Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, as your Lordships will be aware, should there be a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025
(3 days, 23 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Timpson
That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
As noble Lords will know, when this Government came to power, we inherited a prison system in crisis. From January 2023 to September 2024, the adult male prison estate routinely operated at over 99% of capacity. Had we exceeded maximum capacity, the consequences would have been unthinkable: with nowhere to put new prisoners, the police would have stopped making arrests and courts would have suspended trials. It could have led to the total breakdown of law and order, with criminals running amok on our streets.
This Government carried out a series of emergency release schemes to prevent that disaster. At the same time, we launched the independent sentencing review, with one clear goal: to make sure we never run out of prison places. The highly regarded former Lord Chancellor, David Gauke, and his expert panel published their recommendations on 22 May, and the Government accepted the majority of them in principle.
One of the specific areas we asked the review to look at was how we tackle the number of foreign national offenders in our prisons. They currently account for around 12% of our prison population—that is 10,772 foreign national offenders as of June this year—and cost British taxpayers millions of pounds every year.
The Government have made it very clear that foreign nationals should be in no doubt that the law will be enforced, and, where appropriate, we will work with the Home Office to pursue their removal. I am pleased to say that in our first year of government, we have removed 14% more foreign national offenders than in any year that the previous Government were in office. But we must go further and faster, in removing individuals who have broken our laws and who have no right to be here.
The draft instrument before the Committee today implements the sentencing review’s recommendation to reduce the minimum period that foreign national offenders have to spend in prison from 50% to 30% of the custodial term, and to increase the window in which they can be removed.
I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its consideration of this instrument and its report.
As noble Lords will know, the Secretary of State has a power to remove eligible foreign national offenders—those serving a determinate sentence who are liable to be removed from the UK—from prison for the sole purpose of immediate deportation. This is referred to as the early removal scheme. Foreign national offenders serving indeterminate sentences, life and sentences of imprisonment for public protection are outside the scope of the scheme. Prisoners serving a sentence for a terrorism-related offence set out in Schedule 19ZA to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are also excluded.
The power to remove a foreign national offender under this scheme is discretionary, and prison governors can refuse to remove individuals where it would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system—for example, where there is clear evidence that the prisoner is planning further crime, including plans to evade immigration control and return to the UK or dealing in class A drugs in custody—or, finally, where there are serious public safety concerns regarding early removal.
Under the current rules, eligible offenders can be removed up to 18 months before the earliest release point of the sentence, provided they have served one-half of the requisite custodial period. This SI amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to allow foreign national offenders to be removed up to four years before the earliest release point of their sentence, subject to having served 30% of the requisite custodial period. This means eligible offenders can be removed from prison earlier.
At current removal rates, we expect this change to free up to approximately 500 prison spaces a year. Not only will it help us to safeguard prisons from collapse, with all the risks that poses to the public, it will also prevent taxpayers’ money being spent to keep foreign nationals in this country any longer than necessary.
Noble Lords will also know that the Government are seeking to go further still in the Sentencing Bill, which was introduced on 2 September, by removing any minimum custodial requirement, so foreign national offenders can be removed from prison immediately after they are sentenced. In line with the existing early removal scheme, this further change will apply to all foreign criminals serving a determinate sentence, except terrorists and prisoners serving indeterminate sentences, such as life, who will be excluded.
Until this change takes effect, this SI will ensure that foreign offenders with no right to be here can still be removed from prison for the purpose of deportation earlier. This will protect victims by ensuring that those individuals can never offend in this country again, and if they return in breach of a deportation order, they will be liable to serve the rest of their sentence.
Indeed, concern for the protection of victims is driving the changes we are making through the sentencing review and now the Bill as a whole. By ensuring that we never again risk running out of prison places, we will ensure that our criminal justice system can function effectively and sustainably, keeping us all safe.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his helpful and brief introduction to what is, in effect, a relatively simple instrument. It comes against a background, as he explained, of the appalling shortage of prison places that the Government inherited and that has only got worse, inevitably, during this Government. The overcrowding that has been the result of that shortage and the crisis that has given rise to the early release scheme have to be ended as quickly as possible; for example, the use of police cells where there has been simply no space for custody within our prisons is unacceptable, and there has been an unholy scramble for places for prisoners wherever they might be found across the estate. That is the inevitable result of a prison system running at 99% of capacity.
The consequences of the prison shortage have been outlined by the Minister, and the clear goal of the Government has been to reduce prison numbers over time, although they rightly accept that that will take a great deal of time. I know the Minister is concerned to concentrate on shorter sentences and rehabilitation, but I am grateful to him for putting the numbers on this instrument—that it is expected to save 500 prison places a year, which is a significant number.
However, in one sense, this instrument is directed at an easy target, because the deportation of convicted foreign offenders, who are liable to be deported anyway, is generally justified in principle for all the reasons the Minister gave and is widely supported. It may also be said that our national Government have little interest in what happens to deported prisoners after they are deported, so that if they leave our prisons earlier than envisaged at the time of sentence, that does little harm, but the instrument rightly excludes some serious offenders from the ambit of the reduction.
