Grand Committee

Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

Monday 9 February 2026

Arrangement of Business

Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:45

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)]

My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes. Just to remind noble Lords, the previous Grand Committee on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill adjourned during the middle of the debate on Amendment 158, so we will resume with that. Noble Lords may speak in this group only if they were present at the start of the debate on the group last time.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Monday 9th February 2026 Grand Committee

Committee (6th Day)

Relevant documents: 45th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee, 16th Report from the Constitution Committee

15:45

Clause 44: Health improvement and health inequalities duty

Debate on Amendment 158 resumed.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I was waiting for the Minister to reply before I summed up.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)]

If I can help the noble Lord, at this point I think that we are expecting the two Opposition Front-Benchers to speak and then the Minister.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak on a number of amendments in this group that relate to health. They illustrate just how far this Bill stretches and the breadth of its potential impact on matters of public interest. Health is now firmly brought to the fore. Clause 44 inserts new provisions into existing legislation to place a duty on all combined authorities and combined county authorities to have regard to the need to improve the health of the people in their areas and to reduce health inequalities when they exercise their functions. The same duty is applied to mayors of mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities.

This represents a welcome shift. It means that health and health inequalities are no longer seen as an issue solely for the NHS or public health bodies, but I hope that the Department of Health and Social Care is aware of these proposals. If it is not and is not fully engaged, we will not get too far. Instead they must be taken into account across the full range of decisions made by combined authorities, whether they relate to transport, housing, planning, skills or economic development. That is an important change, because many of the factors that shape health outcomes sit well beyond the health system itself.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her Amendment 159, which seeks to broaden the list of health determinants and health outcomes to be considered as part of this new duty. The concerns that she raises are understandable and I am sympathetic to the desire to reflect the full complexity of what really drives health inequality. However, I ask the Minister whether she believes that combined authorities will have both the capacity and the practical power and resources to deliver against such an expanded list. In the Government’s view, is this expansion feasible? While ambition is welcome, we must ensure that any duty placed on local institutions is deliverable and affordable, rather than well intentioned and unrealistic.

In opening this group, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke about public access to fitness, sport and recreational facilities. These issues are clearly important and, as always, he made a compelling case for the role that access to physical activity plays in improving health outcomes. Many noble Lords will agree with the principles that he set out. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister whether she believes that placing such matters in the Bill is either necessary or proportionate.

The amendments to Clause 44 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, seek to align the list of health determinants more closely with academic research. The points that she raises are thoughtful and well made. I would be grateful if the Government could explain how the existing list of health determinants was arrived at. Who decided what should be included and by what process? Was there any consultation and were academic experts involved? Understanding how this list was developed is important so that we have confidence that it is robust and evidence based. In particular, I found the reference to “educational opportunities and attainment” in Amendment 161A especially interesting. Education is widely recognised as a key driver of long-term health outcomes and I will listen carefully to what the noble Baroness has to say on this matter.

I also note the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, particularly those that relate to climate and pollution. These amendments raise issues that are often cited as having implications for public health. However, they also serve to underline a broader issue that runs through this group. The difficulty is not simply whether individual factors can be linked to health outcomes but how far such a list should extend. If climate-related risks and pollution are included, should the same apply to noise pollution, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman? What about resilience to heat waves, which was also raised in this group? Each of these can be argued to have relevance but, taken together, they illustrate the challenge of scope. At some point a judgment must be made on where the boundary of general health determinants is drawn. That judgment is important for maintaining clarity and focus within the Bill and ensuring that the resulting duties are workable.

This returns me to the underlying question raised by the group. Who determined which health determinants should be included and on what criteria? What evidence or metrics were used to reach these conclusions? Without greater clarity on this point, it is difficult to assess whether the approach taken is sufficiently defined and proportionate. In that context, will the Government commit today to publishing an explanation as to how these decisions were reached? In particular, will the Minister set out who was consulted in the development of this list, what evidence was relied on and what criteria were used to determine inclusion or exclusion? Providing that clarity would assist the Committee in understanding the rationale behind the approach taken and assessing whether the duty, as framed, is appropriately defined and justified.

Before I sit down, I go back to my plea in the last group. As I have said before, if any of this is going to work, the Department of Health and Social Care will have to be involved. It will also have to work with local government and, by working with it, be willing to devolve power and moneys locally. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have submitted amendments on health improvement, which is an important topic. I am pleased that we will have this duty on local authorities at mayoral combined authority and combined county authority level. As other noble Lords have said, it is an important step forward.

The Government are committed to building a fairer Britain. To do that, we must ensure that people can live well for longer and spend less time in ill health. Our response, our reimagined NHS, will be designed to tackle inequalities in both access and outcomes, as well as to give everyone, no matter who they are or where they come from, the means to engage with the NHS on their terms.

With our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, we remain committed to reducing the gap between the richest and poorest in healthy life expectancy—an ambitious commitment that shows that the Government are serious about tackling health inequalities and addressing the social determinants of health. We support NHS England’s Core20PLUS5 approach, which targets action to reduce health inequalities in the most deprived 20% of the population and improve outcomes for the groups that experience the worst access, experience and outcomes in the NHS. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, tackling health inequalities requires a whole-government effort, as does making sure that the best facilities are available across the country. That is why we are working across departments, from housing and education to employment and welfare, to make sure that health is built into all policies and runs as a golden thread through everything taking place.

I now come to the specific amendments, a number of which would make additions to the list of general health determinants. Before I turn to the individual amendments, I note that the scope and definition of “general health determinants” in the Bill has been intentionally and carefully crafted to be broad and flexible. I will write to noble Lords in answer to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about how those determinants have been drawn up and what consultations have been done on them.

The Bill lists some of the broad and interconnected factors that shape health, life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. Combined authorities, combined county authorities and mayors can directly impact these factors, such as standards of housing, employment prospects and environmental factors, through the delivery of their wider functions. Given the importance of these factors as inarguable determinants of health, the Bill strengthens the duty and adds clarity by listing them explicitly. Although some examples are provided, it is not our intention to set out a definitive list—we feel that that would be constraining. We recognise that combined authorities and combined county authorities are experts in their local areas and are therefore best placed to decide how to determine and act on the factors most relevant to improving health and reducing health inequalities in their own areas.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for tabling Amendment 158 and, as ever, for championing the importance of public access to fitness, sport and recreational facilities. This amendment would require combined authorities to consider the level of public access to fitness, sport and recreational facilities when exercising their functions. The general health determinants already include matters affecting lifestyle, access to services and environmental factors, and explicitly allow for consideration of any other matters that affect life expectancy or the general state of health. I am not being pedantic—nobody loves a clever clogs—but, to be specific and clear, I note that the amendment would apply only to combined authorities and not to combined county authorities, thereby creating inconsistency in how the duty operates. I apologise that I shall have to point that out with a number of these amendments, but it is important to clarify that.

I now turn to Amendments 159 and 167 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I appreciate that her intention is that the health improvement and health inequalities duty, and the definition of general health determinants within the duty, are broad and impactful. A driving purpose behind the health improvement and health inequalities duty is to support combined authorities and combined county authorities in reducing health inequalities and adopting a “health in all policies” approach. The effect the amendments would have is unclear because of the potential interactions with both “health inequalities” and “general health determinants” in Clause 44.

As I mentioned, the Bill has been drafted to provide a broad and flexible definition of “health inequalities” to ensure that differences in aspects such as life expectancy, general health, mental health and disabilities can all be captured in its scope. This allows combined authorities, combined county authorities and mayors to focus on the broad underlying causes of health inequalities and to tailor their responses to key local issues. Similarly, the framing of “life expectancy” or “general state of health” is intentionally broad and does not exclude mental health, disability or healthy life expectancy, all of which are legitimate dimensions of what one might regard as health and are reflected in mainstream methods for describing health states or health impacts.

I turn now to the large group of amendments: Amendments 159B, 160A, 161A, 163A, 163B, 165ZA, 165B, 167A, 167B, 167C, 167D, 167E, 167F and 167G. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon, for her diligence in tabling them and recognise her assured intention to ensure that the definition of general health determinants reflects academic research and is impactful.

As drafted, the list of general health determinants already requires combined authorities and combined county authorities to have regard to environmental factors, employment prospects, earning capacity and access to public services, and explicitly allows for consideration of any other matters that affect life expectancy or the general state of health. Health inequalities are already defined within the duty as inequalities between people of different descriptions living in an area, and it is therefore not necessary to restate this within the general health determinants.

16:00

A driving purpose behind the health improvement and health inequalities duty is to promote a focus by combined authorities and combined county authorities on reducing health inequalities and the adoption of the “health in all policies” approach that I have already mentioned. Combined authorities and combined county authorities are experts in their local areas; they are best placed to decide how to consider general health determinants for their communities. The Bill, as currently drafted, allows them to do this without being restrictive. There is clearly a balance to strike, and the Bill illustrates a number of important health determinants to give clarity to our intent and indicate areas where authorities are likely to be able to act.

Setting out large numbers of individual determinants runs the risk of restricting flexibility, because it can be seen as implying that the specific determinants to be considered are only those which are set out in detail in the Bill. We must strike a balance here between having an exhaustive list, which people feel they cannot go beyond, and a more general determination, which is the way we have chosen to go, so that people can tailor it to their local needs.

I am glad that we are aligned on the overall merits of the new duty, but I am concerned that the suite of amendments proposed would risk opening the door to an ever-expanding list, which would, in turn, undermine the outcomes-focused and locally responsive nature of the duty. Over time, that might impede the creativity and ambition for local areas to tackle their own needs.

I turn now to Amendment 160. The Government recognise the importance of warm, affordable and sustainable energy in supporting good health and reducing health inequalities. As with the previous group of amendments, setting out many individual factors in the definition of general health determinants risks narrowing that flexibility and, as I said, opening the door to an ever-expanding list.

Of course, we recognise that too many households in England cannot afford to heat their homes at a reasonable cost, and that this may lead to cold homes, as well as damp and mould, which affects the health of residents. The Government recently set out, in the new Fuel Poverty Strategy for England, our approach to lift 1 million households out of fuel poverty, alongside the warm homes plan. Our plans to bring forward regulations in the rental sector implement the warm homes plan and make energy more affordable for low-income households; it will deliver a step change in progress to alleviate fuel poverty. Our actions will upgrade the nation’s homes, help families to cut their energy bills and tackle fuel poverty. Ultimately, the Government have been clear that the answers to the challenges around energy security, affordability and sustainability all point in the same direction—to clean, low-carbon energy.

In December 2024, we launched our Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, which set out a detailed plan for achieving the target of clean power by 2030. Our clean power target means transitioning to an electricity system that produces at least 95% of Great Britain’s electricity generation from clean, low-carbon sources by that date, so that clean energy could be supplied to all consumers through our national electricity networks.

I turn now to Amendment 161, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which highlights the importance of exposure to water pollution and resilience to flooding and heatwaves. I answer this question when it has been raining for about 50 days—it feels like it has—so it is a pertinent question. The Government fully recognise these environmental factors in shaping health outcomes and health inequalities. Clause 44 already includes environmental factors and explicitly allows for consideration of any other matters that affect life expectancy or the general state of health.

For clarification, this amendment is another one that would only apply to combined authorities, not to combined county authorities, thereby creating inconsistency in how the duty operates.

Amendment 163 highlights the importance of communities being able to meaningfully shape local decisions that impact their health and well-being. This Government recognise the importance of ensuring that local decisions reflect the needs of communities and support better health outcomes. The definition of “general health determinants” already includes matters of personal behaviour and lifestyle and explicitly allows for consideration of any other matters that affect life expectancy or the general state of health. Furthermore, the Bill already introduces a new requirement on all local authorities to make appropriate arrangements for effective governance of any neighbourhood area under Clause 60. This provision will strengthen the ability of local people to shape decisions made by their local authorities. Adding Amendment 163 to the Bill would risk duplication between the duties of local and combined authorities. This ambiguity would make it harder for local authorities to engage coherently with their communities on the issues that matter to them.

I turn to Amendments 164 and 165 on the importance of diet and nutrition, including concerns about the consumption of ultra-processed foods. The Government encourage healthy eating and exercise, and our 10-year health plan clearly sets out a mission to tackle obesity and encourage healthier diets as part of our shift from sickness to prevention. The definition of “general health determinants” already includes matters of personal behaviour and allows for consideration of any other matters that affect life expectancy or the general state of health. More broadly, the Government are taking decisive action to tackle the obesity crisis, including banning the sale of energy drinks for under-16s, cracking down on junk food advertising, extending the soft drinks industry levy to sugary milk-based drinks and making it mandatory for large food businesses to meet targets and report on the sale of healthy foods.

I turn to Amendment 165A. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath for this amendment and recognise his intention to ensure that combined authorities and combined county authorities have regard to wheelchair and community equipment provision as they consider how to address health inequalities. I recognise all the issues that he and the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, raised the other day. I just say anecdotally to my noble friend that when my father was very ill, the most efficient part of the whole social care system, in my county, was the aids and adaptation process. It would be lovely if that were the case everywhere, and I recognise my noble friend’s point.

Local authorities in England already have a statutory duty under various legislation, including the Care Act 2014 and the Children and Families Act 2014, to make arrangements for the provision of disability aids and community equipment to meet the assessed eligible needs of individuals who are resident in their area. In terms of delivery, NHS England supports integrated care boards and wheelchair providers to reduce regional variation in the quality and provision of NHS wheelchairs and to reduce delays in people receiving timely intervention and wheelchair equipment.

I appreciate that my noble friend’s concern, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, was about the time it takes to provide this equipment, and I will take that back to colleagues in MHCLG and in DHSC to find out what data is available about variations around the country in relation to that service. Again, the scope of “general health determinants” within the Bill should explicitly allow for consideration of other matters that affect life expectancy or the general state of health, which should mean that access to wheelchairs or community equipment provision can come under that where necessary.

Amendment 166 would require combined authorities to prepare and publish a health inequalities strategy setting out how they will operationalise the duty under new Section 107ZB. We want the need to improve health and reduce inequalities to be embedded in the work of these authorities. There is nothing to prevent local partners agreeing that they wish to align around an area-wide approach or strategy, and a shared sense of local ambition would be important in such activity. Of course, local areas may have different local priorities, and we must allow that flexibility. We do not want to add bureaucratic burdens by, in essence, setting detailed process requirements. The Government will pay close attention to how the new duty embeds in the work of combined authorities to understand the impact it is having over time, including the different ways in which authorities respond to it.

Amendment 168 relates to the advertisement consent regime. The purpose of the advertisement control regime is not to control the content of advertisements. That is dealt with through a separate regulatory system overseen by the Advertising Standards Authority. The ASA already has rules on adverts for products such as alcohol, gambling and food high in fat, sugar or salt. They must not target children, which means they must not be placed near schools or similar areas. All adverts must be socially responsible, and the content of alcohol and gambling adverts is additionally restricted. They must not harm or exploit children or vulnerable people, for example by presenting their products as a solution to difficulties or linking them with social success.

The Government have already implemented the manifesto commitment on robust advertising restrictions for less healthy food and drink. This includes a 9 pm watershed on television and a 24-hour restriction on paid-for advertising online, which took legal effect on 5 January. The restrictions are expected to remove up to 7.2 billion calories from UK children’s diets per year and deliver around £2 billion in health benefits. I therefore do not think it is necessary, or indeed sensible, to create an overlap between two regulatory systems where at present there is a clear distinction.

Furthermore, on mayors exercising these powers, the Government are clear that their focus should be on strategic planning matters, which will deliver the growth their areas need most. Therefore, although I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is trying to achieve, I think that the current scope of the advertisement consent regime remains appropriate.

Amendment 169 is on allotments and community gardening. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for raising this important issue of community access to green space. Indeed, we had many discussions on similar topics during the passage of the levelling-up Bill. I reiterate that the Government recognise the importance of allotments and the immense contribution they make to the health, well-being and spirit of communities.

However, we cannot accept this amendment for several reasons. First, local authorities already have clear statutory duties regarding allotments. District, unitary and parish councils have a duty to provide allotments where there is sufficient demand and acquire land if necessary. They also benefit from long-standing protections. Statutory allotment land cannot be disposed of without the consent of the Secretary of State. Tenants also receive security of tenure and compensation rights under the 1922 and 1950 Acts. These duties form a comprehensive legal framework for the provision and protection of allotments at the local authority level. Secondly, the amendment would place operational burdens on combined authorities—bodies that do not own or manage allotments—and the publishing requirements would duplicate duties that sit with local authorities. Thirdly, combined authorities are intended to operate at a strategic level, not to take on detailed service-level responsibilities already covered by existing legislation. Finally, the amendment would create an unfunded new burden on combined authorities, against our commitment to ensure that new devolved responsibilities remain deliverable and do not impose avoidable costs or duplicate existing statutory frameworks.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I thank the Minister, but half of the amendment is not about allotments. Having run this scheme in London, I know that allotments are almost impossible to get. It is also about the right to grow on meanwhile lease bases within communities and councils. Meanwhile leases are available online. It is extremely easy: it just needs the local authority to agree that wasted spaces can be used for growing and then taken away if a builder, developer or council wants them back.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I do not disagree with the noble Baroness. I am saying that this is a local authority duty, and it does not need to go up to the strategic level of a mayoral combined authority. That is why we do not need the amendment for combined authorities, but I accept her point about local authorities. A statutory duty is probably not applicable anyway, but I will give that some further thought, if she is happy for me to do so.

We recognise all the benefits of allotments and community gardening, but we do not want to duplicate existing legal responsibilities or place burdens at the wrong tier of government, which would run counter to the Government’s approach to devolution. I am sorry for going on for so long, but there were a lot of amendments in this group. As I have explained the Government’s rationale for resisting these amendments in detail, I request that they are not pressed.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

This is an important group of amendments, particularly if health does decide to devolve down either power or money in the future. But if local areas have specific health needs that the Government identify, and if they are not seen by the Government as dealing with them, do the Government intend to take a power to intervene?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am not sure about powers of intervention. We have a very specific competence that points our combined authorities towards health issues. The Government have made it very clear that we want to see mayors, in particular, sitting on ICBs; I hope that this will start to address some of the issues raised by noble Lords about not having a voice around the table with health colleagues. I know that Manchester has new powers relating to health issues. We will want to monitor those, have a look at them and watch what is working. We will then decide whether we need to take any further action.

16:15

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

At the end of the clause, in the list of health determinants, there is a particular exclusion for genetically inherited characteristics. Is that supposed to exclude people suffering differences in health due to the colour of their skin?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure that that is not what is intended, but I will revert to the noble Baroness with a written reply.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I want to say a few words about the amendment I introduced. I think that this is the longest I have ever done on a group, returning on a Monday after a Wednesday; but I am sure that it is not setting a record.

The tone of what came out in the debate was, “Okay, maybe there’s a difference between the new combined authorities and the mayoral authorities, in terms of what’s going through, but the fact is that most of the things raised here have a degree of relevance to health, so you might argue about how relevant they are”. Most of them should be recorded and looked at. Going back to sporting and recreational activity, they should be, because, if you do not know that you have structural intervention and somebody who can intervene, what are they supposed to do? They cannot do anything without having some overview.

I will take away what the Minister said and have a think about how we can introduce this. I accept that the wording may be wrong, but at least having it done in one set of authorities would be a step forward. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 158 withdrawn.

Amendment 159 not moved.

Amendment 159A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 159B to 167G not moved.

Clause 44 agreed.

Amendments 168 and 169 not moved.

Clause 45: Functions of police and crime commissioners

Amendment 170

Moved by

[Baroness Pinnock]

170: Clause 45, page 49, line 37, at end insert—
“(c) arrange for the deputy mayor for fire and rescue to exercise one or more of the Mayor’s fire and rescue authority functions.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a Mayor with Fire and Rescue Authority functions to delegate those functions to a Deputy Mayor for Fire and Rescue, ensuring governance arrangements parallel to those for policing.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord Goddard of Stockport, who is unfortunately not able to be here today. It seeks to insert a vital safeguard into Clause 45, ensuring that the specialised governance of our fire and rescue services is not diluted as the powers of regional mayors are expanded. As the Bill currently stands, it enables the transfer of fire and rescue authority functions to elected mayors, yet it does not mandate the same dedicated oversight and accountability that is necessary for this important emergency service. Amendment 170 would rectify this by requiring a mayor with these functions to arrange for a deputy mayor for fire and rescue, specifically to exercise those responsibilities.

The prime strength of this amendment is that would ensure governance arrangements for fire and rescue services, which would then run parallel with those already established for the police service. As the Government have rightly sought to abolish police and crime commissioners, they have abjectly failed to ensure that governance and accountability to the public are paramount. A reflection as to how potentially fragile our governance arrangements are can perhaps be informed by events in the United States of America, where the governance arrangements of policing have apparently been overturned with ease.

Can the Minister explain how replacing an elected police and crime commissioner by an unelected appointment, accountable to no one but the mayor, is an improvement in terms of public accountability? By extension, how will governance work if, as proposed, the fire and rescue service loses its direct governance and becomes the responsibility of an unnamed mayoral appointee? Further, there is a real risk that, as this Bill establishes a new tier of “strategic authorities” with broad “areas of competence”, the elected mayors will become “Lord High Everything”, as was the arrogant Pooh Bah in the “Mikado”.

Amendment 170 would ensure that fire and rescue functions receive the dedicated attention they require rather than being treated as a secondary concern within a massive strategic portfolio. This role would provide a clear point of contact for local public service partners and ensure that the strategic direction of emergency services is managed by an individual with a specific, focused mandate—albeit not a specific and focused democratic mandate.

Proper accountability is also lacking within the Government’s plans. The idea that a scrutiny panel, as with the police service, can be effective when only able to consider decisions post hoc is for the birds. I hope the Minister can agree to think about the challenge that Amendment 170 provides in the interests of public accountability. What we need is structural consistency between policing and the fire and rescue services and the dedicated and democratic accountability necessary to protect both our fire services and the communities they serve. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I hope I am not causing any confusion by having moved to these Benches. It was simply because the other Benches are very congested; I continue to support the same party that I supported when I came into this House as a Conservative Peer.

I would like to use Amendment 170—I congratulate the noble Baroness for speaking so eloquently to it—to probe the Government on an issue that is causing great concern, not dissimilar to that expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I think from memory we were the only two Peers in this very Room who spoke against the orders for the combined authority of North Yorkshire.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

It was thee and me.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

It was thee and me, yes—that was the sum total who voted against. I think that we were right and history has proven that to be the case. I am still trying to get my head around where the fire and rescue service sits in the combined authority of North Yorkshire. I am concerned that now it is going to be even more complicated if, having elected a mayor for York and North Yorkshire, as the noble Baroness has highlighted, this will now pass to the mayor.

This is causing me concern because I raised the point elsewhere about the number of BESS projects—basically clean energy projects, particularly battery storage projects and solar farms—across North Yorkshire and the lack of consulting with fire and rescue authorities, because they are not statutory consultees. I believe that that has highlighted a gap in the structure at the moment. I use this opportunity to ask the Minister—I see that we have switched places; sliding doors and switching places is a theme for today—how that will impact on a county such as North Yorkshire, or York and North Yorkshire, if there is going to be no democratic oversight and no accountability, if that is the current understanding in the Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, is on to something here and I would like to listen carefully to how the Government plan to monitor this. I do not believe that rural counties have really been considered in the mix of things. Clearly, it is an oversight if fire and rescue authorities are not being consulted as statutory consultees to such major projects. For all the reasons that she gave, I think that another lacuna has been identified by Amendment 170 in the great scheme of things and I look very much to hearing the Minister’s reply.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I am rather confused about this amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, which seeks to require a mayor with fire and rescue authority functions to delegate those functions to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue. In an earlier discussion, the Committee debated the appointment of commissioners to assist mayors with responsibility for matters such as police and crime and fire and rescue.

I strongly agree with the observation of the noble Baroness that it is not very democratic to replace elected police and crime commissioners with appointed commissioners assisting strategic mayors, or indeed to replace them with deputy mayors. But I think that we need more consistency, because the public will become very confused that quite a number of authorities are going to have commissioners assisting mayors, and the Bill seeks—especially in the clause that we are now discussing—to appoint deputy mayors. I want to ask the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, how they see the difference between commissioners and deputy mayors. Are they effectively the same and is that not going to be confusing?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to be here at the previous sittings—I had clashes of different obligations in the Lords last week.

