Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and her officials for the helpful meetings between Committee and Report and for the correspondence. I have retabled my amendment from Committee, which would place restrictions on parental responsibility, as Amendment 1, and signed Amendments 2 and 3 from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, which I support. I listened very carefully to the Minister and was grateful to be able to discuss the matter with her. We thank the Government for recognising that there must be a clear position on when those convicted of child sex abuse lose their parental rights. It has been iniquitous that parental rights have trumped the safeguarding of children, even when the person with parental rights has been convicted of child sexual abuse.

However, we are not convinced that this is strong enough and Amendment 1 includes all convicted of child sexual abuse. This is not about the punishment of the offender; it is about protecting all children. The organisation We Stand told us that research from the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse shows that natural parents are the highest offending group in intra-familial child sex abuse, which accounts for two-thirds of offences. As a result, children of convicted child sex offenders are at the most risk.

Any non-abusing or protective parent has a legal duty to protect their child from any child sex offender and at any level of offending. Too many have to fight the family court’s assumption about the rights of a parent, even one who is a convicted child sex abuse offender. Everything is stacked against the protective parent, with little or no legal aid to fight to protect their children and no right to know where the offender is, which also means court papers cannot be served to them. They have no right to the rehabilitation or risk assessments of the offender. That is also extraordinary: how can they comment on them or ask for assessments to be made?

Contrast that with the offender, who has the right to make multiple applications to vary or overturn protective orders and to make repeated requests for contact with the children. This is especially problematic in households where there has also been coercive control and domestic abuse, as repeated requests continue the abuse, but the family courts have too often seen it only through the eyes of the offending parent trying to assert their rights. Judges and other authorities, such as social services and Cafcass, are forced into a legislative anomaly: they must balance potential harm to a child from a convicted sex abuser parent with legislation stating that both parents’ involvement in the child’s life further supports the welfare of that child. This leads to inconsistent outcomes.

Even if the presumption is repealed, this fundamental belief is still enshrined in the introduction and guidance to the Children Act 1989’s key principles. Children of a child sexual abusing parent are often at greater risk than other children, who are automatically protected by criminal restrictions, such as sexual harm prevention orders and registration requirements.

On a technical point, the serious sexual offences listed in new Schedule ZA1 to the Children Act 1989 include both indecent imagery offences and contact offences. Imagery offences have a minimum sentence of a community order; this means we could well argue that serious offences under Clause 3 could be triggered at any sentencing threshold. However, the majority of sentences for indecent imagery tend to fall between three months and a year, while sentencing guidelines for contact offences start at a minimum of one year. Those convicted of these offences would be excluded from the Government’s proposal in Clause 3.

Surely, for safeguarding reasons, now is the time to change the legal responsibility, with the offending parent having to prove why they are safe to exercise parental responsibility, through rehabilitation courses and, of course, assessment by professionals. The position of the court must surely start with the assumption of the protection of the child, not the rights of the offender parent. I beg to move.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 2 and 3, which were laid by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who apologises for being unable to be in the House today. Rather courageously and dangerously, he has asked me to present the two amendments in his name. I shall do my amateur best.

Amendment 2 would restrict the acquisition of parental responsibility by those convicted of serious sexual offences against a child. The Bill as drafted requires the Crown Court to prohibit convicted offenders from exercising parental responsibility and does so by requiring that the court makes an order when sentencing the offender. However, this would not and does not cover children of convicted offenders who are born after the sentencing hearing. As the current law stands, a convicted child sex offender could still acquire parental responsibility automatically for a child after sentencing—even one day after sentencing—leaving the mother and child unprotected from controlling or obstructive interference by the convicted father.

One accepts that many of the convicted fathers in such cases might not automatically acquire parental responsibility because they are not married to the mother, and it is very unlikely that the mother would then agree that the father should be included on the birth certificate. However, if the father and mother were still married to each other at the time of the child’s birth, the father would automatically acquire parental responsibility. To change that, under current law the mother would have to apply to the family court on notice to the father.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Polak in his Amendment 7.

