Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
Good afternoon, my Lords. I remind the Committee that, if there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bell.
Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill
Lord Teverson
“Prevention of avoidance by offshoring of activities(1) This section applies where—(a) a United Kingdom person (“P”) arranges for relevant research and development or commercialisation involving marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction, or digital sequence information on such resources, to be carried out wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom, and(b) the effect, or likely effect, of the arrangement is that utilisation which would otherwise fall within section 3(1) does not do so.(2) Where this section applies, the utilisation is to be treated, for the purposes of this Part, as if it were a utilisation project to which section 3 applies and were carried out in the United Kingdom by P.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision—(a) requiring United Kingdom persons to take reasonable steps to ensure that arrangements with non-United Kingdom persons for the collection or utilisation of marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction, or digital sequence information on such resources, are not entered into for the purpose of avoiding, or frustrating the operation of, this Part;(b) requiring United Kingdom persons to keep, and to provide to the Secretary of State on request, such records and information as may be prescribed about such arrangements;(c) for the application, with or without modifications, of enforcement provisions made under section 9 to failures to comply with regulations under this section.(4) In this section, “United Kingdom person” and “relevant research and development” have the meanings given by section 20.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause is intended to prevent UK companies and other UK persons from avoiding the information-sharing and benefit-sharing obligations in Part 2 of the Act by offshoring marine genetic resource research and development or commercialisation to non-Parties to the BBNJ Agreement.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I was feeling quite confident that we would wholly outnumber the government Benches, but then I saw all the people at the back and thought maybe not. We will get good answers to our questions anyway, that is for sure.
As we all said at Second Reading, this is an important, good treaty, around which we need an implementing Bill. I will move Amendment 1 but will also speak to Amendments 11 and 20, to make matters easy for the Grand Committee.
Amendment 1 is very much a probing amendment. From our Benches, we very much welcome the information- sharing and benefit-sharing aspects of the treaty, particularly around marine genetic resources and digital sequence information. This principle covers the sharing of those physical, biological and information resources to all nations. That is important and something we would very much agree with.
However, a number of nations will not ratify this treaty. At the moment the non-ratifiers include the United Kingdom—I am pleased to say the Government are soon to put that right—China, India, Turkey, Malaysia, Brazil, just to mention a few, and not least the USA. All those nations have signed the treaty, but the United States Administration have made it pretty clear that it they not going to ratify it, perhaps not surprisingly given that they have not even ratified UNCLOS. My concern is that there are ways of bypassing these provisions on information-sharing and benefit-sharing by offshoring, if I could use that phrase, to non-ratifying states, particularly the United States, which has a huge history and a good reputation on innovation, venture capital and all the other areas making sure that human progress moves forward.
My concern is that organisations or persons—whether companies or individuals—that would otherwise be British based will perhaps find a way to capture intellectual property and knowledge within other jurisdictions. My question is: have the Government thought about this and is there a way of approaching it? I am not saying that it is necessarily easy, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on how that might move forward.
My Amendments 11 and 20 are about flags of convenience. Let us look at some of the issues. I am concerned about enforceability. As noble Lords will be aware, 45% of total marine tonnage—vessels above 100 gross tonnes in weight—are registered to just three nations: Panama, the Marshall Islands and Liberia. All of them have already ratified the BBNJ treaty, so that gives me some consolation. However, as to enforceability, the irony of this treaty, in some ways, is that it relies on UNCLOS, one of the core values of which, throughout the history of marine commerce on the high seas, is that you cannot intervene on vessels with flags other than your own unless you have the permission of those flagged authorities. That is almost impossible to do, so enforcement on the high seas is extremely difficult. We may not be talking about supertankers or the big freighters in terms of biodiversity, but we are talking about research vessels, which are still subject to the same restrictions for intervention on the high seas. Those remain despite the treaty, unless there is a broader agreement, but I cannot see that the treaty allows for the boarding of vessels of other nations on the high seas.
One of the areas that came out a couple of years ago from the International Relations and Defence Committee was that the UK had not signed or ratified the UN Convention on Conditions for Registration of Ships. I am not saying that that is an answer to everything, but it would be a great service if the United Kingdom, with its influence through the IMO and other organisations, were able to revive that treaty, which only has some 15 ratifications but needs 40 to come into effect. What I am looking at here is for the United Kingdom to take this forward. We are 27th in terms of internationally registered tonnage, so we are a small fleet despite being an international, global and maritime nation. Can the Minister say whether there is a way that we can start to repair this situation, because enforceability, under the current rules of UNCLOS and even under the BBNJ treaty, is going to be extremely difficult? I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
I will speak to Amendment 3 in this group on the UK’s capacity to comply with Article 5 of the BBNJ, which is about capacity building—building the international capacity to understand the problems and issues and to develop solutions.
The UK is particularly well placed to do that because we have the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton and Liverpool, which is a centre of excellence, providing all sorts of leadership and national capabilities in ocean research. We have the Plymouth Marine Laboratory, which is leading in its field of marine science research and is recognised as a centre of international excellence in marine ecosystems. In Scotland, we have the Scottish Association for Marine Science and the excellent Sea Mammal Research Unit at the University of St Andrews, which is the UK’s main centre for marine mammal science. I have not included an absolutely full list of all the centres, so it might be a bit invidious, because there are other places that do a lot of work in this area and are excellent—those are just three examples. We have a special responsibility to share our capacity with the geographical locations that will be making an effort to comply with the BBNJ treaty but do not have anything like the history and knowledge base that we have.
One example I could give would be the Sargasso Sea, which is 4 million square kilometres in area—when I read that, I thought it unlikely to be so large, but I double-checked and it is—with Bermuda at its heart. It would be hard to overstate the importance of the Sargasso Sea in biodiversity terms. It is globally significant and is threatened in lots of ways, particularly by overfishing, obviously, but also by mining. Bermuda, for which the sea is critical, has worked hard to achieve, for example, the Sargasso Sea Commission in 2014. As the treaty implementation gets under way, the UK has not only to help capacity-build the science there to start solving some of the Sargasso Sea’s issues but to set the agenda internationally, because although the treaty affects Bermuda so crucially, as an overseas territory it has no direct voice at the UN. We need to use our voice and scientific capability to help not just Bermuda but all those overseas territories that are so critical, given the fact that the ocean and its currents are global.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for leading this group. I will start by speaking to my own Amendments 2 and 17, before addressing Amendments 4 and 5 in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, who sadly cannot be in the House today.
Amendment 2 is a straightforward probing amendment which seeks to understand what steps the Government will be able to take to prevent genetic samples being accessed by hostile state actors. We know that much of the deep ocean has yet to be researched, and the impact of future discoveries on key sectors such as the life sciences may well be significant. In certain circumstances, we would not want discoveries shared with state actors who may use them against us and against our interests. Can the Minister set out the contingency powers that Ministers have to prevent the sharing of critical genetic samples in those circumstances?
My Amendment 17 follows on closely from the debates that were had in the House of Commons. The Bill contains a large number of regulation-making powers to allow the UK to remain compliant with the decisions made by the Conference of the Parties under the treaty. This amendment simply seeks to improve transparency and parliamentary accountability by ensuring that there is a regular update on core metrics, such as the details of regulatory changes and the impact of them on relevant sectors. When Parliament grants Ministers wide-ranging powers in legislation, it is only right that we put in place the appropriate transparency and accountability requirements. While the Minister may not be able to accept this amendment today, I hope that she will be able to set out more fully the Government’s plans to ensure that Parliament, and consequently the British public, have access to information on the way that Ministers are using the powers that the Bill has granted them.
Amendment 4, in the name of my noble friend Lord Fuller, seeks to probe the impact of the treaty, including the imposition of marine protected areas over the deep ocean, on the economy and on infrastructure. As the Minister knows, we signed this treaty when we were in office, and at the time we were satisfied that the treaty struck the right balance. However, it would be interesting to hear what further work the Government have done more recently to assess the projected impact of marine protected areas on the economy, in particular through restrictions on certain shipping activities. Can the Minister please expand on that?
Amendments 5 and 5A relate to craft that are not members of the class societies for shipping. My understanding of my noble friend’s amendments in this regard is that they are designed to facilitate a debate on the so-called dark fleet. According to a February report from the Institute for Human Rights and Business, some estimates claim that there are now 1,400 vessels in the fleet, which would be up to 10% of the world’s tanker fleet. The Kyiv School of Economics estimates that Russia alone has invested nearly $10 billion— €9.26 billion—to set up a ghost fleet of several hundred vessels, estimated at nearly 600 ships in July 2024. These, of course, are the ships that transport Russia’s oil, helping to support its illegal war in Ukraine.
Can the Minister set out the Government’s thoughts on how this treaty might help us tackle the dark fleet, as well as what steps the Government are actively taking to prevent the operations of illegal shipping? I hope that the Minister will be able to take our concerns on board across these amendments; I look forward to her reply.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, this set of amendments relates to the operation and enforcement of the BBNJ agreement. This Bill establishes the core domestic legal framework required for the UK to be able to ratify and implement the treaty, while recognising that more detailed compliance and enforcement arrangements will be developed and set out over time—including through future international decisions taken by the BBNJ Conference of the Parties.
I turn to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which would require UK persons conducting research and development or commercialisation involving marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction outside of the UK to abide by the notification and other requirements of the Bill where they have arranged to carry out these activities outside the UK to evade such obligations. We think that this amendment is not necessary because we do not consider that seeking to regulate persons outside of the UK in this way is required to meet our treaty obligations; it may be a nice thing to be able to do, but we do not think that we can do it within the obligations of the treaty.
If the collection and utilisation activity does not fall under UK jurisdiction, the obligations set out in the Bill do not apply. We do not consider that the Bill should be extended to such activity, which would be beyond the treaty agreement. Where other countries have ratified the BBNJ agreement, they will, like the UK, have domestic obligations in this area; we encourage others to ratify where possible. Ultimately, the BBNJ Bill is about ensuring that the UK can fully meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement in relation to activity that falls under UK jurisdiction.
I turn to Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on any threat that would arise from foreign state actors accessing samples of marine genetic resources from UK repositories. The report would have to be published within six months of the Act being passed and be laid before Parliament. The purposes of the BBNJ Bill are to enable the UK to comply with its obligations under the BBNJ agreement and, therefore, to allow the UK to ratify it. The requirements under this amendment would go beyond the intent of the Bill. Clause 7(1) of the Bill provides that access to repositories of marine genetic resources
“may be made subject to conditions consistent with paragraphs (a) to (d) of Article 14(4) of the”
BBNJ agreement. That article covers factors that may affect access, including preservation of materials, reasonable costs and other reasonable conditions, in line with the objectives of the agreement. Further details on reasonable conditions will be provided in guidance for repositories, including, if necessary, in relation to dealing with potential threats.
Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, would require
“the Secretary of State to create and publish a Strategy outlining the UK’s compliance with Part 5 of the BBNJ Agreement, relating to Capacity-Building and the Transfer of Marine Technology”.
This amendment is not necessary in this Bill because domestic legislation is not required for the UK to meet its obligations under Part V of the BBNJ agreement on capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology; those will be implemented through existing mechanisms, such as academic placements and working-level dialogues. I can confirm to the noble Baroness that a committee on capacity-building and the transfer of marine technology is established under the BBNJ agreement and will be constituted under the direction of the Conference of the Parties; the committee’s role will include monitoring and reviewing these activities.
Amendment 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the UK Government to have regard to economic and infrastructural consequences of regulations made to implement area-based management tool decisions of the BBNJ Conference of the Parties. It highlights specifically the impacts of such regulations on submarine communication cables and shipping lanes. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, that consideration of such consequences and impacts would be required before a decision is made by the Conference of the Parties on an area-based management tool.
Article 19 in Part IV of the BBNJ agreement provides detail on what elements must be included in an area-based management tool proposal. This includes identifying human activities in the area, which would include details on shipping lanes, submarine cables and other infrastructure in the proposal area. Article 21 of the BBNJ agreement also ensures that consultation on the proposal is inclusive, transparent and open to all relevant stakeholders, states and other bodies. Through that consultation process—as well as through our role in the International Maritime Organization, which regulates shipping globally—the UK can directly express views on any economic and infrastructural consequences of the proposed area-based management tool. As a state party, the UK would also have the opportunity to express views on such impacts when the final proposal is being considered by the Conference of the Parties, including whether or not we could support it.
Furthermore, the BBNJ agreement provides that parties to the agreement should strengthen and enhance co-operation with relevant legal instruments, frameworks and bodies. The International Maritime Organization is already well aware of the BBNJ agreement and is increasingly devoting resources to considering how it will engage with the process of the agreement, including through active involvement at the current BBNJ preparatory commission meetings.
On Amendments 5 and 5A from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, which concern shipping insurance, I can confirm that the BBNJ Bill is concerned with implementing the UK’s obligations under the BBNJ agreement—I will repeat this point frequently throughout our considerations—and is not a vehicle for regulating shipping insurance or insurance markets more generally. In any event, UK ships are already required to carry appropriate insurance under existing domestic and international maritime frameworks. The issue that the amendment seeks to address is better dealt with through established merchant shipping legislation. For those reasons, we do not think that this amendment is necessary for this Bill.
I turn to Amendments 11 and 20 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Amendment 11 proposes a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to conduct, within six months—and to be repeated every Parliament, as well as reported to Parliament—a review on the use of flags of convenience, their impact on biodiversity and the UK’s enforcement against such ships. Amendment 20 is a consequential amendment that defines “flag of convenience”. Again, these amendments are not strictly necessary for the UK to meet its obligations under the BBNJ agreement, but I can see why the noble Lord has tabled them.
The nationality of ships and the duties of flag states are covered, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, by Part VII of UNCLOS. This has a broader application than the BBNJ agreement; the BBNJ Bill is, therefore, not a suitable vehicle for addressing these issues. The UK’s recent International Maritime Organization audit, where it was rated as “excellent”, shows the importance to the UK of meeting its flag state obligations and responsibilities. However, this Bill is about meeting the UK’s obligations under the BBNJ agreement, and these amendments are not required for that specific purpose.
Finally, Amendment 17 from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament every two years on the effect and enforcement of the Act in relation to several areas: access to marine genetic resource samples and digital sequence information data; enforcement actions taken; the impact on business, scientific research and the fishing industry; and any regulatory changes made under the Act. As my ministerial colleague said when this same amendment was considered in the other place, the various reporting requirements included in this amendment are disproportionate to the value that they would provide. There is also a risk that they could duplicate existing processes, misalign with the international reporting cycle and increase the burden on entities providing the information for the reports. However, I can confirm that the Government already intend to conduct a post-implementation review within five years of the Act being passed, in order to assess its effectiveness.
The Bill provides for powers to make regulations on enforcement. When any such regulations are made in future, they will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and consideration at that point. When they are introduced, regulations to establish an enforcement regime under Part 2 will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, ensuring full parliamentary scrutiny without the need for additional statutory reporting. Subsection 2(d) of the proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the Act
“on business, scientific research, and the fishing industry”.
The impact assessment published by the Government indicates that the likely effect of the Bill on business will be minimal; no significant impact on the fishing industry is expected. Fishing is exempt from the notification and other requirements in Part 2 on marine genetic resources.
In relation to Part 3, for activities such as fishing, we expect that measures relating to area-based management tools will be implemented by existing means. It is therefore unlikely that we will need to create new regulations under Clause 11 for this purpose.
Part 4 does not make express provision in relation to fishing activities. It provides for the legislative changes necessary to implement the provisions in Part IV of the BBNJ agreement regarding environmental impact assessments only as they apply to activities within the remit of a domestic marine licensing regime. Engagement with scientific stakeholders suggests that the notification and other requirements in Part 2 of the Bill are unlikely to impose a significant burden. The BBNJ agreement will benefit the scientific community by encouraging information sharing and by supporting scientific and technological development.
For these reasons, we do not think that these amendments are necessary.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding. I understand why the Minister and the Government do not want this fairly simple Bill to become a Christmas tree of legislation; most of the amendments are probing amendments and not things on which we are ever going to vote, so I think we all agree on that. However, I am somewhat disappointed that the Government’s view is to make the Bill incredibly narrow in just getting it to the point of ratification, whereas, at Second Reading, there was a general feeling that there be ambition here. I do not sense the ambition. Even if the Government and the Minister do not want to put anything in the Bill—I would probably agree with that—do they think that offshoring is going to be an issue? Have they even thought about it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are cognisant of what the noble Lord is alerting the Committee to; we just do not think that this is the right Bill to consider those things. Additionally, it is difficult to think about how we would legislate here in the UK for activities that happen under another jurisdiction. The noble Lord knows what this Bill is about, but it is important to raise these things; the only way to get a debate is to table an amendment, and the noble Lord has used that tool effectively. It is good to raise this issue and remind us that this agreement is limited: it does not do everything that we might wish to do around the protection of the oceans. We should be open about that; the way in which the noble Lord has tabled and spoken to his amendment achieves that.
“Plastic pollution and marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction(1) The Secretary of State must, in exercising functions under this Act, have regard to the risks to the marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction arising from plastic pollution, in accordance to the preamble to the Agreement.(2) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a statement (“the plastic pollution statement”) setting out—(a) the Government’s assessment of the actual and potential impacts of plastic pollution on the marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction,(b) the measures the Government proposes to take, through the exercise of functions under this Act and other enactments, and through co-operation in relevant international organisations and bodies, to prevent, reduce and monitor such pollution, and(c) how those measures are intended to contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction and to the objectives of the Agreement.(3) In particular, the statement must address—(a) how the United Kingdom will, as appropriate—(i) co-operate with the International Maritime Organization and other competent international organisations to promote the adoption and effective implementation of mandatory measures to prevent and respond to plastic pollution from ships;(ii) support the development of regionally and globally coordinated monitoring, reporting and data-sharing on plastic pollution, including its presence in areas beyond national jurisdiction;(iii) encourage best practice standards across the plastic supply chain, including in relation to the containment, packaging, labelling and handling of plastic intended for transport by sea;(b) any proposals to support capacity-building, technology transfer and scientific research related to the detection, tracking and mitigation of plastic pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction, in co-operation with developing States.(4) In preparing and revising the plastic pollution statement the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland; (b) such persons as the Secretary of State considers representative of the scientific community, civil society, affected coastal communities and industry sectors involved in the manufacture, handling, shipping and use of plastic;(c) such international organisations and bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(5) The Secretary of State must—(a) publish the first plastic pollution statement within the period of 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, and(b) lay the statement, and any revised statement, before Parliament.(6) The Secretary of State must, at least once in every Parliament, review the plastic pollution statement and, if appropriate, revise it.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess and respond to the risks posed to marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction by plastic pollution arising from activities under UK jurisdiction or control.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, this amendment and Amendment 10 are concerned with plastics pollution. Amendment 6 would require the Secretary of State to assess and respond to the risks to marine biodiversity of plastics pollution that arise from activities that are either under UK control or within UK jurisdiction. This is especially important given that the global treaty on plastics is stuck in dispute.
Plastics pollution in the oceans is subject to ocean currents and the polluter, the originator of that plastic, is often in a very different part of the world from the polluted seas and beaches that result from it. The first time this struck me with such force was when I was in Mexico in the biosphere known as Sian Ka’an, in Yucatan. There were incredibly unspoiled, amazing beaches and very little population. I could not understand why the beaches were covered in plastic, especially plastic shoes. They were sweeping up from South America on the currents.
As the BBNJ comes into effect, besides an effort to lessen what goes into the ocean, it will need, and has provision to include, remediation and removal activities. The agreement sets out the process for the submission of proposals by states and the review of the same. Does the UK yet have proposals that it intends to submit? What is the UK doing on ocean plastics and what does it need to do?
The UK is very active in the International Maritime Organization talks working towards future mandatory rules to reduce risk from nurdles—plastic pellets that are transported by sea in freight containers. The Government have also supported the global plastics pollution treaty, which I referred to earlier, are seeking commitments to reduce all sorts of plastics entering the oceans and have developed standards through the BSI.
All of that is very positive, but they have not yet introduced binding national legislation to prevent nurdle loss. This is very topical, because of that huge loss that ended up on Camber Sands from a sewage plant. The UK has no binding laws that specifically regulate the transport, storage, reporting or mandatory spill prevention of plastic pellets in the way that the EU’s new plastic pellet regulation does. I know that UK Ministers have said that there are no current plans to align UK regulations with the EU’s stricter pellet transport regulations and storage requirements, but will the Government rethink this in the light of joining this treaty? That is another example of where we could take much better action now that we are part of a treaty that concerns the oceans.
Ultimately, we have to switch from using so much fossil fuel-based plastics to using biodegradable plant-based products, and renewable energy in place of fossil fuels, so that our oceans stop warming and acidifying. The two things are incredibly linked. It is a multi- generational challenge, but this treaty is a terrific step on the road. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I very much support Amendment 6. In fact, most of the amendments in this group are sensible. Forgive my ignorance, but surely if we pass the criteria for the international treaty, what is to stop us adding things to the Bill? Is there anything? We could, could we not? It would be irrelevant for the international treaty, but relevant for our Government. Quite honestly—I am looking around the table at all these plastic bottles—our plastic use is horrendous. That is what this amendment is about. It is within the scope of the Bill and speaks directly to the aim of what we are trying to do.
The agreement’s preamble is clear. It recognises the need to address biodiversity loss in the ocean caused not just by climate change but by pollution, specifically plastic pollution. In other words, plastic is not just a side issue here; it is identified as one of the core pressures driving the destruction of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
Plastic pollution is now found throughout the ocean, from the surface to the seabed, in some of the most remote parts of the seas. It causes injury and death, enters the food chain as microplastics and adds further stress to ecosystems already under strain. One floating patch of plastic out on the remote sea is three times the size of France. It is not the only giant patch. We are producing roughly the same weight of plastic each year as the weight of humans on the planet, and that is projected to keep going up. I do not know who put these plastic bottles here, but can we please complain about that? What is wrong with refilling glass bottles? I do not understand why we would add to the problem.
Amendment 6 is about making sure that, when we have a chance to make a difference and improve our sea, we can do so. The Government need to set out how they will assess and respond to the risks that plastic pollution poses and how the UK will work with international partners to reduce and monitor that harm. The amendment would help ensure that the UK takes every opportunity to lead rather than leave a recognised threat unaddressed.
Having suggested that the UK could lead on this, I feel it is rather undermined by the fact that most of our own marine protected areas are barely protected at all. There is bottom trawling, dredging and overfishing. We need to sort that out for ourselves. Signing up to international treaties is brilliant—it is good to work with other countries—but not if we cannot even manage our own resources. The five-year review is fantastic, but what about a five-year review of our own marine protected areas? The human use of plastic and fossil fuels is driving our destruction. I do not understand why the whole House cannot see that—in fact, the whole population.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 19 but very much support the amendments around plastic. When I was in the Pacific, I too found myself on a quite deserted desert island full of old fishing nets and, weirdly, a whole lot of stuff manufactured by Unilever. It is very scary.
On Amendment 19, we have had conversations about this issue and I am still completely confused as to why the Government will not adopt this incredibly simple amendment. It would strengthen our implementation of the whole BBNJ Bill by ensuring that our existing duty to have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement that we passed in the Environment Act 2021 applies to any of our activities in the high seas.
The 2021 Act was a landmark piece of legislation, which enshrined in law five environmental principles—integration, prevention, rectification at source, the “polluter pays” principle and the precautionary principle—and it required Ministers to embed them in all policy. However, the Act, and thus those principles, apply only to us domestically. As I understand it, there is no plan to extend them now or ever beyond our national jurisdiction. This amendment would close that gap. It would make clear that when we develop policies relating to activity on the high seas—as we are bound to do, as we may be involved in licensing, marine scientific research, environmental impact assessments or, in the future, anything to do with deep sea mining—Ministers must apply the same environmental protections and principles that guide our domestic policy in the UK. I cannot understand why the Government do not just say that that is completely fine.
I would be very happy if the Minister, in her answer, could assure me and others that this will be perfectly okay. I believe that we all want the same thing. Therefore, if she believes that this issue is already covered, can she point out how and where? How does she have absolute certainty that it cannot be legally challenged in the future without this change? Alternatively, does she think that there is another way that we can do it? I do not think that anyone wants to see a disconnect between how we behave on the high seas and how we are obliged to behave here.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has just said. As the Minister knows, I very strongly support the Bill and welcome it, but it seems that there is a gap here.
I do not want to repeat what the noble Baroness said, but I strongly identify with her views. I very much hope that, when the Minister replies, she will be able either to accept the amendment or tell us why it is not needed and give us the assurance that the noble Baroness asked for. I asked about this at Second Reading, but I did not receive a reply when the Minister was winding up—perhaps she did not have enough time to do so—so it would be nice if we could hear from her on that today.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 7 and 7A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, even though he has not yet introduced them.
The Chagos Islands are a globally important area. This is the first time in the documented history of the human race that a marine protected area of this importance and scale has changed hands, so we have to get this right. The treaty on the Chagos Islands makes remarkably little reference to the fact that this major marine protected area exists and is hugely environmentally important. Mauritius does not recognise the marine protected area in its current format and has drafted its own. It accords with the IUCN principles, which is a step in the right direction, but there is a long way to go before we have a final version of it.
The biggest problem is that Mauritius has no means of monitoring or enforcing this marine protected area. It has two ocean-going vessels and two small aircraft. Neither of the aircraft is large enough to reach the Chagos Islands and, even if they could reach the islands, they would not be allowed to refuel, and therefore they could not come back. That is a flaw in the monitoring arrangements.
