support them and which they assumed would be there. Until they need to use them, they do not understand what is actually going on in the system.

I served as a Minister in the Home Office and in the Ministry of Justice, and it is a huge privilege to hear from victims who are brave enough to come forward and speak about their experiences. I and, I know, many others welcome the Government’s work on strengthening support and services for those victims. When victims come forward to speak about those things, they exhibit a huge amount of bravery. We can learn a lot from that. That is how we go forward, tailor the services and get it right for them in the future.

As people have said, this is not a party-political point. We made some progress towards improving services for victims under the previous Government. We quadrupled legal aid for victims, enshrined the victims’ code in law and began the task of unpicking automatic halfway early release for serious offenders, but there was always more to do. It was the start point, not the end point, of a journey.

I have a couple of key concerns about the Bill, particularly around rape and serious sexual offences. I will add my comments to what others have said about the window for victims to apply to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. I do not think that 28 days is enough. Will the Government please look again at the issue of court transcripts? As so many others have said, those really need to be provided in cases such as that of the grooming gangs. It will give confidence to everybody in the system.

Attendance at sentencing is so important. It is just fantastic that the Government are doing this, taking forward some of the early steps that we took in the previous Government. I too have some knowledge of Zara Aleena’s case. Her family said that when their niece’s killer did not appear in court, it was a slap in the face to them. They wanted the killer, McSweeney, to face his actions. They felt it was so important for them. They wanted him to hear what impact his despicable actions had had on their family and how he had destroyed them as a family. I really hope that, in the name of them and so many others, we can get that done as a Parliament and help those people.

There are some operational difficulties around this that we will look forward to working with the Government on. If police officers are required to enforce attendance, they should be issued with stab vests and tasers. They need to have the right kit so that they can do it, otherwise there is a worry about the use of the defence of reasonableness and appropriateness. We have all seen that people sometimes use that to get away from actually doing what they need to do, which is facing justice in open court.

Before I conclude, I ask the Minister to reflect on some really important work that the previous Government did on rape prosecutions. It might be slightly outwith the scope of the Bill but, against the backdrop of the work that the Government are doing on the VAWG strategy and on the court system as a whole, we introduced an operation called Operation Soteria. We worked with the Crown Prosecution Service, with police forces across the country and with the courts. We were improving the experience of rape victims when they went into court and the pace at which those trials moved through the court system. By the time I left the role, we had City St George’s perform an objective study, which found that that operation had objectively improved both the time it takes for those cases to come to court and the experience of victims. I would be really interested and grateful if the Minister could touch on that when she comes to sum up, or else write to me about how that work has been taken forward and how it fits into the wider plans.

The Government are completely right in their ambition to tackle the backlog of 74,000 cases at the Crown Court, but I think the public will find it extraordinary that we are looking at getting rid of jury trials, or even magistrates’ trials, when we know that there are courts sitting empty. The Minister shakes her head, so perhaps she will address that when she responds. As I have said, I look forward to seeing the Bill go forward and to working with the Government and others. I very much hope that victims outside here will see that we are doing our job and standing up for them.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con)]

My Lords, I also support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Owen and will try to keep my remarks as brief as possible. As we have heard today, technology continues to provide new avenues for abuse, in particular for the abuse of women. Abusers use technology in ever more inventive ways to harm, harass and try to humiliate their victims. Thanks to the work of my noble friend Lady Owen and others in this House, the law has made huge strides in recent years; however, more needs to be done.

Broadly, these amendments fall into two categories: those that seek to update the law to ensure that it addresses new and growing forms of tech-enabled abuse, and those that seek to provide more effective support to the victims of non-consensual intimate image abuse. We need action on both fronts. I will not go into detail here, as it has already been covered, but I will just reiterate that some of the gaps that need to be closed are: updating our definition of what constitutes taking an image; including audio recordings in the framework for tackling non-consensual intimate images; ensuring that images which may have been innocuous when they were taken but are then transformed into something sexual or degrading are also captured by the law; and, finally, recognising the practice of doxing as an aggregating factor.

Unfortunately, we know that, however the law changes, abuse will not be eliminated any time soon, so we must also ensure that the law supports victims in the aftermath of their abuse. As it stands, there is no proper framework to ensure that intimate images that the courts have found to be taken or shared illegally are then removed and destroyed. Instead, survivors see their images being repeatedly uploaded, posted on to pornography sites, shared in anonymous chat forums and even allowed to remain untouched on their abusers’ devices or cloud accounts. It cannot be right; the law must change. Between them, Amendments 295BA, 295BB, 295BC and 295BD would create a proper mechanism for victims to ensure that images are promptly removed from online platforms, deleted and then hashed to prevent them from resurfacing elsewhere.

Making progress on this issue is crucial. We know the trauma caused to victims who have to live with their images remaining online or live with the knowledge that they could be re-uploaded at any point. As one survivor told the Women and Equalities Committee:

“I am terrified of applying for jobs for fear that the prospective employer will google my name and see. I am terrified when meeting new people that they will google my name and see. I am terrified that every person I meet has seen”.