However, I note the regret of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee at the lack of review of the need for changes in this early removal scheme. The committee was concerned at the lack of information given to Parliament as to both the number of foreign national offenders likely to be affected by these changes and the treatment that such deported offenders would be likely to receive in their home countries following deportation. The committee reported that
“it would have been helpful for the EM to include background information … on FNO sentences and the treatment of deported prisoners in their home countries”.
It helpfully dug out a considerable quantity of additional information that was within the public domain that it found helpful, and it reported on that.
As a general point, the interest that the United Kingdom Government have in foreign national offenders should not cease altogether when such offenders are deported. At whatever stage, the Government and Parliament have an interest in considering the fate of deportees after they left this country and any continuing risk that they might present if they should return to the United Kingdom—or to United Kingdom citizens abroad, of course. Hence, the overall conclusion of the committee was that, while it recognised the urgency of the need to reduce the pressure on prison capacity, as we all do,
“the information provided with such instruments should … facilitate full scrutiny by Parliament. This means there should be a discussion of the risks as well as the benefits of the measures and adequate background information to understand the full effects; preferably, supported by an analysis of … similar changes”.
It is clearly the committee’s view that Parliament had not had that kind of information to the level of detail that we should have done.
I endorse that conclusion. However, subject to those caveats, I broadly support the measure to enable deportation at an earlier stage of prisoner sentences following sentence.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument today. I begin by affirming that we on this side strongly support the principle that foreign nationals who break the law in our country also break the trust that we accord them and that they have no right to remain here. This order is therefore a welcome step which builds upon reforms that the Conservative Government made in January 2024 to advance the point at which foreign nationals could be removed from prison and deported from 12 months to 18 months before the end of their custodial sentence. The instrument before us today expands on this, increasing the maximum removal period for foreign offenders to the later of either 30% of their custodial term or four years before their earliest release date. This is estimated to result in some foreign prisoners serving only 10% of their sentences before being deported, down from the current 25%. That, as I have said, is a welcome step, but it is not enough.
By the Government’s own admission, this reform will free up, at most, just 500 places. The taxpayer currently spends upwards of £500 million annually just on housing and feeding imprisoned individuals who neither need nor deserve to be here. Five hundred fewer places in our prisons accounts for just 5% of that total cost. That is before we consider the forecast growth in the prison population. Does the Minister really believe that these numbers reflect effective policy? Perhaps what is more worrying is that since this measure has been introduced, the Government have changed their tune. On 10 August this year, the Secretary of State announced the Government’s revised position that foreign offenders should be deported immediately after receiving a custodial sentence. Earlier in the year, we tabled an amendment to the Government’s Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill which called for the automatic removal of any foreign national convicted of an offence. While it is always gratifying to see the Government following our lead, their slowness to adopt this belated measure will have real-life impacts for the law-abiding people of this country. It will take time to implement and require more time-consuming legislation. In the meantime, more offenders are charged without the prospect of immediate deportation. The taxpayer will pay for the privilege, so I ask the Minister to lay out a timetable towards immediate deportations of convicted foreign nationals.
Similarly, there is nothing preventing the continuation of the endless cycle of appeals and repeals that cause delay. It seems as if every week a foreign criminal has his deportation order blocked under the doubtful guise of human rights. In the long term, without protections against human rights manipulation, this statutory instrument could end up seeing the same number of offenders removed each year as under current policy, just a little bit earlier. That is not effective policy. Can the Minister outline how this will be avoided?
That is why the Conservatives would disapply the Human Rights Act in all immigration-related cases. No delays or obstructions in legislation would be used for means for which they were not designed. Swift, effective removal is what we require.
To sum up, we believe that this statutory instrument is a first step, albeit a small one, towards the shared goal of the removal and deportation of foreign offenders.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ contributions to this important debate about foreign national offenders in our prisons.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, rightly referred to the crisis that we inherited and how having offenders in police cells is not acceptable. What we need is a sustainable justice system. Our prison population is still going to increase. We are building 14,000 more prison places—as I know we have said before, that is 500 more than the previous Government did in 14 years—but we need those extra prison places.
When foreign national offenders are deported, what is clear is that they are not welcome back. Although deportation policy sits with the Home Office, for me, it is clear is that, if they return, they will be locked up and will finish their sentence. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, rightly referred to our desire to deport more of our foreign national offenders. We have increased that figure by 14%, but we know that more can be done. That is why this legislation will be helpful.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, will be interested to know that, before the Recess, I went to HMP Huntercombe, which is a prison for foreign national offenders. It was clear that, although the governor knew that he could refuse to remove prisoners, the new foreign national offender team that we have in the prison—as in 91 other prisons—was making a big difference in supporting foreign national offenders leaving early, as well as encouraging them to do so. That is starting to make a difference, but it is clear that the Sentencing Bill is needed to help us get a sustainable justice system; that Bill has within it immediate deportation post sentencing.
A quarter of our foreign national offenders are on remand so have not yet been convicted. I am aware that the previous Home Secretary—I have not spoken to the new Home Secretary since she has moved across Westminster—was looking at Article 8 as well.