I want to pick up from what my noble friend Lady Pinnock called the structural consistency issue. In preparing for the speech that I am going to make on Amendment 195, in the past few days I have read through a number of recent reports, including Labour Party as well as government and parliamentary reports on the governance of England, and I am struck with the frequency with which everyone from Gordon Brown through to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee say that one thing that we should be aiming for is consistency in the boundaries of different authorities so that, as far as possible, they coincide and the question of accountability is therefore relatively clear.

I was therefore struck when the Ministry of Justice produced a White Paper on policing that suggests that we might change the current structure of police forces in England—in Yorkshire that at least now coincides with the four mayors—by perhaps six to eight police authorities, which would not coincide at all with the 30 to 35 strategic authorities that we are heading towards in Britain.

16:30

The same applies to fire and rescue, to public health and to another area in which I am actively interested, which is the response that we have to the new threats to our national security, as set out clearly in the strategic defence review. Indeed, the strategic defence review talks about the need to have an enormous upgrade of local resilience, civil defence and local services working together to meet not only floods but foreign threats of one sort or another. As I have said on other occasions, I was always struck by the way in which the public health officer of the district council in Salisbury led the response to the Skripal poisoning at a point where national authorities were flummoxed as to what to do.

My question to the Minister, which relates to that, is: to what extent do different departments in Whitehall consider, as they restructure the various public services, the need, first, for boundaries to coincide wherever possible and, secondly, to ensure that accountability is not simply to one part of Whitehall at each local level but that there is the maximum possible co-ordination? Chapter 6 of the strategic defence review talks about the need for local leadership and local resilience across various public services, absolutely including fire and rescue, but in the Bill as it currently presents I do not see that sort of cross-boundary and cross-departmental set of issues being addressed. It seems that we are dealing with a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Bill that has not really been sorted out with other departments in Whitehall.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, some time ago in the teens, from 2015 until about 2022, I was a member of the fire services pension fund, which exposed me to a world that I had had no real previous experience of. I learned that there were 40 fire and rescue authorities in the UK and it astonished me that, of the 40 fire and rescue authorities, there were seven different structural constructs within them. I am speaking in violent agreement with the noble Lord who has just spoken.

For example, there were the single county authorities such as Norfolk or Suffolk, and there were the joint county authorities such as Dorset and Wiltshire, working together under a single canvas. There were joint committees, for example, as you might find in the West Midlands—I am not quite sure whether the Yorkshire ones that the noble Lord just referred to are in the same bucket as the West Midlands or indeed whether they form an eighth different variant. There are the mayoral ones in Manchester, the London Fire Brigade stands alone and, of course, within the police and crime commissioners there is the one in Essex, for example, which is different from the one in Hertfordshire. We are now going to add combined county authorities, so I think that makes eight, and now within the mayoralties there will be a case A or a case B, each of which may have in addition a commissioner or a deputy mayor.

This is crazy. For 40 types of authority there are—I have nearly run out of fingers—10 different constructs, I think. The Bill should be bringing order to that complexity. Instead, it is obfuscating and adding a further cat’s cradle of complication. I know that we are in Committee and that we will come back on Report, and I understand the complexity and the interaction with the police, because the police and fire and rescue work together in so many cases, but we have to bring some order to this chaos.

Although I do not necessarily support the entirety of the text of Amendment 170, it has probed the necessity of bringing some sensibility to what is a nonsense in the way in which our brave fire and rescue firefighters deal with not just fires. During my tenure as a trustee of the fire service’s pension scheme, I learned that the average fireman goes to a fire once every 12 days or so; this is about the other important work they do, in prevention and in attending road accidents and other national emergencies. They deserve better than the structures they have today.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 170 would require a mayor who holds fire and rescue authority functions to delegate those functions to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue, creating governance arrangements that mirror those already in place for policing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, raises a number of interesting and important points, as we have heard from this short debate. I look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly on the issue of democratic accountability, as raised by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, and on my noble friend Lord Fuller’s point about making sure that public services all work from the same geographic area. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to ensure that; it might take a little longer, but I am sure it is worth doing.

During our consideration of the Bill, it has become clear that fire and rescue services are not listed as statutory consultees in the devolution framework. For me, that raises a number of important questions for the Government. As we have heard, fire and rescue services play a central role in public safety, resilience, planning and emergency responses, yet when decisions affecting land use, building standards, transport corridors or climate adaptions are taken without any requirement for fire service input, there is a risk of the safety and resilience considerations being added only after decisions have been made, rather than being embedded right from the outset.

In that context, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why fire and rescue services are not statutory consultees, whether the Government consider this omission appropriate, and whether steps are being considered to strengthen their formal role in devolution and governance arrangements.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for moving Amendment 170, which would require a mayor with fire and rescue authority functions to delegate those functions to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue.

Mayors are best placed to determine how to use the people and resources at their disposal to deliver for their communities. This amendment would prevent that by mandating the delegation of these functions specifically to a deputy mayor for fire and rescue. It would also, therefore, prevent mayors delegating these functions to a public safety commissioner. The effective delegation of fire and rescue functions to a commissioner can ease capacity constraints, ensuring that there is a dedicated individual with the time and expertise to focus on executing those functions. Fire and rescue functions are already held by deputy mayors for policing and crime in Greater Manchester and York—and in North Yorkshire, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. She seemed to say that she was not quite sure where it sat, so I will definitely write to her to explain how it works.

If they wish, mayors will be able to make an existing deputy mayor for policing and crime the public safety commissioner, meaning that that individual could lead on both policing and fire. However, certain functions should be the sole responsibility of the elected mayor as the head of the fire and rescue authority. Functions with the most significant bearing on the strategic direction of the fire service—such as the budget, the risk plan and the appointment or dismissal of the chief fire officer—are, therefore, retained by the mayor. On statutory requirements, fire and rescue services still have the right to respond to any planning application at the moment, for example, so they play a key role in that area. It is important that decisions in these areas are taken right at the top and that the person taking them is accountable at the ballot box.

To answer the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, every effort is made to make coterminous the public service boundaries when we lay out these plans. The position we have taken provides strong accountability and operational flexibility for the mayors, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

Have the implications of the strategic defence review been taken into account in all this? Chapter 6 of the defence review talks about the need to mobilise a “whole-of-society approach” in response to the threats we now face, in which there will be more volunteer firemen and police, and civilian rescue will be expanded. That means that volunteers at the local level have to feel confident. If decisions will be taken a long way away at the top, I suspect we have not yet thought through how we will get the sort of volunteers and local resilience we need.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s point about whole-society resilience in the security review is quite right in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. There are resilience plans in all local authorities for such an incident, so these things are taken into consideration and reviewed constantly.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have two comments on the noble Lord’s response. First, the fire and rescue service is no longer a statutory consultee. Anybody can respond to a planning application, but that is slightly different from being a statutory consultee. Secondly, commissioners are not accountable at the ballot box. Therefore, why would we allow the role to go down to not deputy mayors—I do not think there are such things—but the commissioners responsible, when they are not accountable at the ballot box?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I am not sure whether there were any questions there.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Can I take this opportunity to put the question I asked in my intervention? For what reason are fire and rescue services not statutory consultees? The noble Lord indicated in his reply that they are, but they are not. It is driving people in North Yorkshire wild that all these highly flammable and highly combustible projects are being planted next to schools and people’s homes without the fire service being consulted.

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

As I said, it may not be a statutory body, but being involved in a great deal of things on a statutory basis would be a bit of an onerous burden on the fire brigade. The noble Baroness mentioned the fires that could potentially happen. I have said that I will write to her about how the fire and rescue service in North Yorkshire functions and works but, from what I can see and what I understand, there are requirements for the fire and rescue service to be there when required. It has a resilience role in all this, and it does not necessarily need to be a statutory body to do all these things when it can do them anyway.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

The noble Lord said that the budget, the strategy and the planning were passing to the elected mayor, so is the elected mayor undertaking assessments? For example, if, hypothetically, two of these battery storage plants caught fire and at the same time there was a wildfire on the North York Moors, would the mayor assess whether there are sufficient resources—water, manpower and equipment—to deal with those fires? Who will be responsible for planning that?

[Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)]

I repeat that the function of the mayor is for the budget and the risk plan, so he or she will take into consideration the potential problems that the noble Baroness mentioned. He or she is also responsible for the appointment or dismissal of the chief officer, and therefore that accountability stays with the mayor, who is the directly elected representative for the area.

16:45

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate on the future of the governance of fire and rescue services. It has exposed a fundamental flaw in the pattern of governance that the Government are pursuing with some haste: enabling a single elected person to become the sole democratically accountable authority for strategic planning, skills, strategic highways, policing, fire services and possibly health. This reflects what the Minister has said: a person, as a directly elected mayor, will hold all the accountability for those important public services.

That will not happen; no one person can hold all that accountability successfully. It will be dispersed, as it is now. In West Yorkshire, we have a directly elected mayor who has appointed a deputy mayor—it could be a commissioner, but in West Yorkshire the position is deputy mayor—who is a political appointee, not directly accountable to the residents of West Yorkshire, for policing.

We know from earlier parts of the Bill that the directly elected mayor can appoint up to seven commissioners, as we are now calling them, who will take responsibility for some of these functions but who are not directly accountable to the public whom they serve and for whom they are making decisions. That format of governance will crumble away when the first big incident of significance occurs, because who is responsible and who calls the shots? That fundamental problem is at the heart of this.

Apart from that, the second fundamental problem is the method of accountability through scrutiny. In earlier amendments, we on these Benches called for a scrutiny panel for each political appointee as a commissioner, which would go some way to alleviating the discrepancy in democratic accountability. But at the moment those scrutiny panels will scrutinise decisions post hoc, which is unacceptable. If they are to be effective, they need to look at pre-decision scrutiny as well.

I am sorry that the Minister has recited the mantra that all will be well and that creating a “Lord High Everything” will be fine. I fear that it will not, and I shall continue to point out the fault-lines in this model. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 170 withdrawn.

Clause 45 agreed.

Clause 46 agreed.

Schedule 22: Functions of police and crime commissioners

Amendment 171 not moved.

Schedule 22 agreed.

Clause 47 agreed.

Schedule 23: Fire and rescue authorities

Amendment 172

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

172: Schedule 23, page 259, line 7, at end insert—
“Matters outside the scope of Inspections
4A In section 28 (inspectors), after subsection (A8) insert—“(A8A) When carrying out an inspection under subsection (A3) of a mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority by virtue of section 1(2)(f) or (g), an English inspector must not review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge of an excluded mayoral FRA function.(A8B) For the purposes of subsection (A8A), the following are excluded mayoral FRA functions in relation to a mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, in its capacity as a fire and rescue authority—(a) the issuing of a community risk management plan;(b) the variation of priorities and objectives set out in a community risk management plan;(c) the allocation of the draft or actual budget for fire and rescue functions in relation to any financial year;(d) the function of appointing, suspending or dismissing the chief fire officer;(e) the function of holding the chief fire officer to account for the exercise of—(i) the functions which are delegated to the chief fire officer; and(ii) the functions of persons under the direction and control of the chief fire officer;(f) the function of approving a pay policy statement prepared for the purposes of section 38 of the Localism Act 2011;(g) the function of approving arrangements to enter into a reinforcement scheme under section 13;(h) the function of approving arrangements with other employers of firefighters under section 15;(i) the function of approving arrangements under section 16;(j) the function of approving plans, modifications to plans and additions to plans for the purpose of ensuring that—(i) so far as is reasonably practicable, the mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, is able to continue to perform its fire and rescue functions if an emergency occurs; and(ii) the mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA, is able to perform its functions so far as necessary or desirable for the purpose of preventing an emergency, or reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of an emergency, or taking other action in connection with it;(k) the function of approving any arrangements for the co-operation of the mayoral combined authority, or mayoral CCA in relation to its fire and rescue functions with other general Category 1 responders and general Category 2 responders in respect of—(i) the performance of the mayoral combined authority’s, or mayoral CCA’s, duty as a fire and rescue authority under section 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004; and(ii) any duties under subordinate legislation made in exercise of powers under that Act. (A8C) In subsection (A8B)—“community risk management plan” has the same meaning as in Schedule ZA1;“emergency” has the meaning given in section 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 for Part 1 of that Act;“general Category 1 responder” means a person who falls within Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004;“general Category 2 responder” means a person who falls within Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Contingencies Act 2004;“priorities and objectives” has the same meaning as in Schedule ZA1.””Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide for matters which inspectors of fire and rescue authorities may not review or scrutinise when inspecting mayoral combined authorities or CCAs which are fire and rescue authorities.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, government Amendments 172 and 173 make essential amendments to Schedule 23, ensuring that the law operates as intended with evolving governance arrangements. Amendment 172 aligns the inspection framework for mayoral combined authorities and mayoral county combined authorities with existing exclusions for other fire and rescue authority governance models, ensuring fairness and consistency across England.

Amendment 173 makes technical alignments with existing legislation. It ensures that, where a mayoral combined authority or a mayoral combined county authority takes on fire and rescue functions, it is treated in the same way as existing fire and rescue authorities. The amendment will also bring mayoral fire and rescue authorities within Part V of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, covering companies in which local authorities have interests. It will also bring it within Section 155 of the same Act for the purpose of emergency financial assistance.

It also clarifies the handling of Section 114 reports in the case of mayoral fire and rescue authorities, and the fire and rescue authority’s response under Section 115 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. When a chief finance officer issues a report, the report must be sent to the relevant scrutiny committee, and the authority’s response must be sent to the chief finance officer, the external auditor and the relevant scrutiny committee. I commend these government amendments to the Committee.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, these two amendments are enabling amendments in response to the previous issue that was raised with Amendment 170 about absorbing fire and rescue services into a mayoral authority.

It has long been the objective of previous Governments to combine police services and fire and rescue services into one model by arguing that they were both emergency services and, therefore, would be better combined. That has always been resisted, with support from these Benches, because police and fire and rescue services have very different objectives. This Bill is seeking to absorb policing and fire and rescue into the ambit of the directly elected mayor, without having this discussion about whether it is appropriate.

I accept that four mayoral authorities have already combined policing and fire and rescue. Whether or not that has been a success is yet to be tested. The argument against these two amendments—I will reprise a bit of what I said on Amendment 170—is that it is an erosion of transparency and public accountability for what is, after all, a critical emergency service.

It is always interesting to me when we have government amendments—it points to pressure somewhere that new powers are needed to make this work. Amendment 172 removes the inspection of the fire service from the inspection regime and puts it into a mayoral regime. This means that, for instance—these are within the amendment—an inspector cannot challenge the budget of fire and rescue, challenge the appointment or dismissal of the chief fire officer, hold the chief fire officer to account or approve an emergency performance and reinforcement scheme.

All those are critical to ensure public accountability of the fire and rescue service, but suddenly they will not be available for its inspection regime. That will not do. The fire and rescue service plays a vital role as first responders to serious road traffic accidents. They are always the first there, not the police, and they are often at terrorist incidents. We need to have accountability for the public and the existing inspection regime, to ensure that it works well.

My argument with this amendment, as with Amendment 170, is that this is happening by stealth, by absorbing fire and rescue into the police service. Combining them ensures that the mayor has responsibility for those functions. The inspection regime does not apply to the mayor, therefore public accountability for the fire and rescue service lies in holding the mayor to account. As I have said, the mayor is now the sole Lord High Everything of a huge number of strategic functions, so holding them to account on any one of them will be a challenge. I hope that the Minister will think again on this proposal to change the way that fire and rescue services are democratically accountable and inspected, because I fear that failing to do so could have serious consequences.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as I understand it from the Minister, the inspectors in question inspect only operational matters and not governance matters. Therefore, to not inspect the governance of mayoral combined authorities and combined county authorities is in keeping with the approach that the inspectors already take to existing fire services. Will the Minister please confirm that I have that right? If I do not, will she please explain why the Government’s arrangements for these new authorities will be subject to less scrutiny than already exists in the fire services? If my understanding is correct, I still have concerns about the need for effective scrutiny of new authorities taking new powers, in this instance over fire and rescue, so will the Minister please tell the Committee how the governance of fire and rescue services will be inspected and scrutinised, if not by this inspectorate? We have to ensure that there is an appropriate approach to scrutiny for all new mayoral combined authorities, which is exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Scott, for their comments. We have seen a lot of changes in governance in both policing and the fire service. I worked in policing for a long time and during my time policing went from police committees, which were local authority committees, to police authorities, which were more widely representative of communities, and then to police commissioners. Fire and rescue services have been with local authorities; in some areas they moved to police commissioners and responsibility for fire sat with police commissioners. But the mayor will be the only person elected by the whole of that combined authority area, so there is a democratic mandate there.

17:00

I will go into some of the details about these amendments. They do not create a new duty or expand powers; they ensure that existing provisions apply consistently when a mayoral combined authority is acting as the fire and rescue authority. Section 155 will provide the legal basis for the Bellwin scheme, which allows local authorities, including fire and rescue authorities, to receive emergency financial assistance when necessary. The proposed change will ensure that mayoral combined authorities that take on fire and rescue functions can also be eligible to receive that emergency financial assistance.

The amendment is necessary to ensure consistency, because other fire and rescue governance models already exclude the strategic functions from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services’ inspection. Without the amendment, mayoral combined authorities and mayoral combined county authorities would be treated differently and that would create an uneven playing field.

To answer the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, it does not weaken oversight of fire and rescue services. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services will continue to inspect operational performance, efficiency and effectiveness. Strategic decisions such as budgets and appointments are matters for elected mayors and remain subject to that democratic accountability and the statutory checks. There are no new powers or changes in how inspections work. It is a technical amendment to align inspection frameworks across governance models and reflects existing practice for other fire and rescue authorities. It ensures clarity for His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services.

However, I recognise that the noble Baronesses have concerns about the operation of this, so I think it is probably best that I withdraw this amendment for now. We can have further discussions about both amendments and I will bring them back on Report.

Amendment 172 withdrawn.

Amendment 173 not moved.

Schedule 23 agreed.

Clauses 48 and 49 agreed.

Clause 50: Licensing functions of the Mayor of London

Amendment 174

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

174: Clause 50, page 55, line 31, after “the” insert “GLA and the”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in my name inserting new provisions into the Licensing Act 2003 to confer powers on the GLA and the Mayor of London.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to supporting the high street economy, a key part of which is the hospitality sector and the night-time economy. Amendments introduced on Report in the other place established a new strategic licensing role for the Mayor of London. This included a duty on the mayor to publish and set out his licensing priorities in a new London-wide statement of licensing policies.

There was also an amendment that served as a placeholder for a new call-in power, which provided the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to confer on the Mayor of London the function of determining relevant licence applications in certain circumstances. Government Amendments 174 to 181 replace this placeholder and provide more detail around the types of circumstances in which the mayor may call in or determine relevant licence applications.

The amendments also add the Greater London Authority as a responsible authority in certain circumstances under Part 3 of the Licensing Act 2003. They place a requirement on the GLA to notify interested parties, including the applicant and the relevant licensing authority, of applications that the GLA considers to meet the definition of potential strategic importance to Greater London. This will be set out in regulations by the Secretary of State. If a London licensing authority decides not to grant an application of potential strategic importance as applied for, including, for example, by rejecting the application or applying additional conditions to it, the mayor is required to decide whether or not to call in the decision.

If a decision is called in, the mayor must issue a direction to the relevant licensing authority, having given regard to his licensing policy and the importance of promoting the licensing objectives. New rights of appeal in relation to directions issued by the mayor will also be introduced to help ensure the call-in power is used judiciously. The new call-in power will initially be given effect in London to help unleash the full potential of our capital’s world-renowned cultural venues but could be deployed in mayoralties across the country in the future to help prevent decisions from being blocked by unnecessary red tape or short-term thinking.

Separately, at a national level, the Government launched a joint government and industry licensing taskforce last year and are considering more than 2,000 responses to a call for evidence that sought the public’s views on its proposals. We expect to consider those views before making any future reforms to the national licensing regime, including on aspects such as pavement licensing. For the avoidance of doubt, the amendments being discussed today concern the licensing regime in Greater London, not national licensing reforms. I beg to move.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)]

My Lords, I have a real concern about this group of amendments, which appears to look to tinker around the edges to bring the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority into line with other strategic authorities. We already established in an earlier session that governance in London was the first established; it has never been repeated and, indeed, this Bill does not seek to repeat it either. Surely the sensible route is the one that we suggested in Amendment 75: to have a full review, consider the future governance of London and deal with issues such as this at that time.

I do not want to revisit the earlier argument, but I remind noble Lords that in London there is not the same relationship between the mayor and the boroughs as is suggested there might be in the new governance relationships, or indeed that exists elsewhere. In practice, that means that the mayor might not appreciate local circumstances—as I have said before, not all of London is the same. The mayor might not appreciate the local policing capacity, or lack of it, and the implications of that on licensing decisions. He might not understand the local economy and what licensing could mean for that. He might not appreciate the impact of the local demographics when decisions are being made to overturn local licensing decisions.

What is more, as we have heard before, the current scrutiny of the mayor is not considered to be effective. Devolution should mean respect for decision-making at its lowest common denominator—in this case, the borough level. If a more strategic decision is needed for a wider area, the decision should include the local decision-making processes or partners. For those reasons, I urge the Minister to consider the proposals put forward previously for a thorough review, at which time the implications of these amendments could be considered.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I heard what the Minister said in her introduction to this group of amendments about it following a proposed change to the Bill in the Commons. Like the previous speaker, I understand the need, in a global city such as London, to reverse—for justifiable reasons—the direction of devolution and enable a power grab from the local boroughs in some circumstances. However, the circumstances are not defined, apart from saying that they have to be of “strategic importance” across Greater London. Yet the definition of “strategic importance” is left to regulations.

It is not at all clear how the mayor will make such decisions when they have been defined as being of strategic importance. Will they be based on the licensing priorities, which is a requirement for local borough licensing committees? How will local concerns be heard and considered? This appears to be a profound and unnecessary centralisation of power that threatens to strip local democratically elected committees of their voice in matters that affect their communities’ daily lives.

Under this proposal, which is set out in Amendment 179A—it contains a proposed new section headed “Licence applications of potential strategic importance”—local London licensing authorities, such as borough councils, would legally be required to notify the GLA of applications for the sale of alcohol, regulated entertainment or late-night refreshment. A further proposal grants the Mayor of London the power, in effect, to veto or override the decisions of these local authorities. So if a borough council decides to grant or reject a licence, that decision is suspended and has no effect until the mayor decides whether to intervene. This is allegedly the devolution Bill, but I am yet to be convinced that it has any relationship to devolution; this is the imposition of top-down command structure over local democracy.

The additional problem is that, if there is a veto and it is called in by the mayor, how quickly will the mayor decide? What is the democratic way in which that will be decided? Is it just the mayor in his or her office making a decision, or will it go to a scrutiny committee for discussion first? Will there be an open and transparent hearing where the local borough council—or several local borough councils, if it is something that affects several of them—can come and explain its decision? Will the mayor have to explain why it has been called in? A lot here is unsatisfactory, to say the least. I ask myself: who is best placed to make a judgment about licence applications, which can have significant effects on people’s daily lives? Is it those who live there and their elected representatives, or is it the mayor of 7 million or 8 million people who says, “Actually, I know best. This is important for business, so hard luck if it affects your daily life”? That is the risk in this.

In the end, this group of amendments is unsatisfactory until we know the definition of “strategic importance” and the methods that will be used for decision-making. For those reasons, I hope the Minister will think again and reconsider. I understand why, if it is a significant application that will affect large parts of London, you would want a mayoral authority to take that decision. But I would want to know how that is defined and how that decision will be taken in a public setting, with the ability for people to have their voices heard and an appeal process.

[Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a directly elected mayor of a London borough with a licensing authority and responsibility. I want to speak in favour of and welcome this amendment. The key word is “strategic”. It is important that we recognise that London’s nightlife and hospitality industries are essential to Britain’s economy. We need to support them; they bring more than 1.4 million jobs to the capital and generate £46 billion in economic activity.

Giving the mayor new powers over strategic licences, including the power to call in and decide strategically on those applications, could be important for the future. Different authorities will vary in how they approach their licensing. Of course, there needs to be that relationship between the local authorities and the Mayor of London—whoever that may be, now or in the future—to be able to listen and recognise, and to have that overarching strategic view of what the licensing is being applied for. We do not live within administrative boundaries, so if something is across different authorities and one side believes that a licence should be granted and another does not, there needs to be some sort of arbitrator to see the overall benefit of bringing that position forward and to say either, “Yes, it is strategically important for London” or, “No, it is not”.