It is now rightly impossible for any public discussion of the Epstein files and grooming gangs—or rather child rape gangs—not to put victims front and centre. About a year ago, we were discussing child rape gangs in this House, and I flagged to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, how the recent tragic news of the death of Virginia Guiffre demonstrated the long-term effects of child sexual abuse. I declared at that time my interest that my sister had suffered serious sexual abuse as a young girl and, thereafter, for the rest of her life, suffered long-term depressive and self-destructive effects. I mention that again simply to explain why I have signed the amendment. We can say that victims should be at the forefront but, without taking action, this could sound very much like virtue signalling.

I understand, as my noble friend Lord Polak has highlighted, that specialist domestic abuse and other trauma-focused services, particularly those supporting child victims of sexual abuse, have very high waiting lists, and that where counsellors with the necessary expertise are practising, funding is always inadequate to the need. I suspect that, even if sufficiently high levels of money were forthcoming, workforce shortages would become even more apparent. Have the Government done a needs analysis that would identify prevalence, the scale of the staff shortfall, how many more specialists are needed, how they could be trained and how potential candidates could be identified? Prevalence certainly appears very high. Could all professionals interacting with victims, including teachers, nurses, GPs, and police and prison officers, be given appropriate training in trauma-informed practice so that there was more of a whole-society approach?

I understand that this is straying a little from my noble friend Lord Polak’s amendment, but it gives us the opportunity to hear from the Government how they will put the victims of perpetrators such as Epstein and child rape gangs at the forefront, as they have promised to do.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I was very happy to put my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Polak, not least because he and I, every Thursday morning in the post-legislative scrutiny committee for the Domestic Abuse Act, hear from the sector exactly what is going on and, perhaps more pertinently, what is not going on.

The Minister, like me, is a great fan of the “child house” approach to treating children who have had the most appalling direct physical and sexual abuse. It demonstrates what best practice looks like. Best practice really makes an enormous difference and is incredibly efficient, is very incisive and can work very quickly. That is partly why His Majesty’s Government have thankfully decided to roll this out throughout England to a large degree; that is a great step forward.

As we take evidence, we are hearing again and again that there are examples of really good practice. I recognise that it is unrealistic to imagine that His Majesty’s Government are suddenly going to find coffers bursting with money to enable the whole panoply of support services that one would wish victims to be able to access—that is not going to happen. However, I appeal to the Government and their officials to identify those examples of really good or best practice that are making a difference, rather than taking a blanket approach and saying we need to try to cover all support services. Clearly, some are dramatically more effective than others.

My appeal to the Government is to try to strategically identify those support services that are making a huge difference. For example, two areas that make an enormous difference are the independent domestic violence advocates and the independent stalking advocates. The proof of the pudding in both those areas is that when those individuals are involved and work with the victim from very early on, first, the victim’s experience is transformed for the better, but secondly, and more pertinently from the point of view of the Ministry of Justice, there is a much higher chance of the case coming to court and there being a successful prosecution. Not only does it help the victim but it helps the Government achieve their laudable aim to reduce violence against women and girls.

I do not expect the Government to say that there is a magic wand and that Rachel Reeves is the Minister’s new best friend, but I hope that an approach to identifying services similar to the Lighthouse, which really make a performative difference, could be identified more strategically and assisted more proactively and in a more focused way.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I will focus on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. We seem to have done a bit of mini-regrouping within the group, but I checked with my noble friend Lady Brinton and I think she will wind up the group while introducing her own amendments at the same time.

At the last stage the Minister resisted the proposal for more victim navigators on the basis that the service is already provided, but victim navigators are quite distinct in what they do from the Salvation Army and their subcontractors funded by the Home Office. As I said, I supported the amendment in Committee but I did express a reservation about the ambitious six-month period within which they could be rolled out. Victim navigators are collocated with police in the forces where they work—the term “embedded” with the police seems to be used quite often.