I declare an interest as vice-president of BirdLife International. We have had considerably good relationships with the Mauritian Government about some recovery important endangered species. The first was the Mauritius kestrel, which was virtually down to single figures but is now thriving to the point where it is predating the second species that we worked with them on, the Mauritius pink pigeon. I always think that when two endangered species start living on each other, that probably means that they are out of the danger zone.
However, the record of the Mauritian Government on marine issues is incredibly poor. We know how difficult monitoring and enforcement is in that part of the world. If you have boats and planes, they run up against Chinese influence. In the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea and the wider Pacific, fisheries enforcement is already extremely difficult, so I very much support what I think the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, will say on his Amendments 7 and 7A.
However, will the Minister tell us what proportion of the UK funding to Mauritius under the treaty has been earmarked for environmental protection? What do we, as a Government, intend to do about knowledge transfer where we have traditional links to build up biodiversity science and expertise in Mauritius? We will need to do that in bucketloads in order to look after the Chagos Islands properly. Will the Government communicate with and exercise influence over Mauritius to ensure that legislation is passed to prevent the commercial exploitation—whether through fishing or mining or for other reasons—of these incredibly important waters and the archipelago that exists within them?
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 8, 9 and 15. Amendments 8 and 9 would do a similar thing to my noble friend Lady Miller’s amendment, in that they would add to the licence conditions not just plastic—I agree entirely with my noble friend’s comments on that—but the proper protection of populations beyond national jurisdictions and the deep seabed. These amendments are the least probing ones to this clause. It would be very straight- forward to apply them to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. A lot has moved on over the years, but these three areas—plastic, fisheries and the deep seabed—are hugely relevant now. These amendments would save the Government having to amend the 2009 Act on another occasion.
My Amendment 15 is more probing. Having said that, I feel very strongly about how we manage fisheries on the high seas. That is a huge problem. It is estimated that something like 40% of all stocks on the high seas are currently overfished. We have huge problems with by-catch of non-target species. Then there is something I used to know as Klondiking, which is the transfer of fish from smaller vessels to large factory vessels in the open sea; it is a method usually employed by illegal, unreported and unregulated—IUU—fisheries. This is a big issue.
The irony is that anybody outside this area of knowledge would probably be surprised that fisheries do not really appear in the BBNJ. What does it do? In effect, it says that we are going to delegate this issue to the management regimes that are out there now—that is, the regional fisheries management organisations—and let them get on with it as they have done in previous years. We are a member of five of those organisations: two to do with tuna, two to do with the Atlantic and one to do with salmon.
That work is important. The fact that the organisations are there is good, but their processes are rather weak, certainly in terms of enforcement, by-catch and data, because they can deal only with single species, rather than the biosphere or ecological systems as a whole. On trans-shipment and the lack of observers, there are no rules for any species other than the specific ones on which nations are agreed. There is a real issue here. If we want this treaty to be successful, and if we want our high seas to reflect our slightly better management of fisheries in our own EEZs, this area needs to be improved.
How do we do that? We could do it through better-supported state control and flag state control, providing enforcement and expanding their remit. As a maritime nation, the UK has an obligation to try to make these organisations work hugely better, in the spirit of international agreements on biodiversity beyond national boundaries.
This is particularly the case with IUU. I was privileged to be a board member of the Marine Management Organisation over six years. I remember an IUU case to do with tuna off west Africa. Proving it and getting what you needed to bring it to court was so complicated and difficult—though I understand why—that the regulator, the MMO, just did not have the money to do it. The potential offenders had much deeper pockets than the enforcers and regulators. In the end, as so often happens with these things, it went to HMRC under money laundering regulations.
I have one question for the Minister. How many successful prosecutions of IUU have there been recently? She could come back to me in writing. This is a really important issue. We are all in favour of stopping illegal, unreported and irregular fisheries, but the resources to do so are difficult to get. I would be interested to hear what success we have had on that recently and how the UK might strengthen the work of at least the five regional fisheries management organisations that we are a member of.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I support Amendments 6, 8 and 10. I pay tribute to the Minister for the commitment that she is giving to the Bill. It is absolutely right that we align ourselves with the treaty and are able to be participants at the first Conference of the Parties. I thank her for the thoroughness with which she is going through it.
I do not want to repeat the excellent speeches that have been made, but on Amendments 6 and 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and Amendment 8 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I think there is a role for the UK here in international thought leadership. I suspect that the Minister will resist these amendments, but I am keen to understand the Government’s ambition and what they want to see happen. If not within this Bill, where might areas, such as mineral extraction from the deep sea and plastics, play a part in their ambition to be a global leader on the environment?
On plastic pollution, we know that its durability means that it persists in the ocean. Noble Lords have mentioned seeing, on their holidays, bottles and other bits of marine plastic washed up on the shore. They take ages to break down, so it is vital that we prevent plastics going into river courses and oceans. According to the World Wide Fund for Nature, almost every species group in the ocean has encountered plastic pollution, with scientists observing negative effects in almost 90% of assessed species. It is vital that plastic pollution, because it is trans-boundary and moves within ocean currents, is included within international agreements, so what might His Majesty’s Government do to try to bring influence to that, so that the scourge of plastic pollution might be eliminated in our lifetimes?
Secondly, I speak in support of Amendment 8 from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which looks at the deep seabeds and how they are protected through the use of marine licences. We need to remember that the deep sea is the oldest and largest biome on earth, and of crucial importance. We have to stop the irreversible damage before it is too late. It is full of remarkable biodiversity, much of it still unknown, uncharted and awaiting the wonder of discovery. The marine sediments lock up carbon; they are great carbon sinks that need to be protected as well. Where is the Government’s ambition around the prevention of damage to the deep seabeds, particularly with the demands for extracting materials? Where is the thought leadership that is going to be provided?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, Defra is attached to about 160 global treaties regarding various aspects of the environment, several of which have been discussed today. I want to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, regarding environmental principles. I am hoping the Minister will say that these will automatically apply—not regardless of whether the amendment happens, but because they are already in effect—because my interpretation of the Environment Act is that it should not matter where the policy is being applied. If it is UK government policy, then Ministers are supposed to be bound by the duties as set out. I cannot remember whether they were set out in 2022 or 2023.
I do not need to add anything to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said on her support for the MPA around the Chagos Islands and that territory. I recognise the importance, but it is worth thinking about some other issues that have been raised. Noble Lords may be rightly aware that multiple treaties already cover a number of these issues; they may be in place but not enforced as widely as we would like, particularly on EU fishing. They already extend to our international waters, not just what is within the economic zone.
One thing that may be helpful is a brief update on where we are with the plastics treaty, because the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, should be covered in that comprehensive new treaty. I know that negotiations got somewhat stalled in Geneva. I expect all parties are still trying to find a way forward, but it should deal in particular with disposal. With that, I hope that the Minister can give us assurances on a variety of issues.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, for leading this group, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for making me feel guilty for drinking from my plastic water bottle. I hope my cardboard cup is okay—but probably not, because it has plastic on its inside.
I have a number of amendments in this group touching on the issues of marine biodiversity in the seas around the Chagos Archipelago, the impact of industrial fishing practices used by the Chinese fishing fleet and the sustainability of our own domestic fishing fleet. In the debates on the Chagos Bill, we debated at length the marine protected area that will, we hope, be established under the UK treaty with Mauritius. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and my noble friend Lady Coffey for their support.
That treaty will allow the UK to influence decisions about marine biodiversity beyond the extent of national jurisdiction, so can the Minister confirm whether the Government plan to propose an MPA for certain parts of the Indian Ocean? Have Ministers undertaken any assessment of the benefits that might be achieved for biodiversity around the Chagos Archipelago if an MPA were implemented on the deep ocean around the islands, to complement the existing one?
This leads on well to the question of which areas are expected to be subject to an MPA first. Can the Minister confirm what conversations the Government have had with their counterparts representing other co-signatories to the treaty about establishing future MPAs? Where do we expect the first MPAs to be located?
Lord Teverson (LD)
As this is Committee, I very much welcome the amendment around the Chinese. It is not just the Chinese, as the noble Lord will know, since a lot of east Asian states have a real issue over this. On the deep-sea fisheries, all the Norwegian, UK and EU agreements are purely within EEZs, which this treaty does not cover. The sad thing is that, as far as I am aware, the UK has only one deep-sea fishing vessel. It operates out of Hull into the Barents Sea. That one vessel shows where we are these days in terms of our fishing ability as a nation.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his insight. The Committee benefits hugely from his knowledge and experience on this.
This group of amendments relates to environmental protection and the sustainable management of activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Let me start by restating that the BBNJ agreement represents a significant step forward in the conservation of the global ocean, enabling stronger protection for the two-thirds of the ocean that lies beyond national jurisdiction. I accept everything that noble Lords said about what more could be done and what they would like the Government to consider. That is not what we are doing today, but that does not mean that the arguments being presented are wrong or even that the Government disagree with them.
The Government’s intention is to make sure that we get this legislation done as quickly as possible in order for us to be able to participate in the Conference of the Parties. We do not yet have a date for that, but it could happen very soon. Some of the issues being raised can be thrashed out in that context, and we think that that is the way to make more progress internationally. That does not mean that the things being raised, particularly on plastics, transshipments and all the rest of it, are not important. It is good that we raise them at every opportunity, but the Bill will play an important role in supporting delivery of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, including the global target to effectively conserve and manage at least 30% of the ocean by 2030.
The Bill provides the domestic legal framework needed to implement fully the agreement in the UK. It includes provisions to support the designation and management of area-based management tools, including marine protected areas, establish robust environmental impact assessment requirements, and ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the collection and use of marine genetic resources. Taken together, these measures will strengthen environmental protection, promote the sustainable use of marine biodiversity and reinforce the UK’s leadership in the stewardship of the global ocean. I thought the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich about thought leadership were important. I do not know whether I will be able to assure him today about that, but I very much welcome what he had to say.
I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Jones, for Amendment 6, which would require the Secretary of State to publish—and, subsequently, to review and revise—a statement regarding the impact of plastic pollution on marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. We think that a separate plastic pollution statement would duplicate provisions already embedded in the BBNJ agreement, providing limited additional value while increasing legal complexity.
The impacts of plastic pollution are already considered under existing UK processes. For example, under Section 69(1) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009,
“the … licensing authority must have regard to … the need to protect the environment”
when considering marine licence applications. Preventing plastic pollution is an example of such an environmental consideration. In addition, under the IMO, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships is the main international convention covering the prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships. However, a separate process is under way to agree a global plastic pollution treaty.
Plastic pollution is a transboundary issue, and prevention at source is key. A treaty that addresses the full life cycle of plastics is what we need to address this issue. The UK fully supports the plastic pollution treaty having robust monitoring and assessment procedures, as well as collaboration between future parties to this instrument, to monitor and assess plastic pollution in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Ultimately, the BBNJ agreement focuses on conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction; it is, therefore, not the best place to address plastic pollution across the life cycle.
I turn to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, which would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament, within six months of the BBNJ Act being passed, a report on the potential impact of the introduction of marine protected areas in parts of the Indian Ocean that are beyond national jurisdiction on marine biodiversity in the area around the Chagos Archipelago. The purposes of the BBNJ Bill are to enable the UK to comply fully with the legal obligations under the BBNJ agreement that require domestic implementation and, therefore, to allow us to ratify the agreement—noble Lords are going to get really fed up with me repeating that. The requirements under this clause go beyond the intent of the Bill. However, the UK and Mauritius attach great importance to the need to protect marine biodiversity across the Chagos Archipelago. Both have committed to protecting one of the world’s most important marine environments.
The development of future marine protected areas under the BBNJ agreement is a matter for the BBNJ Conference of the Parties. This process has several steps—including initial proposal review, consultation and scientific review—before a proposal goes to the Conference of the Parties for a decision. These proposals will be developed by parties in collaboration and consultation with relevant states and stakeholders, as appropriate. They will be formulated based on the best available science and, where available, on relevant traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities. Once established, these MPAs will be monitored and periodically reviewed by the BBNJ’s scientific and technical body.
As a party to the Conference of the Parties, the UK will be part of the decision-making process and will be able to agree on measures including marine protected areas. We expect that the first area-based management tools will not be established until the second Conference of the Parties meeting at the very earliest, due to the need first to establish the BBNJ’s scientific and technical body, which will review proposals, and to allow for other important aspects of the process, such as consultation, to take place. For the reasons above, we think that this amendment is not necessary.
Amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, are similar in intent. These amendments would require the licensing authority to have due regard to protecting the deep-sea seabed and sustainable fishing and to preventing plastic pollution when determining an application for a marine licence. These amendments are not necessary, because Section 69(1) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 already requires the licensing authority to have regard to the need to “protect the environment” and
“to prevent interference with legitimate uses of the sea”.
Protecting the deep-sea seabed and preventing plastic pollution are examples of environmental considerations to which licensing authorities would have due regard when considering marine licence applications. Sustainable fishing would be considered a legitimate use of the sea and would therefore be given due regard by licensing authorities when considering an application.
Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, would require the Government to develop and regularly update a published strategy setting out how they will conserve and sustainably use marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction in relation to fishing activities. Amendment 7A, from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the Secretary of State to publish, within six months of Royal Assent, a report on the impacts of Chinese industrial fishing on marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction and the potential role of marine protected areas in addressing those impacts.
The requirements of these amendments go beyond the intent of the Bill. They are already covered elsewhere, or can be implemented via other appropriate means, and are therefore not necessary. The Fisheries Act 2020 governs UK fishing activities and provides the legal framework for licensing and regulating fishing and fishing-related activities. Preventing, deterring and eliminating illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing is addressed under the UK’s IUU control regulations. These regulations establish a framework for the monitoring, inspection and enforcement of fisheries, and ensure that seafood entering the UK is not linked to IUU fishing.
Furthermore, the UK is a party to the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. Parties to this agreement are required to ensure that the
“conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks”,
including in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Parties are required to collaborate to achieve these objectives, including via regional fisheries bodies, and must ensure that fisheries do not seriously threaten wider ecosystems and biodiversity.
The BBNJ agreement creates a stronger ocean governance framework that supports and encourages co-operation with other relevant legal instruments, frameworks and bodies. It provides that parties
“shall endeavour to promote … the objectives of this Agreement when participating in decision-making”
under such organisations. These include regional fisheries management organisations and the Agreement on Port State Measures, which directly target unsustainable fishing practices—including illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. We are working across departments to ensure a consistent UK position on interactions between the BBNJ agreement and relevant instruments, frameworks and bodies to which the UK is a member.
Amendment 18, from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within six months of the BBNJ Act being passed, on the potential impact of the introduction of marine protected areas under the BBNJ agreement on the UK fishing fleet. To require a report to be published six months after the BBNJ Act is passed is disproportionate. As I mentioned previously, we expect that the first area-based management tools will not be published until the second Conference of the Parties meeting at the very earliest.
Timings for the Conference of the Parties meetings are still to be decided but may be every one to two years. The first Conference of the Parties meeting must take place by 16 January 2027. Once it has ratified the BBNJ agreement, the UK, as well as relevant stakeholders, such as the fishing industry and regional fisheries management organisations, will have the opportunity to consider any impacts of a potential BBNJ marine protected area on fishing activities before any decision is made by the Conference of the Parties. Any impacts on the UK fishing fleet would be better raised through the process, rather than after a marine protected area has been established. The UK can also express views on such impacts when the final proposal is being considered by the Conference of the Parties, as well as whether we would support it. We will carefully consider any future proposals to understand any potential impacts on the UK fishing industry.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 19 from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. In the future, if required, the UK will give effect to decisions made by the future Conference of the Parties. Those decisions will reflect the principles and approaches in Article 7 of the BBNJ agreement. Individual decisions, such as those on marine licence applications, are not within the scope of the environmental principles duty, which applies only to Ministers of the Crown when making policy; that includes proposals for legislation but does not include an administrative decision taken in relation to a particular person or case. In any event, under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, the Marine Management Organisation must not grant a licence to carry out any activity that is contrary to international law; the MMO applies the precautionary principle when determining licence applications. For these reasons, we do not think that this amendment is necessary.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
May I ask the Minister something? I am so sorry if she already responded to this; if she did, I did not catch it. We could simply pass this Bill—I understand the urgency here—but we could also add something to it. I do not accept that a lot of the things we have talked about are included anywhere else. Those things are simply put and explicit in the amendments here. I do not understand why the Government would not think about just adding them to the Bill.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right; I did not reply to that point. She will be neither surprised nor pleased to hear that that is not the Government’s intention. We want to get this Bill through in order to get on with being able to participate in the Conference of the Parties. The view of Defra Ministers is, I think, that we ought to consult on or consider any additional measures in the light of other decisions being made. I know that that is not what the noble Baroness wants to hear today—I hope that she does not interpret this as any disinclination from the Government to move forward on the things that I know matter so much to her—but that is not what we want to do with this piece of legislation.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken and brought their insights and expertise to the debate. I am very glad that it emphasised the issues around overfishing; it will be quite a task for the BBNJ treaty to get anywhere with that, because it is such an issue. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, mentioned the sheer size of the Chinese fleet.
I thank the Minister for listing the actions that this country is taking on domestic plastic, particularly on its reduction. She will forgive me if I missed it, but I think that there was a question on what is happening now with the global plastics treaty. I take it that there is nothing further to say on that because it is still in discussion; we await some news on that.
On overfishing, we often talk about the fish stocks that we eat, such as tuna or salmon, but one that often comes up when you talk to experts is krill, because it is at the absolute bottom of the food chain. I hope that, if there is a chance to take issues to the next COP, the UK might choose to raise the issue of krill, on which the whole food chain depends.
In the meantime, I thank the Committee for this debate and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Screening and procedure(1) The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 (S.S.I 2017/115) are amended as follows.(2) In regulation 2 (interpretation)—(a) in paragraph (1), after the definition of “application website” insert—““area beyond national jurisdiction” has the meaning given by Article 1(2) of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement; “BBNJ works” means the carrying out of a regulated activity that engages the United Kingdom’s obligations under Part 4 of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement (environmental impact assessments) in respect of an activity in an area beyond national jurisdiction;“the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement” means the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, opened for signature at New York on 20 September 2023;”;(b) in paragraph (1), in the definition of “EIA project”—(i) in the words before paragraph (a) omit “either”;(ii) omit the “or” at the end of paragraph (a), and(iii) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “; or(c) BBNJ works where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the works may cause—(i) substantial pollution, or(ii) significant and harmful changes to,the marine environment;”;(c) in paragraph (1), in the definition of “environmental information”—(i) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (c);(ii) at the end of paragraph (d) insert “; and(e) in relation to BBNJ works that are an EIA project, any other matter necessary to give effect to Article 31(1)(b) and (c) of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement;”;(d) in paragraph (1), in the definition of “regulated activity”, at the end insert “(see also paragraph (1B))”;(e) after paragraph (1) insert—“(1A) Terms used in paragraph (c)(i) and (ii) of the definition of “EIA project” have the same meaning that they have in the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement (see in particular Article 30(1)(b)).(1B) Where the requirement for a marine licence, or variation of a marine licence, under Part 4 of the 2010 Act for works in an area beyond national jurisdiction depends on the application of these Regulations (including the doing or not doing of anything under these Regulations), these Regulations have effect as if such a licence or variation were required unless and until the application of these Regulations produces a different result.”(3) In regulation 8 (exemptions)—(a) in paragraph (4), in the words before sub-paragraph (a), after “apply” insert “in respect of schedule 1 works or schedule 2 works”;(b) after paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) The Scottish Ministers may direct that these Regulations do not require an environmental impact assessment to be carried out in relation to BBNJ works if they are satisfied that an equivalent assessment has been carried out, is being carried out or will be carried out in relation to the works.(4B) The Scottish Ministers may not grant a regulatory approval for BBNJ works in respect of which a direction under paragraph (4A) has been given unless they have determined that to do so would be compatible with the United Kingdom’s obligations under Part 4 of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement.(4C) For the purposes of paragraph (4A), an assessment is an equivalent assessment if it is sufficient to meet the requirements of Part 4 of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement.” (4) In regulation 9 (general provisions relating to screening)—(a) in paragraph (1), in the words before sub-paragraph (a), after “works” insert “or BBNJ works”;(b) omit the “and” at the end of sub-paragraph (a)(ii);(c) at the end of sub-paragraph (b) insert “; and(c) in the case of BBNJ works, have regard to any other matter necessary to give effect to Article 30(1)(b) of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement.”;(d) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Where the Scottish Ministers adopt a screening opinion in relation to BBNJ works to the effect that the works are not an EIA project, the screening opinion must also contain provision stating whether the Scottish Ministers consider that—(a) the works may have more than a minor or transitory effect on the marine environment, or(b) the effects of the works are unknown or poorly understood.(2B) Terms used in paragraph (2A)(a) and (b) have the same meaning that they have in the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement (see in particular Article 30(1)).”(5) In regulation 12 (application without prior screening)—(a) in paragraph (1)(a), for “or an application to carry out schedule 2 works” substitute “schedule 2 works or BBNJ works”;(b) for paragraph (2) substitute—“(2) Where it appears to the Scottish Ministers that the application relates to proposed schedule 1 works or schedule 2 works, the Scottish Ministers must adopt a screening opinion in relation to the proposed works.”(c) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) Where it appears to the Scottish Ministers that the application relates to proposed BBNJ works, the Scottish Ministers must adopt a screening opinion in any case where the Scottish Ministers consider that—(a) the proposed works may have more than a minor or transitory effect on the marine environment, or(b) the effects of the proposed works are unknown or poorly understood.(2B) Where the Scottish Ministers decide that paragraph (2A) does not apply in respect of proposed BBNJ works, they must give the applicant a notice stating that the proposed works do not require an environmental impact assessment.(2C) Terms used in paragraph (2A)(a) and (b) have the same meaning that they have in the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement (see in particular Article 30(1)).”(d) in paragraph (3), after “works” insert “or BBNJ works”.(6) In regulation 13 (EIA application made without an EIA report), in paragraph (3)(b), after “12(2)” insert or “12(2A)”.(7) In Schedule 4 (information for inclusion in environmental impact assessment reports)—(a) after paragraph 9 insert—“(9A) In relation to BBNJ works, any other information that is necessary to enable the Scottish Ministers to give effect to Article 31(1)(c) of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement.”;(b) in paragraph 10, for “9” substitute “9A”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would make changes to Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 that are necessary for the purpose of implementing the United Kingdom’s obligations under Part 4 the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, this set of amendments relates to the scope and exercise of regulatory powers under the Bill, including the making of regulations. Government Amendments 12, 13 and 14 tabled in my name relate to Clause 18, which was originally included in the Bill to give Scottish Ministers the power to amend the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 for BBNJ purposes. Following work with officials from the Scottish Government and given the timeline for ratification, we would prefer to make the necessary changes directly in the Bill.
These changes will help ensure that the UK meets its obligations under the BBNJ agreement in relation to Scottish marine licensable activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction. The UK Government will be amending their EIA regulations with Clause 15 and officials from the Scottish Government have worked closely with UK counterparts to draft corresponding provisions. Accordingly, the amendments also limit the Clause 18 power to implementing only Article 38 standards or guidelines, reflecting that a wider power is no longer required as other changes will be made directly through the Bill. We continue to work with the Scottish Government to secure the legislative consent Motion for this Bill, which we would expect to be passed prior to the final amending stage in the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have amendments in this group that are pretty straightforward. In essence, it is somewhat frustrating to see that further regulations or commencements need to be made. Candidly, these would have to be done before ratification anyway, so why do we not just get on with it? We have been waiting a long time for this Bill. The clock is ticking and these amendments could be made, hopefully by Report, so that we do not have to keep revisiting this situation.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can also be brief because this side of the Committee has no concerns about the Government’s amendments. I thank the Minister for introducing this group.
My single amendment in this group would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within three years of the Act coming into effect, on the exercise of powers granted under this legislation. As I said in the first group, when we are granting wide powers to Ministers, it is important to have transparency and accountability. This is a simple and measured amendment that simply asks for a report after three years, when enough time has passed to see the treaty operating properly. I hope the Minister will either accept it or commit the Government to publishing the same details in due course.
Finally, I turn to the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Coffey. These are eminently sensible and seek to remove the need for further regulations. I hope the Government will look at them favourably and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the exercise of powers conferred on them by the Bill. A report would be required within three years after the Act has passed. As my ministerial colleague said when this same amendment was considered in the other place, the amendment is not necessary as any regulations created under the powers in the Bill would already be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. There will also be a post-implementation review conducted five years after the Act is passed.
As we currently do not know when or if the powers in the Bill will be used, this approach of a post-implementation review after five years provides the necessary flexibility to review implementation of what is by then the Act at a more appropriate point. The proposed three years in this amendment may well be slightly premature. We are not expecting the powers conferred by the Act to be used to create many new regulations, especially not in the first few years. If the Secretary of State exercises the powers conferred on them by the Act to make regulations, these regulations would already be subject to scrutiny in Parliament through either the affirmative or negative procedure.
In response to Amendments 21, 22 and 23, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I get the “hurry up” message, but these amendments would remove the power for the Secretary of State to commence the operative provisions of the Bill at a later date or dates, so that all provisions of the Bill would come into force immediately on Royal Assent. I am afraid to disappoint the noble Baroness, but the Government cannot support these amendments. The current position allows the Secretary of State to ensure that the obligations imposed by the BBNJ Bill come into force only when the BBNJ agreement obligations become binding on the UK as a matter of international law, 30 days after the UK has ratified the BBNJ agreement.