The proposed changes in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2025 will enable the Government to remove foreign national offenders from prison for the purpose of immediate deportation earlier in their sentence. By removing them from the country earlier, we will better protect victims from their reoffending. This will also help ease a prison capacity crisis inherited from the previous Government, keeping the public safer and ensuring that less of their tax money is spent on those who come to this country and abuse our hospitality by committing crime.
Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025
(3 days, 23 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Timpson
That the Grand Committee do consider the Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, in December last year, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby made a Written Statement to the House announcing the Government’s plan to implement two outstanding recommendations made in the independent domestic homicide sentencing review, which was undertaken by Clare Wade KC.
In opposition, we welcomed this review and its approach of updating the sentencing framework for murder to reflect the seriousness of domestic homicides while also balancing the need to ensure that any reforms do not unduly punish abused women who kill their abuser. We did, however, call for more of Clare’s recommendations to be implemented, which is precisely what the draft instrument before us today aims to achieve. The measures in this instrument are central to the Government’s mission to keep our streets safe and halve violence against women and girls, as we anticipate that they will have a significant impact on the custodial terms given to the perpetrators in these cases, rightly recognising the seriousness of domestic murders.
The current sentencing framework for murder, as set out in Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020, was first introduced over 20 years ago, and multiple piecemeal amendments have been made to it since then. In recent years, particular concerns have been raised regarding gendered disparities for murders committed in a domestic context.
Clare Wade KC was commissioned by the previous Government to review sentencing in domestic homicide cases and establish whether the law and sentencing guidelines were fit for purpose. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Clare for her thorough and considered work on this review, and to those whose campaigning led to the commissioning of this review. That includes Carole Gould and Julie Devey, founders of the Killed Women network and mothers of two young women, Ellie and Poppy, who were tragically murdered by their former partners in 2019 and 2018 respectively. We commend their courage in continuing to share their stories, and their commitment to campaigning for change.
Although some of Clare Wade’s recommendations were accepted and implemented by the previous Government, a number remain outstanding. This instrument implements two of the outstanding recommendations. First, it introduces a statutory aggravating factor for murders connected with the end of a relationship. In over a third of the murder cases analysed by Clare as part of her review, the murder occurred at the end or perceived end of the relationship, and in the majority of cases that appeared to be the catalyst for the killing. In all these cases the perpetrator was male. A murder involving resentment or jealousy by the perpetrator at the end of a relationship is a significant feature of cases involving controlling or coercive behaviour and is often the final controlling act of an abusive partner.
Secondly, this instrument introduces a statutory aggravating factor for murders involving strangulation. In recent years, strangulation has been recognised as a method of exerting power and control, particularly in the context of domestic abuse, where female victims are assaulted by physically stronger males. Nearly a third of the murder cases analysed involved strangulation, all of which involved a male perpetrator and female victim.
The intention of this instrument is to expressly recognise these factors in statute, to ensure that domestic murders and the particular harms that arise in these cases are given specialist consideration in the framework. Sentencing in individual cases is of course a matter for the independent judiciary, and it will therefore continue to be for the judge to determine the appropriate weight to be given to the aggravating factors in each case
I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its consideration of this instrument and its report. As the committee noted, we consulted with the independent Sentencing Council on the draft instrument, in line with our statutory duty to consult the council before amending Schedule 21 by regulations. We are grateful for the council’s feedback on the draft instrument, which we took into careful consideration. A full account of the consultation is included in the draft Explanatory Memorandum published alongside this instrument, including the points raised by the Sentencing Council and the Government’s response.
Alongside this important legislation, the Lord Chancellor has also invited the Law Commission to conduct a review of homicide law and sentencing. The sentencing framework for murder was first introduced over 20 years ago and has never been subject to wholesale review. This contrasts with the Sentencing Council’s sentencing guidelines, which are regularly reviewed and updated, with any changes being subject to thorough consultation.
Although Clare Wade’s review and the legislation before us today go some way towards ensuring that the sentencing framework for murder reflects a modern understanding of domestic abuse, more fundamental reform is also required. The intention of the Law Commission review is a complete reconsideration of the sentencing framework for murder, with a view to making recommendations for a new Schedule 21. The review will also consider the law relating to homicide offences, including full and partial defences to those offences.
We anticipate that the Law Commission review will take several years to complete, and we will then need to consider the recommendations and bring forward any necessary legislation. This is the right course of action for such a complex area of law but it is not a quick one, which is why we are taking more immediate action in the short term by introducing the measures in this instrument.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, it is perhaps ironic that the first statutory instrument we considered was designed to relieve the pressure on the prison population, but these measures are calculated to increase the prison population. They will add to the list of aggravating features that a judge will have to take into account when considering the length of time to serve and, in reality, as the Minister said, they will have a significant impact on custodial terms.
Such amendments should be introduced only where it is plain that they are needed, and I express reservations as to whether that criterion is satisfied in this case. Of course, the amendments were recommended by Clare Wade in her review of domestic homicide sentencing. I pay tribute to her for that review, but it has not left me convinced that these measures are necessary or desirable.
