Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Lords Chamber

Finally, the Government awarded Ellen Roome an MBE recently. I believe—although I have not asked her—that a more fitting recognition would be to give her what she has long fought for, Jools’ law, by accepting these amendments so that data collection is automatic. They are practical, they are necessary, and they are long overdue. I beg to move.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, it is with a mixture of sadness and pleasure that I rise to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and have added my name to the amendments in this group. Much of the Bill impacts in small ways on the lives of many citizens in this country. These amendments, which I hope very much the Government will accept, would have a huge impact on the lives of a small group of families whose children have died and who are seeking to understand what led to their deaths. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, it is a club that no members wish to be part of.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, I pay particular tribute to Ellen Roome, mother of Jools, who died inexplicably aged 14. Ellen Roome has found herself at the front of a national call for change in relation to children’s access to social media in general and to these specific issues, which have impacted her family and other families so cruelly. My noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes, who cannot be with us today, told me how moved she was when we met Ellen recently. I can only agree.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, set out, these amendments would achieve three things. First, they would explicitly bring the attention of the investigating officer to the digital and online aspects of a child’s life. The code of practice for officers feels like it was written in another age; maybe 2020, which I think was the year of latest version, was another age. Again, as we have heard, we owe thanks to Stuart and Amanda Stephens, who have highlighted this gap following the murder of their son Olly.

There is not a single reference in the code to digital evidence, just one reference to the fact that physical evidence can be captured digitally. Given how much of a child’s life is now lived online, it is vital that this is investigated properly and at the earliest opportunity. Our Amendment 438ED would bring this early investigative focus and would give the police the opportunity to alert Ofcom if they believe that a platform is not complying with the Online Safety Act.

The second thing that these amendments would achieve is that vital digital evidence would be systematically requested by coroners in the case of the death of a child aged between five and 17. The draft template would ensure that all relevant information is provided in a completely consistent manner, as well as giving the option to include any other relevant information for a particular case.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, currently, despite recent improvements in legislation, too much is left to the discretion of coroners, many of whom may be unaware of the new powers that they hold in relation to both coroner information notices and data preservation notices. Without this information, recently bereaved families are expected to request information themselves from a platform, through the horribly titled “deceased user duties”.

I looked at the help section of the Facebook website. Imagine being a recently bereaved family, just logging in; this is what they read:

“In rare cases, we consider requests for additional account information or content. You’ll be required to provide proof that you’re an authorised representative (e.g. family member) and a court order. Please bear in mind that sending a request or filing the required documentation doesn’t guarantee that we’ll be able to provide you with the content of the deceased person’s account. In addition, we’ll memorialise the deceased person’s account once we receive your request. If you’d like to send us a request, please contact us”.


I will leave your Lordships to judge the tone of that.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on this vital group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, concerning the investigation of child deaths, to which I have been very pleased to add my name. We all absolutely acknowledge that the noble Baroness has been tireless in her campaign and her support for the bereaved parents, and she is no less eloquent or persuasive even at this time of night.

The chink of light provided by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, in Committee and the movement represented by government Amendments 429A and 454A are very welcome. However, on these Benches, like the noble Baroness we question whether they are as comprehensive as the solutions proposed in her amendments. The government amendments are substantive concessions regarding the principle of automatic data preservation, but they fall short of the immediate statutory certainty and the proactive coronial and police duties sought by the noble Baroness to ensure a comprehensive investigation into digital harms. So, while I welcome in principle the Government’s agreement to make DPNs automatic, their current drafting often leans on secondary legislation and future consultations. These amendments place the duty firmly in the Bill, providing the immediate legal certainty that bereaved families deserve in 2026.

Perhaps the most critical missing piece in the Government’s current approach is addressed by Amendment 404, which requires the police to investigate digital harm as a primary line of inquiry as a matter of routine. We cannot treat the digital environment as secondary to the physical. If a child is found harmed in a public park, the police do not wait for a consultation to decide whether to check the CCTV, yet when a child dies in circumstances which may involve social media, digital forensics are often treated as an afterthought or a secondary consideration. So the noble Baroness’s additional amendments should not be controversial. They should be accepted, fast-tracked and robustly enforced, and I urge the Minister to take them on board today.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I too will speak very briefly, given the hour. I was also pleased to add my name to Amendment 431. For the benefit of Hansard, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, referred to Amendment 404—but I think she was talking about Amendment 431. Anyway, I am going to try to talk about Amendment 431. I agree with everything the noble Baroness said in her opening remarks.

I too will focus on subsection (4)(i) of the new clause proposed by the Government’s Amendment 429A, which reduces the time for which data would be preserved, from 12 to six months. I have been given to understand that part of the reason for that is because of the ECHR and the need to respect the privacy of those concerned, but it leaves bereaved parents in an unsatisfactory situation, and I wondered why the Government did it this way round and why there could not be a mechanism for automatically deleting any data the minute the inquest was completed and the data was no longer needed, rather than putting pressure on coroners to have to extend, and apply for an extension of, the notices. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider that.