The UK will ratify the BBNJ agreement only once all relevant legislation has been passed. This includes secondary legislation passed under powers conferred by the BBNJ Bill. The suggested amendments would not speed up the UK ratification of the agreement. Instead, they would just mean that domestic legislative requirements are imposed before the corresponding international obligations become binding on the UK. This would create disparity between the international and domestic regimes, leading to legal uncertainty. However, I take her amendments as a mark of encouragement and we are grateful to the noble Baroness for that.
Commencement regulation-making powers are standard provisions in Bills, as the noble Baroness knows, giving effect to the long-standing convention that there should be a two-month interval before the commencement of operative provisions of any Act, to give those affected by the new legislation time to acclimatise and adapt. In short, these powers ensure a smooth and legally robust transition from Royal Assent to the point at which the BBNJ agreement obligations bind the UK, which is why the Government are resisting these amendments today.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I understand what the Minister is saying: that sometimes, not everything can come into effect. However, it can be written into the Bill that it comes into effect two months later. We do not have to go through the various bureaucratic processes—never mind PBL but JCSI and all the other elements—which just take time, as she is finding out. I am surprised to hear that it will not affect our delaying of a ratification date of the treaty overall. I have heard what the Minister said but just encourage her to make progress before Report.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I will consider it further. We are unlikely to change our position, but I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her constant support for getting this done. That is very much the spirit in which the Government intend to proceed as well.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 17, which would mean that the power conferred on Scottish Ministers by clause 18 can be limited to implementing Article 38 standards or guidelines (as with the power conferred on the Secretary of State by clause 16(1)).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 18, page 16, line 10.
Free School Meals
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Boycott
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that schools’ core budgets in more deprived communities are not disproportionately used to meet the costs of providing free school meals.
The Minister of State, Department for Education, and the Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government already spend £1.5 billion annually supporting the provision of free and nutritious meals for around 3.4 million children. We have set aside a further £1 billion over the multi-year spending review period to fully fund our significant expansion of free meals to all households in receipt of universal credit from September 2026. This new entitlement will mean that more than 500,000 disadvantaged children will begin to access free meals.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Government very much for extending the remit of free school meals—that is excellent news. I declare my interest as chair of Feeding Britain. One of our trustees, Professor Greta Defeyter, does a lot of research into how the economics of free school meals work. She has found that the caterers are charging so much that schools are being forced to raid their teaching and learning budgets—literally the budgets they need to buy books—to pay for this. In Wales and Scotland, the budget for school meals is 60p to 70p more. What will the Government do to close this gap, given that the bill will get much higher next September, as she just alluded to?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As I have outlined, we are fully funding the expansion, with £1 billion additional funding over the next spending review period. We provide the funding for free school meals through the national funding formula, and it is within the ability of schools to be able to shift money around in order to fund this. I understand the noble Baroness’s point about the pressures that food inflation may be causing, but it is right to prioritise additional funding on broadening the entitlement rather than on funding caterers.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is time that we brought back in-house catering to schools, so that children can benefit from knowing about food? Would it not be beneficial to also bring back home cooking to schools?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
There are many schools that, in thinking about the sourcing of their free school meals, see the benefits of having those responsible for buying and cooking the food in the school itself. It is up to schools to determine how they procure their free school meals, although I recognise that the last Government provided support for schools in procuring that as effectively as possible. There are already opportunities for children to learn cooking within school—and at home as well. That will always be an important thing for young people to be able to do.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is nice to see that the Opposition have now accepted that privatisation of school meals was not a good thing and that it has led to some of our problems?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend. This Government, in providing the additional commitment to children and the additional investment to expand free school meals, have recognised that, wherever it comes from, in-house provisions can often have a range of benefits for the school. More children will be able to benefit, with all the changes that that brings, such as the ability for them to concentrate on their learning and to have the food and nutrition that all children need to be able to succeed.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I welcome the child poverty strategy, which commits to no child in school going hungry. However, I am deeply concerned to hear that many schools, particularly in deprived areas, are having to use teaching budgets to fill this gap. Can the Minister provide a list, not in the Chamber now but to me, of how many schools are topping up free school meal provisions from their teaching budgets?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As I have outlined, the national funding formula already includes provision for the funding of free school meals. It quite rightly targets funding to schools on the basis of those with the greatest numbers of pupils with additional needs. I will investigate whether it is possible to provide those figures. I am not sure that it will be, given how school meals are funded, but I will have a look.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
Can the Minister explain further why the allocation is less in England than in Wales and Scotland, particularly the allowance for adolescents aged 14 to 18? There is clear evidence that secondary schools are supporting meals out of teaching budgets. If the numbers who are entitled increases, which I welcome, that subsidy will have to increase.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is the nature of devolution that different Governments make different decisions on how they fund and how they distribute that funding. Since this Government came into power, we have seen a considerable increase in the core schools budget, which increased by £3.7 billion in 2025-26. That benefits the teaching and learning that noble Lords are concerned about, as well as general health and the provision of free school meals, as this specific Question is about.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, in addition to worrying about how to fund free school meals, the Minister will be aware that there are concerns emerging about the funding of future teacher pay awards following the Treasury’s statement that there would be no additional funding for public sector pay awards outside departmental budgets. Can she reassure schools that the 6.5% recommended increase over three years which the department made to the STRB can be met through their budgets?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We have been clear with schools about the 10% increase in teacher pay that we have delivered since we came into government. Additional funding has been provided but, of that, we will support schools to find approximately 1% through efficiencies. I am sure that the noble Baroness supports the focus on efficiencies, even if she does not support the additional investment that this Government have been able to find.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I very much support the Government on the free school meals issue—it is incredibly important. We are facing an obesity crisis, so the better children eat, the better it is from the start. Can the Department for Education give some advice to schools about moving from caterers to in-house catering if they need it?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As I suggested earlier, the Department for Education is already providing advice to schools on how to procure their provision of school meals, and how to do it effectively and efficiently. We have to give schools the ability to make their own decisions about how they provide the free school meals that they are responsible for providing. Alongside that advice, that is the current position.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a teacher at a state secondary school with over 50% pupil premium. I assure noble Lords that the food I taught my year 8 students about was nutritious and was taught to a budget. Students are taught food in year 7 and year 8—it is part of the national curriculum —so they are very well-taught at that stage. I welcome the free school meals news, but I have heard a lot that breakfast clubs are very much a top-down, one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter approach, whereas heads are saying, “Could you just give us the money and we’ll sort out how it’s done?”
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord provided excellent food education for the pupils he was responsible for. The rollout of breakfast clubs started originally with the 750 early adopters. That was precisely about being able to identify, in a range of different schools, how we best delivered and funded breakfast clubs. While I understand the noble Lord’s call for more flexibility, and we would certainly want to maximise that where possible, we are clear that there are standards around breakfast clubs for the quality of the food provided and the period of time that club operates for. This is about food, but it is also about childcare and a good start to the school day, which have to be set centrally. Within that, I am sure as much flexibility as possible will be offered.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned procurement advice that the Government are giving with respect to free school meals. Can she update the House as to what advice they are giving to ensure that the produce consumed is locally sourced, sustainably grown and provided by identifiable local farms that the schoolchildren can interact with for their own learning benefit?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am sure the noble Earl will realise that that would not necessarily be possible in every school. I refer him to the good food cycle, the food strategy produced by my colleagues in Defra, which sets out the Government’s vision to drive better outcomes from the UK food system and particularly supports children in ensuring that there is more affordable food, good growth, a sustainable and resilient supply, and a vibrant food culture. As we have already discussed, although it is not always possible, where children’s cooking skills or school meals can be linked to local food providers as part of their education, that can only be beneficial.
Asylum Accommodation
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German
To ask His Majesty’s Government how, in expanding the use of large-scale sites for asylum accommodation, they will ensure that lessons learnt from the operation of Napier Barracks and the RAF Wethersfield sites will be applied to new facilities from the outset.
Lord German (LD)
In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw attention to my interest in that I am supported by the RAMP organisation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
The Government are confident that the level of due diligence carried out on sites has improved since 2024 and that value-for-money assessments now take place at the appropriate stage. I can assure the noble Lord that lessons have been learned from large site acquisitions that occurred under the previous Government and are now being implemented to inform our future accommodation procurement.
Lord German (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. A previous Permanent Secretary to the Home Office told a Select Committee of the House of Commons that there were a thousand lessons to be learned. I am not going to ask the Minister to outline the answers to all those thousand lessons, but can I specifically ask him about the practice of transporting people long distances to Croydon and other places, simply to have video conferencing interviews? It is an absolute waste of money; surely provision could be provided on-site.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
One of the improvements that the Government intend to make is to ensure that interviews take place on-site. That is good for cost, for the people being interviewed and for the taxpayer as a whole.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Government are proposing to spend over £1 million refurbishing the Cameron barracks in Inverness to house asylum seekers. Will he promise that there will be a similar amount of money to refurbish other barracks that are currently occupied by our soldiers?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness will know that the UK Government, with this Labour Party now as the prime mover, have invested a considerable amount of resource in improving accommodation for troops across the country, including the biggest-ever engagement in improving accommodation for service men and women in their communities. That is one thing we are trying to do. We are, at the moment, looking at Cameron barracks as one of the options. We are undertaking due diligence, and no final decisions have been taken. In the event of any decision being taken, we will make sure that the accommodation is up to a decent standard, which I think is only fair to those who are using it.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, on the question of barracks, Crowborough barracks in East Sussex is routinely used for the Kent and Sussex Army Cadet Forces as well as the local school CCFs, but it seems that the Home Office will now be turfing them out and using the barracks for accommodation for asylum seekers. At the same time, the Government say they want to support young people. Do the Government really think that this is a good example of how to treat and invest in tomorrow’s UK citizens?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As the noble Lord will know, we have announced that we wish to examine the opportunity for Crowborough barracks. We are under- taking due diligence at the moment. That involves discussions with a range of authorities, including the police, local authorities, the local health service and, indeed, the local Member of Parliament. No final decision has been taken as yet.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that servicemen’s accommodation is in the terrible state it is in because the last Government privatised it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I say to my noble friend what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering: this Labour Government have invested more money in servicepeople’s housing than any Government previously over the last few years. We have done that to upgrade housing that was left to go to wrack and ruin by the previous Government. I am proud of the fact that my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence have committed to that, have seen it through and are improving standards for service men and women across the country.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will know my view that the best barracks for sailors are ships. I am sure he would agree that the way of getting around it from that side of life is that we should order as many ships as possible as quickly as possible. Does he agree with that?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am afraid these are turning into defence questions, but I shall do my best. I simply say to my noble friend that the previous Government did invest in putting people on ships; it was called the “Bibby Stockholm”. As a result of the failures of the “Bibby Stockholm” to provide a decent standard of accommodation, one of the first actions that this Government took was to scrap it and to provide better-quality accommodation for people who were arriving in this country in large numbers, largely as a result of the failure of the last Government to achieve stopping the boats in the first place.
Women’s Health Strategy
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve women’s healthcare as part of their renewed Women’s Health Strategy for England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are committed to prioritising women’s health as we reform the NHS and have been clear that women’s health will never be neglected again. The renewed women’s health strategy will reflect on delivery since 2022, address gaps and go further on totemic issues, including health inequalities and women not feeling listened to, particularly when experiencing pain. The strategy will set this out in the context of the 10-year health plan.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that answer and for her championing of women’s health in her role. She will know that women’s health hubs have been shown to be successful in reducing gynaecological waiting lists and speeding up women’s access to care, and were highlighted as a real success in the 10-year plan. The Minister is a strong supporter of the hubs, but, while most areas now have some form of provision, the rollout has been patchy, meaning that not all women can access their services. Given the removal of the mandatory requirement for ICBs to establish hubs, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the women’s health strategy maintains a clear commitment to the long-term sustainability of women’s health hubs as part of their improved neighbourhood health services?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I very much share the noble Baroness’s assessment of the value of women’s health hubs. She will know that I have taken a considerable personal interest in this. The target to establish a women’s health hub in every ICB was the purpose of a time-limited pilot established by the last Government, and that target was met. Women’s health hubs are absolutely effective when it comes to improving access to and experiences of care for women. I have promoted them as the best example of community-based and joined-up healthcare. That is why, as the noble Baroness will have seen in the 10-year health plan, the women’s health hub in Tower Hamlets was specifically highlighted as a best-practice example of neighbourhood health, and we continue to support ICBs to improve their delivery of women’s health hubs.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the latest data from October this year shows that there are over 576,000 women on gynaecology waiting lists and there were 130,000 new referrals in October. How will the Government address this unacceptable wait in the refreshed strategy?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My examination of the gynaecology waiting lists shows a gradual decline since August 2023. However, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness that the waiting lists are far too long: it is unacceptable. We are now seeing 57% of gynaecology referrals being seen within 18 weeks, compared with 62% across all specialities. I do not want to hide behind improvement, welcome though it is, but we also know that almost nine out of 10 women on the gynaecology waiting lists are waiting for an outpatient appointment. That is why the big change through the 10-year plan is absolutely crucial, as we move from hospital to community. In the women’s health strategy renewal we will be focusing very much on improvement of gynaecology care. I share the noble Baroness’s view on that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, looking beyond gynaecology at women’s healthcare overall, do the Government recognise the importance of public health messaging? Breast cancer is the leading cause of mortality in 30 to 50 year-olds. Often it is diagnosed late, yet there are some important public health initiatives such as good diagrams in women’s changing rooms in large stores. I hesitate to mention the name of one chain —although I am tempted to—where there are excellent diagrams to help women understand that, if they have any symptoms at all, they should seek help. There are similar messages about mental health in places that women go. It means we are dealing with women in a more holistic way, irrespective of age.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right, and we are taking every opportunity to find the right ways to communicate with women about their healthcare. If I had to give a big message, it would be, “Don’t not put up with it”. That is a basic challenge to get across, because so many women do put up with health challenges when they should not. Many women’s health challenges have become normalised—“It’s just part of life, it’s your age” and so on—and I am very keen that, in the renewed women’s health strategy, we will take on that myth and also take on the services to match that.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for this Question and pay tribute to her consistent championing of women’s health issues. I also thank her for discussing the particular concerns behind this Question with me. I am sorry to return to gynaecology, but the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has raised concerns that cervical screening coverage remains well below NHS targets. Cancer Research says that low attendance is particularly evident in particular groups: the youngest as well as the oldest age group, and women from poor socioeconomic and ethnic minority backgrounds. Can the Minister update the House on how we can reach those women and encourage them to come forward for screening, particularly by working with local charities and community organisations that understand their communities far better?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This is a very important point. The 10-year health plan restated the aim of eliminating cervical cancer by 2040 through the improved uptake of cervical screening and HPV vaccination. To the specific point, which is such an important one, in June—not many months ago—we announced that screening providers can offer home testing kits to underscreened individuals in the exact groups that the noble Lord refers to. I believe this will help tackle deeply entrenched barriers that keep some people away from life-saving screening. I am sure the whole House will reflect on the wise words and advice of His Majesty the King in imploring us all to take up the screening opportunities that there are. I certainly agree with that.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, as noble Lords will know, women over the age of 50 are particularly susceptible to fractures as a result of osteoporosis. The Government have announced that they are going to have fracture liaison services throughout the country by 2030. I wonder whether, as part of the women’s health strategy, the Government could begin the rollout of the fracture liaison services urgently.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As my noble friend rightly observes, the Government have committed to rolling out fracture liaison services across every part of the country by 2030. We already expect musculoskeletal services to be fully incorporated into integrated care planning and decision-making. I am also glad that, since 2022, NICE has recommended two new drugs for treatment. The women’s health strategy will look at what gaps there are in the original strategy, but this is one area in which progress is already committed to.
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the women’s health strategy should be clear that female genital mutilation is an abhorrent practice and a crime? Has she seen the article in the British Medical Journal suggesting that it should be rebranded as “female genital practices” and somehow normalised? Will she be clear that the Government will have no truck with this and that the Department of Health will produce a proper rebuttal, so that this argument does not gain any traction in our country? It is a worry that this is happening to young British girls, whether here or overseas. We have to stop the practice and carry on the good work that the Government I led put in place.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his clear and powerful points. I certainly agree about the abhorrence of this practice and its total unacceptability and illegality in our country. I can say to him that this is a cross-government matter. I work closely with Ministers in other departments and will continue to do so to ensure that policies across many departments deal with the matter of FGM in the way that he describes. We cannot allow it to have any continued existence in this country.
National Plan to End Homelessness
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bird
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether new funding allocations to local authorities are sufficient to deliver the prevention commitments in the National Plan to End Homelessness.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, last week the Government launched their £3.5 billion national plan to end homelessness, a bold initiative informed by the voices of those with lived experience of homelessness and rough sleeping, as well as councils, mayors and homelessness organisations. Over £3 billion of that funding will go to local government through the local government finance settlement, with prevention at its core. The strategy is designed to tackle the root causes of homelessness alongside immediate action to help those experiencing homelessness now. It will bring an end to the current tension that forces councils to choose between investment in prevention and meeting temporary accommodation costs.
Lord Bird (CB)
With £2.8 billion spent on temporary accommodation in the last year by local authorities, forcing many of them towards bankruptcy, the £2.5 billion the Government have allocated, even if you look upon it as trying to cover the costs, is 28% short of the actual cost of temporary accommodation for local authorities. Are the Government going to do anything about allocating enough resources so that we do not have this situation where people are left on the streets because there is no temporary accommodation, and do not have the problem of our local authorities going bankrupt?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful for all the work the noble Lord has done in this area. The Government are very aware of the challenges councils face due to the rising demand for temporary accommodation; it has been growing in recent years and is a real challenge for them. We are committed to considering the best way to sustainably fund good-quality temporary accommodation and reduce reliance on poor-quality provision. To support this, we are working across government, including with our colleagues in the DWP, in the interministerial group on homelessness and rough sleeping to explore the impacts of subsidy rates on local authorities. This week we will announce the local government finance settlement—the first multi-year settlement in a decade—giving councils the certainty they have repeatedly asked for to enable more spending on prevention and less on crisis management. That is the answer to this in the long term.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the welcome national plan identifies newly recognised refugees leaving asylum support accommodation as being particularly vulnerable to homelessness, yet says nothing about the 28-day move-on period, although local authorities and voluntary organisations have criticised it as a key cause of homelessness because it does not give newly recognised refugees long enough to find independent accommodation. Will my noble friend therefore impress on the Home Office the importance of reverting to the 56 days it piloted and emphasise the importance of this to the Government’s homelessness strategy?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
What my noble friend says is indicative of the issues we have in this area of making sure that we work across government to solve some of these problems. The Home Office has committed to strengthening data-sharing processes with councils for 100% of newly granted refugees at risk of homelessness within two days of a discontinuation of asylum support notification. This supports early intervention by enabling councils to commence homelessness assessments. We will continue to monitor the impact of all the policies, including refugee move-on, hotel occupancy, asylum accommodation costs, local community impacts and pressures on local authorities and public services. It is important that we work across government and with our partners to improve that move- on support and reduce the risk of homelessness.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister will know, one of the groups hit hardest by homelessness has been young people. Many charitable groups, such as Centrepoint, are trying to look at a different size standard so that it can be developed at a lower cost. I want to be very clear that it is only charitable organisations. What work have the Government done to support this work to see whether it is viable?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We had some long debates during the planning Bill about the size of accommodation and the stepping-stone type of accommodation provided in some parts of the country. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, initiated those discussions. We are still discussing those issues because they are very important, as the noble Lord says. Specific content within the homelessness strategy focuses on the issues of young people, building on the national youth strategy, and will give young people the skills, connections and opportunities they need to thrive, with a key focus on prevention of homelessness among young people. We want to develop a cross- government action plan with measurable targets to reduce homelessness, particularly among care leavers under 25. We are working on this. The noble Lord makes an important point about the size of accommodation. It is still under discussion, and I will keep him in the picture on that.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, there is a real issue around the allocation of funding for homelessness prevention. While the strategy helpfully recognises this and commits to some adjustments, we still have no published needs-based formula. When will we get one? Will it set out how rent levels, housing supply and market-measured pressures are weighted? Does the Minister agree that without this it is really hard to judge whether allocations are fair and transparent and genuinely reflect local need?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is very important that we continue to work with local authorities in tackling this problem. Under the new strategy, every council will publish a tailored action plan alongside its local homelessness strategy, with local targets and key outcomes. That will feed into the national picture so we can make sure that we are targeting the funding where it most needs to go. The new formulas we have devised for the local government finance settlement, which will be published later this week, are focused on making sure that the money goes where the need is and where there is less ability to raise additional funds through council tax. We are working very hard on making sure that the funding goes where the need is, and we will continue to do that. With councils now being able to set their own targets on this, we will be able to feed those into some more national targeting.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I welcome the continued investment of £185 million allocated to the rough sleeping drug and alcohol treatment programme from 2026 to 2029. But what progress has been made towards this Government’s safer streets and opportunity missions to improve support and early intervention, particularly for children and young people who are struggling with the dual crises of substance abuse and experiencing homelessness? Is this work one of the factors being used to determine which additional councils will receive this new funding?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Two pieces of work are going on here around the homelessness strategy and the child poverty strategy. Having set up a Housing First scheme in my local authority when I was a council leader, I know it is very important that you do not tackle just one issue. The roof over the head is key but so is support for complex needs. That is why homelessness is such a complex issue—you have to tackle the underlying issues. Those issues can be drug and alcohol abuse, poor mental health, financial capacity, chaotic lifestyles or any combination of those factors. All these things have to be worked on at the same time, which is why it is crucial that we have the interministerial working group. It is working across departments to tackle all these issues together so that we can make a real impact on homelessness.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, homelessness is a scandal in all parts of these islands. Is there not more scope for taking unused or underutilised buildings within local or central government and using the capital value of them to release the funds necessary to modify them and find an urgent answer to a problem that, at Christmastime, we should all be aware of?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord about the scandal of homelessness. That is exacerbated in the wintertime. Of course, we want to see both more homes and more buildings generally brought back into use. The Government’s strategy on delivering more housing is looking at this from a number of different angles. Local authorities already have a wide range of powers available to help tackle long-term empty homes. We are committed to empowering their use. We outlined in the English devolution White Paper the intent to strengthen the ability to take over the management of empty homes. We will review how effectively social housing providers use their properties. This is really important. There can be nothing more demoralising if you have not got anywhere to live than to walk along streets and see empty homes. We have to tackle this; we were left with an absolute crisis and this Government are determined to make a real difference in this area.
Retirement and Participation Committee
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That: (1) It is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider and make recommendations on— (a) a retirement age, and (b) a participation requirement, for members of the House of Lords. (2) In relation to these issues the Committee shall consider and report to the House on— (a) the impact of a retirement age on the House and, in particular, its size and functioning, (b) the impact of a participation requirement on the House and, in particular, its membership and functioning, and (c) options for the implementation of a retirement age and participation requirement including without primary legislation and that these options should include transitional measures, where appropriate. (3) The Committee do report by 31 July 2026.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, in July I informed the House of my intention to set up a formal mechanism by which the House could consider the issues in the Government’s manifesto regarding retirement from the House and participation in our proceedings. The debates on these matters formed a significant part of our discussion on the hereditary Peers Bill and led to many noble Lords from all parties beating a path to my door, and to those of other noble Lords, with some constructive—and at times creative—suggestions for reform of the House.
In listening to that debate and those representations, I have formed the view that the House should be given the opportunity to take some ownership of how these issues could be taken forward. Following discussion and debate, I propose that a Select Committee be set up to make recommendations on retirement and participation, and to consider what steps can be taken on these measures without primary legislation and what would require primary legislation. The Motion gives effect to the commitment I made to your Lordships’ House, and I am pleased to inform the House that this has been agreed in the usual channels. I hope that this is self-explanatory, but I would like to stress three points that may be helpful.
First, the committee is time-limited. As many noble Lords noted during the debate and since, Lords reform has a rather long and impressive history of making progress quite slowly. I have therefore sought to give the committee a tight but realistic timeline for its work.
Secondly, the committee will consider the impact of these measures not only on the size of this House, but also how it functions. For example, the committee could consider the cliff edge of retirement provisions as well as other impacts.
Thirdly, the Motion specifically asks the committee to look at non-legislative solutions, as well as those that will require primary legislation. This will allow the House to move forward with consensual and pragmatic reform in good time. I look forward to hearing the committee’s recommendations. I beg to move.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that this is the occasion for a lengthy intervention, but I would like to make it clear to the House that this has been discussed in usual channels, as the Leader said. These are matters that potentially touch upon hundreds of our Members, and the consensual and pragmatic approach that she has spoken about is one that will commend itself to the House generally. The Opposition will give full support to the Select Committee in its work.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am not sure that there is much more to say, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way that the usual channels across the House have conducted these discussions. I do not suppose that we will get everybody agreeing with everything all the time, but if there is a willingness to make progress, we can do so, and I am grateful for the support on that.
Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitehead
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 October and 24 November be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 15 December.
Building Safety Regulator (Establishment of New Body and Transfer of Functions etc.) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 November be approved.
Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 December.
US National Security Strategy
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the new US strategy makes it even more vital that the UK remains a key part of European and global defence. As the new head of MI6 reminded us yesterday, threats to us and our allies are increasing, and it is surely abundantly clear that we need to step up against the threat posed by both Russia and China. We should be serious about spending 3% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament, so can I ask the Minister whether she can confirm whether it is the Government’s ambition to reach 3% and whether the Treasury has a funded plan to do so?