17:15

For me, it would be good to have this, but it needs to be on important strategic matters—if the Olympics was coming back to London, or something of that ilk—so that we have that overarching view. So I support these amendments. I am new here, so I am waiting to see whether other things come in secondary legislation or something underneath, but we have the broad strokes here.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments in the Minister’s name would insert a new provision into the Licensing Act 2003 for additional powers for the Greater London Authority and the Mayor of London. We are not opposed to a greater strategic role for the GLA and the mayor, particularly where that role helps to identify key applications and promote consistency across London.

However, we harbour significant concerns about Amendment 179A, which would establish a London-wide strategic licensing oversight system. We are not persuaded that the mayor should be granted such extensive powers to intervene in and potentially overrule decisions taken by local licensing authorities. Although applicants will have the right of appeal, these provisions introduce a new layer of bureaucracy and uncertainty into what is already a complex licensing regime. We struggle to see why the mayor should be given such a decisive and potentially determinative role in local licensing decisions, particularly where those decisions are currently taken by local authorities with detailed knowledge of their communities, as my noble friend Lady O’Neill made clear. The mayor will not have that, and we are overriding local accountability. I am concerned by the provision that allows certain applications to be deemed “of potential strategic importance” when the definition of that term is to be set out not by the GLA or the mayor but through regulations by the Secretary of State.

I have similar scepticism to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, about whether this actually is a devolution Bill. It is supposed to be about local democracy and trusting local people to make the right decisions for their local area. It should not be about transferring powers upward to mayors and Whitehall. Why is London again being put on a pedestal and treated differently to the rest of the UK? I appreciate that the Minister said that this could be extended to the rest of the UK. Again, I very much defer to what my noble friend Lady O’Neill said: it would make a lot of sense for this to be part of a broader review of the governance of London.

Moreover, it is not clear why the Government have chosen to introduce these provisions at such a late stage, or how they interact with existing licensing frameworks. At the very least, the Committee needs more time to consider the implications of these amendments, alongside fuller guidance from the Minister about how these powers would operate in practice.

At present, I do not believe that the justification for these amendments has been made, so I look forward to the Minister’s response and to further explanation of the rationale behind the operation of these amendments. However, we cannot support any of these amendments being made at this stage.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments on these amendments. I will be very happy to meet noble Lords to discuss the proposals further and in more detail. I will give a little more information now and, I hope, answer some of the questions that noble Lords have asked.

On why we feel that the new call-in power is needed, there is evidence of unmet potential for London’s night-time economy. A YouGov survey found that 45% of Londoners stated that they had ended a night out before midnight in 2023-24, despite wanting to stay out later—I never do but, obviously, there are people who do. Night-time spending in the capital fell by 3% from 2022-25. London also has a lower premises licence approval rate than the rest of England and Wales. Of course, the reasons for that are multifaceted but, through the establishment of a new mayoral call-in power, intended to be used only in specific circumstances, as a measure of last resort, we would hope to encourage a more enabling and joined-up approach to premises licensing that unleashes the full potential of London’s cultural hospitality and night-time economy sectors. I know we have talked many times in your Lordships’ House about the restaurant and pubs business, and so on. We particularly want to encourage that sector in London—and everywhere else, but it is important to do that for the capital’s tourism and other trades.

In answer to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, the Government support the principle of localism in licensing decisions, but we are committed to putting the right powers at the right levels to drive economic growth that we want to see. Local licensing authorities are often, or in fact nearly always, best placed to make licensing decisions based on their local knowledge and in consultation with other responsible authorities, including the police and enforcement authorities. But where the licensing system affects sectors with a strategic economic role—the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, mentioned that aspect—it is important that city-wide considerations can be taken into account. The new strategic licensing role of the Mayor of London would enable this and provide an opportunity to adopt a similar approach to those that have worked effectively in New York, Amsterdam and Sydney.

To pick up on some specific points about how this is going to work—the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked a couple of questions about this—the mayor will draw his strategic licensing policy by consultation on it before it is published. The mayor will be required to consult each London licensing authority, which will be able to make representations about its local circumstances. The Government intend to consider this and may seek to engage with key licensing stakeholders before setting out thresholds of what that

“potential strategic importance to Greater London”

actually means in regulations. That will provide further detail on the types of licence applications that will potentially fall within the scope of the mayor’s call-in power.

In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, about why this issue has not come forward before, that is a fair point. Further time is required to develop the new mayoral call-in process, including how it would interact with existing licensing legislation. In thinking about bringing this forward, the Government have considered that sometimes the best way in which to deliver devolution across the country is to test out new powers or approaches in one or two places first. As a globally renowned centre for culture and nightlife, London represents an ideal location to test new strategic licensing powers and duties. Nevertheless, it is very much our intention to ensure that it will be possible to roll these out to other mayors across the country, subject to the provision of appropriate evidence via provisions in the Bill. Piloting things is a very good way in which to see how effective they are, and whether they get the balance right between the local decision-making to which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, referred and what we might think of as a strategic call-in power—so it is very important to do that.

I thank my noble friend Lady Dacres for her comments about licensing. She and I had an informal meeting with some London leaders on Saturday. They were not all London leaders, so I will not use that as evidence because that would not be fair, but, broadly, their view was similar to that of my noble friend Lady Dacres: although you would not want this to be used all the time, it is an important power to have in a key city such as London. However, a call for evidence is out and is currently being reviewed.

[Baroness O’Neill of Bexley (Con)]

Were all those whom the Minister consulted inner London authorities, or did they include outer London boroughs as well? My frustration is with the fact that everyone assumes that London is all the same, yet Westminster is certainly not like Bexley; and Lewisham, where the noble Baroness, Lady Dacres, comes from, is not like Bexley. Bexley has a night-time economy, yet the Mayor of London is considering closing our police front counter but will not close Lewisham’s because it is that much closer. The police in Bexley are closing down and not working past 10 pm, yet obviously the nightclubs are open till 2 am. Those sorts of things have to be considered for the benefit of all local people, but the mayor will not be aware of them. I apologise, but I felt I needed to say that.

[Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Lab)]

Just to correct some of what the noble Baroness alluded to, I see Lewisham as a mix of inner and outer London because we have the south circular and diverse aspects to our borough. She mentioned the police station. All our police station fronts, bar one, have been closed. Lewisham has the largest police station in London—in fact, in Europe—and I am sure that is the sole reason why it has not been closed. It includes horses, as well as other back-office support for the police. I wanted to correct that for the record, because the noble Baroness made it seem as though we are open because of our distance from central London, and that is not the case.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness and my noble friend for those helpful comments. I want to be absolutely clear that it was not a formal consultation I had on Saturday; it was an informal meeting, but a number of London leaders were there. It was not representative, so I will not pretend it was, but it is clear to me that there is more work to do before moving forward with this. Between now and Report I am happy to meet all those who have spoken in this debate but, for now, I will withdraw Amendment 174.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

It is perfectly reasonable that the Minister has suggested that there should be a more joined-up set of regulations, but I tabled an amendment that would have achieved this through the agent of change. Will she reconsider her views on how we can balance the late-opening nightclubs with the new residences next door to them?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

We have had extensive discussions of the agent of change; it is a slightly different proposal. I know it could potentially be linked to this, so if the noble Baroness wants to get involved in the discussions on this, I am happy to include her.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I appreciate the Minister’s very positive response to our comments. She said that this is a pilot. You would normally have a review at the end of a pilot to work out whether it has worked and the consequences thereof. I appreciate that she intends to withdraw her amendment, but it would be helpful, if these amendments were to come back on Report, to be clear about what the pilot means and what the review process is.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

That is a very fair point. I was indicating that we will have some further discussions about it. If I bring further amendments back on Report, we will need to be clear about putting some flexible powers into the Bill so that we can extend it if we need to. If we look at the London project and it has not worked, clearly that does not mean that it will be extended. But we need the powers because, as all noble Lords will be aware, getting primary legislation on to the statute book is quite a process. We would rather have a permissive power that enables it, if it is needed, and then we are able to do that if necessary.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

Or it could be withdrawn.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

Yes, it could be withdrawn.

17:30

Amendment 174 withdrawn.

Clause 50 agreed.

Schedule 24: Licensing functions of the Mayor of London

Amendments 175 to 178 not moved.

Amendment 179 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 179A and 180 not moved.

Amendment 180A

Moved by

[Lord Lansley]

180A: Schedule 24, page 263, line 14, leave out “(whenever passed or made)” and insert “passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to limit the Secretary of State's power to amend future Acts of Parliament using secondary legislation, in line with the DPRRC's recommendation. The 'Henry VIII power' could only be used prospectively for Acts passed in this session, rather than any future Act of Parliament. It is connected to three other amendments in the name of Lord Lansley.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, we turn now to a group of amendments that all relate to the exercise of delegated powers to amend future legislation—Henry VIII powers. They are powers by way of statutory instrument to amend primary legislation in the future. The relevant document—if noble Lords are interested to read it in detail—is the 45th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which reported on this Bill and drew the attention of the House to the Henry VIII powers.

Before I turn to precisely what it said, it did not note, but I have, that in Clause 88 there is a general power for making consequential and incidental provision relating to future legislation. Clause 88 says:

“Regulations … may amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act”.


My amendments do not affect that.

My Amendments 180A, 184A, 196F and 235DA in this group relate to Henry VIII powers to amend future legislation, which was the subject of the Delegated Powers Committee’s report. It said:

“It is reasonably common for Henry VIII powers to allow for consequential amendments to amend future Acts of Parliament passed in the same session as the Bill in which they appear … the Government and Parliament are capable of passing Bills in future sessions consistent with preceding legislation”.


It says in the next paragraph that in November last year the parliamentary counsel noted to the Constitution Committee that

“the power to amend consequentially Acts in future sessions is rare and normally specifically justified in the delegated powers [memorandum] … The Bill includes numerous instances of this type of power and the Memorandum”—

that is, the Government’s delegated powers memorandum—

“does not provide justification for any of them”.

It says, in the recommendations in paragraph 23 of the report:

“In the light of the Government’s failure to justify the ability of these Henry VIII powers to change the effect of Acts of Parliament to be passed in future sessions, we recommend to the House that the delegated powers in clauses 54 and 71 … Schedule 24 and … Schedule 26 are amended to remove that ability”.


I have tabled four amendments to do precisely that. In each case, they would take out the words “whenever passed”, meaning whenever passed in the future, and insert precisely the same words as those the Government themselves used in the drafting of Clause 88—that is, that they would amend or repeal provision made by an Act of Parliament

“passed before, or in the same Session as, this Act”.

I think there is a small, technical problem with my amendment in relation to Schedule 26. Since it relates to an insertion to the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, the reference to “this Act” might be inaccurate. However, we will not worry about that, because we can deal with it on Report as necessary.

The purpose of these four amendments relates to a number of places. It relates to Clause 54, which we are dealing with presently, which modifies the functions of mayors and strategic authorities; Clause 71, which concerns the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles; Schedule 24, which we have just been discussing, which concerns licensing powers for the Mayor of London; and Schedule 26, which relates to local government reorganisation powers. The subject matter of those powers is almost unimportant; the point is that, in each case, the Government have used the same language to give themselves the power, by statutory instrument, to amend future Acts of Parliament beyond this Session. In the same way as Clause 88, each of my amendments would limit that power to amend Acts passed or made up to the end of this parliamentary Session.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, has tabled Amendment 184. As I say, I have tabled Amendment 184A, because it does the same thing as the others, whereas Amendment 184 would remove the regulation-making power entirely. I submit that that would go too far, since there is often a need to make consequential or incidental provision.

The essential point that I come back to is that there is no basis for justifying taking a power to amend future Acts of Parliament in future Sessions, because those Bills, when they are introduced to this place, can take account of, and make their own provision for, what the future shape of legislation should look like. It is not a question of saving parliamentary time; they can be dealt with in those Acts when the time comes. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken in the previous debates on this Bill due to the pressure of work. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has spoken eloquently to his amendments, and I agree with nearly everything he has said. I will speak to Amendment 184 in my name, as I am extremely concerned about the long-term implications of Clause 54(3).

Clause 54 begins with subsection (1):

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or supplementary provision for the purposes of”—


it then it goes into the detail. My concern is with subsection (3), which, for the benefit of the doubt, I will read:

“Regulations under this section may (in particular) amend any Act of Parliament (whenever passed), including by amending this Act”.


This is an amazing power to hand to the Secretary of State in the future, whoever he or she might be. The ability to amend any Act of Parliament, which may not even be a twinkle in the eye of any future government at this stage, is breathtaking.

Until the end of January, I had the privilege to sit on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The council that advises the DPRRC was extremely concerned about the number of delegated powers in the Bill that we are currently debating. There are 92 delegated powers, and a further 42 not covered in the memorandum, due to the fact that the Bill is likely to interact with existing enactments.

Similar powers were brought forward in 2015, at which point the committee felt that the powers were too broad. However, we now have a new Government and a new philosophy. I can understand that the Government want to be able to change past and current legislation in future, but they are asking for the power to change legislation that is yet to be drafted—a power that bypasses the role of Parliament completely.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke at length on his amendments, which relate to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s concerns about the Bill. He set out his arguments extremely clearly and referred to the committee’s 45th report, which was published on 16 January. That report details the committee’s concerns; it is extensive and raises significant issues around the way in which the Henry VIII powers will be executed. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has already ready out the committee’s recommendation concerning this particular power, which is as follows:

“In the light of the Government’s failure to justify the ability of these Henry VIII powers to change the effect of Acts of Parliament to be passed in future sessions, we recommend to the House that the delegated powers in clauses 54 and 71, and those in paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 24 and paragraph 1(8) of Schedule 26 are amended to remove that ability”.


I apologise for repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said word for word, but it is really important to stress this point.

Considering this strong recommendation from the Delegated Powers Committee, as well as the concerns raised by me and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the Committee that the Government are prepared to accept this amendment and amend the Bill accordingly. This is an unjustifiable abuse of power, bypassing Parliament to seek to amend future Acts of Parliament and legislation that is not even in the initial stages of being drafted.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I will not seek to repeat what has been said so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.

The issue is quite simple. This is supposed to be a devolution Bill about local empowerment; it is not supposed to be about giving the Secretary of State huge powers, in particular to amend things that have not even been thought of yet. On restricting things in the way that has been suggested, there are some flexibilities in this Bill, historical Bills and Bills for the current Session, but having the power to amend something that is not even a twinkle in the eye of a new Minister— whoever they may be—is just going too far. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has also said this.

This matter needs very deep thought on the part of the Government. We will come back to it if the Government do not seek to address this issue of a Secretary of State having the ability to amend something that has not been thought of yet. Frankly, I find it difficult to understand why you would want to amend a law you have not written yet, because you could always bring in powers that are relevant to that law as part of any legislation you then bring forward.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for their proposed amendments to the delegated powers in the Bill. I also thank the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its report and its recommendations regarding the delegated powers in the Bill, to which these amendments relate. I will consider its report ahead of Report and will make sure that all noble Lords who have joined this debate on delegated powers have sight of that response.

I turn to Amendment 180A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which seeks to limit the ability to make consequential, supplementary or incidental provisions that would follow a decision to repeal the strategic licensing regime. This amendment would prevent such provisions being made to future legislation. Our intention behind introducing the new strategic licensing pilot in London is clear: to trial a more strategic approach to licensing in London.

However, we recognise that any significant change to long-established arrangements may, in practice, give rise to operational or policy difficulties that could not have been fully foreseen at the point of legislating—I referred to that on an earlier group. It is for that reason that we have provided a power for the Secretary of State to amend the new strategic licensing measures within the first five years of them coming into effect. This will ensure that the Government can act swiftly and proportionately to protect the effectiveness of the wider licensing framework if necessary. The Secretary of State must be able to make consequential, supplementary or incidental provision that repeals or revokes legislation made at a later date, if necessary, in the event that the strategic licensing measures are repealed.

17:45

As currently drafted, the Bill preserves the Government’s ability to repeal the strategic licensing measures and make consequential, supplementary or incidental provision to all relevant legislation whenever it was passed. This will help to protect the wider licensing framework, ensuring that the licensing system for our capital remains balanced and effective. I also reassure the noble Lord that this delegated power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which we judge gives it the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny.

I turn to Amendments 184 and 184A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. They seek to remove the ability to make incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or supplementary amendments to primary legislation passed in the future that relates to the conferral or modification of functions for strategic authorities. This delegated power is critical to the Government’s ability to deepen the powers of strategic authorities over time and to ensure that they can effectively exercise their functions. This is because it enables the Government to remove legislative barriers that would otherwise prevent strategic authorities from taking on new powers.

I understand that the concern of the noble Lord and noble Baroness is with the ability to amend or modify future Acts of Parliament. However, it is right that the Government have that ability, so that the devolution framework can evolve over time. For instance, there may be cases where the Government use an Act of Parliament to confer a function on a public body but, at a later date, it is decided that that function is best exercised by a strategic authority, or they might originally decide to confer a function only on established mayoral strategic authorities and then, once it has proved to be successful, wish to roll it out to other levels of strategic authority so that other parts of the country can benefit. In such circumstances, it is vital that the Government have the powers to ensure that that function can be exercised effectively by strategic authorities.

In debates in Committee so far, noble Lords have made clear their support for devolution to local leaders. This power supports that aim. The power is appropriately constrained, given that it can only be used for the purpose of conferring or modifying functions for strategic authorities. It will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that it will be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. The ability to update the devolution framework over time is a fundamental objective of this Bill, which is why this power is essential to delivering on our new and ambitious approach to devolution across England.

Amendment 196F, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to remove the ability to make incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary amendments to primary legislation passed in the future, to the conversion of combined county authorities to combined authorities following local government reorganisation. As your Lordships will know, the Government is currently undertaking an ambitious programme of local government reorganisation in areas with two-tier local government, with the aim of providing stronger unitary councils that are better equipped to drive economic growth, improve local public services and empower their communities.

The purpose of this delegated power is narrow. It facilitates the smooth and orderly conversion of a combined county authority to a combined authority, where necessary, so that the authority can continue to function properly following local government reorganisation. This is needed, as there are separate Acts of Parliament that provide for combined authorities and combined county authorities. To that end, the delegated power has been crafted to allow for any instances where primary legislation may need to be amended once a combined county authority has been converted to a combined authority, to ensure that there is no change in the functions conferred on a strategic authority before and after its conversion. Nevertheless, I welcome the spirit in which the noble Lord has brought forward his amendment. I reassure him that I will reflect on whether the Secretary of State requires this power to apply to future primary legislation ahead of Report in this House.

Finally, Amendment 235DA, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, seeks to remove the ability of the Secretary of State to amend or repeal legislation relating to the setting of national minimum standards for taxis and private hire vehicles in England. The current legislative framework for regulating the taxi and private hire vehicle trades across England is complex, fragmented and archaic, with some legislation dating back to Victorian times—I know that we will have a much fuller debate on that later and that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, will be here to assist with questions that noble Lords have on that archaic legislation.

The delegated power in the Bill is essential to ensure that consequential amendments can be made to other legislation to make any necessary fixes that were not able to be fully foreseen at the point of legislating. This will ensure that the Government are able to effectively implement national minimum standards, which will mean that wherever passengers travel, the drivers and vehicles they use will be subject to rigorous safety standards. This is an important step towards delivering on our commitments following the recent national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey.

Again, I welcome the spirit in which the noble Lord has brought forward his amendment and I will reflect on whether the Secretary of State requires this power to apply to future primary legislation ahead of Report. With these reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, not only for her supportive comments on all these amendments but for her participation in the Committee’s scrutiny. We are grateful to the Delegated Powers Committee for the time and trouble that it takes in drawing these things carefully to our attention.

I will not dwell on this. I entirely understand many of the things that the Minister was saying. No part of these amendments is seeking to frustrate the Government’s intentions through these four separate parts of the Bill. The point is technical but simple. At any future stage, future primary legislation can take account in that primary legislation of whether it may be necessary for the powers in this Act to, for example, change the functions of mayors and strategic authorities or to revise the local government reorganisation arrangements in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act. It can take account of those and extend those powers to make statutory instruments to amend them in that primary legislation itself. However, we should not, before that legislation has even come here, give a power to amend it. That would significantly restrict our ability in future legislation to anticipate how that legislation can be used and to scrutinise it in the proper way at the time.

I will of course withdraw my amendment but I hope that the Government will come back, not only having responded to the Committee but in order to change this language on each of these occasions to the same as that in Clause 88. However, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 180A.

Amendment 180A withdrawn.

Amendment 181 not moved.

Schedule 24 agreed.

Clauses 51 and 52 agreed.

Schedule 25: Powers to make regulations in relation to functions of strategic authorities and mayors

Amendments 182 and 183 not moved.

Debate on whether Schedule 25 should be agreed.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, by opposing Schedule 25, we seek to probe and clarify what functions may be delegated to mayors under future regulations. Prior to the changes proposed by this Bill, the principal mechanisms for conferring local authority and public authority functions on combined authorities were set out in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. More recently, equivalent provisions for combined county authorities were established through the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.

Under both frameworks, functions have generally been conferred on individual combined authorities or combined county authorities through bespoke statutory instruments, subject to the affirmative procedure. In other words, Parliament has been asked to scrutinise each discrete transfer of power on a case-by-case basis, authority by authority. However, in our reading, paragraph 2 of Schedule 25 marks a significant shift. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations conferring functions not on individual authorities but on categories of mayors of combined authorities and combined county authorities, or to modify such functions once conferred. Clause 17 provides that those functions will then be exercisable by the mayor on behalf of the combined authority or combined county authority.

I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could explain in practical terms how this new approach differs from the position under the 2023 Act. In particular, how does conferring functions on a category of mayors differ, both operationally and constitutionally, from the authority-specific approach taken under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act? What are the implications of this shift for democratic accountability, parliamentary scrutiny and local consent? Simply, will Parliament have more or less say and will decisions of this kind be subject to clearer democratic oversight than under the previous framework? My fear is that they will not. Additionally, is the Minister willing to illustrate this with a concrete example, perhaps in relation to transport, skills or planning, so that the Committee can better understand how Parliament’s role in scrutinising these transfers of power will change in practice?

The provision in paragraph 12 of Schedule 25 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations applying differing voting arrangements from those set out as the default in Clause 6 in relation to particular functions for one or more categories of combined authorities or combined county authorities. I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, in what circumstances do the Government envisage departing from the default voting arrangements and what criteria will guide those decisions? Secondly, how will local consent be secured where voting arrangements are altered by regulation, particularly if those changes materially affect the balance of power between constituent authorities and the mayor? Finally, what safeguards exist to ensure that such variations do not undermine transparency or local democratic accountability?

Part 6 of the schedule introduces yet another significant power: the ability of the Secretary of State to confer additional public authority or local authority functions on specific strategic authorities as part of a time-limited pilot programme. It also allows for the governance arrangements of existing functions to be modified on a similarly time-limited basis. Again, I seek assurances from the Minister. How will pilot authorities be selected and on what objective basis? What evaluation criteria will be applied before, during and after a pilot programme? Crucially, what guarantees are there that the time-limited pilots will not default and become permanent through inertia rather than explicit parliamentary approval?

18:00

Finally, paragraph 25 of the schedule provides that regulations made under this schedule are generally subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, with one notable exception: regulations establishing pilot programmes may be made using the negative procedure. Why is this distinction justified? Given that pilot programmes may involve the conferral of substantial new powers and alterations of governance arrangements, why do the Government consider the negative procedure sufficient in these cases? Does this not risk reducing parliamentary scrutiny at precisely a point when new and untested models of governance are being introduced?

These are probing questions, but they go to the heart of the balance between flexibility, localism and parliamentary accountability. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, I express my support for what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said. I suggest to the Minister that it might help, particularly as we approach the tabling of amendments on Report, if the Government were to produce a grid that shows what powers will reside where. There are mayoral powers, government powers, local authority powers and town and parish council powers, for all Whitehall departments. We could have a piece of paper that would tell us what the Government’s intention is for where they are headed. I assume that the Government have this already but, if they do not, I suggest that they consider creating one.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I, too, support what my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook was saying. I recall that she was responsible for Sections 18, 19 and 20 of LURA, on the conferral of functions on county combined authorities—as they were at that time—so she has been down this track.

I have three quick points. First, and I think my noble friend touched on this, the existing legislation, by which the Secretary of State can confer functions on combined authorities or combined county authorities, operates on the basis of a proposal from those authorities to the Secretary of State for the functions to be conferred. After consultation, the Secretary of State requires the consent of those authorities for the functions to be conferred. I cannot find that in Schedule 25, so the conclusion that one reaches is that, in this devolution Bill, the authorities do not even have the power to decide whether the functions are theirs or not. They will just be given to them or modified without anything beyond consultation; it does not require a proposal or consent. That is a very odd way of proceeding.