I was a member of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee, and the comments on victim navigators in our report were under the heading “Evidence gathering”. That describes quite a lot of what they do. I will try not to repeat what other noble Lords have said, but the link between support of the victims and the criminal justice system is their job, filling a very specific gap with access to details of cases but with the independence to build trust. They are of great value to the police—and we know how difficult it is to get convictions in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 14; I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Polak, and noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for adding their names to it. It seeks to clarify the definition of a “crime of violence” in the criminal injuries compensation scheme when it refers to the abuse of a child that has happened online. I hope there will be a response to my arguments not dissimilar to the Minister’s response to Amendment 2—namely, that there appears to be a gap that is worthy of being looked into properly and systematically.

Survivors of technology-facilitated child sexual abuse—I am afraid that it has an acronym, TCSA—and other coercive online sexual offences may be refused compensation under the criminal injuries compensation scheme on the basis that the injury did not result from a “crime of violence”, despite the seriousness of the abuse and the criminal offences involved. Amendment 14 seeks to clarify that cases that involve “coercion”, “domination” or “compelled” sexual acts fall within the scope of the scheme.

I am afraid that it will probably not surprise your Lordships that the scale of online child sex abuse is going up dramatically. Over 7,000 offences of sexual communication with a child were recorded in 2023-24, and 122,768 child sexual abuse and exploitation offences were recorded in 2024, of which almost half—42%—had an online element. The criminal injuries compensation scheme obviously cannot accept all the applications made to it for support. Year on year, it has increasingly not been allowing some of the applications that are made. Nevertheless, the number of applications for support involving sexual abuse and sexual assault is going up even more quickly. Some 1,601 applicants who reported sexual assault were refused compensation in 2024-25. The number of refusals under this threshold has increased by just over one-quarter in two years. However, the scheme does not record detailed offence categories, so we do not know exactly how many of those referred to child sexual abuse situations.

To illustrate, I will briefly give an example of exactly what this involves. We are working with a Northern Ireland-based charity called the Marie Collins Foundation, which is particularly focused on trying to help victims of these offences. The foundation recently supported a child who was subjected to sustained online sexual coercion by an adult offender who used manipulation and threats to compel the child to perform sexual acts via digital communication. Over time, the offender established control through grooming, emotional manipulation and threats to expose the child if they did not comply with further sexual demands. The abuse caused significant psychological harm, including anxiety, shame and trauma, consistent with other forms of child sexual abuse.

When the victim applied to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, the claim was initially refused on the basis that the injury did not arise from a crime of violence. But the decision was subsequently overturned on appeal, recognising the seriousness of the abuse and the harm it caused. The case illustrates the uncertainty in how coercive online sexual abuse of children is interpreted within the scheme and the additional burden it places on victims, who have to pursue appeals to the scheme to try to get their case heard.

Amendment 14 seeks to provide clarity by confirming that cases that involve coercion, domination or compelled sexual acts, including those facilitated online, fall within the scope of the scheme. The amendment seeks to provide clarity rather than an expansion of the scheme. It would simply ensure that cases involving coercion, domination or compelled sexual acts, including those facilitated online, are recognised as crimes of violence for the purposes of compensation. This would help the survivors of serious sexual abuse and ensure they are not excluded due to uncertainty over the interpretation of the scheme.

I hope that we do not have any children in the Public Gallery at the moment. I will just briefly describe what some of this involves online. I have already mentioned blackmail, coercion, threats, domination, and emotional and psychological abuse. There is the creation and sharing of sexual images, livestreamed sexual activity and other sexual acts, fear, loss of autonomy, erosion of agency and long-term psychological harm. The children are sometimes asked or invited to insert various objects into parts of their body. Some of the things that happen are simply unspeakable. The purpose of the amendment is to draw this to the attention of the Government and to ask that this be looked at carefully and seriously, not least because, as we know, in so many cases happening in the online world, the volume and types of abuse are increasing exponentially.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 14, alongside that of my noble friend Lord Russell, and he has adequately explained the gap.

I started, unfortunately, looking at child sexual abuse in 2012. Unfortunately, in the period since then, I have had the misfortune to look at a great deal of child sexual abuse and I say that it is an act of violence against the person in the image.