Secondly, the US strategy is particularly clear about the nature of the Chinese Communist Party regime threat. That contrasts with this Government, who cannot seem to decide whether or not China is a threat. We have seen recent reports that the Government are poised to approve China’s new super-embassy spy hub, presumably when the House is in recess. Could the Minister confirm whether the US Government have expressed any concerns to this Government about the potential approval of that application?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington)
My Lords, the Government’s ambition is to spend 3% of GDP on defence and 5% on security by 2035. On China, our position is clear and has been consistent, unlike that of the previous Government, where we will compete, co-operate and challenge as appropriate. The US Administration, to my knowledge, have not expressed an opinion on a planning application.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who lived in the United States for four years and has spent a lot of time since then working on US-UK and transatlantic relations. The Government should not underestimate the seriousness of what is behind this. We have three more years of a Trump presidency. In terms of the ideas behind it, can I recommend to the Minister the piece that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Belgravia, wrote for Policy Exchange the other week, defending Churchill against those on the MAGA right in the United States who now see Churchill as a warmonger who should have made peace with Hitler in 1940 and who dragged the United States into an unnecessary European war? In view of the isolationist, back-to-the-1930s, “America first” moves going on within the American right, with the echoes of white supremacism and Christian nationalism of the southern states, do the Government not need to be a great deal braver to start the national conversation that the SDR called for about the new circumstances for national security, in which we are to move earlier with an increase in defence spending than it has so far said, and to be much more positive about closer links with our European neighbours and the European Union, both in security and economics?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My view on Churchill is very straightforward: we are immensely grateful, proud and in awe of the way he led this country through an incredibly difficult period in our history. Obviously, there are complexities and people have views, and there are many people far better placed to give an opinion on Churchill’s legacy than me, but that is my view and I think it is consistent with the view of the Government.
The noble Lord urges us to be closer to our European allies and partners. He is right to do that, and we have reset our relationship with the European Union, I think quite successfully. It has its own positions, and we are rebuilding what was quite a fractured relationship. It is now much more constructive, and we are working together on some very difficult issues, not least the defence of Ukraine. But I do not see it as a question of having to choose between the US and the EU. It is important—indeed, it is our responsibility and our global duty, actually—to step up, as the UK is, and act as a bridge between the EU and the United States and to make sure that we maintain the very best of relationships with both.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, last week the US Congress, on a bipartisan basis, passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed by the President on Thursday night. That Act commits US troops to Europe, highlights that it sees Russia as a threat not only to Europe but to the United States, and commits the US to providing the senior military figure for SACEUR, the commander of NATO. Does my noble friend agree that we should be looking at actions rather than some of the wild statements coming from the White House?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. While we must not disregard, of course, statements that are made, I do think it important that we focus on the work we can do together in a pragmatic way. As he says, let us focus on the things we do, not just the things that are said.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while we might strongly contest some of the claims made in this strategy, it would be wrong to dismiss it totally out of hand, not least because it reflects deeper shifts in American opinion, not just an aberration of a single presidency, and that it clearly demonstrates that the Government are not doing nearly enough quickly enough to improve European defence capabilities? Taking the strategy at its own words, have the Government inquired of the White House how it squares the assertion:
“It is a core interest of the United States to negotiate an expeditious cessation of hostilities in Ukraine”
with its earlier claim that
“we stand for the sovereign rights of nations”?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are very close to our friends in the United States on the issue of Ukraine. We support the efforts to bring about the peace that President Trump is currently leading, and the progress that may be being made in that. We will continue to work incredibly closely alongside them to bring about the peace that we all want to see.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I was in Washington DC last week with other members of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and when the national security strategy was discussed with our fellow elected members in the US, their message was clear: that NSSs come and go, sometimes they are implemented and sometimes not, but we should judge by what Congress passes. Last week, the National Defense Authorization Act delivered an extra £8 billion to European defence and put a floor of some 76,000 US troops in Europe. While the Minister will not have done an assessment of the NDAA, will she write to me with that assessment and put a copy in the Library?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am sure that my friends and colleagues at the MoD will be undertaking such an assessment, and I will pass that request on to them. I think they are best placed to do that, but as the noble Lord said, there are many complex things going on in politics in any country, and the US is no different.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister admit that there is a really rather sharp discrepancy between the lack of virtually any mention in the national security strategy of relations with Russia, and what was said by the head of MI6 and the Chief of the Defence Staff here yesterday, with which I strongly concur: that Russia, having invaded a European country, is a genuine threat to this country? Should we not be discussing this rather wide discrepancy with the United States?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Clearly, it is for the United States to make its own assessment of risks to the US. We have, as my noble friend says, made our own assessment of the threat Russia poses. We do of course discuss these things constantly with the US, but as I say, it is for the US to make its own judgments about the threat to it.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I would not expect my noble friend to pass public judgment on the national security strategy of the United States—that is a matter for the US—but it is a remarkable document. Although I am reassured by what my noble friend said about what happened in Congress last week, nevertheless, the UK and Europe must react to it. Will my noble friend reassure the House that the Government will look even more urgently at preserving certain sovereign capabilities in critical areas such as defence, space and critical national infrastructure? This is a new world to which we must adapt accordingly.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is right that the world has changed, and it had changed before the most recent strategy was published. Decisions had already been taken by this Government and others to increase spending on defence and security more generally. Principally, that has of course been driven by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, but we must also take into account the words of and decisions being made by other allies and partners.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, what work are the Government doing with the United States to secure the freedom of Jimmy Lai?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Jimmy Lai ought to be freed, and freed immediately—we are clear about that. We will take any diplomatic steps that we need to take to reinforce that message. The Foreign Secretary is clear about that; the Prime Minister is clear about that.
NHS: Winter Preparedness
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I want to ask the Minister about two cohorts in respect of which there are concerns about vaccination levels. The first is front-line health workers. Is the Minister aware of what percentage have been vaccinated and what action is being taken to improve the uptake of vaccinations, particularly among those front-line health workers? I know that there are stories and concerns expressed in the press about the rate of vaccination. On the second cohort, will the Minister tell the House which socio-economic or ethnic groups have the lowest update? What targeted plans does the department and NHS England have to increase uptake rates in these groups?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
First, we have started earlier and done more than ever before to prepare for the winter pressures. The good news is that the flu vaccines are working well to protect people against severe disease, and they are certainly working well in comparison to how they used to. In fact, we are the first country in the world to show vaccines working this well. On the uptake of vaccinations, 60,000 more NHS staff have been vaccinated this year than last year, which is extremely welcome. We have delivered over 17 million flu vaccines, which is tens of thousands more than we had delivered this time last year. We have a particular programme of communication and support and availability to those groups which are less likely to take up vaccinations. Vaccinations are our best line of defence against RSV and flu. I will be pleased to provide more detailed information to the noble Lord.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, given that not all babies are currently able to benefit from protection under the two-pronged approach to the RSV programme, what efforts will be made to ensure that other babies, such as those born to unvaccinated mothers, who remain at risk, will be included in any extension to the RSV vaccination programme?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I know my noble friend is very familiar with the maternal RSV programme, not least because of her campaigning, for which I pay tribute to her. It only began in September, and it is already proving successful. We want to see more pregnant women being vaccinated; we have updated and made available information resources in 30 languages for better access to vaccinations. We encourage maternity services to have early discussions with pregnant women about vaccination, and we ensure that training is in place to allow staff to have the knowledge and confidence to address concerns and build confidence. I hope that this answer is helpful not just to my noble friend but to the noble Lord.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I do not believe for one moment that the Minister is complacent. In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, the reason why the staff vaccination rate is up from last year is because it was at an all-time low of less than 30%, down from 2020 when it was 75%. There are still 750,000 healthcare workers who have not had the flu vaccine and who are unprotected. Based on that figure, what extra steps will the Government take to further incentivise take-up by NHS staff to prevent the crippling of service delivery when it most needed?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite right. We have to protect our staff, who are under immense pressure and are not just at risk from flu but seeking to tackle the extra pressures of industrial action. We are focused on making vaccines available to staff in the easiest way possible. We will continue to do so. I should add that we are considering options on implementing advice to expand vaccinations to the over-80s and, in particular, older adult care residents to ensure that any change has the best possible impact. It is important that we continue to drive vaccination rates up. That will protect staff who are providing the care. As the noble Lord said, we also have to continue our programme to encourage NHS staff to take up the vaccine.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, one of the biggest winter pressures on the NHS is the forthcoming strike, which will have an impact on patients, of course, but it will also have a further extremely damaging impact on the crucial consultant cohort which has to cover throughout these periods, many of whom are now simply looking for a way out. What is going to be done to improve the morale and retention of this vital resource?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
In my view, the BMA has chosen Christmas strikes to inflict damage on the NHS at a moment of maximum challenge. It has refused to postpone them to January, which would have helped patients and other NHS staff, as the noble and gallant Lord referred to, to cope over Christmas. At present, our position is that the offer that we made to prevent those strikes happening has not been accepted, as the noble and gallant Lord will know. We are now reviewing where we are going to go. We completely understand the effect on morale and the exhaustion among staff who are covering. We are managing that to the best of our ability. I am most grateful to NHS staff in supporting us to be ready for winter and tackling the industrial action’s effects.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, can I press the Minister a little on the reasons why NHS staff are reluctant to get vaccinated? The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, drew attention to the very low vaccination rate. What are the top reasons for those barriers? What is the Minister doing about it as a matter of urgency, given the significant numbers of people contracting flu this season?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Among NHS staff, as in other groups, there is a vaccine hesitancy. It is not specific and particular to NHS staff but, as we have discussed a number of times in this Chamber, there is perhaps a misunderstanding about vaccines’ efficacy. We also have to acknowledge that conspiracy theorists across the internet continue to have a hold. We saw that throughout Covid. Our job with NHS staff, as with members of the public, is to make it easy and possible to get vaccinations, and to make people feel confident and informed about why they need them and how they support not just them but the people around them. That is particularly important for NHS staff. The noble Lord will be aware that we cannot demand that people have vaccinations, but we absolutely want to encourage maximum take-up.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, many parents shielding their children who have had serious illnesses are having to pay up to £90 each for a Covid jab. Many of those families do not have those resources, so their children are put at risk. Will the Minister look at that?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend will be aware that we take advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation about to whom, when, and where jabs are available on a range of matters, including Covid. The committee keeps that constantly under review. Our immediate threat is in respect of flu and RSV; in particular, flu cases are rising, which is why we are closely monitoring the situation, as well as having prepared more extensively and providing more additional support than we have ever done before.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, when it comes to influenza, the focus is often on droplet transmission, but there is also evidence of aerosol transmission, with the deeper lung deposition resulting in greater potency in initiating infections. That means that ventilation and air filtration are hugely important. How would the noble Baroness assess the levels of air ventilation and air filtration in hospitals and other medical settings, and, more broadly, in schools? Are the Government looking to improve that to help deal with all the respiratory infections that we face?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I cannot give the noble Baroness a specific answer, but I will be very happy to write to her. She will know how much improvement needs to be made to the estate. She will also be aware of the extra money that the Government have committed. Those decisions are local matters, but she raises a much wider and national matter, and I will be pleased to write to her further.
Employment Rights Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 120N and 120P to 120S, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 120T.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I will also speak to Motion A1. Throughout the passage of this Bill, which arrived in your Lordships’ House nine months ago yesterday, we have scrutinised, deliberated and debated all areas. Once again, I thank noble Lords for fulfilling their scrutiny role and, in the course of doing so, providing their invaluable insight.
However, we are now in round 4 of ping-pong on a Bill that the Government have a clear electoral mandate to deliver. We cannot be accused of attempting to push the Bill through without listening to the concerns raised by noble Lords. We are immensely grateful for the more than 60 occasions on which noble Lords have engaged with us, offering rigorous scrutiny and thoughtful challenge. It is because of this valuable feedback that the Government have been able to act and make changes where appropriate, including through technical amendments in Committee and on Report and the publication of an implementation road map outlining what the Government will consult on, when, and at what point new rights are expected to go live.
The Government are pleased to have found commonality in the three previous rounds of ping-pong on 11 of the 12 issues the House asked the Government to look at again. The contributions of noble Lords from across the House have helped bring forward solutions on a range of specific issues, from heritage railways to paid time off for special constables. On a number of other issues, such as the right to be accompanied, the Government have made non-legislative commitments which noble Lords have recognised as important progress. Most recently, during ping-pong, the Government brought forward amendments to the Bill on zero-hours contracts, seasonal work, trade union ballot thresholds and trade union political funds, which will help to ensure that stakeholders’ views and insights are represented in the final policy outcomes as we shift into the implementation phase for this Bill.
On the final issue of unfair dismissal, in the face of successive Lords votes against day-one rights to protection from unfair dismissal, itself a manifesto commitment, the Government took the extraordinary step of convening a series of constructive conversations between business representative organisations and trade unions, which reached a workable agreement on the unfair dismissal provisions. Yesterday, those representatives—from the British Chambers of Commerce, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, Small Business Britain, the Federation of Small Businesses, and the Confederation of British Industry—wrote to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, stating that the outcome of the dialogue
“represented a significant step forward which will have a positive impact on growth and opportunities”.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 120U as an amendment to Commons Amendment 120G, in lieu of Amendment 120N, and Amendments 120V to 120Y as amendments to Commons Amendment 120H, in lieu of Amendments 120P to 120S—
“(3) In section 124 (limit of compensatory award etc.), for subsection (1ZA) substitute—
“(1ZA) The amount specified in this subsection is £118,223.
(1ZB) Within three months of the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 is passed, the Secretary of State must conduct an impact assessment of the change to the limit specified in subsection (1ZA) made by that Act in order to assess whether the limit specified in subsection (1ZA) is the appropriate amount.
(1ZC) An impact assessment under subsection (1ZB) must consider the effect of the change to that limit on—
(a) the ability of claimants to obtain fair compensation,
(b) the operation and capacity of employment tribunals,
(c) the willingness of parties to settle claims without recourse to a tribunal, and
(d) public sector employers and public expenditure.
(1ZD) An impact assessment under subsection (1ZB) must include a consultation with—
(a) employers’ organisations,
(b) trade unions,
(c) organisations representing employment law practitioners, and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.””
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister has just said, yesterday a letter was sent to Members of the House by six major business organisations, setting out precisely what many of us said in the Chamber last week. That letter makes one thing abundantly clear: the Government did misrepresent when they claimed that the abolition of both compensation caps was agreed between businesses and the trade unions.
The agreement—I choose that word carefully—was to remove the 52-week salary cap while retaining and increasing the overall monetary cap, which is currently just over £118,000. That was the compromise that was understood by the business community, but the Government have now chosen not only to abandon that agreement but to misrepresent it to the House. To prove that point, I will quote from the same letter from the six business organisations, which states:
“Unfortunately, we have not been able to reach a compromise that satisfies both the unions’ request for removal of the cash cap and our position of retaining it while raising the overall limit”.
This is made all the more serious by the Government compounding the error by behaving unconstitutionally. The removal of the compensation cap was introduced at ping-pong, having been debated at no previous stage of this Bill, neither in your Lordships’ House nor in another place. This House exists to scrutinise legislation, not to rubber-stamp late-stage surprises, still less ones accompanied by misleading assurances.
Let me be clear about the Conservative Motion that is tabled in my name. It reflects precisely the agreement that business groups believed they had reached with the Government: the removal of the 52-week cap, coupled with the retention and review of the overall monetary limit. There is no credible reason that the Minister can give for the Government to not accept it.
The Motion also provides for a formal review and proper consultation. I remind the House that, when the cap was increased under the Labour Government in 1999, that change followed consultation. When the coalition Government introduced a 52-week gross salary cap in 2015, the same approach was taken. There is no reason whatever why the Government should not proceed in the same careful, evidence-based manner again.
It is the Government’s choice, and theirs alone, to delay this legislation by introducing an entirely new issue at this final stage and then attempting to justify it on the basis of an agreement that did not exist. It is also wholly wrong for the TUC, the Minister in another place and others to attack hereditary Peers for doing precisely what they, like all noble Lords, are here to do: scrutinise legislation. It is also worth noting that the criticism of hereditary Peers was unfairly universal. No thanks were offered to at least one Liberal Democrat hereditary Peer who backed the Government.
If the 65 Labour Peers who were absent last week had attended, the Government would have likely prevailed. However, I rather suspect that some of them might have developed cold feet once they realised that they were being asked to support multimillion-pound payouts to water bosses and failed senior executives in financial institutions. Perhaps absence in this case was a mercy.
Over the weekend, the latest employment tribunal statistics were published. They are stark. There are now over 515,000 open cases, and that figure will rise, not fall, as a result of this decision. Why? Because well-resourced senior executives advised by the very best lawyers will now enter the system in greater numbers, clogging up tribunals, prolonging hearings and consuming judicial time. The inevitable consequence is that ordinary working people, many of whom have a legitimate and modest claim, will wait longer for justice or be denied it altogether.
This debate does not take place in a vacuum. Unemployment has risen again this month, as it has every month under this Government. Nearly 2 million people are now unemployed, this Christmas there will be 192,000 fewer in private sector payrolled employment than last Christmas, and young people are bearing the brunt. At a time when their futures are already being crushed by rising costs, weaker growth and dwindling opportunities, the Government choose to inject yet more uncertainty into the labour market. What on earth do Ministers think they are doing? Instead of encouraging job creation, they are creating incentives for litigation, delay and risk—precisely the opposite of what a fragile jobs market requires.
I say to the Liberal Democrats that it is a curious position to demand that water company bosses be dismissed while simultaneously supporting a policy that could hand such individuals eye-watering compensation. Something does not add up. What we are seeing instead is the Liberal Democrats choosing to form a coalition of chaos with the Government and abandoning British business, working people and the constitutional role of your Lordships’ House. In fact, according to data published by the Liberal Democrats themselves just last year, executives of water companies in England collected some £70 million in remuneration between 2021 and 2023, including nearly £41 million in bonuses. One is therefore entitled to ask why, in the space of a single week, their position appears to have shifted so dramatically. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Fox, can explain this sudden change of heart.
The Government have claimed that removing the compensation cap will not affect the level of awards. The Ministry of Justice’s own data shows that the median award of just under £7,000 is derived from just 650 tribunal awards. Yet each year there are many thousands of potential unfair dismissal claims, the overwhelming majority of which never reach the point of an award because they are settled long before they reach that stage. The reason those cases settle is the existence of a statutory maximum. The cap provides a known endpoint and encourages realism from both parties. Remove that ceiling and settlement becomes vastly more difficult. Claims run longer, positions harden and costs escalate—and tribunals, which are already overwhelmed, are left to pick up the pieces.
Even President Macron recognised that the absence of such a cap was harming French competitiveness and introduced one in 2017. It is a sorry state of affairs when France has something to teach a British Government about competitiveness. The only country in Europe without a statutory cap on unfair dismissal compensation is Luxembourg, which has a youth unemployment rate of 20%.
I have a few questions for the Minister. What conversations have Ministers had with the financial services sector, where concern about this change is profound? Will the promised impact assessment be serious, comprehensive and honest, and will it include the risk of opportunistic and speculative claims, the increased burden on the public sector and the likely cost to the taxpayer? The original Employment Rights Bill impact assessment was, frankly, inadequate—a fact recognised by the Regulatory Policy Committee, which issued a red rating. Will the Government now guarantee that the impact assessment on abolishing the compensation cap will not meet the same fate and that it will be detailed, rigorous and transparent? If it becomes clear, as many of us fear, that the removal of the cap leads to tribunal congestion, rising costs and injustice for ordinary workers, will the Government commit to reintroducing a cap, as President Macron did? Finally, will Ministers undertake to consult properly with employment law practitioners, the majority of whom oppose this decision, alongside businesses both large and small?
In conclusion, because of the Conservative Party a six-month qualifying period has been secured. However, that alone does not remedy the fundamental flaws of the Bill. The £5 billion cost remains. The costs of a raft of 1970s-style trade union reforms have not been properly identified, let alone accounted for, by the Government, and I repeat that all this is against a backdrop of rising unemployment. Let me be completely clear: the next Conservative Government will repeal every job-destroying, anti-business measure in this unemployment Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned part of the letter written to the Business Secretary yesterday by six business groups including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce. What he did not mention is that the letter from those groups also said that
“now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill”,
despite their concerns. That seems to be a much wiser approach than that adopted by the Conservative Front Bench—not least because Motion A1 raises no great issue of principle. It raises a request for an impact assessment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, at Second Reading in March—nine months ago, although it feels longer ago—I said that
“the Bill will damage growth and, most importantly, the employment opportunities of the most vulnerable people”.—[Official Report, 27/3/25; col. 1907.]
After nine months of debate and scrutiny, it is less damaging, but I still believe it is not a good Bill. It still piles cost and regulation on businesses and on the public sector at a time when we should be doing exactly the opposite.
But this House has done its job well and responsibly. We have pointed out the unintended consequences that the Bill may have, the potential damage to the employment prospects of the young and others, and the disproportionate impact on the backbone of our economy—smaller businesses. We have given the other place several opportunities to think again and, to be fair, it has done so in a number of areas. In particular, the Government have compromised on what I believe was the most damaging aspect, day-one dismissal rights.
We have also quite rightly registered our constitutional disapproval of the introduction of a material change at the very last minute—the abolition of the cap on unfair dismissal, which is the subject of Motion A. The Minister stated last week that the amendments were “context- and Bill-specific”. I take this and her reference to
“discussions with the Leader of the House on how she and other Members would like to conduct business more regularly”—[Official Report, 10/12/25; col. 276.]
as confirmation that the Government accept that this should never be seen as a precedent. This House would be right to reject it if it were ever used as a precedent in the future.
I have a lot of sympathy with the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, but I am afraid I will not support it at this stage. We are in danger of over- egging the impact of the removal of the cap. I do not support it, but the water bosses, for example, will be remunerated if they are fired for contractual reasons, which is unlimited anyway. It is not going to be under the unfair dismissal rules. I am not convinced that it makes an enormous difference, but the noble Lord is quite right that we do not have an impact assessment yet.
Despite our giving it the opportunity to think again on many aspects, the other place has disagreed with our changes and decided that it wants to go ahead. That now also includes the cap on unfair dismissal claims. The time has come for us in this House to respect the will of the elected Chamber and let the Bill pass, regardless of any remaining concerns that I and many others still have. I will vote against the amendment for that reason.
I end with a final plea to the Minister. She will be aware of the latest employment figures and the worsening trend. She will also be aware that what the ONS described as this “subdued labour market” is disproportionately affecting young people. We should all be very concerned about that. The Resolution Foundation is also clear on this:
“As is typical in economic downturns, young people have been hit hardest. With unemployment expected to stay elevated, Government should be cautious about any further increases in labour costs”.
Much of the implementation of this Bill will be by regulation, which will follow over the coming years. I urge the Minister to ensure that the concerns that have been raised in this House and elsewhere are kept front and centre, and that the unintended consequences that may arise, especially for young people, are thought through very carefully while the regulations are being created.
It was encouraging that the Government listened to business organisations in the later stages of the Bill, especially around the unfair dismissal question. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Government continue to listen constructively to the concerns of those who will create the growth and jobs that will drive the economy, and especially that they make a much greater effort to hear the concerns of smaller businesses which are feeling rather ignored and concerned at the moment. That said, it is time to let the Bill pass.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this time last week I said that much had happened in the preceding interval. Today, the opposite is true. We are now down to one issue, but the arguments on that issue remain as they were last week. For that reason, unlike last week, this speech will be short.
There remain concerns about the removal of the cap on compensation, as we have heard. As he did last week, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has taken those concerns and amplified them, to the seeming exclusion of the wider strategic position of what we are discussing. I understand the motives, and those motives became ever clearer just now. If the noble Lord would like to have a face-off on the water industry, I would be very happy to discuss with him the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of sewage that went into the rivers under the Conservative Government and the compensation terms that he very helpfully enumerated, which happened on his watch. However, this is not the arena for that argument, and I will pass without comment. My critique of the noble Lord’s amendment to the Motion is unchanged. We believe there are better ways of dealing with the cap than derailing the package that got the key concession with which we are all very pleased.
As set out last week, reiterated in the Minister’s letter and by the Minister just now, the Government will publish an enactment impact assessment for the Bill. They will do so prior to commencement regulations which would put in place the dismissal package. That was what we on these Benches were asking for and we were pleased to receive that assurance. Further, the impact assessment will be publicly available, and I was pleased to hear the Minister say that we will be engaging the community of business in the process of developing that impact assessment.
Many UK business associations and organisations share the feeling that there is nothing to be gained from the opposition amendment today. They are asking the opposite. As the Minister set out, six of the major organisations have sent a letter. It is a longish letter, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, demonstrated by selectively picking elements out of it. But as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, the conclusion is clear and actually unambiguous, in saying,
“we believe that the best way forward is to keep working with the government and trade unions to find balanced solutions through secondary legislation. To avoid losing the 6 months qualifying period, we therefore believe that now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill”.
I said that last week, and it is truer this week.
I also pointed out last week that, as the business organisations said, the key to enacting the Bill will be through secondary legislation. If His Majesty’s loyal Opposition care about how the Bill is brought into life, it is on those statutory instruments that they should focus their attention. Their critical actions must extend to include the possibility of fatal Motions to vote down secondary legislation and keep the Government focused on the needs of British business. That is the real arena that we should be working in.