Secondly, we had a discussion in an earlier group about the structure of the voting arrangements in Clause 6, but we suddenly find in Schedule 25 that the Government want a power to change them on potentially quite important issues. I cannot for the life of me understand why that is necessary here, because the individual strategic authorities can change their constitutional arrangements anyway, if they really wanted to. I think that we established that in the earlier group. So why do the Government want to be able to change the voting arrangements?

Thirdly, on the pilots, there is a requirement in paragraph 21 for the pilot schemes to produce an impact report but, as far as I can see, it has to be given to the Secretary of State. It does not appear to have to be given to anybody else and it certainly does not have to be published. The Government should come back and make it clear that, when produced and given to the Secretary of State, the impact report should then be published.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for probing whether Schedule 25 should stand part of the Bill. Schedule 25 is central to the objectives of the Bill and the Government’s ambitions for devolution in England. We have been clear that the devolution framework delivered by this Bill is the floor not the ceiling of our ambitions for devolving powers to our communities. Schedule 25 provides the Secretary of State with the power to confer new functions on strategic authorities and to modify these functions. This will ensure that strategic authorities and mayors have the powers that they need to deliver for local people.

I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, wanted to question which functions could be conferred using these powers. As outlined in paragraph 4 of Schedule 25, a function can be conferred if it

“is a function of a public authority, and … relates to any aspect of any area of competence”.

It might help if I go into a little more detail on that. The current list reflects the areas under which the Government believe strategic authorities should hold powers and functions. Functions and powers held under these areas will best empower mayors to act strategically, to drive growth and to help shape public services for their local communities. The current list of thematic policy areas is deliberately broad and allows for a wide range of activities to fall within the areas of competence. The Government remain open to considering whether the list could be expanded in future.

Questions were asked about the conferring of functions on to a strategic authority and how that will work.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt but I have a question. When the Minister talks about extending the list in future, is that the list of functions within areas of competence, or is she talking about the ability to extend the list of areas of competence?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am talking about the functions within the competence.

The Secretary of State will be required to consult relevant parties, including the strategic authority, the constituent councils and any body that currently holds the function. The Secretary of State will then need to determine whether to confer the function, paying regard to the need for the effective exercise of the function concerned. Regulations made under Schedule 25 will be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny takes place.

In some instances, it will make sense to pilot functions with a smaller number of strategic authorities for a time-limited period. I will try to answer the questions about piloting, but I will look at Hansard later and come back in writing if I have not answered them all. Where we are piloting, strategic authorities will be required to provide an impact report on the pilot, which the Secretary of State will take into consideration before deciding whether to confer the functions permanently; I will consider whether those reports should be public.

As an example—the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked for an example of this—development corporation functions are held by mayors. If we wanted to move those functions to foundation authorities, for example, we could use these powers. What will happen with a pilot is that an area will make a request for a function. Pilots will need to be consented to by both the Secretary of State and the relevant local authorities. When a pilot has been completed, there will be an impact assessment of that pilot.

I will come back to the noble Baroness in writing on her questions about default voting arrangements, balance of power and the safeguards.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked about a grid setting out the different powers between different layers of local authorities. We have already produced one; it is on GOV.UK. Perhaps the noble Lord might like to have a look at it and, if he has any further questions, to come back to me.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

In view of the points made in the debate on this group of amendments, is it going to change?

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

The competencies are there, so the powers will stay the same as in the grid that we have set out. I ask the noble Lord to have a look at it and, by all means, to come back to me if he has any questions on it.

The Government will be able to confer functions across all areas on which we expect strategic authorities to act. Also, if the Government wish to create a completely new function and confer it on a strategic authority, primary legislation would be required. This strikes the balance between delivering further devolution and ensuring that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of more novel measures takes place.

I hope this answer is helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and ask her not to oppose the schedule.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response; however, I think we will need to go back to Hansard. My example, for instance, was not on the pilots. It was an example on the changes that have been made in this Bill to, in particular, the levelling-up Act. I will of course go through Hansard carefully and, if necessary, we will return to these matters.

The issue of oversight goes to the heart of how this House discharges its responsibilities, particularly in view of reorganisation and changes to how we are all governed. Processes in this place matter and, when we confer powers, particularly those that will shape local systems and local decision-making, we must do so with proper regard to localism and accountability, not just what the Secretary of State at the time would like.

Much of our consideration of this Bill has necessarily focused on the schedules. Schedules are rarely debated line by line in the same way as clauses. When powers are dispersed across multiple schedules, as they are in this Bill, it becomes more difficult for your Lordships to track precisely what authority is being granted, to whom and subject to what limits. That is not a criticism of this House, nor of the Government, but it does mean that we must consciously take the time to examine these provisions with care. Schedules also frequently rely on delegated powers, allowing Ministers to add, remove or modify functions through regulations with limited parliamentary oversight. Over time, this risks creating a ratchet effect, whereby more and more policy is shaped by executive action rather than by primary legislation. That is precisely why the questions raised in this debate deserve clear and substantive answers. When the Minister reads Hansard, maybe a letter would be sensible.

For those reasons, while I am grateful for the short debate that we have had today, I remain concerned that important issues of scrutiny and accountability have yet to be fully addressed. I hope the Government will reflect on these points as the Bill progresses. At this point, I will not press my opposition to the schedule standing part.

Schedule 25 agreed.

Clause 53: Health service functions: application of existing limitations on devolution

Debate on whether Clause 53 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, in proposing that Clause 53 should not stand part of the Bill, I should emphasise that I am not opposed to the clause—far from it. We have now had three debates about the role of local government in the health service, and I want to probe how far the Government are really prepared to devolve and delegate responsibilities for both health improvement and the NHS to strategic local authorities.

I will not repeat what has been said in our earlier debates, but this clause is very important. It makes consequential amendments to Section 18 of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 to reflect changes introduced into this Bill. The importance of Section 16 is that it provides Ministers with the ability to confer public authority functions on local authorities, including health and social care.

The debate about the role for local authorities in relation to healthcare and health improvement is as old as the NHS itself. But since the 1974 reorganisation, it seems to me that the NHS and healthcare delivery has often stood remote and disconnected from the rest of public services such as social care, housing and education, which are under some kind of integration within local government and democratic control. I see devolution in health as a way to reconnect services, at least at a strategic level. I do not think this will happen without a stronger drive through powers devolved locally.

18:15

The motivation behind the 2016 Act was, in essence, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer’s support for devo Manchester as a way to kick-start the economy in the north-west and hopefully set a pattern for the rest of the country. However, the legislation was passed, Mr Osborne left office, and the Whitehall appetite for devolution evaporated alongside his departure. Only Manchester benefited, in essence.

Earlier, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, talked about the inability or unwillingness of the health sector to devolve money to local government. Last week, she talked about her own experience as a senior local government leader, about trying to go, as she described it, “to the full endgame”. She said:

“I tried to join the local director of children’s and adult care services with the local director of the NHS. I tried, but it did not work because health would not give up its power and its money”.—[Official Report, 4/2/26; col. GC 612.]

That is a great pity, because the evidence from Greater Manchester shows that, although it is not perfect, it has made some real advances.

Research by Manchester University shows that the devolution deal enabled Greater Manchester to make significant improvements in many parts of the health system. For example, there were 11.1% fewer alcohol-related hospital admissions and 14.4% fewer hospital admissions for violence, same-day GP appointments increased and unplanned A&E reattendances were lower. The researchers argue that the positive changes

“are likely to have been a result of different aspects of the Greater Manchester devolution deals”,

such as

“the transfer of control over transformation funding … to the Greater Manchester Health and Social Care Partnership”.

My question to the Government is: given that the apparent possibilities for improvement are there, will they increase the powers of other parts of the country and extend health and NHS responsibilities to them? I am convinced that the NHS cannot be run under essential command-and-control management from the centre. I have tried it myself. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, of course, had proposals; he tried through NHS England to move away from that but, as we have seen, that has proven to be very difficult indeed.

Clearly, there are concerns about how this works within the concept of a national service, where the public expect uniform provision throughout the country. But I have to say that I think Andy Burnham got it right. He has always talked about this, saying that you have to accept that the “what” has to be delivered with some basic standards that must be met and should be determined nationally, but how services are delivered and how a system becomes integrated to deliver the best overall package of services and set priorities is local, and it should be democratically local.

My noble friend Lady Taylor was encouraging in our debates last week, talking about local government having a bigger role in health. She reminded us that the mayoral competences set out in the Bill specifically include health, well-being and public service reform. She also spoke of her experiences in Stevenage, where she said they took a great interest in tackling some of the key health challenges in their area. I encourage her department to relook at the 2016 legislation, as it will be amended by the Bill, and give big encouragement both to its colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and to local government to enthusiastically embrace the health agenda. I am convinced that this is one way we will lead to better health outcomes.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak to my Amendment 185. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with his rallying cry, and I hope that at least he supports what I am seeking to do with this amendment.

To me, a simple yet essential principle that I want to introduce is that devolution means real devolution—something that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, called for just then. I do not believe that you can say that you are meaningfully devolving a function while keeping the real authority and, crucially, the purse strings firmly in Whitehall. If you want to hand down power, you should not simultaneously hold on to it; you need to have a clean break and hand it over. With this amendment, I want to try to find a way to make real devolution happen.

As noble Lords know and as the Government were talking about only the other day, there has been a lot of coverage of and praise from the Government for their one-in, one-out approach to illegal migration. But I would like to propose a different one, one that perhaps works; it should be not just one in, one out, but one down, one out. When a function is devolved, it should be removed from central government entirely, except when the narrowest oversight is essential from central government or where there are international obligations. Without such a safeguard put into the Bill, we risk creating a system that is not devolved but duplicated with two bodies—or in some circumstances more than two—allegedly doing exactly the same thing, at the same time.

I say this because I come at it from the point of view that the public just want things to work. They want to know who is responsible and for them to just get on with it. I fear that, under the Bill as drafted, we risk a situation where powers are described as devolved, yet Ministers in departments in Whitehall still retain the same functions.

I was reading a brilliant book the other day, which I highly recommend, called the Unaccountability Machine by a chap called Dan Davies. He uses many examples from around the world when he talks about accountability sinks. I fear that the Bill is doing exactly the same, and the result is confusion, overlap and a lack of clarity about who is actually in charge. In some circumstances, it can be even worse: where accountability is not clear, decision-making becomes risk-averse or, at times, paralysed altogether. When no one is clearly responsible, no one feels empowered to act. Everyone waits for someone else to take the lead or people just assume, as perhaps is human nature, that it is someone else’s job.

It is easy for the Bill to lead people to think that the local authority will deliver a service now, only for the local authority then to say that they cannot deliver it, because the powers still lie in Whitehall. My real concern is that the result will be delay, drift and, ultimately, failure to deliver for the very people that the Bill is supposed to help.

I reassure noble Lords that I am not being melodramatic and I am certainly not game playing as, from looking at the Bill, there are three areas that could be used as examples of where this would happen. The Bill requires strategic authorities to produce local growth plans, to take responsibility for regeneration and to address health inequalities. We have talked about these objectives many times, including at Second Reading, and we support them all, but the broad powers and money to deliver them are not being handed down at the same time. They will remain in Whitehall.

Housing is something that we all talk about, which is covered a lot in the Bill. I know that the Minister is doing a huge amount on this in the department, not just on this Bill but in many other areas. But, if we want to build more homes, devolution means it should not be done just through the prism of national targets and central grants; we should be looking to empower and incentivise local authorities more by automatically giving them a fairer share of the revenue generated locally and the flexibility to deliver what they want. Let them feel the benefits of growth, and let them have ownership and buy-in. That will encourage them to do more.

On a related point, I know that the Committee has already talked about precepts and levies. The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, is not here, but I agree with his Amendment 135. It is entirely possible that there is a doubling up, where powers are held simultaneously both locally and nationally and people will be taxed twice for the same service. To me, that seems a little mad. If you want local leaders to sort these things out, give them the tools to let them get on and do it, because, as I say, the public just want clarity. They want to know who is responsible for what, and they want these things to happen and be fixed. They want a system where the body tasked with delivering an outcome actually has the authority and resources to deliver it. They want it to get on and deliver the outcome unhindered: “If it does not work, we can chuck it out at an election”.

So my amendment seeks to protect the taxpayer and the integrity of devolution. It would ensure that Whitehall thinks carefully before announcing that a function has been devolved. In this scenario, we would not need an army of folks in Whitehall second-guessing what local leaders are doing. Whitehall seems to be growing in number, yet local authorities are having to reduce their numbers because they are feeling the pinch. If we are serious about empowering these local areas, we should be serious about letting go of our powers at the same time. I know that the Minister cares about this, and I hope that we can find a way forward together.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

The noble Lord did not mention the questions of where the taxes are raised and who is responsible. For those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the differences between decentralisation and devolution are tax and money. So long as the Treasury retains control of the spending, we will have only decentralisation. We will discuss some of the fiscal things in our next session, but, unless we address the question of fiscal devolution, we are not going anywhere much.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I agree with my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I totally share his view, and we will come on to that matter in the next group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for what he said, which was important. I am sure that the Minister, through this grid that the Government are now producing, might clarify what is happening in terms of delivery as opposed to simply the powers.

On a previous day in Committee, I spoke about there being powers, responsibilities and resources in devolution. They are not the same thing. So I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, that many more powers could well be devolved, alongside the responsibilities for delivering the powers, without the resources to do the job. The point was well made by the noble Lord; I thank him for that. A little more will be said on this in our debate on the next group.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, drew our attention to Greater Manchester and the improvements in the health system. Since the decision was made to devolve some responsibilities in health to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and its mayor, I have always regarded it as a pilot of what we should all be doing. It is now for the Government to double-check all of the figures produced on improvements in public health and to assess whether, having had devolution, the resources have been provided to match the responsibilities and powers devolved—and, at the same time, to assess whether the achievements and outcomes in Greater Manchester are better than what has been secured elsewhere where there is no devolution.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said something that was terribly important to me: the NHS cannot be run by a central command and control system. We learned that during the Covid epidemic, but it is more than that. You cannot run 56 million people in England out of Whitehall and Westminster. The noble Lord helped us a lot by saying that what is to be devolved is a national decision and how it is to be delivered is a local decision.

I therefore come back to the grid that the Government are producing. It should now have a “what?” and a “how?”. Some greater meaning to the word “devolution” can then be achieved. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said, in the end, without greater fiscal responsibilities and powers, you do not have devolution—you have decentralisation. I think I recall making that point at Second Reading and on the first day in Committee, because it is so very true.

18:30

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, before we complete this group, I just want to say that what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said by way of moving his probing amendment asks not only important questions but questions to which we will have to come back, if not in this Bill then on the NHS reform Bill. As I know the noble Lord will completely understand, in so far as that forthcoming legislation will transfer responsibilities back into the Department of Health and Social Care and, potentially, give specific statutory responsibilities to integrated care boards, neither of those will allow this legislation and the 2016 legislation to operate in the way he intends. We will, therefore, have to come back to that and how it will happen at the time.

As things stand, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care does not devolve any of his functions to local government. In effect, he devolves the functions that would otherwise be exercised by NHS England in Manchester to the mayoral strategic authority. If we are going to do that in other mayoral strategic authorities when NHS England has disappeared, there will need to be a new structure to see how this works.

In some ways, it is entirely dependent on how the Government intend, in the NHS reform procedures, to re-establish the relationship between the NHS and local government. Nobody—I heard the noble Lord say this quite recently—has satisfactorily created that relationship. In the coalition Government, it was a very complicated process, and it did not work. There have been positive outcomes in relation to public health, but, for local government, there have not been satisfactory outcomes in relation to the management of health services—particularly in so far as they can be combined satisfactorily with social care services. This is something that we will have to return to in the NHS reform Bill.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, turning first to Clause 53, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his probing stand part notice. As we have said more than once, the devolution of health is a complex matter that raises many important questions—particularly, as we have heard, around the relationship between local authorities and the NHS. I listened to the passion of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on this issue. I assure him that I felt as passionate as him 15 years ago; I hope that, at the end of all this, he is not as disappointed as I was.

When I was going through this in Wiltshire, the interesting thing was that the staff on the front line—those in the NHS and in local authorities—really understood this issue. They understood the importance of devolution and how they could deliver much more efficient, better services for the people whom they wanted to serve. That pushed me to do this more and more. However, as I have noted previously, many of the determinants of public health sit outside the health system. We must be clear on who is responsible for what. As we have said many times, where additional duties and responsibilities are placed on local authorities, they must be matched with sufficient resources to deliver them properly. In addition, the Government’s approach must be evidence-based and must demonstrate value for money for taxpayers.

On previous groups, the Minister mentioned the mayor’s involvement in integrated care boards, and we all welcome that. But it has to go further than that. In my opinion, being a member of an integrated care board will not deliver what we need to be delivered on the ground with health and local authorities.

This brings me to Amendment 185 in the name of my noble friend Lord Gascoigne. I thank him for making the case so compellingly. This amendment would prevent the duplication of powers between local authorities and central government. In the realm of health, for instance, we cannot risk the lines of accountability being blurred, whereby functions and responsibilities are devolved down to local authorities, yet Whitehall does not equip them to deliver effectively or continues to do the same jobs itself, leading to duplication.

This is precisely the difference between the Government’s current approach to devolution and what genuine community empowerment ought to look like. This amendment aims to correct that by ensuring that, when a function is devolved, it is also relinquished by central government, while still permitting the appropriate oversight where needed.

If the Government truly believe in local community empowerment, there can be no greater vote of confidence than supporting the principles set out here, trusting local authorities to do the jobs devolved to them fully, and giving local people clear, transparent lines of accountability. This is a matter not of meaningful devolution but of efficiencies and effective government. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on both these important amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for their amendments. I turn first to my noble friend Lord Hunt probing whether Clause 53 should stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53 places limits on the devolution of health functions to strategic authorities to ensure that the health service remains truly national. I know the noble Lord understands that. For instance, it prevents the transfer of the Secretary of State for Health’s core functions in relation to health. Where health functions are devolved to a strategic authority, it requires that provision is made to ensure that they adhere to national service standards.

Protections against devolving these functions are not new; as the noble Lord indicated, they have probably been going since the health service was first set up. They have certainly been in place since central government first began the process of devolving functions to combined authorities. The Bill merely retains those protections. I know my noble friend wishes to probe the Government’s intentions on devolving health functions in the future, and he is right to do so.

Health, well-being and public service reform is an area of competence for strategic authorities, as set out in Clause 2. The Bill also confers a new health improvement and inequalities duty on combined authorities and combined county authorities. As health is covered within the areas of competence, the Government could use the powers in this Bill to devolve health functions to strategic authorities in the future, if they believed it appropriate to do so. Mayors of established mayoral strategic authorities would also be able to request the devolution of health functions and get a response from government.

This demonstrates that the Government see a clear role for strategic authorities and mayors in health, both now and going forward. The example of Manchester is a very good one, and we will continue to look at what is happening there to make sure that lessons can be learned and that, if we get requests from other mayors to devolve health functions to them, we pick up on any lessons from Manchester. At the moment, the process is looking positive. But it will always be right, I fear, that limitations remain to make sure that the health service remains truly national. Whether that is in targeting or some of the processes, we will see.

I turn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, which seeks to prevent the doubling up of powers and responsibilities in strategic authorities and Whitehall. I heard the Secretary of State speak over the weekend and his view is definitely that devolution by default is the way he wants to move this forward. He was very clear on that, and on the advocation of subsidiarity that sees powers and funding always held at the most appropriate level for delivering any service. The funding settlement will be announced this week; it may be out today. It is out—I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. I had not kept up on that, although I have talked of nothing else all weekend.

Through the integrated settlement, we have instituted the principle that, where central government funding falls within the scope of an established mayoral strategic authorities’ functional responsibilities, that funding will be devolved. The Government are also committed to providing new strategic authorities with capacity funding to kick-start their organisations, so all areas on the devolution priority programme will receive mayoral capacity funding to help establish their new institutions once the legislation has been laid before Parliament. They will receive capacity funding in future years as well, so they are ready and prepared to deliver the benefits of devolution.

I agree with the noble Lord that, unless you have the funding to deliver these new functions, there is not much point in devolving them. We very much agree with the spirit of the noble Lord’s amendment. When responsibilities are devolved, they have to be devolved as thoroughly as possible to enable the true innovation and place-based approaches that we all want to see and that are the whole purpose of devolution in the first place. That is the position the Government have taken in the devolution framework in this Bill. The majority of powers will be exercised solely by the strategic authority or concurrently with the constituent authorities.

However, there are rare circumstances where the relevant Secretary of State and the strategic authority need to share powers. To give an example, the Secretary of State will retain the ability to provide funding in relation to adult education in addition to funding provided by the strategic authority. This will ensure that those areas in strategic authorities do not miss out on nationwide schemes. For example, I think there have been some announced today.

The amendment in itself is too restrictive and would prevent instances where it makes sense for powers to be held concurrently with government. I understand the noble Lord’s concern that, while functions may be devolved, funding may remain in Whitehall. However, the Government are committed to providing strategic authorities with the funding to deliver their functions.

We have committed to providing new strategic authorities with capacity funding, as I have said, and the integrated settlement institutes the principle that government funding will be devolved where the responsibilities fall within established mayoral authorities’ functional responsibilities. I hope that, with those explanations, noble Lords are able to support the clause standing part of the Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. It has been a really interesting and encouraging debate. I share the view, concern and thrust of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, and I thought my noble friend was pretty positive in response.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made a very pertinent point about the difference between delegation and devolvement. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, pointed out, although we talk about devo Manchester in relation to health, it was actually delegation, with the Secretary of State retaining responsibility.

I do not think that in the short term we will be able to move off the Secretary of State’s responsibility. That goes back to 1948. However, I think a lot more could be delegated, and there are issues where we could start to look at real devolvement. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, reminded me that we have the joys of another NHS reform Bill coming to us in the next few months, and we will have an opportunity to discuss and debate this further. I will be looking particularly to see whether the Bill tries to nibble away at what is already contained in Clause 53.

One has to say that, at the time of the agreement over Greater Manchester, it is well known that NHS England was not in the loop in the original decision-making. I am afraid that, because of that, it has not been keen to see progress such as has occurred in Manchester. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said that Manchester was essentially a pilot and we should have a proper assessment; I agree with that.

My noble friend was very encouraging. I understand this whole question about the Secretary of State’s accountability to Parliament for the running of the National Health Service and how that squares with giving more authority to local authorities to have a role in it. We can find a way through. For instance, this always struck me: if we are going to have pilots, why on earth can we not have one mayoral authority taking on responsibility for an ICB—not having one place on it but actually doing it? Albeit it might be under delegated powers from the Secretary of State, at least let us dip in the water of freeing up the system. Looking at how the NHS is run at the moment, how many restructurings do we need to show that central command control simply does not work? Having said that, I withdraw my opposition to Clause 53.

Clause 53 agreed.

18:45

Clause 54: Incidental etc provision

Amendments 184 and 184A not moved.

Clause 54 agreed.

Clauses 55 and 56 agreed.

Amendment 185 not moved.

Amendment 186

Moved by

[Lord Gascoigne]

186: After Clause 56, insert the following new Clause—
“Powers of strategic authoritiesBefore new powers are conferred on a strategic authority, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the strategic authority has a plan which will improve local services, drive efficiency and improve cost effectiveness.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that before changes are made, each strategic authority has a plan to ensure improved services and value for money for the tax payer.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, it is a delight to kick off this group. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, leaving at this crucial moment. I know that there are lots of other people with amendments here, so I will not dwell too long on what I want to say. On my amendment, I believe it is reasonable and genuinely important that, before new powers are conferred on a strategic authority, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the authority has a credible plan to improve local services, drive efficiency and deliver better value for money.

I was going to welcome back the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, but she seems to have dashed off as well. I confess that I was a little saddened on the first day of Committee, when I thought I could perhaps work with the Lib Dems, but they were not able to support one of my amendments that follows this vein. Given the breakout of love on that last group, I hope I can get their support. That was on Amendment 12, which sought to ensure that people receive the best possible service on the ground as part of that intended reorganisation. As I say, this is my second attempt to win them over.

I genuinely believe that, if we do not build in something along the lines of what I suggest in this amendment, we are effectively just rubber-stamping the creation of swathes of new authorities without requiring them first to demonstrate that they will spend the public’s money well, and without any obligation to show that things will improve. To be clear, my amendment here simply states that, when we create these new authorities—which we are in this Bill—we should do so with the taxpayer front and centre. After all, surely one of the main tenets of devolution is that not only do people have a greater say but they have a better service in their local area based upon local desire and need.