The review puts a spotlight on the fact that the homicide of a woman by a man is often the final chapter of a coercive relationship in which the man has regularly abused the woman. I can see the arguments that, in those circumstances, the previous history aggravates the final act of homicide by the man, but effect has already been given to that factor by the addition last year to the list of aggravating factors in Schedule 21.
These regulations were considered on 14 July this year by the Second Delegated Legislation Committee of the House of Commons. On that occasion, as has been repeated today, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice said that the draft instrument was
“central to the Government’s mission to keep our streets safe and halve violence against women and girls”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/7/25; col. 1.]
The justification put forward appears to be that this will augment deterrence. The Opposition spokesman then referred to reasons why the previous Government had not taken forward these measures and to reservations expressed by the Sentencing Council, but indicated that the Opposition would not oppose the measures. I believe that the comment on these measures by the Sentencing Council was that they were “unnecessary” and “counterproductive”.
In this House, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has made no adverse comment in relation to the measures, so I will briefly express my personal reservations. Schedule 21, which dates back to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, has had the unintended and unfortunate indirect consequence of approximately doubling sentence lengths across the board, contributing significantly to prison overcrowding. Adding to that list of aggravating factors will augment this effect and, as I said, should be contemplated only where there are compelling reasons.
The reason given for making strangulation a factor that augments the seriousness of the offence is stated, on page 21 of the Wade review, as being because
“strangulation includes additional suffering and greater harm”.
When one considers the many different ways in which a man may kill a woman, I question whether there is justification for singling out strangulation as, in itself, so increasing the horrific effect of the murder of the woman as to justify a result that may be several further years of imprisonment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, in considering this instrument, I once again express our gratitude to the Minister for the way in which he set out the justification for the instrument and its background, particularly the fact that the Law Commission review will take some time to happen. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, for the careful consideration that he has given to this and for his expression of concern at the effect that adding these two aggravating factors could have on sentencing.
It has been explained that the instrument adds two statutory aggravating factors to Schedule 21 for judges to consider when imposing a minimum term for murder. The first is when the murder is connected with either the actual or intended end of an intimate relationship, while the second is when the murder involves strangulation, suffocation or asphyxiation. As the Explanatory Memorandum points out, judges will of course be entitled to consider all factors and take all factors into account when sentencing for murder. Those will include anyway the fact that a relationship is coercive or controlling and the degree to which the murder reflects the coercion or control—in this case, generally by a man over a woman.
I know that we all welcome the further Law Commission review that is promised, but it is a fact that these reviews take a considerable amount of time; that is inevitably the result of the care that the Law Commission gives to such considerations.
In one sense, this instrument does very little. I note the noble and learned Lord’s concern that the changes will lead to significantly increased sentences. One can see that a statutory aggravating factor does have that effect—and that is the intended effect. However, how far sentences would be increased is not capable of assessment; neither is there any clear evidence of how far such sentences will be increased because of an aggravating factor.
The facts are that the social background against which this instrument is presented is that coercive control is now recognised far more widely than it used to be; and that the effects of factors such as those mentioned in this instrument are more widely recognised and taken more seriously. So I hope that the noble and learned Lord’s concern that the changes will lead to significantly increased sentences proves unfounded, not in the sense that there should not be a recognition of aggravating factors but in the sense that such aggravating factors are increasingly recognised by judges in any event.
The two factors added by this instrument around coercive relationships were particularly important, as has been said, in influencing the 2023 review of domestic homicide sentencing by Clare Wade KC and in framing her recommendations. In the domestic abuse context, which is the context we are considering, they are particularly significant. They are also significant in the light of the Government’s stated determination, on which they are plainly acting, to halve violence against women and girls, which is a major ambition.
The first change recognises that actual or threatened relationship breakdown can, and often does, play a role in promoting extreme domestic violence. I accept that the extent of deterrence that follows from that is uncertain, but it sends an important signal to the potential perpetrators of domestic violence about the effect of coercive control.
The second change recognises the particular significance of strangulation, suffocation or asphyxiation in domestic violence, particularly by men on women. We recognised that during the passage of what is now the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, when I, along with the Government, signed a cross-party amendment to introduce the new offence of non-fatal strangulation. In the debates on the then Bill, we took account of a great deal of evidence of the high incidence of strangulation in domestic violence cases, as well as of the distressing fact that so many cases where non-fatal strangulation occurs ultimately lead to the perpetrator escalating that violence to, ultimately, fatal violence and murder.
The fact is, therefore, that judges will continue to weigh up all relevant factors in assessing minimum terms of imprisonment to be served by those sentenced to life for murder. There is merit in highlighting these two factors because they can only send an important signal to the actual and potential perpetrators of domestic violence—and, indeed, to the victims of such domestic violence because, of course, victims are often frightened out of reporting domestic violence even when it is an attempt at strangulation. The evidence that that can escalate to murder in due course is important; it is important that potential victims, as well as potential perpetrators, should know of that signal. In my view, that is a powerful reason for supporting this instrument.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument amends Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020. These regulations implement key recommendations from the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review led by Clare Wade KC and mark an important step forward in how our legal system treats cases of murder that involve domestic abuse. They are welcome, and I say that notwithstanding the concern that they may add to the prison population, as explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips.