If the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is put to a vote and he seeks to extend ping-pong to yet another round, that will clearly be against the advice of the business groups which have been cited. I urge your Lordships to heed the advice of those organisations, and the advice of the noble Lords that we have heard opposite, and pass the Bill now.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I again thank your Lordships’ House for its attentive scrutiny throughout the passage of the Bill. There can be no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, mentioned, that this House has discharged its duties as a revising Chamber. Your Lordships’ House asked the Government to look again, and we have worked collaboratively with noble Lords to reach this agreement. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Pannick and Lord Vaux, for their speeches in favour of the compromise proposed by the Government.
I turn to a number of the issues raised, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I remind noble Lords that negotiations are successful only where there is compromise, as was so eloquently put in the previous debate by my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, the former chair of ACAS. The Government and worker representatives moved considerably during negotiations to agree to retaining a six-month qualifying period. Without similar compromise from business representatives on the removal, this deal would have been one-sided and undeliverable.
On the question of the impact of the cap, I do not think I can do better than the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who said last week that
“the concerns that have been expressed about the impact of the removal of the cap are perhaps … exaggerated”.—[Official Report, 10/12/25; col. 276.]
Just now, he mentioned that he does not believe it will lead to the chaos that the noble Lord outlined earlier. It is not our view, but, in any case, as I mentioned, we will publish the enactment impact assessment as soon as the Bill achieves Royal Assent. It will be public and transparent, and will include an assessment of the impact of removing the compensation cap.
I remind noble Lords of our commitment to convene meetings with shareholders so that those from the City, law practitioners and others can feed into that. Those findings will be taken into account by the dispute resolution task force that we are setting up—it will have all that information to hand. We are obviously very keen to improve the functioning of the dispute resolution system. We inherited something that was not in a good state. We are providing ACAS with over £65 million in resource funding, which is a significant increase. We are working actively to make this a system that works extremely well.
I hope that this afternoon will mark the end of the Bill’s journey through Parliament. I reiterate the Government’s commitment, mentioned by other noble Lords who spoke today, to continue talking to and genuinely engaging with interested parties in the way we have recently about the full range of issues discussed today. The Bill will deliver a generational shift in employment rights. It will do so by working with businesses and trade unions in a collaborative manner. These changes to the qualifying period and the compensation cap are proportional and practical. For those who are concerned about business impact, the joint letter should provide noble Lords with reassurances that businesses support this workable agreement. As they have stated,
“now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill”.
I hope noble Lords will recognise the progress made over the past nine months, oppose the amendment tabled by the Opposition Front Bench, and, in doing so, support the package to deliver certainty for businesses and fair rights for workers. It is indeed time for Parliament to pass the Bill. I commend it to the House.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I have a right to ask questions. What is most concerning, at least for me, is not the limit or the reducing of the compensation package—that is not the question—but the use of ping-pong to produce a new clause that has never been debated in your Lordships’ House or even in the Commons. That is a constitutional question that bothers most of us.
I have not heard a word saying, for example, that we reached an agreement, we felt we had to bring it in and we will not do this kind of thing again. As more Bills come, how do we know whether ping-pong will be used in a way that, in my book, it should not be? No one should introduce new clauses that have not been canvassed in both Houses of Parliament. Because that has not happened, some of us are arguing about not the actual amendment but whether we will know that rules that have been established in your Lordships’ House for years will be followed. I have been in the House since 2005, and ping-pong has never been used to introduce a new clause that has not been debated in both Houses. Will we know?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his question. As I mentioned last week, the context here is Bill specific and the changes that have been proposed and have been put in terms of this tripartite agreement were in response to issues that had been raised in your Lordships’ House. We went away and convened a particular mode of operating, and we have brought it back as a Bill-specific package. As I also mentioned last week, there are many discussions in the House about how we want to take business forward. The Leader of the House has set that out very clearly. That is the way we intend to proceed more generally.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this very brief debate. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is of course right—I did not quote that bit of the letter because the Minister did. The House generally does not like needless repetition, so I am following the rules.
I am very grateful to the Minister for those assurances, and I am somewhat reassured. I am grateful—correct me if I have any of this wrong—that the impact assessment will be published before commencement and will be public and transparent and include a dispute resolution mechanism, that the tripartite agreement will endure going forward in further discussions around the Bill, and that all stakeholders will be consulted widely. That is, in effect, what we were asking for. The simple fact of the matter, though, is that we on these Benches will continue to hold the Government to account on behalf of the wealth creators, the businesses, the employers and their workers in this country.
I have heard what has been said and will emphasise a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which I should have made in my speech: we are particularly concerned about the impact of the entire Bill on small businesses. We will return to that theme unless their interests are very carefully protected going forward.
As to the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, regarding the strategic position, I am not entirely sure what the strategic position is. But I am grateful for his comments.
I am also enormously grateful to all those on His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition’s Benches and the many on the Cross Benches who stuck to their principles. We have achieved a great deal and made a bad Bill marginally more palatable. I beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.
Victims and Courts Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Welsh legislative consent sought.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, at the heart of this Bill are measures aimed at ensuring that victims are treated with dignity, compassion and respect throughout the justice process. This legislation represents a significant step forward in strengthening the rights of victims and improving the efficiency and fairness of our courts in a fair and proportionate way.
A number of noble Lords have spoken to me about some of the provisions in the Bill, and I am grateful to them for their measured and constructive approach. I had hoped to be able to answer some of their questions in advance of this debate; in the end, time constraints meant that this did not prove possible, but I shall do my best to address some of them during this short speech. That said, as ever with issues about the justice system, I and the Government welcome the opportunity to work with Members of your Lordships’ House, from all parties and none, to ensure that we get these provisions right.
I begin by addressing the issue of defendants who refuse to leave their cell in order to attend their sentencing hearing. This happens too often and causes great distress to victims and their families, many of whom have sat through a difficult trial. The sentencing hearing provides an important opportunity to tell the defendant exactly how the crime has affected them, usually done through a victim personal statement. For many, it is important to be able to look the defendant in the eye as the sentence is passed, so when the defendant chooses not to attend court, that can feel like the final insult. The Government agree with victims and their families that defendants should not have that choice.
Judges have always had the power to order defendants to attend their sentencing hearing but, if the defendant refused, the judge was very restricted as to what she or he was able to do. The Bill will change that by putting the power on a statutory footing. I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the families of Jan Mustafa, Henriett Szucs, Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Sabina Nessa and Zara Aleena. Their courage and tireless campaigning have brought about this change, and for that we thank them.
On the specific provisions, first, the Bill makes clear that reasonable force may be used to get the defendant to court, but that has to be balanced against the risk to prison and security staff so there are three issues that the judge will take into account: necessity, reasonableness and proportionality. Secondly, in addition to the use of reasonable force, judges will have the power to impose up to two years’ imprisonment in addition to the sentence for the offence and/or an unlimited fine. Thirdly, concerns were raised that, because many of these defendants will be receiving very long sentences, an additional period of imprisonment might not have much effect. To meet that concern, Crown Court judges will also be given the power to impose meaningful sanctions that will have an impact on how the defendant serves their time in prison. If defendants attend court but are disruptive or disrespectful, and as a result have to be removed from the hearing, the judge will be able to impose the same penalties. This Government are clear: victims’ and their families’ voices matter, and defendants should be sentenced with those voices ringing in their ears. The Bill will help to ensure that happens.
I turn to the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility. Protecting children is an absolute priority for this Government, and these provisions are part of a wider exercise to ensure that the interests of children remain paramount in all proceedings. Having children is a privilege but also a responsibility, and the justice system must always ensure that these children are right at the centre of what we do. As part of that, the Bill provides that where a parent has been convicted of a serious offence involving child sexual abuse and has been sentenced to four or more years’ imprisonment, there will be an automatic restriction preventing them exercising parental responsibility for their own children. This measure will protect the children of child sex offenders, whose convictions will provide clear evidence that they pose a risk to children, including their own.
The Bill will also restrict the exercise of parental responsibility for children of rapists where their crimes have led to the conception and birth of the child in question. There will be two routes. First, where the Crown Court is satisfied to the criminal standard that the child was conceived as a result of the rape, this mandatory restriction must be imposed at the time the defendant is sentenced.
Secondly, where rape has occurred as part of wider domestic abuse, and the court is satisfied that the child may have been conceived as a result of that rape, but cannot be sure, the court must refer the case to the family court via the local authority. This sends a clear message that we will protect all children conceived and born as a result of rape, no matter the circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked me when we met about the number of offenders this will capture. Our belief is that up to 20 offenders will be affected by this measure each year.
Thirdly, non-disclosure agreements—NDAs—should not be used to silence victims or cover up crimes. The Bill will make sure that they cannot be used in this way. It makes it clear that NDAs will not be legally enforceable to the extent that they seek to prevent victims —or those who reasonably believe they are victims—from disclosing information about relevant criminal behaviour. In addition, we want to make sure that victims can provide the full context and circumstances when speaking about crimes. The Bill will also ensure that such a victim will be able to speak about how the other party reacted both to the criminal conduct itself and the victim speaking out about it.
Of course, we recognise there may be situations where both parties genuinely wish to have the closure offered by an NDA. To accommodate that, the measure includes two powers. The first will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to set out the criteria for an excepted NDA. Such NDAs would not be voided under the measure. The second power allows the Secretary of State to specify that speaking about the crime to some people, for specific purposes or in certain situations, will always be allowed, even if an excepted NDA exists. For example, a victim who wanted to speak to a victim support service in order to get support may be able to do so, despite being party to an excepted NDA.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, asked me about some of the exceptions set out in the clause. I am sorry that I was not able to answer their questions in advance of Second Reading, but I will do my best to do so now. The measure will not apply to a narrow cohort of specified agreements. This is in the interests of national security. Unlike with excepted NDAs, victims of crime who sign such agreements will not always be able to make the disclosures specified by the Secretary of State in regulations made under the second power because the relevant bodies have their own appropriate arrangements for ensuring that victims and direct witnesses of crime can speak up and seek support.
During the development of the clause, extensive engagement was undertaken with relevant government departments about which bodies an exemption should apply to. An exemption for agreements entered into by the National Crime Agency in the interests of national security was not considered necessary. Legislation that binds the Crown does not ordinarily apply to the sovereign unless there is a specific policy justification for it to do so. For the purposes of this measure, the Government do not consider that there is a specific policy justification for the measure to apply to agreements entered into by the sovereign personally.
Fourthly, we will be strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. I start by paying tribute to the late Baroness Newlove, who will be greatly missed in your Lordships’ House. All of us have a great deal for which to thank her. The Bill will enable the Victims’ Commissioner to hold the system to account more effectively, which we hope and expect will boost the confidence of victims. The Victims’ Commissioner will have a number of new tools, which we intend should be used to achieve systemic change.
First, for the first time, the commissioner will be able to exercise their functions in relation to individual cases where such a case raises public policy issues that go beyond that particular case and are likely to be of relevance to other victims and witnesses.
Secondly, local authorities and social housing providers will have a duty to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner in relation to anti-social behaviour. As a result, the commissioner will be able to get the information they need to identify systemic issues, make informed recommendations and examine how the system responds to anti-social behaviour.
Thirdly, the Bill will place a new duty on the Victims’ Commissioner to produce an independent assessment as to how public agencies are meeting their duties under the victims’ code. The report will be provided to Ministers, who will then be required to consider it as part of preparing their own report on code compliance under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.
Some of your Lordships have raised with me at meetings whether the commissioner will have sufficient resources to take on this additional work. We have worked closely with the Victims’ Commissioner’s office to understand the impact of the measures, and we have identified a small additional resource requirement amounting to £150,000 a year. That is outlined in our impact assessment. This will be accounted for as the measure is commenced and implemented.
The victim contact scheme plays a critical role in communicating information about the release of offenders to be given to those who need it most, but the legislation governing it is more than 20 years old. This Bill will simplify and update the current system. It will bring victims currently served by different operational schemes into the single victim contact scheme. As we implement this measure, we will make sure that the updated scheme works for the victims it is designed to serve. The Bill will also provide all victims with one clear route to request information about an offender.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, asked about interactions with clinicians’ obligations. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, raised issues about when an offender is detained under the Mental Health (Discrimination) Act 2013. We will consider how best to support victim liaison officers and hospital managers to provide this information to victims where it is appropriate to do so. This requirement reflects current practice, where the release of information must comply with data protection legislation and the convention rights. We also would not provide information that would put either the offender or the victim at risk for any reason. Where information is not disclosed, victims can seek a review through existing independent HMPPS complaints processes or make a complaint to the relevant NHS service provider. If they are unhappy with the outcome, victims can escalate their complaint directly to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
For mentally disordered offenders, this includes information about discharge, leave and any other information as appropriate. Furthermore, the Bill will allow victims to request information about an offender, which will be delivered via a new dedicated helpline. This means that eligible victims of mentally disordered offenders will receive information on request. Our intention is to ensure that those who are eligible receive the right information about offenders at the right time. In addition, but outwith this Bill, we will consult on a new victims’ code in due course.
I turn to prosecutors. I declare not so much an interest as experience in this area, as I worked for the Crown Prosecution Service for five years. I am sure that all will agree it is essential that we ensure that the CPS can recruit and retain sufficient qualified Crown prosecutors. Having inadequate numbers means that important decisions about, for example, who to charge with offences, choice of charge and evidence requests to be made from the police cannot take place in a timely way.
In England and Wales, there are the members of the two well-known branches of the legal profession, namely solicitors and barristers. What is less widely known is that there are other routes by which a person may qualify as a lawyer. The biggest of these is CILEX, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives. At present, as the law currently stands, it is difficult for the CPS to appoint lawyers other than solicitors or barristers to work as Crown prosecutors. This Bill will remove those barriers, by enabling further suitably qualified and experienced legal professionals to be appointed to these important roles.
A number of noble Lords have raised with me whether this will involve lowering standards, and I am happy to reassure your Lordships that it will not. At present, the law requires Crown prosecutors to have what is known as the general qualification. The general qualification requires the lawyer in question to have very wide rights of audience, namely in all proceedings in the senior courts, in the county courts or magistrates’ courts. In practice, not all these rights are necessary for their role as a Crown prosecutor, so the Bill will remove that requirement. What will remain is that Crown prosecutors from whichever professional background must have the necessary rights of audience and authorisation under the Legal Services Act 2007 to appear in the courts relevant to their role, and they will have to meet the necessary CPS competency standards to conduct prosecutions at the appropriate level. The CPS will retain full discretion over whom to appoint.
This will widen the pool of eligible prosecutors, and support greater flexibility in staffing. The hope is that, in the longer term, this will shorten waiting times for prosecutorial decisions to be made. The measure supports, in a proportionate way, the intention underlying the manifesto commitment. Rather than giving more powers to associate prosecutors, these measures will increase the pool of prospective Crown prosecutors.
On private prosecutions, once again I declare that I have experience in this area, having been a partner in a firm of solicitors and head of a department that brought a number of private prosecutions. I was also one of the founding members of the Private Prosecutors’ Association and was heavily involved in the drafting of the code of practice and conduct for private prosecutors. The Government are committed to reforming the private prosecution system, so that it is fairer and has the necessary safeguards in place. While that will require more extensive and long-term change, the Bill is taking the first step as part of that plan for reform.
A number of your Lordships raised the question of whether this reform would have a chilling effect on private prosecutions. That is not the intention underlying these measures; the Government agree that private prosecutions play an important role in our justice system.
When a private prosecutor applies to the court for their costs to be paid by the public purse, there are no fixed rates. This is not satisfactory for two reasons: first, costs determinations can be protracted, taking up valuable court time; and, secondly, there is a lack of certainty for those who would like to consider bringing a private prosecution as to the amount that they may be able to recover. That is why the Bill will give the Lord Chancellor the power to make regulations which set the rates at which private prosecutors can recover their costs from central funds. This will save court time when it is required to determine cost orders, reduce the number of appeals and give private prosecutors a better degree of certainty. We believe that it will ensure the best use of public funds.
This measure is purely an enabling power. I am aware that reservations have been expressed about the effect of setting the rates too low. I have been assured that there will be extensive engagement with stakeholders, and a full consultation will be held before any regulations are introduced. The defendant’s costs order will not be the starting point, and I will be monitoring closely the progress of the consultation. This engagement will help us determine the most appropriate rates, including whether higher rates should be preserved for some more complex private prosecutions. In doing so, we will retain the central aim of this measure, which is to safeguard the right of an individual to bring private prosecutions, while making the best use of public funds.
I now turn to the measures on the unduly lenient sentence scheme. As many will know, when the Attorney General believes that the original sentence does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence, the scheme provides a power for the case to be referred to the Court of Appeal. There is a strict 28-day statutory time limit, which mirrors the time limit defendants have in which to appeal their sentence. In a not insubstantial number of cases, they are not brought to the attention of the Attorney-General until the end of the period, sometimes on the 28th day. This has proved problematic for the Attorney-General, because it makes it difficult to be able to give the case proper consideration in the time remaining. The 28-day period will remain unaltered, but the Bill will give the Attorney-General 14 days to consider any request that has been made within the second half of the window. We believe that this is a proportionate response, respecting the need for fairness to all victims and balancing that with the need for certainty and sentencing.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, asked me about the unduly lenient sentence scheme and engagement and the shorter window for victims. Many noble Lords may be aware of the commitment made in the other place by my honourable friend the Victims Minister. She has committed to looking at the length of the time limit as this Bill progresses, and I, too, am happy to make that commitment in your Lordships’ House—namely, to listen to and consider any thoughts that noble Lords may have as to the length of the time limit for the ULS scheme. In doing so, I remind your Lordships that the unduly lenient sentence scheme is not a mechanism to provide an appeal for victims or members of the public; rather, it is a legal safeguard that exists to correct sentences that fall outside the reasonable parameters for the sentence in question.
Finally, the Bill introduces a modest but important amendment to magistrates’ court sentencing powers in respect of six specific offences. As your Lordships will know, this Government have increased magistrates’ sentencing powers from six to 12 months’ imprisonment for all offences that are triable either way, other than these six. For technical reasons, all these six require primary legislation to make the magistrates’ court sentencing powers consistent with those of all other either-way offences; doing this will reduce the risk of confusion or error in sentencing.
This Bill is about ensuring trust and confidence in our justice system—one that is fair, efficient and takes the needs of victims into account—and it reflects our commitment to ensuring that courts meet the demands both of today and of tomorrow.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, this Bill has been laid before us in the name of victims, so we must grasp the opportunity to ensure that the Bill fully lives up to its name. The Bill strengthens the measures proposed in the predecessor Bill, which fell before the last election and was lost. I thank all those groups and organisations that have made valuable contributions so far.
The first important matter that I address is the attendance of convicted persons at their sentencing hearing. If the courts cannot compel attendance by criminals, justice is undermined; it is vital that the courts have power both to compel attendance, by reasonable force if necessary, and to punish criminals who resist or fail to attend their sentencing hearings. I shall expand on that in a moment.
Next, I turn to those guilty of child sex offences. We welcome the provision that parental responsibility is now to be restricted for child sex offenders who have committed offences against any child, not just their own child or children. It is also paramount that victims are given more information about the release dates for their offenders and are kept informed about their whereabouts and the risks, if any, that they may pose to their safety. That is particularly necessary, because it was revealed that 91 prisoners may have been released by mistake between 1 April and 31 October this year.
We are pleased with the provisions to address non-disclosure agreements, but we will need more time to consider the detail of the proposed exemptions, and we look forward to hearing about those.
The Bill before us has some shortcomings, and we must address these if we are to make the most of this opportunity and of precious parliamentary time. For example, we on these Benches believe that courts should order offenders to pay compensation that truly reflects the victim’s financial loss when penalties are imposed. More broadly, there have been justified calls for greater transparency, following the crimes and subsequent cover-up of grooming gangs across the nation. These calls will grow louder and more urgent as victims demand justice, and we need more transparency.
I turn first to the provisions for unduly lenient sentences. The current deadline for applications to the scheme for a review of sentence is 28 days from the date when sentence is passed. In the months before her untimely death, the former Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, my much-missed noble friend the late Lady Newlove, highlighted that victims are often unaware of this deadline because the prosecution has not brought it to their attention. The Government’s election manifesto committed to
“ensuring victims can access the information and support they need”.
That is why we recommended an extension of the time for an application to be made from 28 days to 56 days. This will give victims more time to process an application. In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service should be obliged to notify victims that the scheme exists—they have to know about it if they are to do something—and to provide information, within 10 working days of a sentence being passed, explaining the application process and the relevant deadlines for making victim impact statements.
Many victim impact statements have faced difficulties. Victims must be able fully to express in their personal statements the impact that crimes have had on them. Victims deserve a platform, but such statements are evidence in the case and as such are subject to strict rules. We accept that what they say must not be contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech—they must not make allegations of untried criminal conduct or be offensive or inappropriately provocative—but victims must have their voices heard. At the heart of these calls is a call for greater transparency in the system: transparency about the courses of action available to victims after sentence, and allowing victims themselves to explain their suffering without inappropriate censorship. We must take this opportunity to help enhance trust in the courts and the process, and to bring accuracy to our public discourse.
At present, we do not know enough about the backgrounds of those who commit offences. Too often, the public is left to speculate. In the other place, the Opposition tabled an amendment to set the record straight. It would require courts to collect data on sentenced offenders in relation to a number of factors: nationality; sex at birth and, where applicable, country of birth; method of entry into the United Kingdom; and visa route, visa status and asylum status. The Government should then publish these statistics every three months. This will ensure that both policymakers and the British public have an accurate debate and can reach informed decisions when it comes to criminal justice, integration and border control.
There are clear and legitimate concerns about integration and social cohesion. It is imperative that the Government do not dismiss these or overlook them. Accurate data is important. Its absence allows misleading statements to be made, sometimes deliberately and malevolently, but even if innocently made, they can have a damaging effect. We implore the House to take this opportunity to make a profound impact on our current policies through this Bill.
As for the implementation of the Bill as it stands, there are also practical issues which the Government must consider. How exactly will offenders be compelled to attend sentencing, when prison officers already find themselves ill-equipped to handle violent or disruptive offenders? What provisions will be put in place? Officers should be enabled to use reasonable force, so long as it is not disproportionate. This must include the power to restrain and to quieten disruptive offenders during hearings. As for child sex offenders, now that sex offences against any child will result in a restricted parental responsibility order, what provisions will the Government take to ensure that the family courts are not overwhelmed by appeals once the Bill passes into law?
We fear that, until these questions are addressed, the Bill will not fulfil its aims, nor be satisfactory for the victims in whose name the Bill is being put forward. We support the aims of the Bill, but there remain real gaps and real missed opportunities. We are fortunate enough in this House to have the chance to correct them. We must prove our worth by making necessary changes in the interests of victims and the public, so that there is trust in the system as a whole. Only then can we deliver real justice for victims, improve confidence and improve trust in our courts and the justice system. We need to be able to enjoy informed debates across our political life. I look forward to engaging constructively with the Government and with noble Lords across the House to help the Bill live up to its name.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear introduction to the Bill this afternoon. The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the principles behind the Victims and Courts Bill: strengthening support for victims, strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner and improving the court system. The current system is not just under severe stress; it is close to collapse. There are important changes that we believe need to be made for the courts service to be fit for purpose in this current era.
Because we do have some concerns and proposals to improve the Bill, some echoing amendments to it were laid by our Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Commons. I suspect that we will be discussing in minute detail the technicalities of improving systems for victims, as we did with the Crime and Policing Bill, the Sentencing Bill—currently going through your Lordships’ House—and the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. That Act was saved in the wash-up in the run-up to the 2024 general election, but most of it was not commenced, other than the infected blood compensation arrangements. I wondered whether this was the legislation the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, was referring to, and I apologise if I have that wrong. But it was saved, and I have a question for the Minister, which I will come to in a minute.
We do not often hear enough about what victims, survivors or complainants—however they may choose to describe themselves—face, and how long it takes to recover. That is why I am so grateful that the many victims, NGOs and charities keep their voices in front of us.
The definition of a victim in Section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act is someone who suffers
“harm as a direct result of … being subjected to criminal conduct, or … one or more of the circumstances mentioned”
in a subsection. The key thing for me is exactly what “harm” entails. In the Act,
“‘harm’ includes physical, mental or emotional harm and economic loss”,
and
“‘criminal conduct’ means conduct which constitutes an offence”.
That is a good definition, a helpful starting point and a reminder to us that victims will have suffered physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss, or been the victims of criminal conduct. Neither this nor the previous Government have commenced this section of the Victims and Prisoners Act, which remains disappointing. Do the Government intend to bring in this section of that Act?
In Section 1(4)(a) of the Victims and Prisoners Act, the clinical description of harm covers a wide range of experience. For example, harm can lie dormant in victims for many years, as with children sexually abused when young. We know it can take decades before they face up to what has happened, and that period, however long it is, can be mental agony, as well as physically distressing. Adults abused as children often say that their life remains irreparably changed by the experience. For some victims, the chance to see their perpetrator in the dock, and convicted, can be cathartic; but, for too many, the mental and physical anguish of this type of severe crime on and to a person just means that that experience continues to live on long after the court hearing.
We on these Benches’ starting point is that we have long called for more support for victims and survivors of crime. This Government are saying many of the right things and tomorrow, or on Thursday, we will see the strategy for VAWG, which is much welcomed and will be a key pillar in that support.