While the noble Lord, Lord Russell, was speaking, I remembered one of the very first experiences I had. I filmed an interview with a young girl at the moment she realised that the person online, who she thought was her lover, was indeed a groomer. In the next moment, she realised that she had been recorded, and in the next moment, she realised that the recording had been shared. In those moments, I watched a heartbreak, faith-break and trust-break. That young child tried to commit suicide twice in the following summer. We were able to get her help and, thankfully, she is now a survivor and not a victim. I am standing up only to stay that what happens online does not stay online. What happens online is violence. What happens to children online must not be ignored by the law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

Given the incidence of appeals where initially it was ruled that it was not a crime of violence but, on it being investigated further, it was acknowledged that it did count as a crime of violence, can the Government request that that be looked into more carefully and closely? The incidence of such crimes, which may or may not be viewed as crimes of violence, is increasing rapidly. Clarification from the board as to what criteria it is using, so that those who have suffered have a much clearer idea of whether that might be included, would be extremely helpful to them and save a lot of time and anguish.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I will certainly take that away and write to the noble Lord. A number of things are in issue here. For example, I do not know how many appeals across the board are successful. It may be that it is a greater number for this category of cases; it may be a smaller number. I simply do not know, so I will write to the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 10 in this group, on bereaved victims of murder abroad. I have also signed the three amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on victims of mentally disordered offenders.

To speak briefly to those amendments, which we are happy to support from these Benches, it is very important that hospital managers and senior clinicians take a balanced approach regarding victims of offenders who are detained under the Mental Health Act. Unfortunately, hospital managers and clinicians often withhold data that could be released which would assist victims—and worse, not even tell them that they are withholding it. The amendments set out a balanced approach for hospitals and would require written reasons to be given to the victim for any decision to withhold some or all of the information requested. The third amendment would create an independent route for victims to appeal where a hospital manager has decided not to share information.

I turn to my Amendment 10, which seeks a pathway for bereaved victims of murder abroad. We had an extensive debate on this in Committee, and I am grateful to the Minister for the very helpful and informative meeting with Home Office and FCDO staff who specialise in this area, including those who liaise with the coroners service and support victims whose family members have been murdered abroad.

With around 80 British nationals being murdered abroad each year, the numbers may appear low, but families are not just navigating the horror of a murder, which is bad enough at home in the UK, but doing so in a country where legal systems will differ. There are also likely to be language barriers. Even worse is managing the complex logistical issues of repatriation of the body—which, speaking from personal family experience, is hard even with a natural death—as well as coping with limited police updates from afar.

The problem is that these people are not recognised as formal victims of crime because the murder occurred outside the United Kingdom, nor do they receive any of the relevant protections and entitlements given to their UK equivalents. These Benches thank the Government for their recently updated family information guide on murder and manslaughter abroad, and on how the differing parts of the Government will work. We believe this is a good start and we understand that these new arrangements will take time to bed in.

The Minister mentioned in Committee that the homicide service, which is currently run by Victim Support, is being retendered at the moment. Is there any news yet as to whether the budget for that service is being absolutely sustained? I realise that times are hard, but we cannot have a service that cannot function and support these families because it does not have the resources that it needs. It is clear from the guide that the homicide service is the key that keeps on top of all the different moving parts and keeps the victims informed.

However, it is early days, and I know from talking to Murdered Abroad that there are still real concerns about how this will work effectively. Too often, despite the best intentions of the very willing staff across the board, families still struggle for information, support or translation services. That is why we have retabled our amendment, which sets out the application of the victims’ code in respect to victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad. We do not seek for these families to be treated exactly the same as UK victims. Rather, the amendment seeks an appendix to the victims’ code that sets out which services they can access, and only those.

I hope that the Minister feels that this is a supportive mechanism which would give core strength to the excellent but invisible work of those in the Home Office, the FCDO and our embassies, and the coroners service, as well as of Murdered Abroad. Above all, it would support the bereaved families at the worst time of their lives. At present, I am minded to test the opinion of the House, but I really hope for a more positive response from the Minister on the recognition of the status of these victims.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I thank the Minister for the very helpful meeting that we had with the FCDO and the officials charged with this responsibility. The person in charge of it, who is very impressive, has the slightly alarming job title of director, consular and crisis, which I do not think I would particularly like to have on my business card, but she and her team were very reassuring and forthcoming.