The instrument introduces two new statutory aggravating features in determining the minimum term for murder: first, where the offender is engaged in controlling or coercive behaviour towards the victim; and, secondly, where the murder has involved sustained and excessive violence, sometimes referred to, in depressing jargon, as “overkill”. By contrast, importantly, it conversely explains a new mitigating factor, putting it on a statutory basis. It recognises that an offender’s culpability may be reduced where the victim has engaged in controlling or coercive behaviour towards the offender.
These additions reflect a long-overdue evolution in the way the criminal courts have recognised domestic abuse. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 broadened our understanding of harm so that it embraced emotional, psychological and economic abuse, but, until now, the sentencing framework for murder has not fully reflected the complex dynamics that can exist in abusive relationships, whether in the context of the abuse suffered by victims before their death or the potential impact of long-term abuse on an offender’s culpability.
We on this side welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward these changes promptly—that is, ahead of the Law Commission’s broader review of homicide. These changes send a clear message: domestic murders are not isolated or inexplicable acts but, often, the tragic endpoint of long-standing abuse.
However, I note the concerns raised by the Sentencing Council, particularly around the interaction between new statutory factors and the existing, established judicial discretion to take such behaviour into account. The council has rightly warned that codifying these factors may risk creating ambiguity or inconsistency in sentencing, particularly if guidance in respect of it is not clear. There is also a risk that difficult evidential issues—in determining, for example, whether a relationship was “intimate” or whether coercive control occurred—could inadvertently complicate proceedings or place additional burdens on the families of victims or on prosecutors.
To mitigate this, we urge the Government to ensure that clear and robust sentencing guidelines are published alongside, and at the same time as, these changes; that the Government provide training for judges and practitioners to apply the new factors consistently; and that there is a commitment to monitor the impact of these amendments, particularly on the outcomes of trials and sentence lengths in domestic homicide cases.
To conclude, subject to those caveats, these regulations are positive, necessary and a welcome reform. They better align our sentencing framework with the reality of domestic abuse and send a strong signal that such crimes will be treated with the seriousness they deserve. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this debate. I hope that noble and noble and learned Lords will appreciate that, due to some personnel changes in the department over the last couple of days, I may not be as familiar with or as expert on this as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who would have been here today.
The observation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, on prison capacity is important. Due to the existing length of murder sentences, these changes will not increase the prison population for at least 13 years after they come into force and will not reach a steady state until 2052 for strangulation and 2062 for the end of a relationship. This will be factored into our long-term capacity planning. Also, Clare Wade KC found that many domestic murders, invariably those committed by men against women, take place at the end of a relationship, when the perpetrator perceives that they can no longer control the victim. Further analysis of the sentencing remarks in these cases also found that, in some instances, the sentencing judge appeared to consider the provocation or distress caused to the perpetrator by the breakdown of the relationship as mitigation for the crime. This factor will ensure that the perpetrators in these cases take full responsibility for their crimes.
The noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Sandhurst, referred to Clare Wade’s recommendations. It is important to recognise that the Government are not taking forward the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review’s recommendation to disapply the 25-year starting point to domestic murders. Implementing this recommendation would lead to significant inconsistency between domestic and non-domestic murders where a weapon has been taken to the scene. The review also recommended excluding sexual infidelity as mitigation, and excluding the use of a weapon as aggravation in domestic murder cases. The Government do not consider these recommendations to be necessary, as they largely involve putting a non-statutory position into legislation.
The Government recognise that application of the factor and whether there is sufficient evidence to establish it will depend on the circumstances and available evidence in a particular case. If evidence of the factor cannot be established to the criminal standard, the aggravating factor will not apply. The Government recognise that, in some cases, establishing whether the victim and offender had been in a relationship and whether this was connected to the murder may increase the length of some legal proceedings. The sentencing framework is clear that the statutory aggravating factors are not exhaustive; the sentencing judge is able to consider any relevant factors in terms of aggravation, including pregnancy and stalking. The end of a relationship factor in particular is not necessarily intended to acknowledge the vulnerability of the victim; it is intended to address the link between resentment at the end of the relationship on the part of the perpetrator and coercive control.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to strangulation. Strangulation has been recognised as a method of exerting power and control, which is particularly relevant in the context of domestic abuse where female victims are assaulted by physically stronger males. The review found that nearly a third of the murder cases involved strangulation—all of these involved a male perpetrator and a female victim—and highlighted that strangulation is a gendered form of killing that encapsulates the vulnerability of the victim and inflicts a high degree of suffering. I am sure that noble Lords will look forward to the process of the Law Commission’s review and keep a close eye on how it progresses, although it will take considerable time.
A number of today’s remarks gave general examples that are sobering reminders of the necessity of these reforms. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, is quite right to refer to victims being fearful of raising domestic abuse, even though it can sometimes be very severe abuse. I believe that the statutory aggravating factors introduced by this instrument are essential to ensure that our sentencing framework appropriately recognises the particular and wider harms that arise in cases of domestic murder. While it is for the judge to determine the appropriate weight to be given to the aggravating factors in each case, we expect that these measures, along with Clare Wade’s recommendations already implemented, will have a significant impact on the custodial terms given to perpetrators in these cases. This rightly recognises the seriousness of domestic murders, ensuring that sentencing in these cases delivers justice for victims and their families.