As part of the process of reorganisation, I am saying here that new authorities must develop a plan as part of that reorganisation, because I genuinely do not believe that there is any point in going through all this reorganisation, with all the costs, energy, rebadging, delays of elections, hirings and firings—you name it—if there is no guarantee or even a requirement or plan for services to improve as a result. I say to my Lib Dem amigos that, although their argument against my past amendment was that it was not in the vein of the Bill, if they feel this is not the right Bill, let us try to work together to make it better. Let us try to put devolution in and put local people front and centre.

If we are choosing to impose this system on the people, which we are, we have a responsibility to make sure that it works for them. It is worth stressing that point: we are forcing devolution on to the people—rightly or wrongly, whatever noble Lords’ views—so we have a duty of care, in my view. There is no choice in this matter. In this Bill, we are ultimately giving a blank cheque, with respect, to the Government, so I do not think there can be a credible objection to saying that we owe it to the people that services should improve before we do so. If the power to create these entities lies in the hands of the Secretary of State, surely he or she has a duty of care to ensure that what will now appear across the land will deliver and look after the people in those communities.

As I said on day one, we cannot trust that this will all be fine. Some local authorities are already working well and, for those people in those authorities, perhaps things will continue to work well or even improve. However, when we are forcing authorities to combine with perhaps less well-performing authorities, we again have a duty to the people on the ground before these changes happen. It forces everyone involved to deliver and to work up a plan in advance.

Finally, and briefly, I will not name names but it was suggested in Committee that, because I have worked in Downing Street, I perhaps have very skewed views when it comes to devolution. I do not. I assure the Whip that I am not going to err into a Second Reading speech, but my real concern with this entire Bill is that it completely misjudges what I think people want. For context, I grew up in a working-class family in a terraced house in East Lancs. It was a long time ago, but there were some issues and those issues remain. In many northern towns, there are some deep and real issues. Twenty years ago, there was some scepticism of politics and how London dominated everything—this was in Lancashire by the way, the right side of the border—and things needed to be fixed, yet nothing changed.

That feeling has grown. However, that desire for change does not, in my view, equate to local government reorganisation, nor wanting mayors for mayors’ sake. Respectfully, the reason I say that is, if we look at the polls and at what focus groups say—I will not be the first to say this—if we go outside Westminster, there is a world between what we think people think and what they actually think. People are not clamouring right now for tinkering, nor are the masses out there with their pitchforks demanding local government reorganisation, but there is a building, growing unease. It has not happened overnight or certainly not solely under this Government, but people are struggling. They are feeling ignored and let down, and they want things fixed.

I give one quick example. The other day, I stumbled across the Electoral Commission’s 2025 public attitude report—I highly recommend it—which states that:

“More people now believe Britain needs a strong leader willing to break the rules”.


A little later, it goes on:

“Support among Labour supporters rose from 27% to 38% following Labour’s victory”.


It has other breakdowns for other parties as well, but I will not go into that. To me, what that shows is exasperation. People want things fixed; they want things to happen.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, who is sadly not in her place, talked about my views on levelling up. I worked for the guy who coined that phrase. We can have a debate about whether he did any good or not on that specific issue, but levelling up does not always mean devolution—certainly not this version. One of the many things that used to drive me into an absolute rage when I worked in Downing Street was that, whenever many in Westminster talked of devolution, it always felt that it was more Westminster, not devolution. The answer to everything seemed to be more structure, more governance and more politicians. We seem always to overlook the crucial thing, which is the people themselves. It is they who want things fixed and to work and, in my view, that is what levelling up is. That is also why I think we need to put something into this Bill that helps to deliver it and puts the people front and centre. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 187. There is a fair amount of agreement between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne—on both sides of the Pennines—about the nature of the problems. This is not a devolution Bill; it is a decentralisation Bill. The Government believe that delivery is what matters but have not yet understood that, unless the people on the ground are helped to understand why delivery is difficult and that they have some part in seeing what is delivered and in helping with delivery, they will not feel that it is them.

My amendment therefore starts from the need to re-establish public trust in the delivery of government on the ground, at the local level and, therefore, to provide a degree of financial transparency. Unless we have a more transparent process of fiscal negotiation about the distribution of funds between central and local government, we cannot succeed in improving the governance of England or in gaining the acceptance of people outside London and the south-east that the governance of England is fair.

There is a deep sense of disillusionment across the north of England that people have been neglected, that London does not understand them and that the Civil Service in London, as the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, said, has grown in the last 15 years while local government has languished and, in many cases, faced bankruptcy. The city of Bradford is not yet bankrupt but is struggling on the brink of it. We have to explain to local people why the services they used to have are no longer being provided. I challenge the Minister to explain how devolution, which helps to resolve the enormous crisis we have with public trust in our democratic politics, can take place without a more visible process of fiscal devolution, without beginning to reform local taxation and without Ministers as well as local council leaders explaining to their public what is and is not possible in strict financial terms.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 190 in my name would place an obligation on the Government to introduce devolved fiscal and revenue-raising powers within 12 months of the introduction of the Act. Fiscal devolution is the transfer of financial powers and responsibilities from central government to local authorities, enabling them to raise and manage their own revenue and tailor tax policies and spending to meet local needs and ambitions.

The UK is widely recognised as having the most centralised system in the world. The dead hand of the Treasury is firmly on the purse strings, holding back local potential, opportunities and energies. Overcentralisation has held back regional economic growth and increased regional inequalities. Vast numbers of reports have been written on this subject, urging central government to empower local government by devolving powers close to the people they affect. Charities and think tanks such as the Resolution Foundation, the LGA, the Centre for Cities, Core Cities and many more have produced well-evidenced reports as to how financial devolution could empower the UK’s communities to boost economic growth and greater public participation in governance, but progress has so far been extremely slow.

There are many ways in which fiscal devolution could be achieved in England. Evidence from other countries demonstrates effective and achievable systems in such countries as the Netherlands, Germany, France and Switzerland. Measures include raising direct tax revenues, expanding the tax base, taking a proportion of locally levied income tax, placing different conditions on business rates and making council tax a buoyant and progressive local tax, which it certainly is not at the moment. There is ample evidence available for the successful introduction of fiscal devolution in England. There are many advantages, such as democratic accountability and voter turnout at elections. Anybody who has ever campaigned in local elections will have experienced the challenge of persuading people to go out and vote when they understand that virtually all the funding comes directly from central government. “What is the point of it?”, they ask, when their hopes and aspirations are slapped down because of no funding coming from central government, only more cuts.

Economic dynamism benefits enormously from fiscal devolution in that the regions and cities of the UK are able to take actions that add to economic strength, such as attracting inward investment, job creation, skills training and development of specific infrastructure such as transport that enable more locally focused dynamic economic activities. There is also greater transparency and clarity. My colleague talked about the loss of trust among the public, part of which is because of the perception by many voters that money just goes into a great big hole: it comes from central government and they have no influence over how it is spent or raised. If they had more involvement there would be much greater trust and participation in local governance, which is a vital factor in the delivery of key projects.

The Government claim that the Bill will provide devolution and empowerment, but clearly it will keep firm central control over the finances. Funds are allocated from Whitehall, and mayors continue to be local outposts of central government who are responsible, in essence, for ensuring that central government policy is delivered at a local level. As my colleagues here have said, unless revenue-raising powers and financial powers are devolved, this is not devolution but decentralisation, and opportunities are likely to be lost: the opportunity to underpin local powers with real financial powers and responsibilities, and the opportunity to give people hope and optimism that they can achieve their local ambitions, with a realistic chance of them being financed, and improve their local area.

19:00

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 196C. For me, this is a really interesting group because it is quite wide: part of it is to do with wanting to enable local revenue raising and part of it says, “Hang on. Hold on a minute, we need a bit more accountability here. Should we not put up some guardrails?” I am somewhere in the middle of that argument, I guess.

My amendment would allow mayors to levy a business rates supplement to fund local priorities. The first question is: why do that? These mayoral authorities are going to be quite large—perhaps not on the scale of Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, the West Midlands and so on, but they will be large geographic entities. One would think that they will want primarily to drive projects that relate to bits of infrastructure kit and transport, such as buses, trains and trams, and to ensure that they have adequate local funding to do so. It is welcome that the Government are consulting on a tourism levy but, even following the Bill, established mayoral authorities will still require considerable central funding and approval for major projects.

I do not quite buy the argument that the Bill is about decentralisation, not devolution; I think it is a mixture of the two. It is good that we are looking to decentralise more because that will eventually underpin a greater level of devolution. My amendment would change who can levy the supplement and under what circumstances. It would allow established mayoral areas to levy a business rates supplement without a referendum, as was the case for Crossrail. I am sure that most colleagues will remember that the Crossrail funding was a mix of central funding and local funding. The Crossrail business levy was an important element of that; it also meant that businesses across the capital had to think about what they were going to get out of Crossrail and make their voices well known.

Currently, the relevant legislation says that only the Greater London Authority, county and district councils can do this in England, subject to a referendum of businesses in those areas. My amendment would change this so that only established mayoral areas would be able to do so, but without the requirement for a referendum. This would align the economic growth policies of the mayoral tier with the fiscal incentives from a business rates supplement, as is the case in London. It would mean that the referendum requirement, which was put into the Localism Act 2011, would be withdrawn or would not apply. Crossrail has been a major success—everybody can see that. It has major benefits. I am sure that mayoral authorities, combined mayoral authorities and so on will want to see the sorts of improvement that have been gained from Crossrail spread more widely across the country.

I argue that we should lift those restrictions so that mayors can get on with delivering for their areas. This cuts to the point on central funding that the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, talked about. Most local government services are, in the majority, centrally funded, but that was not always the case. I think back to my time as a borough councillor in the early 1980s, when much more of the revenue was raised locally through business rates and rates on properties. That gave us more autonomy and more freedom, and it meant that local people could see that their local authority was spending their money. That increased the level of interest in local elections, which I believe is a very positive thing. I therefore hope that this will get some favour from the Minister, and that colleagues will find this an interesting solution to local financial support for combined mayoral authorities.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad that I am following the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, because I could not disagree more with his Amendment 196C. When I was the leader of a district authority, we had control over the business rates, and we were able to get full reliefs to the last pub, shop or community sporting club in a village with a population of less than 3,000. That was the source of a huge community empowerment. The effect of the noble Lord’s amendment would be another nail in the coffin for rural pubs and small businesses, and I reject it on that basis. I will also speak to my own Amendment 256A, which is a rag bag. We are talking about Clause 56 at the moment, but this would go right at the end, beyond Clause 85; perhaps I should have asked for it to be de-grouped, but here we are.

My amendment is consistent with the Government’s Clause 11, which relates to constraining the council tax-raising ability of the larger, newly created mayoral combined authorities. But I am looking at the other end of the spectrum, because I am concerned that, following local government reorganisation, the former district councils, which are currently defined as “billing authorities” under the Local Government Finance Act 1992, will disappear. In Section 39(2), they will become local precepting authorities. In other words, the district council, once abolished, will be converted to a third-tier parish or town council. This will affect places like King’s Lynn, a historic county borough; cathedral cities like Norwich or Oxford; county towns like Ipswich and Chelmsford; and coastal communities like Hastings, Eastbourne and Great Yarmouth.

Some of these places have large populations—for example, Norwich City Council, when it is abolished, will have a population of more than 150,000—and there will be lots of new large locals formed. The problem is that the majors are constrained in their ability to put up council tax—5%—but the locals are not. This amendment would change the definition of “local precepting authority” to include authorities with a population below 49,999. Where a local precepting authority exceeds 50,000, it would become a major precepting authority for the purposes of raising council tax and be subject to the same rules as other larger councils.

Of course, it is not just the former billing authorities that will flip into parishes; the former boundaries that flowed from the hundreds, the poor law unions, the urban and rural district councils, and the predecessors of the county boroughs in the Reform Act 1832 will disappear. This is why my amendment proposes a size scale, rather than being limited solely to the former district councils. These places will be joining that benighted club: Salisbury, Shrewsbury and Scarborough, which have all fallen out of previous rounds of LGR and must now stand on their own two feet in the sense that, unlike their predecessor billing authority constructions, they will get no formula grant in the future; they will need to earn what they spend.

We already know already that over 100 councils, existing principal authorities, want exceptional financial support this year as the Government shamelessly tilt the formula away from being population based. That is a denial of the simple truth that people consume services that need to be paid for and that it is more expensive to deliver them in the countryside, but that is a debate for another time.

But, under LGR, there will be a powerful incentive for authorities to cost-shunt the most expensive things to these newly created third-level authorities to get the liabilities off their books and on to the small fry. I am thinking of leisure centres, municipal theatres, parks and open spaces, youth groups, civic activity, and community pride events such as carnivals and festivals.

My wife was a parish clerk for over 10 years in a small parish with 500 souls, spending about £3,000 a year, so I know the value of what these unsung volunteers—real community champions—in parish councils can achieve. But I am focusing on the new large class of parish, town or even small city authority, with plenty of staff, plant and equipment, miles away from that “Vicar of Dibley” stereotype.

These residents need protecting from unconstrained tax rises, cost shunts from principal authorities and the smaller populations being made to afford the costs of facilities that have been previously amortised over a much larger canvas—that hinterland of surrounding parishes where people are able to chip in. This is not an idle concern. The noble Baroness has certainly mentioned Salisbury before, which has let rip. Its precept is up 44% in just four years. Its own website tells long-suffering residents that their council tax is the highest in Wiltshire. At £383 for band D, it is over twice the level of my own district council. I have looked at Shrewsbury. Following LGR, its parishioners’ band D is up 218% in 10 years—although I will concede that, at £87, it appears to be offering slightly better value for money. To those against my amendment, I say: look to Shrewsbury, because limiting council tax in these third-tier authorities can be done.

I have also looked at Stevenage, which is likely to be consumed and subsumed into the larger construct—taking power further away from residents and damaging the distinct identity that came from it being the first post-war new town, alongside all the other accoutrements. It is funny how all my examples begin with an S. In Stevenage, the band D was raised by just 3% to £246.41. If it carries on like Salisbury, a band D in Stevenage would pay £354 by 2030—a raise of nearly 50% or over £100.

We must be clear that these are burdens in addition to the new mayoralties that will be created—the huge new bureaucracies with the ability to raise precepts for things they are not even responsible for. There will be new mayoral CIL on top of existing CIL and new authorities where the effects of council tax equalisation within the canvas have not even been ventilated yet, and the costs of LGR have not been determined. We know it is going be subject to at least a £1 billion black hole from the accelerated pension strain costs.

Do not let the Government tell you there will be fewer layers; there will be more and at more cost. The public will be rinsed by LGR. People will pay more for less—that much is certain—but my amendment would at least seek to constrain those billing authorities that are already principal authorities and are constrained in their ability to raise council tax. That will still apply to them when they are transmogrified into third-tier councils, to make sure they cannot do a Salisbury too. That is right not only by residents but by the authorities, because as they approach this forced reorganisation, which will see a transfer of assets, they will know by this amendment that there is not a blank cheque. It will sharpen the minds.

This is not a dig at parish councils or the third tier. They do a lot of valuable work at a level that is closest to the people, but I have got their back, because it will stop those councils with the broadest shoulders from imposing liabilities and cast-offs on to those with the most limited means. That is an essential safeguard if the community empowerment part of this Bill is not to be undermined. I would be creating equity between the cathedral cities, the market towns, the new towns and so forth, so that council tax after LGR does not become an intolerable burden for those who live within the cities and provide perverse incentives for those just outside to become free riders.

I know the Minister is concerned about this and we have spoken for some time about it. I have suggested a £50,000 threshold in Committee, but as we move to Report I would be open to saying that perhaps there should be a £1 million precept or some other measure. But we have to have a measure between the small and the major authorities to protect parishes from having their leg lifted and, in turn, protect their residents from being rinsed.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down, I would like to clarify something. You cannot compare Salisbury as it is now to Salisbury as it was before as a district council. It was a far larger area; it was Sailsbury and south Wiltshire, not just Salisbury city.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I am staggered at the thought of a parish council with a population over 50,000; it does not make sense to me. I am also staggered at the thought that, if we are talking about getting back to place-based communities, we are denying to places the size of Scarborough or Harrogate, both of which I know well and which have or used to have important assets, in conference centres and major hotels, the sense of local community or parish, thus increasing the sense for most of our public of total alienation from the politics that we are providing them with.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Can I just explain to the noble Lord that a parish council is a name given to parishes, towns and cities? It all comes under the same legislation as parishes.

19:15

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, this is a most interesting group of amendments, and there is deep food for thought in what should come back to the House when we get to Report.

I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. I must say that I had not understood the figure of 50,000, but at the very end he clarified that that could be a matter of discussion. My noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire has covered that issue as well. A difference between my party and that of the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Gascoigne, is that they are both trying to give excess power to the Secretary of State.

The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked at the very beginning of this group why we had not supported his previous amendment a few weeks ago on the power of the Secretary of State to make a decision on whether an authority was fit to undertake additional powers. Our concern was that these matters should not lie with the Secretary of State, who would have power to make these decisions without necessarily having the right degree of accountability for it. It is better to give the power to local electorates.

In the end, I am not sure that local communities need to be protected by the Secretary of State from the level of tax to be paid. I think that the local ballot box is the protection at that stage—so I hope that, when the noble Lord thinks about bringing this amendment back on Report, he bears in mind that the major power lies with the local electorate.

My noble friends Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lady Janke both raised issues around fiscal power and the understandability and accessibility of financial matters for local people. This is of fundamental importance; it is about devolution. We need to have a transparent negotiation of fiscal powers of government. I accept totally that this is a process—it does not happen overnight—but I hope that the Government’s consultation on powers over tourism tax will be positive. Local areas are going to have to be more responsible for the level and nature of the taxes that they raise to pay for local services. We look forward to an outcome of the negotiation.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, raised a very interesting question about the business rate supplement. I want to think further about that, because it is a very interesting suggestion. We have to have the detail right. One thing I have noticed about raising taxes locally is that, if people know what it is that the extra money that they are paying is going to be spent on, there is a direct relationship, which you tend to get with parish and town councils and with some kinds of business rate supplements. I think there is potential here for further thought.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that we will take this away and think further about the possibilities for driving ahead on a system of business rate supplements supported or underpinned by clear consultation with local areas and a clear attachment to a specific project. Then, the general public will be more amenable to what councils are trying to do and how the funding is going to be provided.

My name, alongside that of my noble friend Lady Janke is on Amendment 190. I hope that the Minister will be positive about thinking through bringing forward proposals for fiscal devolution because, for devolution to work, you have to give greater powers over fiscal policy to the constituent parts of England. I hope that the Minister will give us a positive response to this group of amendments.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken on this group of amendments. We keep coming back to the same sorts of issues as in the previous group. We were talking about devolution in relation to health, and fiscal devolution and trying to extract money out of the NHS.

Now we come to a different level of fiscal devolution, and my noble friend Lord Gascoigne raised the point that a lot of people outside the London bubble are frustrated. I emphasise that it is not just in the north; I was on the south coast in Southampton this weekend, where there are lots of frustrated people. I can assure you that if you drove along the pothole-encrusted roads of Bedfordshire, there are lots of frustrated people there as well.

This is important because people care about their communities and they want their communities to be better. They care about place, and you cannot create great places by diktat from Whitehall. I recall saying that two or three times earlier in this Committee. That means you need real devolution and real powers. It also means real fiscal devolution; we have a number of suggestions on fiscal devolution here.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lady Scott made the point that parish councils, particularly small parish councils, are very close to their communities. People can easily see what that extra £10 or £20 or £50 is being spent on—such as extra grass cutting or improvements to the village hall—and they are quite amenable to it. As you start moving away from that and you start breaking that relationship, it becomes much more difficult.

One of the great dangers with fiscal devolution, much as I believe in it, is that central government—I am not making a political point here, but I am blaming Whitehall and the Treasury—see that as an opportunity to raise tax by the back door. We have seen government regularly passing additional responsibilities to local government with a short-term grant and then expecting the council tax payer to fund that burden.

One of the big issues that we have in local government at the moment is that a lot of responsibilities have been passed down; responsibilities are then growing quicker than the tax base, which means many of these issues of place are facing a fiscal squeeze. We have this dichotomy or dilemma: we may want fiscal devolution, but how do we avoid central government cost shunting?

My noble friend Lord Fuller was implying the same thing. It is great to have fiscal freedoms for parish and town councils, but we do not want cost shunting from overpressed district, unitary and county authorities. How do we protect against that cost shunting, where people see higher tax bills but no benefits? Place is important. I am desperately keen for genuine fiscal devolution, but how do we protect our residents from, in effect, cost shunting from Whitehall down the line?

I will talk briefly about some of these amendments. My noble friend Lord Gascoigne’s amendment is really important, because it is not just about the Secretary of State making a judgment—that is what the Secretary of State would do anyway, if he were to devolve powers—but placing a burden on him to say that he genuinely believes that a council has the financial resources, financial capacity and management resources to do what is being entrusted upon it. It is not just a case of going, “Get on with it. Bye. It is not my fault; it is your fault”, then, a year later, not giving it the money that it needs to deliver those things.

Forgive me, because I cannot remember whether it was from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, or the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, but I accept his point. However, the contra argument is that it places a burden on the Secretary of State to make sure that it is feasible. We need to think about that very important distinction.

The other point to make is that we are going through reorganisation here and we need to ensure that this is not shuffling the deckchairs on the “Titanic”. It has to be about meaningfully improving services for our residents and about better value for money. We should not have reorganisation for reorganisation’s sake, which is why I think this amendment is the right approach.

We have had a number of amendments on fiscal devolution, but I will not go through them all. I have a concern about cost shunting and we have to protect against that. We need to give people real fiscal powers in order to deliver better services for their residents. What we do not need—some of the announcements that have been made today are like this and our Government were the same—is to have to appeal to the Government to get funding to do something. That means the Secretary of State is still in charge and that you are not determining your local priorities but, by the way, all the councils will do it because they want as much money as they can for their residents to deliver as best they can.

This must be underpinned by a real understanding that there are both costs and benefits from devolution, and that the funding arrangements are fair and transparent to local government. One of the biggest fears I have in local government is that the resident and local taxpayer does not see what their funding goes on, because far too much of it is dictated by the Government. These are responsibilities and duties with no funding and no powers, which is something that I might come back to on the next group of amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Gascoigne, Lord Wallace and Lord Bassam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for their amendments in this group.

I will comment briefly on the general points that the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, made. It does not happen as rarely as one might expect, but I do agree with some of what he said. Nobody much cares about the architecture of local government; when I knock on people’s doors, they do not say, “Can you change the structure of local government, Sharon?” That does not happen. They do care, however, about their public services being delivered effectively. They want to see new homes built, their streets cleaned, their potholes fixed—as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, pointed out—fly-tipping sorted and work being done to tackle the decline of our high streets. The current system was just not sustainable. It was not working in terms of either finance or efficiency, so we have to make some changes to tackle that issue. Both making the structures work better and devolving power to local authorities are needed to make sure that they can tackle the things that are important at the local level.

Amendment 186, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, seeks to place barriers on conferring new functions on strategic authorities. As per paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 25, the Secretary of State cannot confer a new function on a strategic authority unless they are

“satisfied that it is appropriate to do so having regard to the need to secure the effective exercise of the function concerned”.

That provides an adequate test to ensure that, when functions are conferred, it is with the effective delivery of that function in mind. It also enables the Government to pilot new functions with strategic authorities. We talked about some of that earlier. In these instances, strategic authorities will be required to provide an impact report on the pilot, which the Secretary of State will use to help decide whether to confer the function on a permanent basis.

The pilot process provides an adequate opportunity to test devolution before rolling it out more widely. We believe that requiring each strategic authority to have a specific plan for each function effectively signed off by the Secretary of State runs counter to the principles of devolution that underpin the Bill. It risks micromanagement of strategic authorities from Whitehall and slowing down the progress of devolution. I do not say “micromanagement” with any political side because, the last time that my party was in power, we ended up with about 160 performance indicators for local authorities. I am not in favour of that either.

19:30

The proposed new clause in Amendment 187, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, would put a duty on the mayor of a combined authority or a combined county authority to ensure that information around the authority’s financial affairs is publicised to local communities in an accessible way. It would also require the mayor to publish a plan for how they will engage with constituents on major spending decisions.