For those of us who have been pushing repeatedly in different pieces of legislation to acknowledge that the families of those who are murdered abroad have slightly been left out in the cold—it has been rather Russian roulette as to whether they have been fortunate enough to have interacted with a consular team who have been on the ball, helpful and proactive—one of the effects of that pushing is that the message appears to have taken root. We were reassured, on questioning that team in quite a lot of detail about the training they do and the support they are able to give, so I am extremely grateful for that.

However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. To have a more holistic, clearer, and more efficient process to allow the victims, who are, usually, living in this country to access help, support and advice quickly, to have some processes in place similar to what UK victims of other crimes receive under the victims’ code, and to have a more proximate approach for those families of those people who are murdered abroad is a justified cause. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify slightly more than she was able to in Committee.

I turn briefly to Amendments 17, 18 and 19, which are about the response that victims of mentally disordered offenders get—or do not get, because there are various systemic problems within the NHS, which has its own rules about the type of information it can give. That means a slight lack of clarity for people in terms of understanding exactly what they can and cannot do. The Minister said very helpfully in Committee that her officials are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to consider routes by which this could be improved. I hope that she will be able to update the House on the progress they are making and whether there will be any positive outcomes from that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I will express support for Amendment 20 moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen; my noble friend Lady Brinton will address the other amendments in the group. Amendment 20, to remove Clause 12 from the Bill, may be technical but it is important because the regrettable fact is that, as is now well known, the relevant authorities and the police lack the resources to prosecute all crime reported to them. As a result, a significant proportion of reported crime goes insufficiently investigated and, too often, unprosecuted.

That is true across a whole range of offences, from shop theft to some offences of violence and many cases of fraud. There is therefore a practical need for private prosecutions, and that practical need is complementary to the traditional—and we would say justified—view that it is not and should not be solely for the state to prosecute breaches of the criminal law. It is also open to private citizens and organisations to bring private prosecutions, and that is an important aspect of access to justice.

It is certainly true that there are some cases where prosecutions require the consent of the DPP or the Attorney-General, but those tend to be special cases where Parliament has decided that that restriction is appropriate. An important feature of private prosecutions in this jurisdiction, and of their successfully being brought, is that the prosecution is entitled to recover the bulk of the prosecution costs from central funds by payment at a reasonable rate; the noble and learned Lord has stressed the importance of the reasonable rate.

The noble and learned Lord is right to say that a significant proportion of such prosecutions are brought by charities, including Macmillan and Help for Heroes. Those charities are often the victims of fraudulent schemes. Other private prosecutions are, of course, brought by commercial organisations, notably retailers which suffer substantial losses as a result of theft from shops. They may be commercial organisations, and they may have a commercial motivation for the prosecutions, but as a matter of simple and instinctive justice and a matter of principle, it is not and should not be the sole responsibility of the state to initiate prosecutions. Nor should the state fail to assist financially those who bring meritorious prosecutions against those who transgress the criminal law. When I say assist financially, I mean bear the costs of successful prosecutions, in large part.

The fact is that organisations may be deterred from bringing private prosecutions if their costs recovery is capped at a level that makes them unaffordable or uneconomic. Furthermore, if frauds against charities or offences against others, whether not for profit or commercial, cannot be prosecuted, the prevalence of those offences may be increased, to the general detriment of society as a whole. Yet, Clause 12, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said, would introduce a mechanism for capping the amounts payable to prosecutors for their costs and cannot be read in any other way.