However, over the course of the last 18 months, we have seen that many good and worthy principles have not been followed through with priority or, worse, that there has been a lack of money to deliver the change that is actually needed. So I ask the Minister, will the Government guarantee to deliver the resources in order to make the ideas and words in the Bill and in the VAWG strategy, when it comes, happen?
Above all, there must be strategic and consistent planning and funding of the victim support service, for, without that, the service will not have victims at the heart of it, and it is likely that it will remain inconsistent across the country.
We welcome the strengthening of the Victims’ Commissioner role and the restriction of parental responsibility in certain heinous cases.
The areas of the Bill that we have particular concern with include an extension to the victim contact scheme to include victims of offenders sentenced to less than 12 months for violent and sexual offences; victims of coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking or harassment; and bereaved families in cases of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving. Access to free court transcripts for victims of criminal offences is increasingly important. This is broader than the original pilot and early proposals, but we believe it would be the right thing to introduce.
Other areas of concern include the provision of support for victims of online and technology-enabled crimes and the application of the victims’ code in respect of victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad. We have laid amendments on this subject in the past. The families of those killed deserve access to the same victim support back home in the UK as those whose family members were killed in the UK.
The Liberal Democrats have long sought to get restorative justice implemented broadly across the criminal justice system. When delivered with care and willingness on both the victim’s and the offender’s side, it can make a real difference to both parties. We laid amendments in the Commons on a victim’s right to referral and a duty to report on the use of restorative justice services, and we want to continue to make progress on this.
The government proposal to increase the period in which the Attorney-General may receive a request to challenge an unduly lenient sentence to 28 days, and the extra 14 days if submitted in the second half of the 28-day period, in our view remains too short. We supported the Official Opposition in some of their amendments in the Commons. Critically, it is unworkable unless a victim is notified when a sentence has been given, because the window to apply to the Attorney-General is too tight. I note, with regret, that the Minister said that the ULS was not an appeal mechanism for a victim. But many victims, on the rare occasion it might be used, should have access to it. One reason for that is that, too often, victims are encouraged by the CPS and the police not to be present at the end of a trial of the perpetrator, and they often miss the sentencing. Shockingly, too many are not even told about the unduly lenient sentencing arrangements and, within a very short number of days, cannot even submit a request to the Attorney-General. I have been laying amendments and proposing changes to the ULS scheme for some years now. We will continue to do so in your Lordships’ House on the Bill.
While the court proposals are in the main sensible, we remain concerned that there are very limited proposals to tackle the courts backlog. The announcements by David Lammy MP in relation to reducing the number of cases in front a jury has not helped. This Monday, 60 courts sat empty because of a lack of judges, barristers or other experts needed for court hearings.
There is little empirical evidence, proof or pilot, that shows that reducing juries alone will ease pressure on the courts system. The real problems are the poor buildings, court closures and legal aid cuts that penalise barristers and solicitors. A long-term commitment for investment is needed, with both restored funding to legal aid and capital investment in the courts of the future.
These are some of the key issues that need to be addressed in the Bill, but they are set in the context of giving a broad welcome to most of the Bill, while wanting to strengthen it.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I join in welcoming the Bill. The Long Title states that it is to
“make provision about the experience of victims within the criminal justice system”.
In that context, it is strange to be considering such a Bill in the absence of Lady Newlove. A good test of what can be achieved by the Bill will be whether she would have approved of it. I am sure we all hope that our final product would meet with her approval.
I will focus on two topics: the power to order an offender to attend court for sentencing and the proposed restrictions on parental responsibility. The problem of convicted criminals in serious cases who refuse to attend court for a sentencing hearing is relatively new, but regrettably it has not gone away, and the Government are now right to deal with it by involving deterrent measures.
Sentencing judges are well used to dealing with attention-seeking misbehaviour by some offenders, but the Bill gives a clearer framework for the powers available to the judge, not just when the offender fails or refuses to attend, but when he does attend and interrupts the hearing or otherwise misbehaves and has to be removed.
A sentencing hearing is important, because it is when the offender is made publicly accountable for his criminal action and has to confront the disapproval of society for what he has done, and to hear the evidence of the impact on the victim and the victim’s family. A refusal to attend adds insult to injury and highlights the lack of any remorse. It was in one such case rightly described by the judge as “spineless”.
Clearly, when a very long sentence is inevitable, a relatively short additional sentence may not persuade such a defendant with little or nothing to lose to co-operate or to behave. There is a limit to what can be expected of prison or custody officers in manhandling a resistant offender into the dock. There can in those cases be a risk of making a bad situation look worse. However, clarification in the Bill that reasonable force may be used if necessary and proportionate is welcome.
The important point of these new provisions is that victims can be reassured that they will be heard and that offenders will know that if they think about not attending there will be consequences, not just in the longer term with a further sentence that may have little or no real meaning, but in the short term with the new prison sanctions order.
Turning to Clauses 3 and 4, it is clearly right and necessary to introduce an effective mechanism to curtail any exercise of parental responsibility by fathers who commit sexual offences against a child. That must mean a sexual offence against any child, not just a child for whom the man may have had parental responsibility: that is what I now understand the Bill to intend, as the Minister has been good enough to confirm. I welcome that confirmation, because paragraph 176 of the Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill suggests that it might still be restricted to offences against the children for whom the man holds parental responsibility. I understand that not to be correct.
I suspect that none of us has any reservations about the essential principles underlying these proposals. The chair of the Bar Council has said:
“Parental responsibility should not be regarded as an inalienable right which is retained regardless of parental behaviour and actions … Restricting parental responsibility for perpetrators of child sex offences is a strong protective measure for those left behind after acts of violence and abuse within a family”.
I suggest that this should also apply to any such serious sexual acts committed outside the family context which are wholly incompatible with the retention of parental responsibility.
Without getting too involved in the details of the current law, it is important to appreciate that not all fathers automatically have parental responsibility. If not married to the mother, a father would acquire it only with her agreement for him to be registered and named as the father on the birth certificate, or by later agreement or order. It is also important to appreciate that the family court can and does already terminate, suspend or restrict parental responsibility when there is a risk of significant harm to the child or siblings, and when the father’s conduct and retention of parental responsibility have become an intolerable concern to the mother. But there have been cases in which obstructive fathers, out of malice or lack of insight or empathy, force a mother into protracted and costly litigation to protect the children and herself, as their mother, and to remove the need for her to involve the father in decision-making about their future care and upbringing.
At least, in the cases covered by this Bill, a more summary mechanism will be made available. The Bill builds on Section 18 of the 2024 Act—Jade’s law, which is not yet in force. It will prevent the exercise of parental responsibility but without actually altogether terminating parental responsibility. Clause 3 requires a sentence of at least four years before it operates. That leaves the cases of those with lesser sentences remaining to be dealt with in the family court, as now. I accept that there is a need to draw lines so as to make best use of the resources, expertise and powers of both courts without overburdening either, but where lines are drawn may need more exploration during the passage of the Bill.
I will briefly raise some other procedural and evidential points. First, has consideration been given to any mechanism to restrict applications for, or the exercise of, parental responsibility during what is now likely to be a long period between the initial charge and the final sentencing? Is that to be left to bail conditions or to the family court on a separate application by the mother or a local authority, or could the Crown Court now be given power to make an interim order?
Secondly, assuming that the Crown Court will be making orders covering all children for whom the defendant has parental responsibility without later review by the family court, how will the Crown Court get reliable information about who those children are and about their status and circumstances, particularly if the defendant is unwilling or unable to assist and the court has no access to existing court orders concerning those children? Regrettably, some men have selective memories about their offspring. How will the mothers of those children be identified, located and then informed about what the Crown Court is doing or may have done?
Finally, as to children who have been or may have been conceived as a result of rape, it may be difficult at the time of sentencing to ascertain whether the child was in fact so conceived, if there was a pre-existing relationship between the couple continuing at least until the rape. The difficulty no doubt already exists if the Criminal Court has to decide whether the mother’s enforced pregnancy was an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes in rape cases.
Broadly, however, in cases of uncertainty, I welcome the measures in the new Section 10F. This requires the Crown Court to notify the local authority, which will have to assess the likely co-operation or otherwise of the mother and any possible need for orders from the family court. This may require further fact-finding. In this regard, I consider that the Bill goes as far as it needs to in such situations. Subject to those comments, most of the Bill’s provisions are welcome.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I was at St Thomas’ at 8 am and will return to Guy’s at 8 am tomorrow re my lack of balance, but I was determined to speak on this important Bill. I have informed the clerks that I will do so sitting down.
I welcome the Bill warmly and applaud the work of my noble friend the Minister and her team. I consider this House to be so lucky to have somebody of such relevant experience leading this work. The Bill marks a really important step forward in rebuilding our much-shaken justice system—a system to serve victims, who in recent years have so often been failed. Imagine if the victim was your daughter, cousin, granddaughter or niece.
As my noble friend clearly said, the justice system must serve victims rather than subjecting them to further trauma on top of what they have already suffered. The Bill strengthens victims’ rights, forcing offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. Where was the justice for Louise, Hannah and Carol Hunt when Clifford was a no-show at sentencing? Those who refuse to comply will be liable to an additional custodial penalty of up to 24 months and restriction of social visits and removal of privileges—in my view, quite rightly so.
I also welcome the protection of children of sex offenders, and that NDAs should not prevent victims disclosing relevant information. Because of this important Bill, cowardly offenders who try to avoid facing the consequences of their actions for victims and insult victims’ families will no longer be able to get away with it. I ask my noble friend the Minister: given that one of the sanctions for non-attendance at sentencing is an additional prison sentence, will that have an impact on prison capacity? I welcome the Bill and look forward to further discussion with all noble Lords.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, in her place, and I wish her a very speedy recovery. I also congratulate her on her precision and the brevity of her remarks. I wish I was going to be as brief as she has been.
Lord Garnier (Con)
So does my noble and learned friend; that is a free drink that he is not going to get.
Unusually for a modern criminal justice Bill, which was ably introduced by the Minister, this is, relatively speaking, a remarkably short one. It has only 18 clauses. It is rather spoiled, however, as there are 53 pages of schedules. I dream of the day when any Government decides to stop producing criminal justice Bills of voluminous length, but there we are.
I understand the political and moral basis for the provisions about defendants who refuse to appear in court to be sentenced. I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on that. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Sandhurst’s scepticism about whether they will work in practice. We will see how those arguments develop in Committee.
I do, however, welcome the proposals with regard to the ULS scheme. I had to operate it myself as a law officer when the Minister was at the Crown Prosecution Service. I think it is fair to say that we suffered together in that struggle. There will be more to say in Committee about the NDA provisions, which amend the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.
This afternoon, I want to address a point about overseas victims not mentioned in the Bill. I spoke about this on 7 February 2024, on the fourth day in Committee on the then Victims and Prisoners Bill. I make no apology for doing so again, and I will table the same amendment to this Bill that I tabled to that Bill. In introducing these remarks, I refer to my interest as a barrister whose practice includes corporate crime cases.
Multinational companies have been fined more than £1.5 billion over the past 10 years or so after investigations by the Serious Fraud Office into corruption abroad. But only 1.4% of those fines—about £20 million—has been used to compensate victim countries or communities abroad. In my view, this needs to change.
Much of this corruption occurs in African countries that are already suffering terrible economic hardship, food and energy crises, and inflation. They are in dire need of economic support to repair the damage caused by corruption.
United Kingdom Governments have been vocal in their support for compensating foreign state victims of corruption. But the action actually taken to compensate foreign states tells a different story and leaves us open to charges of hypocrisy. Most corruption cases brought before the English courts involve foreign jurisdictions. We step in as the world’s policeman, investigating and prosecuting crimes that take place in other countries, but keep all the fines for ourselves. This is important because corruption causes insidious damage to the poor —and the not so poor—particularly in emerging markets. The United Nations says that it
“impedes international trade and investment; undermines sustainable development; threatens democracy and deprives citizens of vital public resources”.
The African Union estimated in 2015 that 25% of the continent’s gross domestic product was lost to corruption. Every company convicted of overseas corruption in this jurisdiction should be ordered to compensate the communities it has harmed. That would be both just and effective. Compensation should come through investment in programmes targeted at decreasing corruption and benefiting local communities; for example, by building and resourcing more schools and hospitals.
At first glance, English law encourages compensation. It is required to take precedence over all other financial sanctions—so far, so good. But, as with many noble ambitions, problems lurk in the detail. Compensation is ordered in criminal cases only where the loss is straightforward to assess, even though the trial judge is usually of High Court or senior Crown Court level and will deal with complex issues every day.
For example, in 2022, in a case in which I appeared for a victim state, Glencore pleaded guilty to widespread corruption in the oil markets of several African states. Although it was ordered to pay £281 million, not a single penny has gone back to the communities where the corruption happened, largely because it was held that the compensation would be too complicated to quantify. The Airbus deferred prosecution agreement tells a similar story. The company was required to pay €991 million to the United Kingdom in fines, but compensation to the numerous Asian countries where the corruption took place formed no part of the agreement.
The process for compensating overseas state victims—and particularly overseas state victims—needs simplification so that real money can be returned to them. An answer perhaps lies in incentivising the corporations that commit the crimes to pay compensation voluntarily on the understanding that it would not increase the total amount, including penalties and costs, that they would have to pay. The company could be given further incentive by receiving a discount on the fine it would still be required to pay to the United Kingdom Treasury, or an increase in the fine if it refuses or fails to make redress.
The required changes are, I suggest, straightforward and would cost the taxpayer nothing. It could create a standard measure of compensation, which would ensure consistency and transparency, as well as avoiding the difficulty of calculating a specific amount of loss or damage in each case. The compensation figure could equal whichever is the higher of the profit made by the company from its corrupt conduct or the amount of the bribes it paid to obtain the profits. This already happens when companies are sentenced, save that all the money goes to the Treasury. The defendant company would pay nothing more, but at least some of the money would benefit the victim state or the communities harmed within it.
Of course, it would be naive to think that compensation paid to a foreign state could never lead to further corruption. That is clearly a risk. To address this, defendant companies would be encouraged or required to enter into an agreement with the relevant state, which would include obligations to comply with United Nations guidance on the treatment of compensation funds and to identify projects for which the funds would be used, possibly with the involvement of a local non-governmental organisation.
To encourage states to enter into these types of agreements, corporations would be permitted to donate the compensation funds, for example, to the World Bank or International Monetary Fund for projects in the region instead, or to pay down a country’s debt, if an agreement cannot otherwise be reached.
The benefit of this approach is that, unlike at present, where there is no disadvantage in doing nothing, it puts the onus on the defendant companies to take restorative action—something that will appeal to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It also addresses the difficulties in quantifying losses by creating a simple approach that gives companies early sight of the amount that they will have to pay.
The Bill is, I am sure, full of wonderful provisions, but it does lack this wonderful diamond which needs to be added to the ring around the Minister’s finger— I do not know how far I can go with that one. But let us do this. We can then hold our heads high and enhance our national reputation in the fight against international corruption. This is not a matter of party politics. It is a matter of simple justice.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her persuasive introduction to the Bill and hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Griffin, is soon dancing around the Chamber again.
I start before the beginning of the Bill. The Long Title tells us that, among other things, it is to make provision
“about procedure and the administration of criminal justice”.
There is a lot going at the moment in relation to the administration of criminal justice, including the first part of Sir Brian Leveson’s review and the Government’s recent response. I have been asked—no doubt other noble Lords have as well—whether the Government might use this Bill to introduce the major reforms they are proposing. I am in no position to give any assurances, although I have said that there would be a hell of a row if this House, with all its expertise and strong views, did not have the opportunity of a Second Reading debate if the Commons, the elected Chamber, was excluded from initial debate and scrutiny. The Minister is already shaking her head—that is now in Hansard. I was going to say that I trust that she will give us an assurance on this. I raised it because if it is around as gossip, it needs answering.
There is much to welcome in the Bill, but our role as a revising Chamber does mean that many of our comments may come over as opposition or criticism. I hope not to sound too much like Scrooge. When I heard that there was to be a victims’ helpline, I was interested in what it might cover and hoped that it would be more than a signposting exercise pointing victims to where they might get help. However, it is not that. The victim contact scheme may suggest more than it is to provide. Many victims need support as witnesses. I am aware of the issue of coaching or the suggestion that a victim witness, however he or she wishes to describe themselves, has been coached. The postponement of support and treatment for some badly affected victims is another argument for dealing with delays in the courts. A victim’s experience—I hate “journey”—does not end with the verdict, so there must be support before and following a trial, often for a long period, as a survivor.
This Bill is part of a Rubik’s cube of criminal justice legislation. This Second Reading comes not just during public debate about juries but partway through the Sentencing Bill, when the issue of resources for non-custodial sentences and for purposeful activity in custody is being discussed. Resources to support victims—survivors—are needed too. The position of so many organisations in the third sector is precarious. Appreciative words are no substitute for services and funding.
As we know, too many victims and alleged offenders have a long wait for the trial. Some of the alleged offenders are not on bail but released under investigation—an alternative to bail but without set timeframes or conditions attached. It has been suggested that for the police this is a cop-out—no pun intended—as it reduces the load on them. The Leveson recommendation was to return to the pre-2017 system of conditional or unconditional bail.
What priority does the Bill have? It was introduced in the Commons in May and there has been a sort of hiatus. In this House, it is to go to Grand Committee, rather than having its Committee stage on the Floor of the House—presumably, though one should not assume anything, in time for it to be through by the end of the Session. I appreciate that timing is not a matter for the Minister, but she may wish to comment. She may not, of course.
I will turn to some specific points. I know we will spend some time on the first two clauses. While the failure of a convicted offender to appear at a sentencing hearing can cause a lot of distress to the victim, who then cannot look the offender in the eye while he or she hears victim statements, I confess to wondering whether it would be better to rely on and perhaps use more the existing powers held by custody officers, prison governors and, of course, judges—although I can see why there is a concern not to use contempt of court powers other than sparingly. There are risks associated with the sanctions and impacts on prison capacity and the Crown Court backlog. It is a difficult balance.
We will also discuss the transcripts of sentencing remarks, an issue which for some time has been pursued by my honourable friend the Member for Richmond Park, and to which my noble friend Lady Brinton has referred. At a meeting in early September of the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, I asked the then Lord Chancellor, just before she became Home Secretary, about progress in this area. She said:
“I do not believe we are far from having a tech solution that meets the test of accuracy … we are testing market solutions for speed and accuracy. Then we will need to take a view on operational viability and how quickly it could be rolled out”.
She also said:
“It is a long process, and it has a cost attached to it”,
and went on to emphasise that
“accuracy … is the problem at the moment”.
If the Minister could update the House, that would be very welcome. I appreciate this is not as straightforward as some of us would like to think, but every day in this job we are aware of how quickly the Hansard writers record and reproduce what we say. Mind you, they do tidy it up as well, which is certainly not what is wanted in the courts.
In addition, can the Minister update the House on when the prohibited steps provisions restricting parental responsibility are likely to come into force? As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, Section 18 of the Victims and Prisoners Act is still “prospective”. What discussion has the MoJ had with local authorities which will have to take on additional responsibilities, and will they have additional funding?
It is inevitable that I keep coming back to resources. I am sure that the Victims’ Commissioner will need to be better resourced, given her new powers and duties. Baroness Newlove would undoubtedly have taken the opportunity to make the point that she could have used much more than £150,000, whatever the agreement made. We all miss her, and we will welcome Claire Waxman to the position when she takes it up.
The length of Schedule 2, mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier—it is longer than the aggregate of all the Bill’s clauses—is, I suppose, a reflection of the way our statute book develops. I do not want to sound churlish. Clause 7, “Victims’ rights to make representations and receive information etc”— et cetera is doing some heavy lifting—is important out of all proportion to the clause’s two lines, but proportionate to the schedule. How much heavy lifting can be done by
“issues of public policy of relevance to other victims or witnesses”?
We will see.
I am pleased that victims’ rights to make certain disclosures are not to be precluded by NDAs. I hope the relevant regulations will be made with as little delay as possible, so that this comes into effect. This is one of those occasions when seeing the regulations in draft during the course of the Bill would be particularly helpful, given that not all NDAs will be covered.
It is not just what is in the Bill; it is also what is not. I am, as we all are, grateful to the organisations that have briefed us on the introduction of a duty to commission victim support services: 16 major organisations coming together to urge us to urge the Government to drive change in the commissioning of specialist services for victims of exploitation and abuse, and for victims with specific needs, is not to be ignored.
I should declare an interest: many years ago, for quite a number of years, I was a trustee and chair of the domestic violence charity Refuge. Much that is in the Bill, and much else, to quote the Long Title,
“about the experience of victims within the criminal justice system; about the functions of the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses; and about procedure and the administration of criminal justice”,
lends itself—indeed, calls for—consultation with those affected and those working in the sector. But—or “and”—I know that we have a group of Ministers who understand this very well.
I have said that there is much in the Bill to welcome. What I have been saying should not detract from that, but we do want the Bill to be as good as it can be.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, as always, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Today, it is an enormous pleasure to congratulate my noble friend the Minister on bringing the Bill forward and introducing it with the style and clarity that we are fast becoming used to—no pressure.
In particular, the Bill addresses a number of concerns that many of us had about flaws and deficiencies in the Act of last year specifically, and our regime for supporting victims of crime in general. So this Second Reading has felt, at times, a little like a reunion. It was a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Russell, in his place before—I think he will return—and to hear in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
Of course, I have to say it one more time: we all miss Lady Newlove so much. Those of us who worked quite hard on attempting to improve last year’s Bill tabled a large number of amendments and sat for a number of days with her advice, support and strategy. It is therefore very heartening to see so much of the spirit of some of those amendments reflected in this new Bill.
I hope my noble friend was able to take real pride in making what may have been her first Section 19 statement on the cover of the Bill. This is, of course, Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, which requires Ministers to state their view of a Bill’s compatibility with human rights. Noble Lords will notice that my noble friend felt able to do this on this occasion. I hope she took pride in that, not least because, as a criminal barrister and, indeed, a judge of some distinction, she will be very aware that it is perhaps in the realm of victims’ rights in particular that the European Convention, by way of the Human Rights Act, has made the most positive difference here in the United Kingdom.
Briefly, on defendants’ rights, I was heartened to see my noble friend’s body language in the face of the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the proposals on jury trial. Panto season is upon us and the SW1 rumour mill is working with full force, so I had heard the same rumours about this preposterous suggestion that limitations on jury trial would be dropped into the Bill at Lords Committee. I was, and am still, heartened to see the body language and, no doubt, we will have it from my noble friend’s mouth in her summing up.
Of course, defendants’ rights were well developed in this jurisdiction long before even the European Convention. The drafters of that convention referred to Article 6 as the “English article” because of things such as the presumption of innocence in particular—but this was far less the case in the context of the rights of victims of crime.
I remember that, when I was a young Home Office lawyer in the early 1990s, rape complainants were routinely cross-examined in person by their alleged assailants, sometimes for days on end, at the Old Bailey. They were cross-examined about their sexual history, with judges understandably nervous about interfering, until the commission, as it then was, in Strasbourg, suggested that it might be degrading and inhuman treatment and a new torture for the victim, who was usually a woman—it need not be, but it usually was. It took Article 3 of the convention and a Labour Government’s response to make sure that that should never happen. That is just one example of the many ways in which positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights have animated and accelerated the development of victims’ rights in this country like never before. I put that on the record because it is so infrequently discussed in all the heat and noise around human rights debates in this country at the moment.
In a similar vein, I welcome Clauses 3 to 5, on restricting the parental responsibility of sex offenders who have abused children. There were similar attempts last year, but these measures go further. The House, and in particular my noble friend, will be very comforted by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who is distinguished in that area, as is my noble friend in the context of criminal trial. So, that is very much to be welcomed. I agree that the Explanatory Notes are incorrect but, mercifully, Clause 3 is very clear that it is a crime against any child, not just a crime against one’s own child, that meets the test and triggers the new mandatory requirement to make a prohibited steps order in relation to parental responsibility.
I also welcome the provisions on the victim’s right to make disclosures in the face of the abusive NDAs that have been so much in the public consciousness on both sides of the Atlantic in recent years, and to make representations and receive information. These provisions seem to go further than before, which is important. Perhaps in summing up, my noble friend could comment on my comparison between Section 17 of the 2024 Act and the new provision on non-disclosure. It seems to me that the presumption is now much more in favour of disclosure, and not just to a very limited collection of individuals such as lawyers. The new provision is more open and in favour of public interest disclosure of criminal conduct against victims, which is more in line with amendments that I tabled and supported, along with others. I hope that my noble friend will be able to clarify the comparison between the old and the new provisions. I see this as an improvement and more presumptively in favour of disclosure.
I particularly welcome more teeth for the Victims’ Commissioner and the victims’ code. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, nodding in her place. She will remember that we went to enormous lengths last year to plead for a victims’ code with teeth. Maybe we could seek even more teeth—who knows? At one point I even tabled an amendment that would have created a new consolidated victims’ code. It took a lot of careful typing on my part and a lot of patience from the Public Bill Office, but it was rebuffed by the last Government. What I am particularly heartened by is the duty in this Bill on the Victims’ Commissioner to report on compliance with the victims’ code. A code with no teeth would be in danger of cruelly raising victims’ expectations that were then not met.
I wonder if my noble friend could explain whether, like me, she thinks that the new ability of the Victims’ Commissioner to engage in individual cases that have a broader public policy interest could on occasion involve intervening in high-profile cases, at least on appeal, in the higher courts. That would be a good use of the Victims’ Commissioner’s time. If a very serious point of law that affected victims’ rights were in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, is it anticipated by my noble friend and the Government that the Victims’ Commissioner might, as part of her functions, be able to intervene in that case? That would be incredibly helpful as part of giving teeth to both the commissioner and the code.