Although I recognise the aim of the amendment, this proposed new clause would duplicate existing arrangements and improvements brought forward by this Bill. Local authorities must already publish annual accounts along with annual governance statements on their websites. The accounts are then subject to a 30 working-day public inspection period and external audit. Once those processes are complete, audited accounts are published, along with the auditor’s opinion and value-for-money assessment. I know that that process has been flawed in recent years, and I hope it will improve under the clauses in this Bill—but the process is already there.

Further to that, the Local Government Transparency Code 2015 mandates that local authorities, including combined authorities, regularly publish information about their spending and assets on their websites. All mayoral strategic authorities are expected to adhere to the principles and processes set out in the English Devolution Accountability Framework, which outlines how mayors will be held to account by central government at the local level and by the public. This includes how their local assurance framework must set out arrangements for enabling effective engagement of local partners and the public, and they must review this annually. I confirm that the Government are reviewing the English Devolution Accountability Framework, and we will update on this in due course.

On Amendment 190, I reassure noble Baroness, Lady Janke, that the Government are already taking forward work to expand local revenue-raising tools and fiscal flexibility through the existing non-statutory processes. Noble Lords have mentioned the consultation on the visitor levy for mayors and other local leaders. The visitor levy consultation sets out detailed proposals on how locally raised revenues could be used to support economic growth, including through support for the visitor economy.

This Bill introduces new and more flexible fiscal powers for mayors by creating flexibility in where the mayor may spend the mayoral precept and the introduction of the mayoral community infrastructure levy for mayors outside London. Legislating for a statutory duty would constrain flexibility, impose a fixed timetable and prescribe a scope for work that has already been progressed through more agile and collaborative means

In addition, the Government have a long-standing commitment to provide certainty to local government on its finances. We have already published multiyear funding settlements as part of the provisional local government finance settlement for 2026-29, and the value of integrated settlements was also published for mayors who received them at the autumn Budget for the full spending review period. Although I have much sympathy with the noble Baroness’s wish to expand fiscal powers, and although we share the ambition of strengthening local economic leadership, we do not consider that a statutory duty in this regard is needed.

Amendment 196C, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bassam, proposes a change of tax policy and therefore is a matter for the Chancellor at fiscal events. Any future changes to tax policy will be announced at the relevant fiscal event, where they can be considered in the round. However, there are already powers for the majority of mayors to levy a business rates supplement. This amendment would restrict this power to established mayoral strategic authorities only, and that would remove the power to levy a supplement from the six mayors who currently have that power. A business rates supplement can create significant benefits for local communities. For example, in London, the business rates supplement introduced by the Greater London Authority was essential for the delivery of the Elizabeth line.

Amendment 256A was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. It was good to hear him recognise the good value that council tax payers in Stevenage get for their money—I was pleased to hear that. His point was well made, but that is 10% of the council tax that Stevenage council tax payers pay—in case they start writing in to me saying what they pay, because they have to pay the county council element as well.

This amendment is not necessary. The Secretary of State can already set referendum principles for any type of council if he chooses to do so. This would not change by reclassifying some parish councils as major preceptors. The Government’s ability to strike a balance between the generation of income for local services and the interests of taxpayers is an important part of the local government finance system, and the Government do not support attempts to change it. To date, no referendum principles have been set for parish councils. However, this is kept under review each year. The Government encourage councils to consider carefully the burden they place on taxpayers and to mitigate the need for increases. Parish councils, large or small, are closest to their residents and are already directly accountable for their spending decisions, for all the reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.

For all the reasons I have explained, I hope noble Lords will feel that they can withdraw or not press their amendments in this group.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that this has been an interesting group—I think that was the phrase he used—covering not just finance in itself but money-raising powers, transparency and fiscal devolution.

I agree entirely with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on the virtue of transparency, not just for holding people’s feet to the fire but for people to be able to see what on earth is going on; I totally support him in what he is doing there. As everyone probably knows, we are approaching Valentine’s Day. There were moments when I thought that there would be a breakout of a mass cross-party love-in but, sadly, it was dashed somewhere along the line.

With respect, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, says. I apologise for coming back to this point—it is very boring on my part—but I wish to repeat it. We are imposing this on people. In my amendment, I am not seeking to block or stop strategic authorities, wherever they may be, being able to have these powers conferred on them; I am merely saying that, in the process, they should have some work put in to make sure that the service improves.

This has been a good discussion on a good group. Some good points have been made. I am conscious that the next group is also a very good one, so I will not bore on, but perhaps we could do something to bring this matter back on Report because, as my noble friend Lord Jamieson said, people do care about it. I know that the Minister shares that view; I am sorry if I damage her street cred in saying this but, as she knows, I am a deep fan of hers and am very grateful for all the personal support she has given to both me and the committee that I chair. I may want to come back to this on Report, despite the words from the Minister, but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 186 withdrawn.

Amendments 187 to 191 not moved.

Amendment 192

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

192: After Clause 56, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to contribute to delivery of nature, clean air and climate targets(1) When exercising their functions, a strategic authority, mayor, or local authority must contribute to—(a) meeting the targets and carbon budgets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008;(b) meeting the targets and interim targets set under Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021;(c) meeting the limit values set under Schedule 2 of the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010;(d) the delivery of the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008. (2) A strategic authority, mayor or local authority must not make any decision that is incompatible with the duty described in subsection (1).(3) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish guidance describing the contribution that each strategic authority should make toward meeting the targets listed in subsection (1).(4) Guidance under subsection (3) must include clear metrics and measurable terms for strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to meet.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires strategic authorities, mayors, and local authorities to act in accordance with the statutory Climate Change Act and Environmental Act targets, carbon budgets, Air Quality Standards Regulations, and climate adaptation programme across their functions. The Secretary of State must publish guidance for defining authorities’ contributions towards these objectives.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments 193 and 194 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

On potholes, in the past four days, I have been campaigning in Barnet, in Gorton and Denton—we are doing pretty well there—in Cardiff and in Cambridgeshire. Potholes came up quite a lot, which is interesting. They are dangerous and should be fixed but, at the same time, we often have potholes because of excess rainfall and a rise in water levels; of course, this is a result of climate change.

That segues neatly into Amendment 192, which would put a duty on strategic authorities, mayors and local authorities to contribute to the delivery of existing climate nature and clean air targets when exercising their functions. Air pollution, contaminated land, water pollution and climate-related risks do not fall evenly across society. They disproportionately affect those with the least power to avoid them—the poorest in our society. Strategic authorities making decisions on transport, housing, planning and economic development, therefore, have a direct influence on public health outcomes, whether or not that is explicitly acknowledged.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that decisions taken under the Bill are aligned with obligations that Parliament has already set in law. Climate targets, environmental targets and air quality limits are legal commitments. Strategic authorities will play a central role in determining whether those commitments are met. There is also a wider reason why this is important. Exposure to environmental harm is one of the most significant determinants of health and health inequality. The conditions in which people live—the air they breathe, the green space they can access and the pollution they are exposed to—shape health outcomes over a lifetime, yet environmental factors are often treated as secondary rather than being at the forefront.

The evidence here is overwhelming. The Chief Medical Officer’s annual report in 2022 highlighted the clear link between poor air quality and health inequalities, showing higher risks of hospital admission and mortality among those living in more deprived areas and, obviously, a reduction in the quality of life. Organisations such as Asthma + Lung UK have shown that people with lung conditions in the poorest neighbourhoods are far more likely to die prematurely than those in wealthier areas.

This amendment would bring clarity. It would require authorities to contribute to meeting carbon budgets under the Climate Change Act, environmental targets under the Environment Act, legally binding air quality limits and the national programme for climate adaptation. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause would ensure that decisions incompatible with those duties could not be taken. That would provide legal certainty and embed prevention at the point decisions are made.

There is also a strong moral dimension. Recent legislative efforts such as Ella’s law and the work towards Zane’s law have helped shift how we understand environmental harm—not as an unfortunate by-product of development but as a threat to life, dignity and equality. Those cases remind us that environmental pollution can and does kill and that public bodies have a responsibility to act before harm occurs, not after. Many local authorities recognise this and are trying to align their policies accordingly. This amendment would support them by ensuring consistency across England, particularly as new devolved structures are created with significant powers.

If devolution is to succeed, it must strengthen our ability to meet national climate, nature and clean air commitments. I hope the Minister will engage constructively with the intent of the amendment and will be able to explain how the Government intend to ensure that strategic authorities actively contribute to the delivery of these vital environmental and public health concerns.

The purpose of Amendment 193 is to ensure that, in exercising their new powers, strategic authorities have a clear and transparent understanding of poverty within their areas. If these bodies are to promote economic development and growth, they must also be equipped to understand how that growth is experienced and who is being left behind. At present, the Bill places significant responsibilities on strategic authorities without requiring them to measure one of the most fundamental issues affecting their communities. Without published data on poverty it becomes difficult to assess whether policies are effective or whether they are unintentionally deepening existing inequalities.

The amendment would require strategic authorities to collect and publish annual data on poverty, broken down by factors such as age, gender, housing status, education and ethnicity. Poverty is not experienced evenly, and aggregate figures can obscure patterns of disadvantage that require targeted responses. This approach aligns closely with the intent of the socioeconomic duty in the Equality Act 2010, which requires public authorities to consider how their decisions affect inequalities of outcome resulting from socioeconomic disadvantage. That duty has yet to be commenced in England, but many public bodies are already preparing for it. This amendment would help to ensure that new strategic authorities are established with those principles embedded from the outset.

There is a strong case for this sort of systematic approach. Rising child poverty, increased reliance on food banks and the clear links between deprivation and poor health outcomes all point to the need for better data and stronger accountability. Publishing this information annually would allow progress to be tracked over time and enable communities and elected representatives to hold authorities to account.

The amendment would not impose targets or dictate policy choices; it would establish a baseline of information and transparency, while leaving strategic authorities with full discretion over how they respond. Many local authorities already collect similar data. This would simply ensure consistency and visibility across England. As new devolved structures are created, this Bill has an opportunity to set expectations of what good strategic leadership looks like; ensuring that poverty is measured, understood and addressed should be central to that. I hope that the Minister will engage with the purpose of the amendment and will be able to say how the Government intend to ensure that strategic authorities are prepared to tackle poverty and inequality from day one.

19:45

Amendment 194, on “community wealth building”, is a brilliant amendment—they all are. It would introduce a requirement for strategic authorities to prepare community wealth building action plans. This amendment has been developed with organisations that have been at the forefront of this work for many years, including the Centre for Local Economic Strategies. Its purpose is straightforward: to give strategic authorities a clear framework to bring together partners across their areas to build stronger and fairer local economies.

The amendment would require authorities to set out plans for community wealth building and would explicitly support partnership working with anchor institutions such as hospitals, colleges, universities and major employers. These institutions already shape local economies through their spending, employment practices and land ownership. Bringing them together would create the opportunity for co-ordinated action on procurement, fair work and the better use of assets in a place. In essence, community wealth building is about creating an economy that is inclusive and locally rooted. It shifts the focus away from extraction and towards long-term value for communities. It recognises that growth is about not only large-scale industrial strategy but the everyday economy—the sectors where most people work and which keep communities functioning.

There is growing evidence that this approach works. Preston’s experience is well known, but it continues to be backed up by research. Analysis published in the Lancet Public Health found that the community wealth building programme there was associated with improved economic outcomes and life satisfaction, as well as fewer mental health problems than would normally have been expected. That is a powerful indication of what locally grounded economic policy can achieve.

This approach is also being embedded in local economic strategies elsewhere. In cities and boroughs such as Brighton and Hove and Islington, community wealth building has been adopted across political parties as a way of ensuring that public spending supports local businesses, local jobs and local supply chains. As one local authority leader put it recently, the aim is simply to make prosperity local to ensure that money spent in an area benefits the people who actually live there. The amendment also includes a provision allowing strategic authorities to request powers to apply local levies to private equity involvement in public services. It is about giving local leaders a mechanism to limit excessive extraction where it undermines local value and resilience.

Scotland is now taking this agenda forward through its own community wealth building legislation. If we are serious about meaningful devolution in England, this Bill should provide similar support for local economic empowerment. I hope that the Minister will receive this amendment in the constructive spirit in which it is intended and will consider how community wealth building can strengthen the Bill’s ambitions. I beg to move.

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 241B is in my name, and I strongly support Amendment 192 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

The devolution Bill creates these large, powerful strategic authorities whose decisions on planning, housing, transport and infrastructure will shape England’s carbon emissions, climate resilience and natural environment for decades to come. Once they are in place, these six new mayoral districts and combined authorities will be responsible for the strategic oversight of 75% of England’s landscape, so huge swathes of the landscape will be under these authorities. Despite this, as it currently stands, the Bill contains no clear mechanism to ensure that these authorities will contribute to the UK’s legally binding climate and nature targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021. Both have clear, unambiguous delivery targets to which we have agreed—they are in our law.

These targets are spatially constrained and require both strategic oversight and the consideration of competing land uses. Currently, however, they sit under the Secretary of State only. Without even a mention of a duty to deliver on these targets in the devolution Bill, I believe that there is a high degree of risk that they will be undeployed, or at least deployed unevenly. This is a real risk; it is particularly important given the shifting political priorities and how they can deprioritise action. As the system stands, the Secretary of State-level duty for our Climate Change Act and Environment Act targets does not automatically filter down, be it to a local government, a regulator or a non-departmental public body.

I am sure that the Minister will say that local authorities have a “duty to conserve biodiversity”, under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which was strengthened by the Environment Act 2021 and requires an authority to consider what it can do to conserve and enhance biodiversity. This is of course correct, but it is rooted in guidance—that lovely word to which I keep coming back—that can, and I am sure will, be changed. That then leaves it up to the individual authority as to whether it will or will not further the objective. What happens if we have an elected mayor who does not agree with net-zero policies or is someone who sees nature as a luxury that we can no longer afford? What will be their guidance on these strategic decisions to their commissioners, if we even have commissioners appointed for climate and nature, since this is far from guaranteed under the Bill as it is currently constructed?

My Amendment 241B would require strategic, mayoral or local authorities to take all reasonable steps to contribute to our net-zero target and the targets under Sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act, and to adapt to the risks set out in the climate change risk assessment report. It is hardly as if we are starting from a good place. We have only to look at the papers or the reports coming through from the Office for Environmental Protection and the Climate Change Committee, which are loudly ringing the alarm bells to say that we are nowhere near delivering on our targets in the Climate Change Act or the Environment Act. Without any firm duty on mayoral authorities to deliver, I fear that we will move further and further away from these targets.

I put it to the Committee and the Minister that we cannot rely on whatever provisions we currently have or the fact that we have national targets. We need to embed the targets in everyday decision-making—in local decision-making on the ground by council officials and elected members, as much as anyone. We can say that councils already do this. That may be the case, but it is too little and not quickly enough. If we look at the climate scorecards produced by Climate Emergency UK, which has assessed councils’ progress on a variety of climate and nature issues, they demonstrate this clearly: we are not moving quickly enough and we are seeing the consequences of this day in, day out. Species numbers are going down, landscapes are being lost and we are seeing flooding as a result of a lack of joined-up thinking on nature-based solutions.

At worst, without a duty such as this one, we could have authorities pulling in a completely direction from what Ministers or the Secretary of State expect or desire. I would hope that, from a legal standpoint, Ministers would want to be seen to be doing everything within their power to meet those targets by empowering the new strategic authorities with a responsibility to contribute. Just because an individual council decides that it does not want to progress further towards these targets—or, worse, that it actively wants to make them harder, if particular mayors come in with that role—it does not mean that we should just roll over and accept it. These issues absolutely transcend borders and affect us all. They are not within these mayoral authorities; they are much broader than that.

We have been happy to give local authorities other statutory duties; social care is the obvious big one but there are many others. It is welcome to see the new health improvement and health inequalities duties coming through. My amendment asks that the same statutory duties be given on the environment and climate change. On this critical matter, we must align local government with national government. This point was made succinctly in Dan Corry’s review for the Government last year, which covered Defra’s regulatory landscape for driving both economic growth and nature recovery. In it he said:

“A stronger and clearer link is needed between targets and plans set nationally and the activity being carried out to protect the environment and support development locally”.


That is exactly what this amendment tries to do.

With the biggest shake-up of local government in generations, if we fail to give a duty to do what we can to address two of our most critical threats—nature loss and climate change—what are we doing, really? I see this as very important.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I too support Amendment 241B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, to which I have added my name. I also support Amendment 192 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which was moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. In fact, I think she probably has the slightly better amendment, if truth be told; I may go into that later.

I am sure that the Minister is detecting a pattern here. A number of public authorities have already had similar duties for the achievement of various legally binding environmental targets laid on them either in legislation or by agreement with Ministers in subsequent guidance. Recent examples include Great British Energy, Skills England, the Crown Estate, Ofwat and the GLA. This is particularly important for these strategic authorities because they have key functions in housing, strategic spatial planning, economic development, regeneration and health improvement. If you think about it, the achievement of these environmental targets is part of the fundamental underpinning of the delivery of growth, economic development, regeneration and health improvement. Conversely, the achievement of the national environmental targets will be possible only if there is effective local and regional action. Without explicit provisions in the Bill, there will be a structural gap between national environmental commitments and these important, new, local decision-making bodies.

Having this duty would ensure clarity, consistency and legal certainty, which would certainly benefit not only authorities themselves but business and investors. So it is not surprising that the proposed duty is supported by businesses across relevant sectors, the LGA, the District Councils’ Network, London Councils, ADEPT, the majority of UK100’s members and a number of council leaders and Cabinet members. There is widespread support for this duty being applied.

Another point is that, as has been said already, the national environment and climate change targets are pretty stretching; the Office for Environmental Protection and the Climate Change Committee are already expressing concern that the Government are not on track to meet them. If the Government are to have any chance at all of achieving the statutory targets, all relevant public bodies need to do their bit—especially strategic authorities. Simply listing the areas of competence for the strategic authorities is not enough. These bodies need a duty; it has to be something that they must do, not a competence that they may carry out in a variety of ways.

Amendment 192, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is particularly elegant. It would apply a sort of triple lock, if I can use that expression. Apart from the duty, it would introduce a requirement that the authority must not only exercise the duty in carrying out its functions but think about how all the decisions it makes fit in with the duty; that is the genuine spirit of the integration of environment and climate change requirements into all decision-making, which has long been talked about as a principle but, alas, is not really happening as yet.

The most cunning thing about Amendment 192 is that it goes on to say that each authority will have guidance from the Secretary of State, and that the guidance will be “clear” and “measurable”. That is a pretty neat combination; it is better than our amendment, I think, and therefore I would endorse it beyond ours.

In both amendments, the duties would apply not only to strategic authorities but to mayors and local authorities. It is important that all these local decision-making bodies are singing from the same hymn sheet. Since the GLA was set up with climate and biodiversity duties from the very beginning, I ask the Minister whether the Government will agree to do the same for strategic authorities, mayors and the reformed local authorities.

20:00

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee that my noble friends Lady Bakewell and Lord Shipley have had to leave for another engagement, leaving me, a non-expert on climate change, to comment from this side. It is particularly important to put this in the Bill when we stop to think that, after next May, there will be rather more local councils that are run by members of a party that does not really believe in climate change. Indeed, within the next year or two we may have a number of mayors who also hold to climate-sceptic views.

We recognise—particularly after last month, when Aberdeen, for example, had 31 days in which it rained for part or all of the day; and when flood warnings are now out across substantial parts of England, Scotland and Wales—that we have some real problems and that they have to be faced at the local as well as the national level. I come back to the point I made earlier about the strategic defence review’s reference to a whole-society approach, galvanising local volunteers and people who need training as part-timers and volunteers in dealing with civilian rescues. We see that already and we need more. If we are to have that, it has to be local councils and not just combined authorities that help to respond.

My noble friend Lady Bakewell left me with a note that says how valuable it is to collect the sort of biodiversity record that is required, but that the climate emergency UK scorecard, with its 93 questions across seven sections, threatens to overwhelm the ability of local councils to record what is required. So yet again, one needs volunteers. One needs to engage people.

My deep scepticism about the Bill is that it seems to me to be taking government further away from local people, which would make it more difficult to engage volunteers and others in local democracy, and thus make the whole problem of the governance of England much more difficult. Having said that, I very much support these amendments and hope that the Minister will take them into account before we come to Report.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses and the noble Lord for their comments on this group. It places me in a bit of a dilemma, because I have a lot of sympathy for the objects of these amendments: we agree that the environment is important, and we like community wealth building and so forth.

I refer back to my comments on the previous group. I have a big issue with placing duties on a local or strategic authority without the means and resources for them. This is very much a half-amendment, because it would place the duty without the means to deliver it. I think the noble Baroness commented that the LGA backs this, but the LGA actually said

“local authorities need statutory duties and powers, sufficient funding, and robust support to lead on climate action”,

which is a lot more than just having the duty. So, to progress on these, we need to recognise that you cannot just place a duty. I say that quite seriously because, when I was running my council, around 85% of our expenditure was on statutory duties and we had very little room for manoeuvre on any choice-based things. Given the pressures on adult social care, SEND and so forth, I am sure that if I redid the numbers now, that figure would be way over 90%, and we end up compromising on statutory duties. So I am very wary of placing lots of statutory duties without providing the means to deliver them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about support. I am 100% behind providing support to do something, but that is not quite the same as saying, “You must have a duty as well as support”.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

Quite a lot of local authorities are doing well on this. Many of the things that they are delivering do not require additional funding but are about making the right decisions on their day-to-day routine responsibilities for planning, regeneration, growth, urban development and all sorts of things. They are making these decisions in a way that is good for the environment, climate change, biodiversity, air quality, people and sustainability, rather than making them without thinking about these things. So a duty is not a huge imposition; it is about a mindset, not a set of expenses.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

I beg to disagree. Once you place a duty on an authority, all its decision-making needs to have that in mind. The authority can be challenged for not doing X, and X could involve significant expenditure, or it could be something that it has very little power over. To take a local example, my local council has a statutory duty on pollution in certain areas, such as Ampthill, which is just down the road from me, but it does not have the ability to stop cars going into Ampthill, and they are the cause of the pollution. So you end up with these dilemmas, and that needs thinking through. That is why I am wary. I do not disagree with the thrust of what the noble Baroness is trying to do, but we need to do it in a practical and deliverable way. All good councils will try to seek to do the right thing wherever they can.

As certain Peers have alluded to, in the future there may be somebody who might not be as keen as some of us are on the environment, well-being or anything else. That brings me to my second point: I am a huge believer in democracy. We have a very serious question to ask ourselves: do we believe in democracy? That means local decision-making and devolution, and, at times, it may mean that people do not do what we would choose to be our priority. That is a dilemma that we face and have to accept. If you believe in democracy and devolution, you cannot always seek to bind the hand of people to do what you want, because that is not devolution and democracy but centralisation and state control, which may be the right thing—

[Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)]

Can I ask a question of clarification? I agree on democracy and the point that the noble Lord is making, but these are legally binding targets that we have agreed in the law through these Acts, so do we ignore the law through devolution?

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

As the noble Baroness rightly says, they are legally binding targets that people need to take into account. We do not necessarily need to do it again. But I come back to my central point: do not place a duty on somebody if you do not provide the capacity for them to deliver it.

My second point is on devolution. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, made some interesting points about local wealth building and it probably is a very good model, but it may not be the only model. There may be other models and there may be other models that work locally, so why are we doing a one size fits all? We should trust people to deliver for their residents; that is why they get elected and re-elected. Sometimes we will make mistakes, and we do it differently the next time because we made a mistake the first time.

Those are my two key concerns that we need to focus on. First, if you provide a duty to somebody, you need to provide the means and capacity to do it. Secondly, on the issue of democracy, if we are genuine about devolution, we should be very careful about providing a centralised diktat about what we should do. That has nothing to do with the proposed areas of concern, which I have a huge amount of sympathy with.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Willis, for Amendments 192, 193, 194 and 241B. I will respond to Amendments 192 and 241B together, as their aims are somewhat shared.

During the Bill’s passage, the Government have consistently made the point that many local authorities have a high level of ambition to tackle climate change, restore nature and address wider environmental issues, including air quality. It is not clear what additional benefits, if any, a new statutory duty would bring.

The Government offer net-zero support for local government. That includes through Great British Energy, which will work with local government to help to increase the rollout of renewable energy projects. Furthermore, the Government will also partner with strategic authorities and local authorities to roll out the ambitious warm homes plan, which will upgrade 5 million homes over this Parliament to help them to save money on their bills and benefit from cleaner, cheaper heating. To strengthen our engagement with local government on net-zero strategy, policy and delivery, and to support local government to drive forward net-zero action at the local level, the Government also run the Local Net Zero Delivery Group, which last met on 9 December last year.