My understanding is that the Government say they will consult on this proposal to cap prosecution costs recovery but want to see a reserved power in this Bill first. We think that is the wrong way round. The Government should carry out their consultation and then, in the light of the consultation, abandon, as we would hope, the idea of a cap on costs recovery or introduce any necessary legislation, following and taking into account the results of the consultation. It follows that Clause 12 is an utterly undesirable clause. It is not worth saving and cannot be saved, and we therefore support Amendment 20, which would remove it from this Bill.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on Amendment 29. During the passage of the Sentencing Act, we discussed the concern about early release schemes for those categories of offenders in some detail. As a result, about two weeks ago, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, kindly had a meeting after the passage of the Act. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner and the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, were there to talk to the Minister about our concerns.

The outcome of that—had I thought of it, I would have spoken to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, to inform him—is agreement by the MoJ to form a working party with the offices of both the commissioners and their teams to review the scheme and the training of the Probation Service and start using some of the expertise of the third sector and its knowledge of the perpetrators and experience of the victims. That will be fed into the training of the Probation Service. There is a very positive move going on within the MoJ which I hope and think will directly address the concerns the noble and learned Lord mentioned when he was speaking to Amendment 29.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I have a brief observation about Clause 12. The costs of private prosecution mean that money disappears from the overall Treasury contribution to the justice system. I think we should pause long and hard before we remove the power of the Government to control those costs. My own experience is that the costs of private prosecutions can, in many cases, be excessive. They are not subject to the rigorous discipline of CPS costs. If we deny the Government the power to regulate, we will come to regret it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, in Committee, we welcomed the Government’s recognition that there are practical issues in ensuring that victims are told of the sentencing within the 28-day limit, and under the present rules they cannot ask the Attorney-General to review the sentence as unduly lenient. My Amendments 26 and 27 would specifically allow for the 28-day timeframe to be extended in exceptional circumstances, which may include, but is not limited to, delays in being told. It also strengthens the route for victims to be told with a duty to inform victims.

In Committee, we had an extensive probing debate about increasing 26 days to 56 days, and Amendment 25 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, relays that in Amendment 24. However, my amendment tries to focus entirely on giving victims the right, if something has gone wrong and only in the most exceptional circumstances, to ask the AG to extend the period for a submission. We genuinely think that this safety net is the best way to do that. If the Government accept the formal route to notifying victims set out in Amendment 27, the most common reason for not being notified should almost completely stop. Other exceptional circumstances—including, perhaps, a victim being in hospital during the period—might be permitted.

The Minister was concerned that too many expectations would be raised, but we have not pressed on detail. It would be down to the AG’s office to provide a guidance note for victims that would notify them of their rights, as well as the type of extraordinary circumstance. Currently, victims do not have access to this, and because of other problems about who should inform them, their right to ask for consideration of an unduly lenient sentence falls. This should be remedied and, subject to the Minister’s response, I may wish to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. I put my name to both amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which we first laid in Committee. In essence, what the Minister said when she wound up this group in Committee was “We are listening and I am making a listening speech”. I hope that, even though she has been on her feet for much of today, she is still in listening mode. I do appreciate, as I think we all do, the way she has approached both Committee and Report; it is a refreshing change from some experiences one has had in recent years. I look forward to what I hope will be a positive “listening” response.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I express my thanks to Claire Waxman, the Victims’ Commissioner, and to Tracey Hanson and Katie Brett, who have campaigned with great commitment on behalf of victims.

In Committee, much was said on all sides about the importance of the unduly lenient sentence scheme in ensuring consistency. As all who participated know, it is not an appeal for victims who are dissatisfied by the length or type of sentence: rather, it is a legal safeguard, exercisable by the Attorney-General, to correct sentences that fall outside the appropriate range. As such, it is a constitutional safeguard vested in the Attorney-General as guardian of the public interest, not a mechanism for anyone to relitigate sentencing. That said, victims will often play a vital role in drawing cases to the Attorney-General’s attention for consideration: we recognise and indeed encourage that.

As is generally known, the time limit is a strict one: 28 days with no exceptions. The Government are aware of and have listened to the comments of the victims and those supporting them, who have long complained that the system just is not working for them; in particular, that they are often not told about the ULS scheme; and, in any event, 28 days is not long enough.