We cannot allow this situation to continue. The amendments from my noble friend Lady Owen would make the law more effective, more enforceable and more protective to victims, and I hope that we will be able to make progress on them in this House.

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I add my voice to the support for my noble friend Lady Owen from across the Committee. She has done a great service to victims of these crimes all across the country, most of whom we know are women and girls, but men and boys can be affected too.

I will focus on Amendment 334 which, as my noble friend Lady Coffey has mentioned, would add the word “reckless” in relation to the spiking offence. This is very important. I remember being the Home Office Minister when the phenomenon of needle spiking first hit the headlines. It focused a lot of attention on spiking in general as a phenomenon and meant the Home Office had to put its focus and resources behind it. We found it was very difficult to prosecute these crimes. Often, the substance had left the body. Often, victims were blamed for their behaviour, for putting themselves in those situations.

When I went to talk to the victims, I often heard that they thought that people were just doing it for a laugh, and a lot of the hospitality industry—bars, clubs and festivals—said the same thing. They said that it was really inadequate to have the requirement to prove harm or a sexual motive. That was part of the reason, though not the whole reason, why we have seen such a woefully low level of prosecutions for this. It is my belief that we need to make sure we include this recklessness element, and that is also the belief of most of the campaigners that I have worked with, including Stamp Out Spiking and, of course, Richard Graham, who did a tremendous job. I hope that the Government will adopt this amendment and all the others.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it has been a privilege to take part in today’s Committee. I think anyone reading Hansard subsequently will get a much better insight than they ever had before of the risks and experience of young women and girls in today’s world, sadly. It has been a privilege listening to all the speeches, particularly on these amendments.

Like others, started by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge, for the forensic way she has identified the digital loopholes that currently allow abusers to evade justice. As we have been reminded, she has been a doughty campaigner on the Data (Use and Access) Act, with a winning streak that I hope will continue.

At the same time, I welcome the government amendments in this group, which at least signal a positive direction of travel. For far too long, victims of intimate image abuse have been timed out of justice by the six-month limit on summary offences. The noble Baroness, Lady Owen, identified this injustice, and I am delighted that the Government have listened with their Amendment 300. Then, of course, we have a number of other amendments. The noble Baroness’s amendments go further than time limits; they address harms that the Bill completely misses.

In particular, I highlight Amendment 298B, which addresses the malicious practice known as doxing. It is a terrifying reality for survivors that perpetrators often do not just share an intimate image; they weaponise it by publishing the victim’s address, employer or educational details alongside it. This is calculated to maximise distress, vulnerability and real-world danger. This amendment would rightly establish that providing such information is a statutory aggravating factor and would ensure that the court must treat this calculated destruction of a victim’s privacy with the severity it deserves.

While we welcome the government amendments regarding deprivation orders, I urge the Minister to look closely at Amendment 295BB, also in the name of the noble Baroness. Current police powers often focus on seizing the physical device—the phone or laptop—but we live in an age of cloud storage. Seizing a phone is meaningless if the image remains accessible in the cloud, ready to be downloaded the moment the offender buys a new device. Amendment 295BB would create a duty for verified deletion, including from cloud services. We must ensure that when we say an image is destroyed, it is truly gone.

I also strongly support the suite of amendments extending the law to cover audio recordings. As technology evolves, we are seeing the rise of AI-generated audio deepfakes—a new frontier of abuse highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, and the Revenge Porn Helpline, as we have heard today. I pay tribute to her for raising this issue. By explicitly including audio recordings in the definition of intimate image offences, these amendments could future-proof the legislation against these emerging AI threats.

Finally in this area, Amendment 295BD offers a systematic solution: a non-consensual intimate image register using hashing technology, which was so clearly described by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. We cannot rely on a game of whack-a-mole, where victims must report the same image to platform after platform. A hash registry that identifies the unique digital fingerprint of an image to block its upload across providers is the only scalable technical solution to this problem.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, we also welcome the new offence of administering harmful substances in Clause 101, but the current drafting requires specific intent to “injure, aggrieve or annoy”. Perpetrators of spiking often hide behind the defence that it was just a prank or done to liven up a friend. This leaves prosecutors struggling to prove specific intent. Amendment 334 would close this gap by introducing recklessness into the offence. If you spike a person’s drink, you are inherently being reckless as to the danger you pose to that person. The law should reflect that reality, and I urge the Government to accept this strengthening of the clause.

Finally, we support Amendment 356B, which would modernise domestic abuse protection orders. Abusers are innovative; they use third parties and digital platforms to bypass physical restrictions. This amendment would explicitly prohibit indirect contact and digital harassment, ensuring that a protection order actually provides protection in the 21st century.

Sentencing Bill

Baroness Maclean of Redditch Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, in this Second Reading debate, I will open by speaking about women who cannot speak for themselves and highlight what I think are two significant omissions. First, may I associate myself with the comments on IPP sentences made by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, whom I have the pleasure to follow, and others. I had never heard of these until I held my first MP surgery and I was visited by a prisoner’s mother. She told me the whole sorry story. I was totally shocked, and I never understood why the last Government, which I served in as a junior Minister, did not fix this. It is a matter of deep regret to me, and I wish we had done something about it while we had the chance.