Online Safety Act 2023 (Qualifying Worldwide Revenue) Regulations 2025
Lord Leong
That the Grand Committee do consider the Online Safety Act 2023 (Qualifying Worldwide Revenue) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, as set out in the Online Safety Act 2023, Ofcom is empowered to make regulations that define how the qualifying worldwide revenue—QWR—of a provider of a regulated service is to be determined, along with the relevant qualifying period. The Act requires Ofcom to send the draft regulations to the Secretary of State, whose role is to then lay them before Parliament. In accordance with this process, the Secretary of State for DSIT laid the draft QWR regulations on 26 June 2025.
Defining QWR is critical to establishing the fee regime whereby providers of regulated services pay a fee to Ofcom to fund the costs of online safety regulation. The regulations are also a key part of informing a penalties regime that will act as a suitable deterrent to non-compliance among providers in scope of the Online Safety Act.
The regulations define QWR in relation to fees as the total revenue of a provider referable to the provision of regulated services—that is, revenue generated from relevant parts of a service, including parts where user to user, search or certain pornographic content may be encountered from anywhere in the world.
The regulations account for the apportionment of qualifying revenue in cases where direct attribution to relevant parts is not possible. In these cases, providers must apportion revenue to relevant parts using a “just and reasonable” method.
The qualifying period for calculating QWR is defined in the regulations as the calendar year two years prior to the fee-charging year. For example, for the 2026-27 charging year, the qualifying period will be 1 January to 31 December 2024.
The Act empowers Ofcom to issue penalties to non-compliant providers up to £18 million or 10% of their qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is higher. In cases where Ofcom has found joint and several liability for a contravention of the Act within a group of entities, the regulations define QWR as the total of all worldwide revenues received by the provider and its group undertakings, whether or not that revenue is referable to a regulated service. Ofcom’s view is that the approach set out in regard to penalties will act as a suitable deterrent to non-compliance.
For both fees and penalties, in defining QWR Ofcom’s view is that the use of worldwide revenue reflects the global nature of online services and ensures fairness across providers—and, further, that this is consistent with the Act, which applies to any service with links to the United Kingdom, regardless of whether the service in question is a UK company.
During the passage of the Act through Parliament, it was agreed that the taxpayer should not be liable for paying for online safety regulation but rather that the providers of regulated services in scope of the Act should fund the regulatory regime. Following a public consultation between October 2024 and January 2025, Ofcom has recommended that the Secretary of State consider setting the QWR threshold at £250 million. In practice, this means that providers whose QWR meets or exceeds the threshold will be liable to pay fees to Ofcom unless they are exempt. Ofcom believes that this recommendation balances proportionality and workability, while limiting the impact on SMEs. As set out in the Act, the Secretary of State must now consider this advice and set the final threshold in a separate statutory instrument later this year. Ofcom will then consult on guidance relating to its Statement of Charging Principles, publish the final statement and begin invoicing providers in the 2026-27 financial year.
In accordance with its duties under the Act, Ofcom has drafted these regulations, and it is now for both Houses to consider them.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this SI, although I have some questions about it. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to them and, if not, write to me about them.
It is good to see progress being made on these issues. This was an area of considerable discussion and debate during the passage of the Bill, which some present will remember, mainly because we had no real certainty about the ambitions regarding whether those who were benefiting from Ofcom’s work would actually be prepared to pay for it. Even if they were prepared to pay for it, there was no certainty that they could be made to pay for it. Even so, despite the wording and deep thought that has gone into this particular piece of paper before us today, I still have some doubts about whether it will get the effect it wants.
Can the Minister say whether there is a back-up plan should the fees not meet the requirements of Ofcom in its vital role, which increases day by day? What would happen then? If the main companies involved—99% of them are at least operating outside the UK, and most of them are established outside the UK—refuse to play ball and are able to find a way around this process, we may face a bit of a difficulty, and quite an expensive one at that. So, my first point is to congratulate the department on bringing this forward, but I worry a little about whether it will be able to achieve its aims and objectives in a way that will be satisfactory for those of us who are concerned about the generality of this issue and also for those who are directly affected by some of the work done by these companies.
My second point is a bit technical, but that may just be because I am an accountant. The choice that has been made here in assessing the QWR is that it should be “just and reasonable”. These are fine words, but they are not very common. The words used in most accounting systems across most of the world—unless there are areas that I have yet to experience—are “true and fair”. Accountants have not loved those words, have often argued about them and constantly disagree about what they mean, but they are what works in assessing the effective financial position of any publicly owned company: most companies that wish to receive investment have to prove to a “true and fair” standard that their accounts reflected the true situation in that company.