Against that background, I turn to the amendments concerning the time limits, in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Sandhurst. Your Lordships will be aware that the Government had been considering tabling their own amendment to increase the time limit. As I said in Committee, we hoped to bring something forward on Report. Today, I take up the invitation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, to set out why we have not done so.

This is fundamentally a Bill for victims. Unsurprisingly, victims have told us that they want to be listened to by the Government. Both victims and the Victims’ Commissioner have told us clearly that increasing the time limit to 56 days would not address the problem they face. They have told us that any time limit, whether it is 28 days, 56 days or 365 days, is meaningless if they are not informed about the ULS scheme in the first place.

Plainly, all victims should be told. There are mechanisms in place for doing so, but we have heard enough from victims to make it clear to us that there are occasions on which this is not happening. To paraphrase what I said today in an earlier group, a right is not much of a right if you do not know about it.

To the victims, I say: we have heard you and we will continue to listen. The victims asked us not to bring forward our amendment extending the time limit to 56 days, and so we have not done so. This explains why we cannot accept Amendments 24 and 25.

I turn to Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I thank her for not only raising the issue but for the positive and constructive talks we have had. As some of your Lordships may have gathered, the noble Baroness and I have been spending rather a lot of time together over the last few weeks. I have enjoyed every moment, of course. I can understand why it is felt that an exception from the strict time limit would be a good thing, but there are a number of issues with it, and I will try to deal with these briefly.

First, it seeks to treat a symptom of the problem rather than tackling the cause. The underlying problem is that some victims are apparently not being told about the ULS scheme. The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to address that by creating a mechanism to bypass the time limit if that happens. But this Government are not here to patch up the symptoms; the Government’s view is that we must address the root cause—victims are telling us that they are not being informed—rather than create a mechanism that responds only after the problem has occurred.

The second issue is the question of what exceptional circumstances would mean in practice. The Government’s concern is that the amendment will be self-defeating, because “exceptional” has its ordinary meaning—something unusual, not typical—and cannot be exhaustively defined in legislation, but something that is not genuinely unusual cannot be described as exceptional. Given that the noble Baroness’s reason for tabling the amendment is, regrettably, that victims do not get told about it, if they are not told, it cannot be exceptional. This is very likely to apply to the very cases that would not be able to take advantage of the law. I hope the noble Baroness will understand why the Government cannot accept the amendment and that she will work with me and my officials as we look to address the real issue: ensuring that victims are notified of the scheme in the first place.

Amendment 30 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, would require a public consultation. The Law Commission did exactly this. The Law Commission has held a public consultation on the ULS scheme, including specific questions about the 28-day time limit. Holding another one would be a waste of taxpayers’ money. I hope your Lordships will join me in looking forward to the commission’s final report when it is published later this year. The Government will, of course, consider its findings carefully.

I turn briefly to the remaining amendments, which seek to place a statutory duty on a designated government department or the Crown Prosecution Service to notify the victims. Again, there is no issue between us about the fact that the Government need to ensure that every victim is told. I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve, but I want to persuade her that there is a better way of doing it.

The amendments seek to create a duty which already exists. Police in witness care units are already responsible for informing victims about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Using primary legislation to try to make people do what they are already required to do is not the best way of going about things. These amendments impose a duplicative statutory duty, potentially with different timeframes or differing lines of accountability. It must be self-evident that this risks confusion rather than clarity, particularly where concurrent statutory duties could blur operational responsibilities. The fear is that the victims might actually, as a result, end up worse off.

I therefore ask your Lordships to work with us, the Victims’ Commissioner and the victims themselves to get to the heart of the issue and develop practical, workable improvements to notification and awareness. We want every victim to be properly informed, in good time, so that they can exercise their rights with confidence. Our focus is on fixing the long-standing problems with notification rather than changing the time limits themselves.

We already have the commitment of the Attorney-General’s Office, the CPS, the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to work closely with us to improve awareness of the scheme. They have all urgently assessed what actions can be taken in their respective areas. There is a quite a detailed plan.

Given the time, I will undertake to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, rather than read out the next four pages of my speech, for which I do not think anybody would thank me. For these reasons, I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.