I support the provisions on unduly lenient sentences. I know there is some debate about whether they go far enough, but I support them.
I noted my noble friend’s comments on private prosecutions. Obviously, the provisions in the Bill are about costs in certain cases, but I noted—I wrote this down quite carefully—that in her introduction she talked about the right of an individual to bring a private prosecution. That is of course an important right. I think of our friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, and how important it was not just for her and her family but for the whole country that she persevered not just with campaigning but with a private prosecution. That demonstrates graphically the importance of the right of an individual who has been wronged and neglected by the authorities, in the context of policing and prosecution, to bring a case.
However, the other side of the equation is some corporate private prosecutions, about which I am concerned. The Post Office is the most obvious example. That was not an individual who had been wronged; it was a corporation prosecuting for private profit. I have been slightly sceptical about whether it is a right that should be afforded at all to private corporations as opposed to individuals. I just throw that into the air for consideration, but it is not in any way to distract or divert from my support for the Bill. I hope we can give it a safe and speedy passage while allowing enough time for adequate scrutiny and, if necessary, enhancement.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, it is always a bit daunting to speak after one of the lawyers in this place. I am not a lawyer. I, as always, will speak to the Bill from the perspective of poor communities. My first plea to the Minister is to remember that in this country there is a great myth that poor people are the perpetrators of crime, whereas most poor people’s experience of crime is as a victim. It is from that point of view that I come to this debate.
I welcome the Government’s intention to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system; I think I can safely say that that is an objective that we on the Conservative Benches share. However, good intentions are not enough. The test is whether the Bill strengthens public confidence, delivers justice in practice and protects victims, not whether it simply moves more cases through the system. A lot of poorer people are hearing, “The prisons are full and the courts are full, so we won’t bother doing it properly. We’ll just put them through quickly”. I want to be clear that the single greatest driver of crime is the idea that you are going to get away with it. I spent over three decades working in the poorest communities, so I know that crime is committed by a small number of people very regularly, who have the conversation about what risk they are taking. If you are going to put victims at the centre of this, that is one of the key questions you have to answer.
Ministers will say that the system is backed up or clogged up. I accept that the backlog is serious, but removing juries does not fix the cause of this delay. It does not create more judges, more courtrooms or more capacity. Jury trials are not the problem; they are a safeguard. Faster justice can be seen as less legitimate and will weaken confidence. I was one of the people who did the Lammy Review with David Lammy, and he was very strong at the time that poorer communities, particularly non-white communities, feel much safer in front of a jury. If you remove that now, you could be removing the confidence of those communities in our system in its entirety. These are the sections of our public most exposed to criminal behaviour, so we need to think very carefully about what we do on that.
Clause 3 restricts parental responsibility only where a sentence is four years or more. I expect that Ministers will say that they had to draw a line somewhere, and I accept that, but why here? An offender with a sentence of three years and 11 months still remains a serious risk; victims will struggle to understand why safeguarding suddenly applies at four years. If the Government do not explain this logic carefully, public confidence will suffer. The reason I made the comment about speaking after a lawyer is that lawyers have this in their thinking, and they look at the world through the rules they have learned; most poor people are trying to make ends meet. Things need to be simple. Simplicity is fairness, and I want to be clear about that. Most people do not have the time to pore over the fine detail in the way we do in your Lordships’ House.
I welcome improvements in the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but for victims the issue is not intent but access. The current 28-day limit is simply unrealistic for many victims and their families who are grieving, traumatised and trying to navigate a complex legal process. I know Ministers will say that they will keep this under review, but can I gently suggest that victims need certainty not future monitoring?
I want to end on this idea of court backlogs. I return to my theme that getting away with it is the single biggest driver. I expect that Ministers will say that this Bill is not intended to solve every problem in the justice system—of course that is reasonable—but the court backlog is a central problem facing victims today. One of the biggest problems is seeing the perpetrator, as far as you are concerned, walking around “free as a bird”, to use the expression that one young man used with me this morning. That has to be addressed, but this Bill contains little to address it directly. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was very clear about what goes on in court and I think that needs looking at, because the jury system and the speed at which we get people through is why people think the British criminal justice system is the best—particularly people who, in their life experience, may find themselves in front of it.
The Bill contains measures that I welcome, but it also raises serious questions. If the Government’s aim is to rebuild confidence in the criminal justice system, reforms must be logical, coherent and visibly on the side of victims. I look forward to scrutinising the Bill as we go through the process, because I truly believe that the Minister wants to do the right thing. I want to be part of helping that happen, because I believe this is far beyond party shenanigans. This is about what it means to exist in Britain today.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this important Bill to the House, as it gives me the opportunity to speak about the vital specialist support services that victims of abuse and exploitation so desperately need. The picture we see before us with regards to this is a bleak one, far worse than any nation should accept, but with this Bill we have a precious opportunity. We can turn despair into hope and ensure that victims and survivors are finally met with compassion and understanding and get the support they need when they need it.
The Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, which is hosted by Barnardo’s—I declare an interest as vice-president—estimates that 55,000 children and adults are currently on waiting lists for support for child sexual abuse. Alongside this, 23 specialist services have closed in the last 18 months, with only 363 remaining. This leaves, theoretically, a case load of around 16,500 victims per service, which is simply unimaginable.
For so many victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, just seeking help is an act of bravery, yet most will discover that services that can truly understand or empathise with their trauma are few and far between. It is shameful that this has been allowed to happen. Much of the time, victims and supporters are left on a painfully long waiting list and their healing is put on hold. They wonder whether they can bear to reopen old wounds by the time help finally comes.
For domestic abuse, the picture is not much brighter. In 2025, a report by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner revealed that thousands of children are being left with nowhere to turn after experiencing abuse. More than a quarter of these vital services are having to turn children away because they simply do not have the resources to support them. Between 2023 and 2024, over a third of organisations were running an area of the domestic abuse service without any dedicated funding. This is not a system that is putting victims first and certainly not a system that is putting children first.
Some groups, such as women and children and minority individuals, need specialist trauma-informed support which is tailored to their unique needs. It is essential that they have someone there who understands them, believes in them and can help them when they need it most. The specialisms of these services are often a lifeline for victims, as they have the expertise and knowledge to meet their needs, but, unfortunately, many are struggling just to stay afloat.
Children who have experienced unimaginable harm need specialist support which recognises their unique experiences. Instead, they are met with services that cannot offer them the tailored help they require. Victims tell us at Barnardo’s time and time again how crucial it is to speak with counsellors who truly understand their trauma and relevant experiences of abuse and exploitation. Those counsellors need to be commended for their commitment and dedication to making a difference to vulnerable children’s lives, because such child-focused specialist knowledge can transform the direction of a child’s life.
However, research has shown that most mental health services available to child victims are very generalised, leaving them without the expert guidance they need to rebuild their lives. That is why this Bill must include a clear duty on local statutory agencies to commission high-quality specialist support services for victims and their families in line with local needs. These services must also ensure that those with specific requirements, such as women and children, receive support that is tailored for them. Only then will we be able to deliver the national guarantee of support that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse so rightly called for.
No survivor should face a postcode lottery of support. They should not be left holding their pain alone while they wait for help that may never come. When they finally find the courage to speak their truth, we should respond with compassion, understanding and unwavering support. Let us ensure that survivors are never again left to carry their trauma in solitude, but are instead supported to step forward with hope and dignity. As I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime, so let us do everything in our power to eliminate pain and trauma from the lives of all children, which so often can be passed down to their children.
This Bill has the power to help achieve this goal, and we at Barnardo’s are happy to work with the Government to ensure that the support and provision we are calling for become a reality, for the sake of the nation’s children’s happiness and well-being. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this Bill aims to enhance the rights of victims within the criminal justice system, introducing measures to ensure that their voices are heard and offenders are held accountable. As we have heard, it is a brief Bill at only 18 clauses long. As we have also heard in today’s debate, in a number of ways it is not a party-political Bill, because everyone taking part wants to get the best out of the Bill and to move as constructive amendments as possible.
The first point I want to discuss a little more widely is compelling offenders to attend sentencing hearings. For the first time, judges will have the statutory power to order offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. Those who refuse without reasonable excuse may face additional custodial sentences of up to 24 months and additional meaningful sanctions. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and as anyone who has sat in a court knows, it is frequently very difficult to find a balance between making sure that the interest of victims is properly catered for, with the reading of the victim personal statement, and making sure that the offender does not kick off and make the situation much worse. The changes put forward in the Bill are a better framework within which judges can operate, but we need to be frank that judges need to be given discretion where it may not be appropriate, and there should be suitable sanctions if offenders are not turning up for the sentencing hearings.
The powers of the Victims’ Commissioner will be enhanced, allowing them to investigate individual cases, request information from local authorities and publish annual reports on compliance with the victims’ code. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s question about whether the Victims’ Commissioner may be able to intervene in Court of Appeal cases, or something like that, was very interesting. I will be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say about that suggestion. Like all other noble Peers in this debate, I want to pay my tribute to Baroness Newlove; I hope she would see some of the fruits of her work in this Bill. I have no doubt that her successor, Claire Waxman, will do a sterling job as well.
On expanding victim support, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we have all received letters from 16 organisations working in this sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, they are asking for specific things through this Bill: first, requiring local statutory agencies to commission sufficient specialist support services; secondly, ensuring that victims with specific needs, such as women and children, receive high-quality specialist services; and, thirdly, guaranteeing that agencies commission support in line with local victims’ needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, put these points with her usual passion, and I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to say something about those specific requests.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised a very interesting point when she talked about the dovetailing of the Bill with the Government’s VAWG strategy. This is something that I know my noble friend and her colleagues in the Home Office will be talking about a great deal. It is resource intensive, of course, but it really goes to the heart of the Government’s intent in trying to halve the level of violence against women and girls over the next 10 years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about transcripts of sentencing remarks. I really fail to understand why this is such a difficult problem to get over the line. I understand that there is a cost to it and that there are sensitivities, but it is something that the Government should be able to sort out.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, raised a subject that he has raised on other Bills—that is, effectively encouraging some sort of restorative justice at the international corporate level, if I can put it like that. I look forward to him pursuing that, because it is a very interesting idea. To be frank, there was not much take-up of that idea by the previous Government; we will see whether the current Government are more interested in his ideas.
I want to say something about the issue of addressing parental responsibility. The Bill automatically restricts parental responsibility in cases where a child is conceived through rape or where a parent is convicted of serious sexual offences against any child, ensuring that perpetrators do not have a say in critical decisions regarding the child’s welfare. I noted the point that my noble friend made—that up to 20 offenders may be captured by this change in the law, after it goes through. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, gave a number of examples, which I know from my own experience as a family magistrate, where parental responsibility has not been given in the first place or has been withdrawn, usually from fathers. This takes the existing provisions a step further, which I welcome, specifically in cases where the father has been convicted of serious sexual offences. Nevertheless, I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pursuing the practical difficulties of doing this in Committee.
The Bill also seeks to improve transparency and accountability. It introduces measures to modernise the criminal justice system, including flexibility for the Director of Public Prosecutions in appointing Crown Court prosecutors and updating sentencing powers in magistrates’ courts. I have only one point on this, regarding the CILEX members to whom my noble friend referred in her introductory remarks. We should be very clear about this: CILEX members are from more diverse backgrounds than lawyers who are either solicitors or barristers, and that is to be welcomed. I am sure there is an ambition to have more diverse people acting as prosecutors, and this is a route to achieve that. It is not just about increasing the numbers, which of course is welcome in itself; it is also a route to achieve greater diversity. I noted my noble friend’s assurance that there will be no dilution in standards, so it is a welcome move by the Government.
In conclusion, this is a good Bill, and I hope that it will increase trust and confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole. I look forward to taking part more constructively when we move to Committee.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, I always find it slightly daunting, when speaking towards the end of a debate, to follow so many eminent noble Lords. In my short time in this place, I have learned that your Lordships do not like needless repetition, so I will absolutely attempt to abide by that stricture.
The first observation I make, while broadly welcoming the Bill, is that nobody really expects to be a victim of crime. It is not something that ever really appears in our political debates, that politicians major on when they make election campaign promises, or that appears in the media with great regularity. But when someone is a victim of crime they very often find themselves being badly failed by the services that are supposed to be there to support them and which they assumed would be there. Until they need to use them, they do not understand what is actually going on in the system.
I served as a Minister in the Home Office and in the Ministry of Justice, and it is a huge privilege to hear from victims who are brave enough to come forward and speak about their experiences. I and, I know, many others welcome the Government’s work on strengthening support and services for those victims. When victims come forward to speak about those things, they exhibit a huge amount of bravery. We can learn a lot from that. That is how we go forward, tailor the services and get it right for them in the future.
As people have said, this is not a party-political point. We made some progress towards improving services for victims under the previous Government. We quadrupled legal aid for victims, enshrined the victims’ code in law and began the task of unpicking automatic halfway early release for serious offenders, but there was always more to do. It was the start point, not the end point, of a journey.
I have a couple of key concerns about the Bill, particularly around rape and serious sexual offences. I will add my comments to what others have said about the window for victims to apply to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. I do not think that 28 days is enough. Will the Government please look again at the issue of court transcripts? As so many others have said, those really need to be provided in cases such as that of the grooming gangs. It will give confidence to everybody in the system.
Attendance at sentencing is so important. It is just fantastic that the Government are doing this, taking forward some of the early steps that we took in the previous Government. I too have some knowledge of Zara Aleena’s case. Her family said that when their niece’s killer did not appear in court, it was a slap in the face to them. They wanted the killer, McSweeney, to face his actions. They felt it was so important for them. They wanted him to hear what impact his despicable actions had had on their family and how he had destroyed them as a family. I really hope that, in the name of them and so many others, we can get that done as a Parliament and help those people.
There are some operational difficulties around this that we will look forward to working with the Government on. If police officers are required to enforce attendance, they should be issued with stab vests and tasers. They need to have the right kit so that they can do it, otherwise there is a worry about the use of the defence of reasonableness and appropriateness. We have all seen that people sometimes use that to get away from actually doing what they need to do, which is facing justice in open court.
Before I conclude, I ask the Minister to reflect on some really important work that the previous Government did on rape prosecutions. It might be slightly outwith the scope of the Bill but, against the backdrop of the work that the Government are doing on the VAWG strategy and on the court system as a whole, we introduced an operation called Operation Soteria. We worked with the Crown Prosecution Service, with police forces across the country and with the courts. We were improving the experience of rape victims when they went into court and the pace at which those trials moved through the court system. By the time I left the role, we had City St George’s perform an objective study, which found that that operation had objectively improved both the time it takes for those cases to come to court and the experience of victims. I would be really interested and grateful if the Minister could touch on that when she comes to sum up, or else write to me about how that work has been taken forward and how it fits into the wider plans.
The Government are completely right in their ambition to tackle the backlog of 74,000 cases at the Crown Court, but I think the public will find it extraordinary that we are looking at getting rid of jury trials, or even magistrates’ trials, when we know that there are courts sitting empty. The Minister shakes her head, so perhaps she will address that when she responds. As I have said, I look forward to seeing the Bill go forward and to working with the Government and others. I very much hope that victims outside here will see that we are doing our job and standing up for them.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I will say a few words in the gap; I have notified the clerk. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, because I spoke in the gap very recently just before he was about to speak. I ask for his tolerance.
I did not put my name down for this debate, because I thought other speakers would cover all the essential features. The Minister did a marvellous job to cover all the major issues in the Bill in her opening speech, so I was right about that. Led by the Minister, this House has done very well to cover all the major points of the Bill. However, while I sat and listened to this debate, my attention was drawn to Clause 3, in which the Crown Court is under a duty to make a prohibited steps order where a serious sexual offence has been committed. Effectively, that means that contact is prohibited between the offender and the damaged child or their family. When one contemplates it—for example, when a father commits a vile sexual offence on a son or daughter—one can see exactly why the introduction of this offence in Clause 3 is to be greatly welcomed.
However, my concern is the stipulation that the offender must have had a life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of four years or more. Surely this clause should be drafted differently; it should be when a sexual offence has taken place and the offender has been convicted for that. There is a loosening up in new subsection (5), which states that the prohibited steps order can still be made when
“the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal, or … the sentence is reduced, on appeal, so that it is no longer a life sentence or a term of imprisonment … of 4 years or more”.
There is a loosening up. It seems that the straightforward principle is that, when an offender has been convicted of a serious sexual crime, it should be sufficient to trigger the right of the Crown Court to introduce prohibited steps.
I end by saying that this is a very difficult area. I am heavily involved in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, in which there is a provision preventing a parent, under certain circumstances, having contact with the child. In that case, the party who approached me explained that the father is the offender but he has not yet been convicted because the DPP’s decision has not yet been made to make that conviction. There is always a difficulty of proof when a young child has been molested. I wonder whether this provision should not be further extended when there has not been a conviction.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I speak in the gap to acknowledge that the Bill has many virtues; I cannot enumerate them better than the Minister and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst have done. We have heard many valuable contributions in this debate, and I cannot begin to respond to them as elegantly as my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie will. I cannot bring the front-line experience of dealing with violence against women and girls as effectively as my noble friend Lady Maclean has done to this debate. But I can bring one thing: an appreciation, from my time in the Ministry of Justice, that the single most important thing for victims is not the advocacy of the Victims’ Commissioner, welcome as that is, or the support of victims’ services, valuable as that is; it is effective, speedy justice, with high-quality prosecutions of those who deserve to face the highest sanctions for their criminal acts.
We know that the area where the justice system most poorly serves our citizens is rape and serious sexual offences, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out. We know, from the most recent report by the inspectorate looking at the work of the Crown Prosecution Service that early contact with victims made by the CPS is still tragically far from the level that the CPS and victims would like to see. We know also that the CPS faces constraints in the quality of people whom it can employ, and above all, the criminal Bar—those experts who deal most effectively and most sensitively with these cases—is facing a drought, with a quarter of people at the criminal Bar having departed and a further quarter potentially likely to depart.
That is why I am concerned that in the Bill the CPS is given the power to increase the number of those working as prosecutors by potentially diluting the quality threshold and bringing in, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, pointed out, those who have other qualifications. That change may be justified on the basis of diversity. I want to see changes justified on the basis of efficiency.
What are the Government doing to ensure that we can reverse the flight from the criminal Bar and that we can continue to make it an area where our very best lawyers see their careers developing? When there are vital questions of guilt or innocence, or horrific crimes such as those my noble friend Lady Maclean mentioned, nothing is more important than ensuring that we have the best possible prosecutors as well as the accused having the best possible defence. There is no question but that the criminal Bar provides it. Whether or not there are gifted solicitor advocates and CILEX-trained individuals have skills, no one is as well equipped as those who are either called to the English and Welsh Bar or who are advocates in Scotland. Unless and until we can have that guarantee, I fear that we once again have another measure to dilute quality and cut costs, with justice, unfortunately, being the victim.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I say at the outset that, as far as the speakers in the gap are concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, need not fear to intervene in the gap, as he has done on other occasions before my speaking. He is always very welcome. It was very good to hear the noble Lord, Lord Gove, speaking in the gap, with his experience and showing above all that this is very much a non-party-political debate. We are all worried about the concerns he expressed.
From these Benches, as my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Hamwee in particular have said, we broadly welcome the Bill. Just by way of introduction, for too long, victims in our criminal courts were largely ignored and unprotected by the system and were, frankly, shamefully treated as bit-part players in the business of criminal justice as no more than witnesses. When offenders pleaded guilty, they were often not even informed about the date and place of trial. Certainly, they were not given an opportunity to make any meaningful contribution to the procedure of the case.
Recent years, however, have seen a great deal of welcome change. The introduction of victim impact statements and the attention that is now paid to them; the establishment of the office of the Victims’ Commissioner, given statutory authority in 2004; and the formal introduction of the victims’ code and its statutory strengthening by the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 have all been important milestones along the way. Now we genuinely have a system that seeks to put victims of crime at its heart, but in many ways this important ambition is not achieved in practice. It is hoped that the measures in the Bill will close some of the gaps, but certainly not all of them.
I join everyone else in paying a warm tribute to Baroness Newlove, with whom I worked on a number of important measures to improve our system. She had such an important influence on the criminal justice system and on public awareness of the importance of victims and of looking after them in society as a whole. I welcome the appointment of Claire Waxman to the post; she has done a wonderful job as Victims’ Commissioner for London, and I believe that she will do a wonderful job as Victims’ Commissioner.
The Bill takes forward the Government’s intention to strengthen the position of victims, and it fits particularly with their ambition to halve violence against women and girls. Among the most important and welcome provisions of the Bill are those in Clauses 3 to 5, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, pointed out, and Schedules 1 and 2 that go with them; they include restricting parental responsibility for convicted sex offenders committing offences against children and requiring the court to make a prohibited steps order. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about the good sense and the likely utility of these measures. We welcome them and the general valuable protection of vulnerable children who are at risk of violence or abuse from convicted offenders.
I am bound to add one note of caution, however: on these Benches we would prefer to see greater discretion in the courts about the making of prohibited steps orders. Sometimes we resort too quickly to mandatory requirements where those may not be necessary or appropriate in every case.
I turn to non-disclosure agreements and the measures in Clause 6 for avoiding unacceptable provisions in such agreements. It is clear that NDAs have often been misused—often, but not always, in the context of employment—and used to prevent victims and direct witnesses from reporting behaviour that is patently criminal. Kinds of behaviour that should be reported but where NDAs can be used to silence victims are abuse, including sexual abuse, bullying, and racial, religious or sex discrimination. Some protection of victims has been offered by the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, but Clause 6 will strengthen the protection for victims and direct witnesses, and it is welcome.
It is a major step forward that the victim contact scheme is to be strengthened. This will make it easier for victims to be kept informed about the release of perpetrators; in particular, it will introduce a dedicated helpline for victims. Victims of stalkers, for example, shamefully have been ignored too often in the past. They have had good reason to complain about the lack of information they have been entitled to receive. I note the important contribution of my noble friend Lady Brinton in the past.
It is right that the definition of victims should be widened, as it will be by Schedule 2, to include bereaved family members and children who have witnessed domestic abuse. We would like to see a reporting obligation on the working of the victim contact scheme to include reports on its accessibility to victims and on its uptake. We would like to see proposals for improvement of the scheme made public on a regular basis.
Strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner to give the commissioner the power to act in the general public interest where particular cases or circumstances or the plight of particular victims raise questions of general importance will broaden the commissioner’s office to enable her to work more effectively in the public interest.
I have not so far mentioned as particularly important the powers in Clauses 1 and 2 to compel the attendance of defendants at their sentencing hearings. Of course I agree with the Government that defendants should be obliged to attend sentencing hearings, and I recognise the importance to victims of obliging offenders to look them in the eye, as the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, mentioned in opening. Victim impact needs to be understood by the public and by defendants, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said. So of course the court should have the power to order defendants to attend such hearings, and it is right that they should do so and right that those who fail to do so should be penalised.
But is there any real point in including a power, as the Bill does, for a prison or custody officer to use reasonable force to compel such attendance? What force is reasonable for that purpose? We have read press stories of offenders being likely to be bound and gagged to bring them to court. Indeed, these were fuelled and reinforced by amendments the Conservatives introduced in the Commons to sanction such treatment—a concept that may have been supported today by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, although I am not sure he meant to go as far as perhaps he did.
I question whether we wish to risk giving offenders the chance of appearing publicly as martyrs and making the criminal justice system into a public spectacle of what could be seen or portrayed as oppression, whether fairly or unfairly. Far better, I suggest, to make the order to treat non-compliance as contempt, as the Bill suggests; to allow judicial discretion, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, suggested; and to sanction it with reasonable but not excessive extra time in custody or financial penalties as appropriate, just as we would for other contempts of court. Unusually, in this case I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that extra sentences would not act as a deterrent to defendants thinking of avoiding their sentencing hearings. I suspect I share the doubt of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, about the use of force.
I turn to a number of amendments to the Bill that we wish to see and propose to introduce. First, we need to be sure that victim support services will be improved by these measures and adequately funded. My noble friend Lady Hamwee made some important points on victim support services and the degree to which provision needs to be made, increased and properly resourced. We would want to see not just national government but local authorities required to produce victim support strategies for meeting the needs of victims of offences relating to domestic or family-related abuse, sexual offences or child criminal exploitation in their areas. My noble friend Lady Benjamin talked of trauma-informed support for victims, particularly child victims. We want to see reports on support services for victims as they are developed, especially for child victims. But such reports should also include the carers for victims, whether they be for children or for elderly or disabled victims of crime.
We will also introduce an amendment seeking a commitment to make transcripts of sentencing remarks and summings up available to victims. I agree with those who suggested that a solution based on new technology and AI may make it easier, but the availability of transcripts is very important and should not be put off by a supposed lack of resources. I welcome the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, both on the importance of transcripts and on the lack of validity of the excuse that the cost is a justifiable reason for failing to address this issue.
No one who heard the sentencing today of Paul Doyle by Judge Menary, to more than 21 years’ imprisonment for the dreadful road rage attack on the Liverpool Football Club victory parade, could fail to realise the need for public awareness of sentencing and its justification. While public awareness is vital, victim understanding is just as important—even more so. The provision of transcripts and of sentencing hearings is therefore a crucial service.