Why have the Government agreed with Ofcom in going for these other words, which must be deliberately chosen? If they are deliberately chosen, will the Minister explain why “just and reasonable” is in any way equivalent to “true and fair” and, if it is not, as I suspect, why that choice was made? I do not say that it is wrong; whether the calculations on which financial results are being made are just and reasonable is a perfectly good way into any discussion with any organisation or company. It would be a good way of testing whether contributions to be made by companies in scope of Ofcom are just, in the sense, I suppose, of being justified, and reasonable in the sense of being able to be made to an apportionment that is sensibly aligned to the actions that will be taken by Ofcom against that company, very often against its economic interests. But I am intrigued by it. There is a perfectly good system that operates in the accounting world; “true and fair” has been used for years and years. We do not like it, but we have learned to live with it. Why have they not taken it forward in this sense?
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support the draft regulations. They represent a crucial step in implementing the Online Safety Act, aiming to foster a safer online environment. The principle that the financial burden of regulating the vast and complex online landscape should fall on those service providers that generate substantial qualifying worldwide revenues, rather than the UK taxpayer, is one that we wholeheartedly endorse.
In our view, Ofcom has articulated a robust and pragmatic rationale for basing fees and penalties on global rather than UK-only revenues. This approach, defining qualifying worldwide revenue as the total revenue referable to the regulated parts of a service, is designed to ensure that major multinational operators are appropriately deterred from non-compliance and contribute their fair share to user safety. We believe that such a model strengthens enforcement and promotes regulatory fairness.
However, we also acknowledge the concerns raised by industry stakeholders and examined by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Issues such as the aggregation of revenues across complex business groups, while providing consistency, may create anomalies for certain providers. Questions persist regarding the calculation and apportionment of revenue, especially when services are bundled or operated internationally, and how Ofcom will assess the provider’s just and reasonable approach to apportionment.
Furthermore, the practical impact on smaller providers if fee thresholds are set too low is a significant consideration, despite the current expectation that small and micro-businesses, charities and public sector bodies are unlikely to be affected. I therefore seek assurance from the Minister regarding the practical impact of these regulations. Specifically, is he satisfied that, when setting the crucial fee thresholds for providers required to notify their qualifying worldwide revenue, the regime will remain proportionate and workable so the burden falls primarily on major enterprises and not disproportionately on smaller providers? Furthermore, is he satisfied by Ofcom’s core rationale for adopting a worldwide revenue approach as vital for effective deterrence and regulatory fairness?
I also urge the Government to commit to ongoing review of this framework, particularly given Ofcom’s intention to provide further guidance on just and reasonable apportionment. We support these regulations but expect further scrutiny, coupled with the Government’s commitment to address these assurances.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument forms a key part of the regulatory framework underpinning the Online Safety Act 2023, a significant and necessary piece of legislation that forms part of my party’s legacy in government. I am very proud of the small contribution that I made to its passage through your Lordships’ House. That Act’s core aim is to make the online world safer, particularly for children and vulnerable users—an aim that all of us in this Committee support fully.
That said, let me make a brief point; it does not go directly to this instrument but it is, I think, a point worth making. I am concerned by how controversial the Bill seems to have become in certain quarters—indeed, much more controversial than it deserves to be. Part, though not all, of that is perhaps due to the previous Secretary of State’s rather aggressive rebuttal of some of the claims made about it. So I express my hope and wish that the new Secretary of State will be more emollient in his debate in order to carry people with him, because it is so important that the public come along with the Bill.
This instrument sets out how Ofcom will calculate the qualifying worldwide revenue of regulated service providers. As the Minister has outlined, this matters for two reasons: first, to determine Ofcom’s fees and, secondly, to establish maximum penalties for breaches of up to 10% of global revenue or £18 million, whichever is higher.
Most notable, of course, is the use of worldwide revenue as the basis for both fees and penalties. Although this ensures consistency and deters underreporting, the concern was raised during the public consultation that it can prove disproportionate for providers with only limited UK operations. I hope that, when he comes to speak, the Minister can give a bit more clarity on this point. Has a formal assessment been carried out in this specific area? What safeguards exist to prevent excessive penalties in cases of genuine error?
There is also the question—the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, set this out clearly so I will not go into it much—of the interpretation of terms such as “just and reasonable”, particularly in revenue apportionment and currency conversion. Consistent application will of course be critical. How will disagreements be resolved and what guidance will providers receive?
I would also be grateful for clarification on Regulation 4(3)(b), which refers to
“parts where search content may be encountered (in the case of search services and combined services)”.
Ofcom has indicated that both “search” and “user to user” can include the functionality of AI chatbots. I am pleased that it has clarified this point but, if that is so, it raises an important issue: in cases where an entity is to be fined for an unsafe AI chatbot, which service is considered referable? Is it the chatbot service itself, or is the chatbot to be considered an amalgam of a user-to-user service and a search service?
If it is to be just the chatbot service—these are, of course, increasingly being used as search services—many of them generate very little revenue. In fact, AI is frequently loss making for many of the large organisations operating in this space. Could their qualifying worldwide revenue, at least as defined, be negative in such cases? If so, how would that be treated under the regime?
Of course, we welcome the exemption for services with under £10 million in UK referable revenue—we feel that that is a sensible threshold—but are the Government willing to review it if evidence shows that it is deterring legitimate or public interest platforms from entering or remaining in the UK market?