I pay tribute to the campaigners and families I had the privilege of working alongside while I served as Safeguarding Minister. Poppy Devey Waterhouse was just 24 when she was stabbed more than 100 times by her ex-boyfriend in her own home. Her killer, who had subjected her to coercive and controlling behaviour, received a minimum term of 16 years. Joanna Simpson was bludgeoned to death by her estranged husband in front of their children. He received 13 years. These are not isolated tragedies. They are the visible tip of a system that still treats domestic homicide as less grave than other murders.

The families of these women, particularly Carole Gould and Julie Devey, who lead the Killed Women campaign, have fought for years to expose this injustice. I thank them for briefing me ahead of this debate. Their campaign has attracted support from across the House and the other place and has revealed how many domestic murders involve what forensic experts call overkill —multiple stab wounds, strangulation, bludgeoning, and coercive control. Yet those killings, which are often triggered when the victim tries to end a relationship, attract lower starting points than murders of strangers in the street. For a man who takes a knife out of his house intending to use it in public and commits murder, the penalty starts at 25 years. However, if that same knife is already in his kitchen drawer and he uses it to kill his partner after years of coercive control, the starting point is still just 15 years.

The Killed Women campaign asks that murders following a history of coercive or controlling abuse attract the same 25-year starting point as other aggravated murders and that the justice system collects and publishes data on domestic homicides to track patterns and ensure consistency. We began to look at this issue in the Wade review under the last Government. I understand how many factors are at play in the sentencing framework, as we have heard from many learned Members of your Lordships’ House, but this Bill is precisely the place to act. It is disappointing that the Government have not used the vehicle in front of us now.

While in opposition, I was often opposed by the now Safeguarding Minister Jess Phillips. She argued passionately and repeatedly for reforms to toughen sentences for domestic homicide and to close the gap between murders committed in the home and those committed with a knife on the street. She called these measures essential to delivering justice for victims of domestic homicide. Now that she sits in government, she and her ministerial colleagues are noticeable by their silence on this issue. The Killed Women campaign said last December that they were told that the Law Commission review would take at least three years to complete, delayed by a lack of resources. Realistically, we will not see significant change until the next decade— so much for the current Government’s pledge to halve violence against women and girls. I hope that the Government reconsider their approach to this and come back to this in Committee.

The second omission in the Bill is the absence of explicit recognition of the, in my view, egregiously named honour-based abuse in our sentencing regime. To take one example, 20 year-old Somaiya Begum was murdered by her uncle in Bradford. The judge said that it was impossible to identify a motive, even though she had been under a forced marriage protection order. Without honour recognised in law, the very reason for her death was absent from the courtroom. There are many such cases. We usually prefix “honour-based abuse” with “so-called” because there is nothing honourable about such abuse. It is often family-orchestrated, community-endorsed and underpinned by the appalling logic that a woman who asserts her independence has brought shame on her family, shame that must be cleansed through violence.

According to Karma Nirvana, which runs the national helpline, around 80% to 85% of callers identify with a south Asian heritage—Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi —and around 90% are from Muslim, Sikh or Hindu backgrounds combined. Victims also include white British, eastern European, Christian and Traveller women, but data is very scant and patchy. We know that this form of abuse is found wherever patriarchal or collectivist values override individual rights. These are values which are alien to the freedoms that we hold dear in Britain. However, we must not shy away from these facts for fear of offending people. In the context of grooming gangs, we saw how the denial of cultural and communal drivers allowed abuse to persist for years in plain sight. An estimated 12 women a year are murdered in the UK to defend so-called honour, but these cases are too often hidden in wider domestic homicide statistics. I had the privilege of being the Minister who took the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022 through the other place, outlawing forced child marriage. I know that we can legislate when the will exists.

Back in 2024, Labour shadow Ministers proposed new clauses to make honour-based violence an explicit aggravating factor in sentencing for murder, ensuring that courts recognise its motive and the community pressures behind it. Again, Jess Phillips described it as essential to delivering justice and, again, the Government have not acted. Furthermore, the promised violence against women and girls strategy, due in summer or autumn—we are now in November—has still not been published. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner said in September that halving violence against women and girls within a decade was an ambitious and laudable target, yet this strategy is still delayed. No major funding has been announced for specialist domestic abuse services—and I fail to see where the momentum within government is coming from.

I finish by asking the Government: when will they fulfil their commitment to ensuring that honour-based abuse is an aggravated factor in sentencing—if not in this Bill, when? When will they fulfil their commitment to levelling up domestic homicide sentencing—if not in this Bill, when? When will they finally publish the long-promised violence against women and girls strategy, which is not directly in the Sentencing Bill but must include many elements connected to sentencing policy? These reforms are overdue. The women whose names I have mentioned this evening deserve not just to be remembered but to have the law changed.