I look forward to considering the important amendments to be moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, on improving our provisions for compensation in a corporate context. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, put that in the frame of restorative justice. I agree with him that that is an interesting and sensible way of introducing this topic and of taking the approach that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, suggests.
We also support the amendment proposed in the House of Commons by Joshua Reynolds MP to amend the victims’ code to ensure that it will apply to assisting relatives of victims of murder or manslaughter committed abroad.
On the unduly lenient sentence scheme, my noble friend Lady Brinton outlined the degree to which we do not believe that the short extra time to be given to the Attorney-General to introduce an application goes far enough. There is, I suggest, no reason in principle why the unduly lenient sentence scheme should not ensure that questioning the leniency of sentences is as available as appeals against excessive sentences are available to offenders.
Before closing, I say this: for all the merits of this Bill, as my noble friend Lady Brinton and others have highlighted, it exposes a glaring failure in the Government’s approach to the criminal justice system: the failure to take sufficient measures to address the delays in the criminal justice system which have led to the current appalling court backlogs. As the last speaker in the gap, the noble Lord, Lord Gove, said that the most important thing for victims is speedy and effective justice, and he emphasised the importance of the qualified criminal Bar in providing that.
The delay in court hearings has been the starkest denial of victims’ rights to justice that we can imagine, as the depressing prevalence of abandoned cases in the face of delay attests, and that is particularly so in the case of sexual offences. For every victim in a case that is abandoned because it is not brought to trial in a reasonable time, that is a denial of justice. It is a betrayal by society of that victim, who justifiably loses any confidence that the system or the state is on the victim’s side.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, in what was an important speech, said that no one expects to be a victim of crime. She highlighted the lack of political attention that crime therefore attracts. That also means that she highlighted the lack of resources allocated by government to criminal justice as a result.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, said about the importance of not just cutting but ending these disastrous delays. Like him, I do not accept that the only way of cutting delays is by restricting jury trials, which I regard as extremely important. It is a question of resources, of efficiency, and of being more adventurous in the ways we deal with this. It is a question of more court sitting days and more hours; of better repair and refurbishment of disused and decrepit buildings; of ensuring that we do not have courts standing empty; and of ensuring that we have more barristers, solicitors, judges, all properly remunerated and attracted to continue the work they do in their professional lives.
On efficiency, we need to improve prison delivery services and all those wasteful things that cause endless adjournments. Prosecutors need to avoid overcharging when that will make no difference to ultimate disposal or sentence. We need to make more use of new technology for listing, for pre-trial hearings and for evidence preparation and presentation, making cases more economic. We need to have an overall inventive approach. If we do that and cut the delays, we will be doing more for victims than what we do in the Bill. Meanwhile, what we do in the Bill is of course extremely important, and that is why, generally, we welcome it and will seek to improve it.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, victims demand effective and speedy justice, and we should deliver effective and speedy legislation.
We welcome many measures in the Bill which build on the previous Government’s efforts in the Criminal Justice Bill and in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. Clearly, this Bill is intended to put victims first when addressing issues of justice and to enhance their voice in the criminal justice process. It is vital that victims are heard and that the justice system is transparent and accessible to victims. That includes, in particular, how offenders are sentenced and how victims can access the information given by the court on that issue.
We are grateful for many of the provisions in the Bill and for the fact that the Government have been open to constructive suggestions during its passage, resulting in new clauses and clarifications that have now been added to it. Indeed, we are supportive of the steps taken by the Government to strengthen the Bill’s approach to parental responsibility so that restrictions apply to offenders who have committed offences against any child rather than just their own.
There are, however, certain areas where we believe that there is further scope still for the Bill’s provisions to be improved, and there are several important points upon which the Bill is silent. In particular, that touches upon the issue of justice delayed being justice denied—a point made by a number of noble Lords.
There is also the parallel development of legislation going through this House that was touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee: in particular, the Sentencing Bill. It is important to be clear that, although this Bill puts victims at the centre of justice, there is concern that the Sentencing Bill currently passing through this House tends to do the opposite. Under the suspended sentence presumption in the Sentencing Bill, many offenders who would previously have gone to prison will now remain in the community. For victims, this often means living alongside the offenders, seeing them in the street, in local shops and in shared public spaces. This is not an abstract policy choice but in fact a daily reality for the victims of crime. Can a system that leaves victims to live with the consequences of offending in this way really claim to put victims first? This is perhaps a tension between the Government’s victims Bill and their proposed sentencing provisions.
Turning to the clauses of the Bill itself, we are broadly supportive of Clause 1 on sentencing. Sentencing is not a purely administrative act but a moment of public accountability. For victims, the sentencing hearing is often the first and only opportunity to see an offender confronted with the true consequences of their actions, and their physical presence in court matters to victims. Indeed, the absence of an offender at sentencing, particularly where it is deliberate, can no doubt exacerbate the victim’s trauma arising out of the original offence.
With regard to the specific provisions, there is a reference to reasonable force being employed to bring an individual into court. That raises question marks of onus. Will it be for the police officer to prove that only reasonable force was employed? It might be more appropriate to approach this on the basis that such force as is necessary will be employed, provided that it is not disproportionate. That would be a safety net for police officers, who might very often be accused of using unnecessary force in the situation that they are faced with. There is also a need to ensure that police and prison officers, who are already under significant pressure, are provided with the appropriate instruction, training and means to carry out this task. That will need to be addressed in due course.
Turning to Clauses 3 to 5 on the restriction of parental responsibility, we generally support the Government’s steps in this area, as I indicated earlier. It is, as the Government consider it, an important child protection measure. But there is a question mark as to the four-year threshold provision, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. Are we otherwise to throw the onus back on the family court to address this issue? Equally, are interim measures to be left to the family court to determine and deal with? We hope these issues will be addressed going forward in discussion with the Minister. I look forward to that opportunity.
On Clauses 6 and 7 on victims’ rights, again we are broadly supportive of these measures. It is essential that we extend these measures in order that victims can be confident that their interests and concerns are being properly dealt with.
Some criticism was made of the length of Schedule 2. It is only fair to observe that Schedule 2 is of such length because of the attendant number of existing statutory measures that are required to be amended, which maybe does not reflect very well on our existing statutory provision but is the necessary consequence of having so many diverse provisions that touch on this very issue. There are one or two issues that we want to raise with the Minister in due course. For example, Schedule 2 requires certain parties to take such steps as they “consider appropriate”, which seems rather open- ended. We hope that in time the Minister will have an opportunity to address that sort of issue in Schedule 2 so that we can be reassured as to the effectiveness of these measures going forward.
On Clauses 8 to 10, with respect to the position of the Victims’ Commissioner, we are broadly supportive of all these measures and acknowledge the very considerable contribution that was made in this regard by the late Baroness Newlove. We look forward to her replacement with the experience that she has had as Victims’ Commissioner for London.
Clause 11 deals with the extension of the right to prosecute to those other than qualified solicitors or barristers. I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, that by extending this to those with CILEX qualifications we will increase diversity. That is to be welcomed. The noble Lord, Lord Gove, is also undoubtedly correct that the provision will dilute qualification. The question is whether it will dilute the quality of prosecution. That will have to be monitored with very conspicuous care going forward. I look forward to the Minister explaining to us how the Government will seek to monitor that. It is important that we have Crown prosecutors available, but equally they should be of a quality and standard to ensure fair and effective prosecution. That is a matter for the interests of victims and for society as a whole.
I turn briefly to Clause 12, which deals with the introduction of regulations to set rates of remuneration in the case of private prosecutions. Let it be noted that private prosecutions are a very significant and important aspect of overall prosecutions within our courts. Such matters as shoplifting, for example, which are a scourge upon society and the high street, are generally taken up as prosecutions privately by major institutions. Indeed, in the case of fraud, again private prosecutions play a very important part, not just in respect of minor fraud but very often in the case of major fraud, which is extremely expensive to prosecute.
The Minister said that what would be introduced would be fairer, with safeguards and so on. I wonder if she is being a little economical when she describes the matter in that way. I take as my guide the Explanatory Notes, which
“have been prepared by Ministry of Justice in order to assist the reader”—
in this case, myself. If we look at the Explanatory Notes, we are reminded that, in the case of a private prosecution, it is provided by the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 that there will be “reasonably sufficient” compensation to the prosecutor as required. The Legal Aid Agency monitors this matter, and it employs the Senior Courts Cost Office guidelines for solicitors in respect of such costs. Those particular costs have been the subject of review by the Master of the Rolls, pursuant to a recommendation from the Civil Justice Council, so that in 2021 those rates were increased for the first time in 11 years. There is now a provision for them to be reviewed annually in line with the services producer price index.
Consequently, those reasonable rates of remuneration are now about five times higher than the criminal legal aid rates. That has nothing to do with the reasonableness of remuneration for those undertaking private prosecution; it has everything to do with the poverty of the criminal legal aid rates that are in place at the present time. You do not encourage the very formidable burden of private prosecution by trying to bring down a reasonable level of remuneration to what is, frankly, a poverty level of remuneration that has had, and continues to have, a very significant impact on the prosecution of criminal offences in our courts. It is not just physical buildings; you have to invest in people as well as property. We have failed singularly to invest in people, and that has to be improved. I would rather see a victims provision that said we are going to pay a reasonable rate to those undertaking criminal prosecution, so that we can get adequate prosecutors and so that we can get adequate defence counsel, than to say that, in order to try to remove this embarrassing disparity, we will try to impoverish those who take up the burden of private prosecution.
Of course, the Minister said this will have no chilling effect on private prosecutions. I merely raise the question: where is the impact assessment? Perhaps we will hear in due course.
I move on to Clauses 13 and 14, which deal with sentencing reviews. With regard to unduly lenient sentencing, a number of noble Lords have observed that there is a need for transcripts to be available to victims in order that they can understand how a sentence was arrived at and, if necessary, make a request to the law officers that a ULS review should be carried out. In that context, I have no difficulty with the suggestion that the Attorney-General should have 14 days from the time of the request in order to deal with that matter. But, while I accept that the unduly lenient sentence mechanism is not an appeal mechanism for victims, it is a means by which victims can make a request of the law officers, and they have to be given a reasonable period of time to do that. I acknowledge the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that, for that to be effective, there has to be a more realistic time limit available.
I turn briefly to matters which we say should properly be in the Bill but are not yet there, although I look forward to their introduction in due course, possibly at the instigation of the Minister herself.
First, there are no provisions to address the courts backlog. Let us be clear that, without any doubt, that is the greatest barrier to victims achieving justice, disposal and closure. We know that there are many Crown courtrooms that are not sitting on a single day, indicating that there is at least the property capacity to deal with it. I equally acknowledge the need for not just property but personnel. It would be good to see that fundamental problem addressed in the Bill as well. I also note that, where offers of additional court sitting days have been made by the Lady Chief Justice, they have not been fully taken up by the Government. It would be helpful to know why not, given the enormous backlog that we face at the present time.
Secondly, there is no real provision for increased transparency. Again, we come back to the issue of court transcripts. It appears to us that there is at least perhaps a halfway house: I appreciate that, very often, the Government will come up with the cost implications of transcripts as well as the time implications, but surely there is scope for a mechanism whereby, if victims request a transcript of sentencing remarks, the court should be able to request that transcript as soon as the request is made. It would not be in every case, by any means, and it would curtail both costs and delay.
The third area, touched on in the other place, is data on who actually commits crimes. The Bill contains no provision that mandates the collection and publication of data on offenders’ visa status, asylum status or related immigration information. That is important from the point of view of public perception and victims’ perception. To what extent is crime going to be committed by those who have come into this country unlawfully, for example? You have to satisfy public concern on that issue, and the appropriate way to do that is by collecting the appropriate data.
There is then the question of the need to recoup outstanding fines. I understand that at the present time there is something in the region of £1 billion in outstanding fines, and recovering that could only help the Ministry of Justice in its improvement of courts services and of legal aid rates, surely. But the scale of unpaid fines is “truly astounding”. Those are not my words: I am quoting the London Victims’ Commissioner. Surely some further steps need to be taken in that regard.
That question of fines then comes to the issue of overseas corruption, which was raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. I listened with interest to the point he made, and has previously made, about the need to ensure compensation for the countries that are the victims of corruption. I look forward to considering the amendments which he has made it clear he intends to bring forward in that regard.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, mentioned the possible concern that the issue of jury trials would be dropped into the Committee’s amendments. My understanding is that, as a matter of precedent, that never, ever happens, and what happens is that, if someone wishes to see an amendment, they indicate that they will bring it back on Report. In any event, I do not anticipate that the premature and perhaps ill-thought-out proposals that have emanated from the Ministry of Justice on the limitations to jury trial will come before the House any time soon—but, if they do, I have no doubt they will meet with the most robust response.
Before closing, I thank the Minister for the clarity with which she presented the Bill. I look forward to further engagement with her on its terms.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the helpful and constructive approach taken to the Bill—and I really mean it when I say that. Many of those who have spoken this evening have enormous expertise in this area and the contributions are very welcome. Many of the points made have given us food for thought and we will reflect on them. I hope to answer most of the matters raised but, if I do not, I will write to the noble Lord in question.
I hope that I shall be forgiven if I single out one of your Lordships for the matters he raised—the noble Lord, Lord Bailey. He spoke very movingly in reminding us about the disproportionate effect of criminal offences on poorer communities. It is good to be reminded of that, and also of how important it is that there is clarity for citizens. I am often acutely aware that sometimes when I am trying to explain one of the provisions in a piece of legislation, even to those in this House with the enormous expertise they have, I do not explain it very well. It was a very well-made point and one that I shall take away.
I will deal first with non-attendance at sentencing hearings, which was spoken to by many of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. My noble friend Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, who I thank for her kind words, asked whether the power to add additional custodial sentences would have an impact on the issue of prison capacity. We envisage that any impact would not be immediate, because any additional time in custody would be served at the end of the offender’s existing sentence. We estimate that the measure would result in five additional prison places, at a steady state around 12 years after implementation.
Also, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby spoke about balance and proportionality in requiring defendants to attend their sentencing hearing. We agree with that because, although we are doing our best to compel defendants to attend, if they do attend, we cannot compel them either to behave properly or, indeed, to experience or express contrition for what they have done. For some victims, a defendant who turns up and laughs or is disrespectful or shouts discourteous things can add to a victim’s problems. So, we need to make sure that we strike the balance between forcing them to attend and ensuring that there is no bad behaviour that will simply make things worse for victims.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, among others, raised the question of risk to those who are dealing with the question of reasonable force. Let me make it clear that it is not police officers. It will be prison staff and PECS —Prison Escort and Custody Services—staff. They already have training and experience in dealing with the question of reasonable force when it comes to getting offenders to court. It will be their assessment that counts. It will not be the judge who decides what kind of force will be used, or whether it will be used: it will be down to the assessment of the staff as to what the risk is. We have made it absolutely clear that we do not expect any additional risk to staff. That is not the purpose of the exercise. This is why it has to be proportionate. We are certainly not binding and gagging defendants to bring them to court. That would not be appropriate and we are not turning this into some kind of sideshow, which was the expression that somebody used.
Turning to the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility mentioned by numerous noble Lords, I make the point in response to my noble friend Lord Hacking that parental responsibility is not the same as parental involvement. The removal of parental responsibility does not mean that those parents will never see those children again. That would be a matter for the family courts to decide. What it does mean is that, for example, a defendant who is serving a very long sentence of imprisonment cannot simply interfere with questions such as which school the child will go to, and so on and so forth.
I thank noble Lords for the broad welcome given to these provisions. A number of points were made, including by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about the Explanatory Notes. I am sorry about that. We will check that we have got them right by Report.
On the question of four years, a number of noble Lords made the observation about a line having to be drawn somewhere. These are new and radical provisions, and we want to balance the seriousness of an automatic restriction with the seriousness of the crime and the impact it will have on the child. We made the assessment that, as this was not a decision to be taken lightly, it should be done only in tightly restricted circumstances, and four years seems to us to strike the correct balance regarding the seriousness of the offence. The other issue is that we want to make sure that the system is not overwhelmed by the number of cases. However, these are certainly matters upon which we can reflect.
A number of noble Lords raised interim orders. My immediate response is that they would pose difficulties for the Crown Court. First, what is the evidence upon which it would act? Secondly, they would drag the Crown Court into decisions that are properly those of the family court. However, we can certainly reflect on this matter, and we will be happy to discuss it with as many noble Lords as wish to do so.
I am grateful to those who broadly welcomed the non-disclosure agreements. I was asked where these differ from those brought in under Section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act, which came into force on 1 October. The new measures go further. Basically, they mean that those subject to a non-disclosure agreement can speak to anyone, not simply to categories of individuals. The most important thing is that this aligns with and complements the legislation in the Employment Rights Bill. That is the purpose of it.
On strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti asked whether the commissioner would be able to intervene in individual cases. That is not anticipated at present because really that is the function of the Crown Prosecution Service; if there are points of law to be made on behalf of victims, that is part of the function of the CPS. Again, though, we can reflect on this question, and if she would like to meet me to discuss this, she would be welcome to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, spoke about never expecting to be a victim. As the noble Baroness was saying that, I reflected that of course that was the experience of the late Baroness Newlove; she never expected to be a victim but the events of one evening meant that she was propelled into a situation that she had never envisaged at all. However, when it comes to the idea that victims do not get a lot of attention, there are a number of Bills going through both Houses of Parliament that deal with law and order, so I suggest that this Government are giving a lot of attention to the question of victims.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that victims used to be seen simply as a special category of witness. In fact, he and I are both probably old enough to remember a time when prosecuting advocates were not even allowed to go and introduce themselves to the victim of a crime, far less explain anything about what was going on. I am happy to say that that is not the situation any longer. Successive Governments, and I pay tribute to all those involved, have sought to put this right, and I pay tribute to the party opposite for the part it has played in ensuring that victims have been brought more centrally into the system.
As far as Operation Soteria is concerned, which the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, mentioned, many of its provisions are being taken further. We announced recently that we are going to firm up the rules of evidence about what victims can be asked regarding their previous sexual experience and so forth.
I turn to the victim contact scheme in Schedule 2. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, complained how long Schedule 2 was. I was going to say that the reason is that it tidies up a load of other provisions but then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, made that point for me.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised support for victims, and that was echoed by a number of noble Lords, including, in her customary passionate fashion, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. We will reflect on this point. I issue an invitation to any Members of your Lordships’ House who would like to discuss any proposed amendments with me. I will be happy to do so and see where we can work together to ensure that there is appropriate provision to be made for victims.
On Crown prosecutors, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for raising the point that CILEX members tend to be more diverse than barristers and solicitors. I deliberately did not make that point because that is not the primary objective; it is a happy side effect. I make it absolutely clear that this will not reduce standards. I invite noble Lords to reflect on their comments that suggest that CILEX lawyers are somehow less good than barristers or solicitors. They simply qualify via a different route. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, shaking his head and remind him that people used to say that solicitors were inferior to barristers; I do not think anybody is going to say that any more.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Gove, did not say it now, but in the past that used to be said. We have moved on.
Lord Gove (Con)
There is absolutely no doubt, when it comes to the exercise of the prosecutorial or the defence function in court, that someone who has served at the criminal Bar will provide a higher level of service in the most sensitive and most important cases. A misplaced respect for the role that solicitor advocates can play and have played should not take away from the fact that the criminal Bar is under siege. It is losing members. It needs support and it is vital that we recognise that, without a healthy criminal Bar, not just prosecution and defence but the future of the judiciary are threatened.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I have tried very hard to keep this non-partisan, but I have to say very gently to the noble Lord that it is a bit rich to hear from a member of the party opposite about what has happened to the criminal Bar, when pretty much everybody who was working there at the time—that includes me—knows it was the considerable cuts made to legal aid under the previous Administration that put the criminal Bar into the parlous state it is now in. But I say no more about that contentious subject, because this is not an opportunity for us to fall out. The noble Lord and I can debate the respective merits of barristers, solicitors and CILEX lawyers in due course.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti about the importance of private prosecutions and entirely understand her concerns. I hope she is aware that the Government intend to look at some of the issues, for example, that surround disclosure in private prosecutions. We all know the cases to which I refer. She said she has reservations about corporate private prosecutions. I was about to say something, then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, rather made the point for me that some very important commercial organisations have brought private prosecutions in relation to quite big frauds—sometimes very big frauds indeed. Economic crime is one of the scourges of our society. The investigation and prosecution of those crimes consumes a huge amount of public resource. The Government are certainly of the view that there is a place for private prosecution to help to ensure that economic crime is prosecuted successfully.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, drew my attention to the Explanatory Notes—again—as did the noble Lord, Lord Meston. If we have got them wrong, we will correct them by Report.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I was not suggesting for a moment that the Explanatory Notes are wrong; they just happen to contradict the Minister.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I would, of course, always say that I am right, would I not? In that sense, they are wrong.
The noble and learned Lord made the point about needing to invest in people. I will give another gentle reminder about who was in power for the past 14 years.
Turning to the question of the unduly lenient scheme, I entirely agree with noble Lords that there is no point in having a right that nobody knows they have, and we plainly are not getting this right in terms of information. It needs to be more broadly known about. The question of whether 28 days is the appropriate period is one to which the Government are giving urgent consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, said that it should be made the same as for defendants. It is: they have 28 days. That is where the period came from: there is parity between the two. But that does not necessarily mean it must remain.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
As the noble Baroness knows, the period for appeal is extendable in certain circumstances. That is quite an important provision.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
That is very rare. If you appeal out of time, you have pretty much had it. You need to have a really good reason to do so. I now turn to—
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
It would be my pleasure to hear from both my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My noble friend is very gracious, but I fear there is a new trend which is not the practice of your Lordships’ House: to have an extended back and forth at Second Reading. I know this may be the practice of another place not far from here but, with all due respect to noble Lords and to my noble friend with her good humour and fortitude, I am not sure that that is something that we should innovate this evening.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I was only going to support the Minister. One of the differences between an appeal by a defendant in a criminal matter and the unduly lenient sentencing system is that anybody can write to the law officers to complain that a sentence is unduly lenient. Many of the people that the Minister and I may have dealt with in the past wrote in having read an article in a newspaper saying that a particular defendant had been given what they thought was a lenient sentence. Nobody does that to appeal a criminal sentence as a defendant.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
Turning to what is not in the Bill, I of course recall that the Crime and Policing Bill—the Ministry of Justice has some of the clauses in relation to that—has been extensively criticised for being too long. This Bill is now being criticised for being too short—so there is a slight sense of being criticised whichever way we do it.
I will deal with some of the matters that were raised in relation to this. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked whether we intend to bring in the sections in the Victims and Prisoners Act dealing with definitions. I hope that I may write to her in relation to that, because some parts have been implemented and some others are planned to be implemented. I do not want to give her an answer that might turn out not to be entirely accurate.
On the question of homicide abroad, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we are conscious of this being an issue. As I am sure the noble Baroness knows, we are working on a code to give assistance to families abroad. The question of whether the victims’ code is going to apply is difficult, because many of the provisions in the victims’ code deal only with cases that can be prosecuted in this country and therefore would not apply. Again, it is a matter that we are considering and reflecting on and we will be very happy to engage with her and other noble Lords in relation to that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, raised the question of compensation for economic crimes abroad, such as corruption. I entirely agree with him about the importance of not forgetting about the effect of these cases on other countries. In the circumstances, it might be best for me to suggest that we meet to discuss it, because it is an important matter to which I would like to give some serious thought.
Transcripts were raised by many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Transparency is really important to the Government. That is one of the reasons we are now going to make the magistrates’ court a court of record: there will be recordings of all proceedings in order to shine a light on what is happening. If you are recording something, obviously your intention is that at some point it may need to be turned into a transcript. I am old enough to remember the days of the shorthand writer in court. The transcript used to be phenomenally expensive, because you had somebody sitting there typing it out and then it had to be ordered and checked. We are hopeful that artificial intelligence is going to help by bringing down the cost of transcripts: we are all familiar with dictating to our computers these days, so the costs may be in checking rather than actually transcribing.
In the meantime, as far as the victims of rape and serious sexual offences are concerned, the transcripts of those sentencing remarks are free to victims in those cases. We conducted a pilot and, following that, those transcripts will be available free of charge to victims.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, raised the question of victim personal statements, and said that there are anxieties about censorship. This is a tricky one, because as the noble Lord will know, sometimes victims misunderstand the purpose of a victim personal statement and do not quite understand why they cannot include a number of things in it. Again, this is important to us. No victim should feel that their words have been censored. They should be able to say what they want to say—we are going to think about that one.
I turn finally to the issue of backlog and delay. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti raised the question of a rumour about what is to happen to the proposals in the review conducted by Sir Brian Leveson. I think that it could be seen from the expression on my face that it was the first time I had heard of that rumour. Our intention is that proper consideration be given to the important matter of how we deal with the backlog and delay. Speaking for myself, I want to persuade people and take them with us where we can do so. These matters are to be discussed, and I hope that people will listen to each other. Nobody thinks that the status quo is acceptable; the question is how we deal with it. The Government are proposing a package of measures, one aspect of which, as noble Lords know, is the suggestion of slightly moving the line, as other Governments have in the past. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not engage in this and debate it today. I am absolutely confident that there will be other opportunities to do so.
This Bill will help strengthen our justice system. It used to be, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, that victims were treated as mere witnesses and had very little by way of rights. That is no longer the case. This Bill continues the journey of putting them where they should be, at the heart of the justice system. I beg to move.
Baroness Levitt
That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 7, Schedule 2, Clauses 8 to 18, Title.