These regulations are a necessary step. They must be implemented fairly, not just for the global giants but for those trying to do the right thing. In closing, I thank the Minister for stepping in at short notice to guide us through this—it was no doubt a not wholly welcome surprise. I hope that the Government will have plans in place to monitor the regime’s impact actively and closely to ensure that Ofcom’s guidance is transparent and consistent and that they will remain open to adjusting thresholds or definitions if unintended consequences should arise.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords, especially my noble friend Lord Stevenson, the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for their valuable contributions to this debate. The noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, should be really proud of his legacy in taking the Online Safety Act through Parliament. It is due to him that we are now implementing these regulations.
I shall now respond to the various questions raised by noble Lords and to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its report on this instrument. The total amount of fees collected must not exceed the annual cost of Ofcom’s exercise of its online safety regulation functions. The cost may vary from year to year. Ofcom’s expected annual costs for online safety services for 2025-26 are close to £92 million, which includes regulatory activities and what Ofcom calls common costs, which are its running costs, allocated to all sectors that it regulates. Ofcom’s annual costs will vary depending on the level of regulatory activity undertaken in any given year, and those for online safety for 2026-27 will be published in the 2027 tables. Ofcom’s duties under the Act are extensive, and this will allow it to deliver effectively.
Service providers whose qualifying worldwide revenue is at or above a revenue threshold that we are discussing, and which these regulations will allow Ofcom to consult on and set, will need to pay approximately 0.02% to 0.03% of their qualifying worldwide revenue in fees. The Secretary of State will determine the threshold figure, having taken advice from Ofcom, which recommends a threshold of £250 million. If implemented, that means that only the largest companies will be in scope of fee paying. For example, a company with a qualifying worldwide revenue of £250 million can expect fees to constitute something like £50,000 to £75,000, using the formula of 0.02% to 0.03%.
Ofcom has robust enforcement powers available to use against companies that fail to fulfil their duties and will be able to issue enforcement decisions. That is in response to a question posed by my noble friend Lord Stevenson. This includes non-payment of fees, which is explicitly covered under Section 141 of the Online Safety Act.
Ofcom’s authority to collect fees is set up, as I said earlier, under Section 84 of the Act. Its authority to collect penalties is also set up under Schedule 13. If a provider of a regulated service does not pay its fee to Ofcom in full, Ofcom may give the provider a penalty notice specifying the outstanding sum and a date on which it must be paid. It may also bring legal proceedings for the recovery of the whole or part of the amount due.
I will write to my noble friend Lord Stevenson on the issue of Ofcom’s future receipts being lower than its costs.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for trying to explain the “just and reasonable” approach. Just to unpick what he said, what is Ofcom consulting about? There seems a disjuncture in what we are trying to do here. We are going to pass this regulation tomorrow—it will be in force in a couple of weeks, according to Ofcom—yet we still do not know whether Ofcom has completed its discussion about whether companies are prepared to accept “just and reasonable”. Is that a fair summary of where we are?
Lord Leong (Lab)
My noble friend makes a good point. Ofcom is consulting on the guidance to help providers understand the ways of apportioning revenue in a “just and reasonable” manner. Its guidance will hopefully be published in the last quarter of this year. Until such time, I am sure there will be further guidance for providers along the way.
To come back to the scrutinising of legislation, ongoing parliamentary scrutiny is crucial. Indeed, the Online Safety Act requires Ofcom’s codes to be laid in Parliament for scrutiny. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee continues to provide vital scrutiny of statutory instruments and has drawn special attention to several instruments that my department has laid in the past few months. It identified the instrument we are debating today as an instrument of interest. The Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee and the Lords Communications and Digital Committee also play a vital role in scrutinising the regime.
Finally, the Secretary of State is required under Section 178 of the Act to review the effectiveness of its regulatory framework between two and five years after key provisions of the Act come into force. A report of the outcome of this review will be published and laid before Parliament.
Ofcom has said in response to the SLSC that it will review the information from providers and is able to use its powers to require further information under Section 100 of the Act should it need further details to scrutinise the approach taken by the provider—that is to do with the “just and reasonable” method. Ofcom has stated that it has access to sufficient expertise to make this assessment.
The noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, asked about exemptions. Under the Act, Ofcom has the power to make or revoke exemptions and this must be approved by the Secretary of State. Ofcom is proposing to exempt service providers whose UK referral revenue is less than £10 million. We will consider that carefully before deciding whether to approve the exemption. I am sure noble Lords will know that about 60 companies would probably fall within the bracket of the Ofcom fees regime—the majority of which are non-UK companies. I am sure noble Lords will also know that most of these companies have revenues in excess of £250 million. I would have thought that there are not many companies with revenue of less than £10 million.
In the last 12 months, we have seen key elements of the Online Safety Bill progressed and implemented. Many of Ofcom’s powers are now in effect. Platforms are now legally required to protect children from harmful content, including rolling out highly effective age assurance to tackle pornography, suicide, self-harm and eating disorder content. This instrument will bring us one step closer to a fully implemented online safety regime, ensuring that companies raising revenue from online services cover the cost of regulation—not taxpayers—and take responsibility for keeping our children safe online.