Local authorities already have statutory duties to improve air quality in their areas. Thanks to the combined efforts of local and central government, air quality in the UK has improved. The Government will continue to work with local authorities to reduce air pollution and its harmful effects. It is worth noting that in London, as the noble Baroness will know, the air quality target, which it was estimated would take 193 years to achieve, was accomplished in nine years. Concerted effort and clear decision-making can make a real difference.

Existing tools and duties also support efforts to contribute to targets for nature, such as local nature recovery strategies and the biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, strengthened under the Environment Act 2021. The latter requires all public authorities to consider and take action to conserve and enhance biodiversity, which must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy and to any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England.

On climate adaptation, the Government already work closely with local authorities, strategic authorities and mayors, a number of whom are developing dedicated climate risk assessments. In October last year, the Government launched a local authority climate service, which provides tailored data on climate change impacts. The Government also ran the first adaptation reporting power trial for local authorities last year, providing guidance and support on how to assess climate risks to their functions and services.   

I will respond to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, about the mayor not abiding the climate change duty. There is a specific competency on environmental climate change in the Bill. A mayor of a strategic authority, as well as having the overview and scrutiny powers that the body has, could be subject to a challenge by way of a judicial review for failure to meet an existing duty. There is significant power there already. The issues around local democracy and the prioritisation given to an issue is and must be subject to democratic accountability. It is difficult; we have to get that balance right. But as there is an existing legal duty, there is enough power for local citizens to be able to push their locally elected representatives. Given such existing support, and the fact that many local authorities are already taking great strides in tackling environmental decline and climate change, we do not think that this particular duty is needed.

Amendment 193 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to require strategic authorities to collect and publish annual poverty data for their authority. We recognise that the policies and interventions that strategic authorities deliver have an impact on reducing poverty and alleviating its impacts. As set out in the Government’s strategy, Our Children, Our Future: Tackling Child Poverty, a broad and dedicated range of partners play a role in reducing poverty, and we will continue to do this work in partnership with local, regional, national, private and third sector partners.

20:15

We also continue to work closely with strategic authorities to ensure that their outcomes align with national and local priorities, including the design and delivery of effective and equitable local services. Additionally, we are committed to working with senior local data leaders through the newly formed Mayoral Data Council on data issues that affect them to turn insight into impact for communities. Adding an additional duty on strategic authorities to collect and publish information on poverty at this time risks creating an additional administrative burden that distracts from delivery.

Amendment 194, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, would duplicate strategic authorities’ existing functions and duties. While I welcome the intent of the amendment, the Bill already confers on strategic authorities a range of functions to help them to deliver against their areas of competence, including that of economic development and regeneration. Authorities are very able to introduce economic strategies that pick up community wealth-building principles, and they can do that under the existing framework.

There may be, for example, barriers in procurement legislation, but a great deal of work is being undertaken to identify some of the legislative obstacles to community wealth-building, both in Preston and elsewhere. I have done quite a lot of work on this myself with the University of Hertfordshire. The Centre for Local Economic Strategies—CLES—does a great deal of work in this space, convening networks, conducting research on practice and policy, and providing tailored support to organisations. There is therefore a huge amount going on already.

The existing framework includes a duty to produce a local growth plan to hardwire local economic priorities into local and national decision-making, so strategic authorities can choose to set out how their local growth plan to make sure that it secures economic value and supports social value. There is plenty of scope there to undertake the kind of community wealth-building to the extent that a local area wishes to. Additionally, under Clause 21, the mayors of strategic authorities will be able to convene local partners to discuss relevant local matters, and local partners will also have a duty to respond to a mayor’s request. So, the element of community wealth-building that requires that convening power of saying what is the overall power of procurement of the public sector in the local area is perfectly possible under that duty.

Although mayors of strategic authorities will have a formal power, this does not prevent an authority forming partnerships and bringing local partners together through discussion and collaboration. We encourage strategic authorities to work collaboratively with a broad range of partners in furthering their regional objectives. At a local level, we are also giving communities stronger powers to come together to secure some of their beloved local assets through the new community right to buy.

For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I am sorry that I did not mention Amendment 241B but, yes, I would support it if my amendment were not accepted.

On the duty to think about climate change and so on, the Minister asked what extra the duty would add to current systems. However, there will of course be councils that will not want to do it, as somebody else said—I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Willis—so putting a duty on them is absolutely crucial for taking forward this whole agenda.

I did not really hear a good answer about collecting data on poverty. Surely, that would be fundamental to any Labour Government—that they should know exactly how large the problem is. We get all sorts of data, reports and figures, but on a local level this would be a fantastic resource to direct, support and help.

On community wealth, the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said that there were other systems. The point about this proposal is that it is tested and it works. I live in a local village where we do not have this—but we have a chalk figure on a hill overlooking the village that is so astonishing that we get hordes of tourists, which keeps open three pubs in a village of 800 people, and a shop that opens every day of the year apart from Christmas Day. All those people coming in can keep the local economy booming for local people. I go to all three pubs, obviously.

On the issue of air pollution, it is an interesting topic. London’s air pollution is not very bad anymore; it is one of the cleanest cities, if not the cleanest, in Britain. The reason for that is down to two very bold moves. First, Ken Livingstone introduced the congestion charge, and at the point when it was introduced he said that only two groups supported it—big business and the Greens. Big business understood about keeping things moving in a small area. The City of London made big steps, before even the Mayor of London did, to clean up its air quality. Again, it understood that you had to keep business moving and keep people moving.

Both the Mayor of London and the City of London also understood that air quality impacted very deeply on the people living here. It is obvious, when you look at the statistics in London, that people who live near the M25 live in poorer properties with less access to green space and suffer much worse from air pollution than people living in the inner city. Of course, children who grow up there are damaged for life: their lungs are stunted and they have problems all through their lives, putting pressure on the NHS. These things are all related. It is important not to see those things in isolation; we should see them as a flow that helps life generally.

I am going to withdraw the amendment, although I think it is great. I am sure that something like these amendments will be back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 192 withdrawn.

Amendments 193 and 194 not moved.

Amendment 195

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

195: After Clause 56, insert the following new Clause—
“English Local Government Council(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a national body called the English Local Government Council.(2) The general functions of the Council are to—(a) to represent English local government in matters relating to devolution,(b) to work with central government to create a framework for the further devolution of power to English local government (“the Devolution Framework”),(c) to work with central government to agree the fair funding of local and strategic authorities, and(d) to identify a representative or representatives of the English Local Government Council to participate in the Council of Nations and Regions.(3) The members of the Council are—(a) a person appointed by constituent members of each strategic authority to represent the combined local authority in the proceedings of the Council, and(b) the Mayor of London.(4) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision about the operation of the Council.(5) The Regulations must, in particular, make provision about—(a) staffing of the Council,(b) proceedings of the Council,(c) accounting and other record-keeping by the Council,(d) publication of proceedings of the Council, and(e) publication of guidance and advice by the Council.(6) In making regulations the Secretary of State must, in particular—(a) provide for transitional arrangements to ensure that upper-tier authorities that are not part of a combined local authority are represented in the Council,(b) allow for weighting of the voting power of strategic authorities to account for combined local authorities having different population sizes, and(c) require the Mayor of London to consult with representatives of London authorities in performing functions as a member of the Council.(7) Members of the Council must pay annual fees to the Council, which must be set by the Secretary of State in regulations.(8) The Secretary of State must pay the costs of the establishment and maintenance of the Council, except in so far as those costs are met from annual fees.(9) Regulations made under this section—(a) are to be made by statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution procedure, and(b) may include incidental, consequential or transitional provision.”

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this is a Bill about local government reform, but it is also a constitutional Bill. It is about the structure of governance within the UK and in particular in England. Perhaps I should say by way of introduction that I have had some very helpful advice in preparing this amendment from John Denham and Sir David Lidington, so in some ways, this is a cross-party amendment, and it is a matter of much concern to those who are thinking about the structure of the UK and how it holds together. I have also looked at the report from the Labour Party’s commission on the UK’s future, from December 2022, three and a half years ago, which strongly recommended a statutory council of England. I have also looked at various reports from the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which has reported on the governance of England on a number of occasions in the past five years.

There is now a Mayoral Council for England, which I gather has met five or six times since the last election. It does not have statutory powers. Currently, it has the 14 elected mayors on it, and when we have gone all mayoral it will have some 30 to 35 when complete. I heard Andy Burnham talking 10 days ago about how well it has operated since the last election.

That takes us back to early intergovernmental relations, when, in 1998, the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales were set up and relations between central government and the devolved authorities began to operate in a relatively informal way. The intergovernmental framework worked very well when you had Labour Governments in Scotland and Wales and a Labour Government in London, and began to work very badly when you had different parties in power in those countries. I say that by way of emphasis, because we are facing a situation in which, after May this year, we may well have different Governments in power in Scotland and Wales, and we will certainly have some different parties in power in parts of England. The question of how we manage that and how, if we really believe in devolution, we set up some means of bargaining negotiation between those who represent devolved authorities and central government, matters a great deal. If we want to make it work, we have to talk about the place of the Mayoral Council for England and give it proper authority to operate.

I remind noble Lords that we had these various intergovernmental councils under the previous three Governments. I note that under Conservative authority, we even set up joint executive committees to negotiate on the Barnett formula. The Joint Exchequer Committee for Scotland last met in June 2022; the Joint Exchequer Committee for Wales was created shortly before the Wales Act 2014 received Royal Assent and last met in October 2016. That is what happens if you have only informal and non-statutory arrangements.

The complexities of intergovernmental relations across the UK also include the British-Irish Council, which now has not only a north-south body but an east-west body on relations between Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. From what I have heard from talking to Scots involved with this, it is clear to me that the Scots will not accept 35 mayors from England as representing England alongside the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish on the Council of the Nations and Regions—which, I am afraid, is simply a rebadging of the old intergovernmental conference. Gordon Brown’s image of what the Council of the Nations and Regions should be was a great deal more ambitious than what we now have, and it was absolutely a statutory body. It is a sad reflection of how timid this Government are on all matters of political and constitutional reform that so much that was valuable in Gordon Brown’s report has so far not even been discussed further, let alone put into action.

We want the Mayoral Council for England and the Council of the Nations and Regions to be able to negotiate, bargain and hold the Government to account. We also want government departments in London to have to negotiate with and take into account the views of these sub-regional authorities that we will be creating. I was talking to another noble Peer who is actively engaged in this today who said that they regretted the regional centres of government, because it meant that those in the regions could get together with central civil servants and talk through some of the relations and regional areas of policy with them.

We have many more civil servants in London than we had 15 years ago, and we have fewer local government civil servants. That is the sort of thing that we clearly need to have. The purpose of my amendment is to say that we need some degree of clarity within the Government on the role of the Mayoral Council for England and how that governance arrangement for England fits in with the governance arrangements for the UK as a whole. This will become a much more difficult matter once we no longer have Labour Governments and Labour mayors as the majority, and we will therefore need statutory functions and statutory status to make sure that they continue to meet, argue and, one hopes, co-operate.

20:30

Gordon Brown’s report on the constitutional future made it clear that a statutory body was needed. A report from the PACAC said:

“For a reform of the governance systems to successfully be implemented and invested in, a vision of where England will end up needs to be clearly articulated, on a cross-party basis and at all levels, to get sufficient political acceptance from the people necessary for its implementation to guarantee long-term delivery”.

I say to the Minister that it is easy to manage intergovernmental relations when one party is in charge in most of the areas concerned. But if this legislation is going to work, it must be proof against different parties being in power in different parts of this country.

Therefore, we need something, and I hope that the Government will take this back and come up with something on Report that will tell us what the Mayoral Council for England is intended to take over, how it will relate to central government and—this the reason why the amendment says something different for a local council in England—how the 35 mayors that we may well end up with will interact with Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments. They will not want to be swamped by 35 English mayors when they are trying to negotiate the governance of the United Kingdom, the fiscal arrangements for the United Kingdom and a whole set of other issues that will involve—particularly if we have a reset with the European Union—a set of arguments about the interaction between domestic legislation and international obligations. I beg to move.

[Lord Jamieson (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for his amendment. I was initially a little confused, having read the amendment and then listened to his speech, but after his final comment I understand that this is a probing amendment to get the Minister and the Government to be clear about how they see the structure of the Mayoral Council, the regional devolved Governments and, potentially, councils. It is about how to create some kind of structure or how it will be structured. In that sense, I am a lot clearer and happier.

I had more concerns about an English local government council, because that would be largely duplicating the role of the LGA. As an ex-chairman of the LGA, I would be deeply unhappy and my colleague the noble Baroness would also be deeply unhappy as a fellow ex-chair. We would both agree that enhancing the LGA would be a good idea, but I am not sure that we would want an English local government council. As a probing amendment, I understand the purpose of it. The noble Lord raises some valid points about what the role of the Mayoral Council is, how it will all fit in and where the pieces of the jigsaw are. That is a good question, and I look forward to the Minister’s answer.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for Amendment 195, and hope that he will take my regards back to John Denham, for whom I have the greatest respect. I have often worked with John on English devolution, so I respect what he says.

This amendment seeks to create an obligation to establish a national body called the English local government council. Membership of the council would comprise a person appointed by constituent members of each strategic authority and the Mayor of London. Members of the council would also be required to pay a membership fee, placing a new financial burden on authorities. Functions of the council would include working with the Government to agree a framework for the further devolution of powers; to agree funding for local and strategic authorities; and to identify a representative to participate in the Council of the Nations and Regions.

I appreciate the spirit of the amendment, as I believe that proper representation of local government into central government is incredibly important. We have worked very hard on that as a Government since we came into power in July 2024. When local leaders work together with the Government, it benefits our whole country. That is why the English devolution White Paper sets out three forums for engagement: the Council of the Nations and Regions, the Mayoral Council and the Leaders Council. Across these councils, all levels of devolved government are represented, from First Ministers to mayors to the leaders of local authorities. These forums have all met a number of times—I have been to the Leaders Council three times, I think. I can assure noble Lords that funding and furthering devolution is rarely not on the agenda for discussion, but they also discuss thematic issues as well.

It is therefore not necessary for a new council to create a framework for further devolution. The Bill is already establishing a process to extend devolution in a more streamlined way and to deepen devolution through the mayoral right to request process. While funding is discussed at all these councils, it is right and proper that local government funding is provided through the finance settlement process, which carefully allocates needs-based funding across the country. The current council structures we have in place are working well, and the flexibility afforded to them as non-statutory bodies allows us to work with the sector to adapt the forums as the needs of local leaders change. The current structures place no new burdens on authorities, with no membership fees required, as this amendment would create. For these reasons, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I am of course entirely willing to withdraw my amendment, but I wish to stress that this is a very important point. We are about to enter another difficult period in which we have no idea how this year’s elections will come out and which parties will be in control in different parts of the United Kingdom, and in which the relationship between the devolved authorities and what is intended to be the stronger combined authorities within England will come under some strain.

What happened between 2015 and 2024 is that these things did not work well and, in many cases, they ceased to meet. We do not want that to happen again. If this proposal for stronger mayoral authorities is to work, we need to make sure that it fits into the governance of the United Kingdom. If it is to work, the institutions, not just the Council of the Nations and Regions but also the Mayoral Council for England, need to have a good deal more power than the LGA has in standing up to central government—and, as in most other democracies, they need to have some sense of how one bargains over fiscal redistribution. One of the central aspects of the German federal system is the bargaining over how money is distributed between the centre and the richer and poorer regions. That is something that we need to do in England as well—it is done a certain amount between the devolved authorities and the United Kingdom. I speak as someone from northern England, and we are always deeply conscious of the fact that we do not manage to bargain with central government about that.

I would be very grateful if the Minister would have further conversations off the floor before Report, because otherwise we will want to push the issue that the Mayoral Council in some shape or other must be given statutory authority. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 195 withdrawn.

Amendments 196 to 196EB not moved.

Committee adjourned at 8.40 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Monday 9 February 2026

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Introduction: Baroness MacLeod of Camusdarach

Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

14:37

Catherine Margaret MacLeod, having been created Baroness MacLeod of Camusdarach, of Lochaber in the County of Inverness-shire, was introduced and made the solemn affirmation, supported by Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Introduction: Baroness Antrobus

Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

14:43

Sophy Antrobus, MBE, having been created Baroness Antrobus, of Old Sarum in the County of Wiltshire, was introduced and made the solemn affirmation, supported by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Coaker, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Life Sciences: Beagles

Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

14:48

Asked by

[Lord McCabe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the number of beagles currently used for testing in life sciences laboratories.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

The Government collect data on procedures involving beagles rather than on individual animals. In 2024, beagles were used in 2,488 procedures, representing 0.2% of all experimental procedures, and a 30% decrease from 2023. The Government have a manifesto commitment to phase out animal use, and we published a strategy in November 2025 to meet our manifesto goals.

[Lord McCabe (Lab)]

My Lords, concern for the welfare of beagles prompted at least some of the opposition to the recent Public Order Act amendment proposals on life sciences establishments. I am not against all animal testing, but I support other methods, particularly in relation to medical research. A human-specific technologies Bill—sometimes dubbed Herbie’s law, after a rescued beagle—would go a long way to advancing the Government’s manifesto commitment on animal testing. Are there any plans for such legislation?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I know how strongly my noble friend feels on this issue. I cannot promise him a Bill on this matter, but I can promise him a replacement strategy, which includes specific targets for reducing the use of dogs and, particularly, reducing their use in cardiovascular safety studies by at least 50% by 2030. The Government are also funding the national centre dealing with this issue to develop new, non-animal methods aimed at replacing dogs in regulatory testing. I hope that my noble friend will support the manifesto commitment to phase out use as soon as possible.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I support a reduction in the use of dogs in medical research. However, we have to understand that sometimes dogs are used because they have the same diseases as humans have; for instance, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, which is caused by a gene mutation called dystrophin which occurs in both dogs and humans, and kills children and dogs. Through a study of two retrievers who had the genes but were not affected, we learned the technique of silencing the gene—to the benefit of dogs and humans. Similarly, in other areas of cancer immunology, doing experiments to learn about both dogs and humans has enhanced their immunity. Lastly, insulin was discovered doing research on dogs, because dogs also get diabetes.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes the point, which the Government accept, that animal testing is currently required where alternative, non-animal methods do not exist. We are also working with regulators to see how advances in technology can and will reduce the use, and phase out in some areas. We have a long-term ambition to phase out the use; it is in the manifesto. We have produced the document, but we recognise that, at the moment, medicine occasionally requires that use.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, The Minister has described the aims of the Government, both in the manifesto and in the publication last November, but it would be really useful to know when tangible milestones will be published to demonstrate real progress that will include specific targets, timelines and investment commitments to accelerate the adoption of modern, ethical and scientifically advanced alternatives, especially given that we understand that more than 2.7 million procedures involving live animals were still carried out in 2022.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If the noble Baroness looks at the strategy, she will see that we have put £75 million of new money into that strategy to accelerate the phasing out of the use of animals. As I said in answer to my noble friend Lord McCabe, we have a target of a 30% reduction by the end of this Parliament in the areas that my noble friend has raised. We want to see alternative use as a matter of course, but it has to be done in a way that, as the noble Lord mentioned, protects medical science at the same time as reducing dramatically the use of animals.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in his report, concluded that the most humane way to protect the fox population was through regulated and legal hunting. The Government went on to ban hunting and are now poised to ban trail hunting. Have the Government made an estimate of what will happen to the foxhounds that are currently engaged in trail hunting, which goes to the heart of the countryside, bringing countryfolk together in the depths of winter? What is the future for these foxhounds if trail hunting is banned?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is a long way from animal testing but I will give the noble Baroness a straight answer on it anyway. I personally voted to ban fox hunting on every occasion in the House of Commons when I was a Member of Parliament. I personally support the Government’s intention to stop trail hunting. Those are matters of management and political decision. That is what the Government will do, and I hope the noble Baroness will continue to raise those issues. We will look at the consequences, but ultimately it is the right thing to do.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, having recently debated the life sciences sector and being aware of how crucial it is, not only for our economy but for our national security, we know that much of the research conducted in Britain is increasingly at risk from espionage, cyber attack and theft, most notably from China. What steps, in addition to the legislation, have the Government taken to robustly disrupt such efforts by our adversaries and protect the British life sciences sector?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is an important point. We have to ensure that the sector operates properly and effectively and is not damaged by foreign state actors or any other criminal elements. That is why we put in place the measures in relation to protests, which we debated in this House last week. The Government will continue to ensure that robust measures, about which it would not be appropriate to talk in this Chamber, are put in place to protect all sectors of our industrial society.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, while I agree with the Government’s strategy to phase this out, are any other countries doing something similar? Can lessons be learned from experiences in other countries?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

That is interesting. My noble friend should know that the UK has the highest standards possible in this area. One of the reasons that we do not wish immediately to close down some aspects of this work is because the businesses which produce that research—which the noble Lord mentioned earlier—would find themselves going abroad and operating under far poorer standards than those in the United Kingdom. We are a high-standard country because of the 1986 Act, and any dilution of that would result in more animals being harmed. Our strategy should be supported.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about foxhounds. Beagles are hounds and are often used in experiments, but foxhounds are not. If trail hunting is banned, what will happen to these foxhounds? They will not be able to be domesticated because they have lived in packs.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, the noble Lord goes a long way wide of the Question, but he is entitled to do so. When the Government make a decision on the issue of trail hunting—which they will—they will factor the consequences into their consideration and will work with colleagues to do so. That is what the Government did when they banned hunting at large in the early 2000s. Even though I had a fox hunt in my own constituency at the time, I supported that and found that the vast majority of people did too.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, do the Government recognise the great contribution that pigs make to research and development? Pigs’ valves have been so useful in many aspects of researching human disease, because pigs are very much akin to man—in more senses than one.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that astute observation. The principle behind the Government’s commitment in this area is straightforward: where animals have to be used, they will be used, but we seek to find alternatives. We are seeking to phase out the use of animals as a whole, and we continue to put not just money but a government strategy behind that. It is a manifesto commitment to phase out the use of animals at the earliest opportunity, and we are working towards that. I refer the noble Lord to the document we produced just prior to Christmas.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister has talked about animal welfare and how proud he is of having voted to ban fox hunting. Would he be equally proud to be able to say that, as a country, we had banned the way animals are slaughtered for halal meat and other religious reasons?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We are going very wide of the Question today. Those are matters that the Government continue to keep under review. It is not within the Home Office’s gift to discuss the point the noble Baroness has brought forward. On the issue before the House in the original Question, we are going to phase it out, and we have an opportunity through our strategy to show the direction of travel.

Royal Navy: Caribbean

Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

14:58

Asked by

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the Royal Navy ship stationed in the Caribbean is fully a part of Joint Interagency Task Force South.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Royal Navy’s persistent presence in the Caribbean is not part of the Joint Interagency Task Force South. The ship primarily provides support to the British Overseas Territories, including during Caribbean hurricane season, including in response to Hurricane Beryl and Hurricane Melissa that caused so much damage. The ship also conducts regional engagement and supports counter-illicit trafficking operations, which are co-ordinated through the US-led JITFS.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply, but the ship based out there does an awful lot of anti-drug work, and that is important for the stability of our overseas territories. It is also an indicator of how much we do for the Americans. The ship is fully linked in to the intelligence picture that is provided by our people and the Americans of what is going on. Can I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the US has stopped taking kinetic action against suspected drug-smuggling boats—historically, most used to come from Colombia and not Venezuela? If he cannot answer that, maybe he could write. Also, what instructions have we given to our ships there when they have been made aware that kinetic action was about to be taken against a suspected drug smuggler?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that our persistent presence in the Caribbean in the Atlantic patrol task force is very important and does a lot of work in supporting the overseas territories and combating the illicit drugs trade. HMS “Trent” has seized £223.4 million-worth of cocaine since 2024, making this country much safer. On American plans, the American Government will speak for themselves. As for UK involvement in those operations, as I have said, we partner in JIATF activities. We have one officer based with it for liaison purposes, but we take responsibility for our own actions.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, further to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord West, I am not fully familiar with the full remit of the Joint Interagency Task Force South, but is it working the Commonwealth maritime co-operation agencies in the Caribbean, whose arrangements are proving increasingly interesting and useful in tracking ghost ships, illegal Russian oil ships, illegal Chinese movements and other unflagged maritime traffic? This is something we want to develop and encourage, and I hope that we are.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The noble Lord is correct. The UK has a strong and historical defence relationship with the Caribbean Commonwealth, and this is underpinned by an annual UK-Caribbean chiefs of defence conference led by the UK chief of defence. Continued UK support was demonstrated last year in Jamaica in response to Hurricane Melissa. We entirely support the need for Commonwealth co-operation. I can certainly say more about the shadow fleets and unflagged vessels, if other noble Lords want to ask me.

[Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom has historically played a significant part in intelligence gathering in the Caribbean. Some difficulties were reported towards the end of last year. Is the Minister able to give some reassurance to the House that these problems have been overcome?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the question. I am not familiar with the particular problems she referred to, but I am happy to find out more and come back to her.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, can we get some assurance from the Government that any naval ship based out there is doing a worthwhile job and will not get pulled into activities that we might question at home? That is the key thing here. If we are doing things such as supporting people in times of natural disaster, there are limitations on that, and we will not find ourselves enforcing another nation’s whim actions.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I am very happy to reassure the noble Lord and the entire House on that point. There has been no UK involvement in operations outside our own policy remit, and specific operational activities undertaken by the US military—which I assume is what the noble Lord was referring to—in the Caribbean and the Pacific are a matter for the US. The legality of US actions is a matter for the US. The UK upholds international law, and I reassure the noble Lord that UK exchange officers are segregated from US personnel during specific US operations.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, it has been announced that there will no longer be any Royal Navy ship permanently stationed in the Middle East. This is as troubling as it is incomprehensible. To reassure our allies and preserve the reputation of the Royal Navy, can the Minister undertake to ask this noble friend the Minister of State for Defence to get that decision reversed with immediate effect?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

The Royal Navy has supported partners in the Middle East with operations that have included a significant seizure of more than £30 million-worth of drugs in 2025 alone. I understand the question that the noble Viscount is asking and am happy to take that message back to the Ministry of Defence. However, I should make it absolutely clear for the record that the Ministry of Defence keeps its forces posture in the Middle East under constant review to safeguard UK interests, as I am sure the noble Viscount would expect, and the Royal Navy remains committed to regional stability through its enduring presence.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, does the naval ship that is out there still carry a contingent of US Coastguard forces, as it did when I was on a similar ship many years ago as a member of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme when it did work in tandem in intercepting drugs?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I do not know the exact answer regarding presence, and I am very happy to find out more and come back to the noble Baroness, but what I do know is that we work closely with the JIATF. We maintain close co-operation through a UK liaison officer embedded with the US Joint Interagency Task Force in Florida, ensuring effective co-ordination with allies in counternarcotics activity. I cannot overstress the importance of this activity and the joint work that we do. It has direct relevance and benefits for the streets of all our towns and cities.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

On a slightly wider point, the Joint Interagency Task Force South is acknowledged in America as the gold standard of interagency co-operation—something that is not necessarily all that common there. Have the Government conducted any analysis of whether there are any lessons to be drawn for the United Kingdom in cross-government working in the context of international security? If they have not done so, will they undertake to do so?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for that question. As he knows, we have published the national security strategy, which goes much wider than national security strategies have in the past. On his specific question, I am very happy to find out whether that analysis has been undertaken and come back to him, but he knows of our wider commitment to national security and increasing defence capacity.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lord Trenchard, there is concern about the overall health of the Royal Navy, as frequently alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord West. There are reports that BAE may give away our UK building slots for the Type 26 frigate to Norway, which will leave us dependent on seven elderly Type 23 frigates. Can the Minister confirm that the UK Type 26 build will continue as originally scheduled to avoid unacceptable weakening of our naval capability?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I will come to the point about Type 26, but let me first answer the wider question that the noble Baroness asks me about the capacity of the Royal Navy. The most recently published data shows that the Royal Navy’s readiness performance in 2025 reflects strong operational output in key categories and predictable reductions linked to planned maintenance cycles and unplanned defects. A great deal of work has been done to ensure that the efficient management of the defence forces in the Royal Navy ensures that coverage. As the noble Baroness knows, the Government are doing a lot to address the capacity of the Royal Navy overall, including the Type 26 frigates—I have answered a question on this before in your Lordships’ House. It is crucial that we work closely with Norway on the procurement of those Type 26 frigates. The sequencing of that will be part of how we go about ensuring security in the High North.

Public Transport: Remote Communities

Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

15:09

Asked by

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve the service, quality and affordability of public transport to remote communities.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My noble friend asked this Question in relation to the Isles of Scilly. At present, there are no plans to introduce a new subsidy, regulatory framework or funding model for the islands’ transport services. Support is therefore a matter for local discretionary schemes, which the Isles of Scilly council already has. However, the Government have provided targeted support where appropriate, including £750,000 in July 2025 through the clean maritime demonstration competition to explore a potential clean technology passenger sea route between the mainland and the islands.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Coincidentally, I received a letter last Friday from his colleague, Keir Mather, the Minister for shipping, who gave me much the same answer, but he prayed in aid the £3 bus fare cap which goes around the whole country. He regretted that there was no similar scheme for the Isles of Scilly, because it was not a local transport authority. The result is that, rather than £3, if a bus could get to Scilly, it would cost £100 single—plus somewhere between £10 and £70 within the islands. So I am grateful to my noble friend, but it needs a closer discussion. I hope that my noble friend will agree to have a meeting with myself and the chairman of the council, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, to see whether we can come up with a solution that is economically viable for the council and something better for the population.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My noble friend will recognise the 28 miles of sea between the mainland and the Isles of Scilly and that the road network on the Isles of Scilly is all of 14 miles. So it is hard to see that comparable bus fares and bus practices are applicable. But, recognising the particular challenges with transport both to and from the islands and between them, my noble friend Lady Taylor and I will be happy to meet my noble friend on the Benches behind me and the leader of the council to discuss these issues further.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, there are higher per-passenger costs and of course structural challenges to serve low-density remote areas. Will the Government therefore revise their bus service funding formula to introduce a rural weighting to help authorities provide the public transport that is essential for these communities?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I am surprised that the noble Baroness is not aware that the local transport funding formula does recognise rural areas. We had extensive discussions, as the noble Baroness will recognise, in the then Bus Services Bill, and, indeed, the Government, compared with previous Governments, have chosen, rightly, to fund every English transport authority in a way that was not done previously.

It is hard to see quite how bus services permeate some very remote places, but the noble Baroness will also know that there are some demand-responsive schemes—transport and others—which are eligible for subsidy. In the English devolution Bill, we are a couple of days from discussing taxi and private hire vehicles, which also form part of the transport solution in those areas.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

Will the Minister look at the role that the Community Transport Association can play? I believe that it can play a vital and important role, particularly in remote country areas, usually with small charities. In the past, the Department for Transport—I cannot remember exactly when—set up a special grant so that those charities could apply directly to get new community buses, which makes a direct impact and does a great deal of good work, particularly in remote rural areas.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. Community transport is a very elegant way of solving some of these issues. I am glad he cannot remember when that funding was established, because I cannot either. It might even have been when the noble Lord was the Transport Secretary himself. But his point is well taken: community transport is a good answer in those circumstances, and I echo his point that it should be well regarded and we should look at it in those circumstances.

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)]

My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, can I ask my noble friend the Minister to join me in thanking the many hundreds of volunteers who run our community transport services? Furthermore, when we see the extension of combined authorities with transport responsibilities covering more rural areas, will the Minister give consideration to the role that community transport services can play in the provision of public transport to ensure that they are not overlooked and continue to add value and good-quality services in the areas that need them most?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I completely agree with my noble friend. People who serve voluntarily in community transport should be absolutely praised for coming out in all weathers for everybody. As I said, and as he is right to say, it is a good solution to mobility in those areas and we will reiterate the use of these things as the mayoral combined authorities are established.

[Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the great transport scandals in this country is that it costs something like £20 per mile to take the smallest car from Portsmouth to Fishbourne on the Isle of Wight? There is a monopoly there that operates completely against the economic interests of those trying to make a living on the Isle of Wight and, as we call it, the north island.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord is certainly correct to identify that people on the Isle of Wight think that this is a problem. When I wrote the Union Connectivity Review report, although it was not specifically about the Isle of Wight, I had more correspondence from the Isle of Wight than I did from Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales.

This Government are tackling this issue. We set up the Cross-Solent Transport Group and Minister Mather, to whom my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred, has recently appointed Brian Johnson CBE, the ex-MCA chief executive, as the group’s independent chair to, first of all, sort out its terms of reference and then focus on locally led solutions to what the noble Lord correctly describes as a perceived and real problem of connectivity between the Isle of Wight and the English mainland.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, if the Government are so worried about connectivity to the Isle of Wight, why are they introducing a carbon tax on the domestic maritime sector from June this year? According to the operators, this will have a devastating effect on fares not only to the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly but to the many other islands that are dependent on affordable ferry connections to the mainland. Do the Government have any idea of the mayhem this is causing at a time when they are meant to be concentrating on reducing the cost of living?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Lord ought to know that, in respect of ferry transport to the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly, new ships and methods of transport are being procured and built in order both to provide up-to-date transport and to reduce carbon emissions on those services. We reject absolutely the concept that somehow these ferry routes have to survive under conditions of excess carbon emissions when modern ships, and indeed the technology I referred to in respect of the potential new service to the Isles of Scilly, are there for the very purpose of reducing carbon emissions but increasing connectivity.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps my noble friend the Minister could point to the noble Lord opposite that the mayhem that will be caused by prices will be far outstripped by the mayhem caused by climate change. I refer him to the latest projections, which show that climate change is increasing rapidly and that, unless we take decisive action on carbon emissions, we face a very frightening future indeed.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend absolutely. More to the point, the ferry operators recognise that, too, as befits the ordering of new ships with reduced carbon emissions and the experimentation to the Isles of Scilly to which I previously referred.

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will recognise that many remote rural areas are particularly reliant on their rail services. Coming from Thurso, which is the most northerly station on the main line of the United Kingdom, I recognise both the fragility and importance of the Far North Line. While I recognise that much of the responsibility for that lies with the Scottish Government, does he agree with me that the creation of Great British Railways offers the potential for a reset between the various companies that are responsible: ScotRail, Network Rail and Great British Railways? To that end, what discussions is he having with the Scottish Government?

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

The noble Viscount is certainly right to say that the railway to Wick and Thurso is a lifeline. In answer to his question, we have had a lot of cordial discussion with the Scottish Government, which is resulting in a methodology of operation proposed as a consequence of establishing Great British Railways, which will continue the integration of operations and infrastructure in Scotland and therefore continue the operation of that line into what one would hope to be the very, very distant future.

Hospitals: Delayed Discharges

Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Question

15:20

Asked by

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they will respond to the finding in the Health Foundation report Delayed discharges from hospital: comparing performance this year and last, published on 14 December 2025, that the number of beds occupied by people who are medically fit to leave hospital but have nowhere to go is increasing.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

My Lords, we know that too many people are delayed leaving hospital. We are determined to tackle this. This winter, we are ensuring that NHS trusts focus on improving in-hospital processes and work with local authorities to tackle the longest delays. We are providing targeted support to the most challenged systems. These efforts are backed by £9 billion through the better care fund, enabling the NHS and local authorities to work together to reduce discharge delays.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that response. Every time we hear about the problem of delayed discharges—and some of us have been working on this for decades—the causes are the same: lack of co-operation and co-ordination between the agencies involved, not just the NHS and social care but the families of patients and the community services provided by the private and voluntary sectors. There are places where discharge procedures work well because all those agencies plan together, not worrying about who is footing the bill or who has the greater responsibility. Does my noble friend agree that, except in cases of emergency admissions, discharge planning should start when the patient is admitted and not wait until they are ready for discharge?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. I emphasise her words that we must have an integrated, co-ordinated approach. She is quite right to highlight that some areas are doing this. It has not been straightforward, but dedication and bringing together all the elements that she raises, including health, social care, housing, voluntary and community partners and the families themselves, make the difference. We are focused on making sure that where good practice exists it can develop and that the statutory guidance around planning for discharge before admission is adhered to locally.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there is limited capacity in social care in terms of beds and that there are real problems of staff shortages across the NHS and in social care. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, mentioned functionality and co-ordination between different agencies, including the NHS, local authorities and social care. As she rightly mentioned, there are blockages—such as receiving medicines et cetera—to patients being discharged from hospital. What key performance indicators are the Government going to put in place to ensure that we remove these blockages rather than just pursuing a generalised way forward?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises how we assess performance. That is a valid question. This work has been tackled through all the plans for improvement. It is complicated, as she suggests, and covers a range of different areas. I do not think there is one prescriptive model that we need to adhere to. We need to make sure that it is very clear how benefits come to patients, in particular, when we get the systems right. I am happy to discuss this further with her.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, bed-blocking—as we refer to it, as opposed to delayed discharges—is a very sensitive issue, for the hospital and the patient. It leads to people waiting in corridors to be treated. Many different ways have been attempted to deal with this: expanding home-based care, utilising spare capacity in care homes, and through adult social care. Talking about adult social care, can the Minister tell us where we are up to on phase 1 of the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which is meant to be implemented in mid-2026, because that will be a first step towards solving the problem?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises the important point about the Casey review, which is fundamental. As he knows, it is an independent process, so I cannot give him the exact details that he is looking for, but I can assure him that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, has been meeting with all the relevant people. We assume she is on track to bring forward the medium-term suggestions for improvement that she has promised us this year.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for raising this issue a number of times over many years to Governments of all colours. The latest acute discharge situation report suggests several reasons for delayed discharges, some of which the noble Baroness mentioned: awaiting medicines to take home, awaiting a discharge letter or other discharge documentation, or awaiting transport. Setting aside some of the more complex cases—people who are homeless or who require specialist treatment—organising transport and medicines in alignment with someone’s discharge date should, in theory, be quite simple once the systems are digitised and share data between them, but for now we hear stories of hours spent on the phone to care homes to find out which ones have space for discharged patients. Given these challenges, how is Minister’s department supporting ICBs to align their systems to reduce these delays caused by both small procedural blockages and digital disconnects, which slow down the whole system and sometimes lead to it being seized up?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord that the Department of Health recognises the issues that he raises. That is why £2 billion is being put into NHS digital transformation to modernise systems, expand the use of electronic patient records and improve productivity across the service. It simply is not good enough that the reasons he outlines are causing delays. We are determined to improve these areas to speed up the process and ensure that people do not fall through the gaps, as we have seen too often.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, the report in the Question is most welcome, but I am sad to say that it is the latest in a long line of similar reports, all recognising that the NHS will continue to be at risk until social care is sorted out, not least because the NHS is free at the point of delivery whereas social care is means-tested. When will the Government—of any kind—agree to tackle this issue of social care? It is serious and will get worse.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises the importance of the Casey review, but we are not standing still waiting for the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to report. We are making progress towards building a national care service, with around £4.6 billion of additional funding available for adult social care by 2028-29 compared with 2025-26. All of us in this Chamber know how important improving social care is. We are not going to improve the system until we move forward on this and make sure that we get the best services for our frail and elderly in particular.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, it is true that this is a very long-standing problem. When I was Health Minister, I spent quite a lot of time looking at how we could improve the services. The multi-disciplinary team was key, but the other key element, which this report highlights, is getting assessments done early, particularly of the home, to ascertain what specialist equipment is needed and get it installed. Can my noble friend the Minister take up the issue of good practice in that respect, and look at where those early assessments have been particularly effective and how we can spread that best practice?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. I am particularly grateful as I was very active in Leeds, which has a practice going far back that is recognised as one of the foremost in the country in terms of the Home First model. I am delighted to say that it has been picked up by others. Bringing together all the agencies that we have discussed before helps in that process. The early indications are good: a 28% reduction in length of stay and a 7.1-day reduction in rehab. All those elements are critical. It is possible to do this, and we need to replicate good practice wherever we find it.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me in at the end. She has mentioned the independent commission of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock. I may be the only Member of your Lordships’ House who is somewhat surprised to know that the noble Baroness is the only commissioner on this independent commission; there are no others. Given that her name is once again being linked with some vacancies arising at the centre of government, could the Government perhaps appoint some more commissioners to make sure that the independent commission is a bit more resilient?

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I always look forward to the noble Lord’s questions. I do not think I have an answer to his question at this moment in time, other than to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is absolutely determined and committed to this work, and we will do everything we can to support her in it.

Jimmy Lai: Prison Sentence

Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Private Notice Question

15:31

Tabled by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they plan to make to the government of China to seek the release of British citizen Jimmy Lai, following his sentence this morning to 20 years in prison.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK condemns the prosecution of British citizen Jimmy Lai. As the Foreign Secretary said, 20 years is tantamount to a life sentence for a 78 year-old man. The Prime Minister raised this case with President Xi on his recent visit to Beijing. Following the sentencing, we will rapidly engage further. We are focusing on the action that will help Jimmy Lai the most: sustained engagement with China, making our case consistently and directly.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. As she says, Jimmy Lai is 78 years of age, which means either he is going to die in prison or he will be virtually 100 by the time he comes out—not for terrorism, violence or killing people but for defending freedom of speech and indeed the democratic undertakings that we thought were given in 1997. Will my noble friend ensure that the Government of China know that there will be consequences for this imprisonment?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Yes. I thank my noble friend for putting it in that way, and I agree with her. The UK will continue to stand up for the people of Hong Kong. That is why the Home Secretary today announced an expansion of eligibility for the Hong Kong BNO route. Jimmy Lai should never have been imprisoned in the first place and he should be released immediately.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the Chinese courts are totally under the control of the Chinese Communist Party, so I do not believe this timing to be accidental. It comes after the Government have gifted them their shiny new embassy, which then allowed the PM’s visit last week. He quite rightly raised Jimmy’s case during that trip, and this is now the response of the Chinese Government: a 20-year sentence, which I think represents a massive slap in the face. In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on whether there will be consequences, the Minister replied yes. Can she tell us what those consequences will be?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I explained just now about the BNO passport holders—if the noble Lord knew anything about this at all, he would understand that that will be absolutely opposed by China—so we have already done that. We will continue to make the case, and we now have a better ability to do that than we had previously. I reiterate that the issue around the embassy was completely unconnected from this issue, and I remind him that formal diplomatic consent for the embassy was given in 2018 by the former Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, Sebastien Lai, Jimmy Lai’s son, whom many in the House know, said this morning that he had not spoken to his father for five years and that he regarded this sentence—20 years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has said—on a 78 year-old British citizen as a death sentence. As we think about Jimmy Lai and the other pro-democracy advocates who are also incarcerated in CCP prisons inside Hong Kong, our thoughts and prayers will be with them and with his family. His only crime is journalism; his only crime is a belief in democracy; his only crime is free speech. Can the Minister tell us how we intend to co-ordinate international pressure among like-minded democracies to ensure that this travesty, which has been committed in the name of justice, is exposed for what it is and put right?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is outrageous that Jimmy Lai has not had contact from his family—that is inhumane. We continue to argue that he should have that contact and consular assistance. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to Secretary Rubio about this, and noble Lords will know that President Trump intends to visit China later this year, so we will continue to raise this with all our allies and partners.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness said that the Government are focusing on the action that will help Jimmy Lai the most; I have to say it is not easy to feel optimistic, given the progress made so far. Can the Minister bear in mind that we are a huge market for the Chinese? There is a trade deficit of over £40 billion for its goods, which are being sold virtually frictionless into our country. That is an area we should be much closer to leveraging, because all else seems to have failed.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

How we use our trade relationship to exert this kind of pressure needs really careful consideration. It would be very easy to take measures that harm us but have no impact at all. We need to deploy those levers that we think will be most effective. This is a devastating day, with Jimmy Lai having been sentenced in the way that he has, but I can assure the noble Lord that we will consider every means that we need to.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, while I share the outrage expressed across the House about the prosecution and now the sentence, will my noble friend the Minister consider the possibility of a prisoner transfer? I understand we have some prison transfer arrangements with Hong Kong. Obviously, that is a transfer of a sentenced prisoner, but the priority must surely be to bring Mr Lai to the UK.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Our position is that Jimmy Lai should be released, and I would not want to make any comments on an issue as sensitive as that without knowing his family’s position. I understand why the noble Baroness makes that suggestion, but it really is up to his family to determine whether they think that is something they would like the Government to pursue. He should be released.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I want to pick up on the strand of questioning from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about concerted and collaborative international action. The noble Baroness will know that the previous Government set up the Media Freedom Coalition with 51 members, including the likes of Canada as a co-chair. Surely, now is the time not just to inject new energy into that coalition to issue a statement from those 51 countries collectively but also to recognise that representations individually from each of the 51 countries would be a very powerful diplomatic tool to exercise at this time.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is an excellent suggestion. We are committed to the coalition, and I will take that back to the department. I thank the noble Lord for his continued constructive engagement with this.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Can the Minister assure us that the Government will send a message to the Chinese authorities that no senior Chinese officeholder will be welcome in this country until conditions for Jimmy Lai are improved or, preferably, until he is released?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

He should be released and we should not have to take the steps that the noble Baroness suggests. On those sorts of issues we need to take a judgment based on our best understanding at the time of what would be in Jimmy Lai’s best interest. I do not think stopping all engagement would be conducive to release. My sense is that we have only just started engaging with the Chinese. We need perhaps to use the relationship we have already started to build and exert that. I understand why the noble Baroness makes that suggestion; we all want to see him released and are all considering every lever that we have in order to secure that.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister said that the decision on the Chinese embassy was an unrelated issue. Does this not reveal a gulf in understanding, about which we should be very worried? Nothing, in the eyes of the Chinese Communist Party, is unrelated and if we are to negotiate successfully on the world stage, it is crucial that we understand the world as seen through the eyes of our adversaries. It does not sound at the moment as if we do.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I understand the way the CCP might see planning decisions in this country, but we operate under a legal framework and have to stick to the law. We cannot make exceptions just because it happens to be an application by a foreign Government.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

The Minister is quite right to be sensitive in the way she is talking this afternoon. These things are listened into carefully by China. When I was the Minister with responsibility for that part of the world, we supported the continuation of British judges on the Hong Kong circuit while there was a vestige of democracy in that place. Is it the case, though, that there are still two remaining non-permanent judges on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Neuberger and Lord Hoffman? Are they still serving there, and what pressure can the Government bring to bear on them to let them know that, on a black day such as this, it sends a very mixed message to Beijing that we still have two British judges operating over there, if we do?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As far as I understand it, they are still serving and there is a clear view taken by this House and others about that decision to continue to serve. The Government have not put pressure on them, because that is not the way we treat judges, but given the view that comes from this House and has been expressed and explained here, I think they could do worse than to listen to what the noble Lord just said.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, given that Jimmy Lai is a British citizen and that the Chinese have refused any consular visits for well over two years, was this raised in China last week when the Prime Minister was there, and will the Government redouble their efforts to get consular visits following the announcement of the result?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Yes, Jimmy Lai should have consular visits. He should have access to the ability to practise his religious beliefs; he should also have medical access and access to his family. Yes, we did raise this and will continue to.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her measured response to the real concern shown by this House, which should be conveyed to the Chinese authorities. Does that not make all the more regrettable the intervention from the Opposition Front Bench seeking once again to breathe life into this ridiculous campaign about the size of the Chinese embassy? Diplomatic relations do not ever imply approval. Countries have embassies; big countries have big embassies. That is just a fact and we ought to get on with it, and therefore not get diverted from the important issues being raised here today.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I think that is right. My noble friend has a great deal of experience. I think he was a Minister at the department previously and at the MoD as well. He knows what he is talking about, and I take his contribution in the manner that he gives it.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. In light of this outrageous sentence, will the Government get on with activating Section 9 of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act? I remind the Minister that that section requires English universities to declare their dependency on foreign funding, and was included in the Act to enable the Office for Students to monitor foreign funding in light of free speech concerns. This section, which was not activated by the Education Secretary when she entered office—she revoked the commencement order—seems particularly urgent in light of not only this outrageous sentence but the recent remarks by the head of MI6 about the extent of Chinese influence in British universities.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We have recently introduced many measures around higher education that would be relevant to that which the noble Lord outlined to us. I do not know whether we need to activate that particular section in the Act, but we are alive to the concerns that he raises and the Department for Education is working with the higher education sector to address them.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, two weeks ago the Minister’s colleagues in the Foreign Office summoned the Chinese ambassador for a discussion. She was not able to tell us what happened, because she was not in the room; will she ensure that the Chinese ambassador is summoned first thing tomorrow morning to a meeting that she will be able to attend? Can she then report back on what was said, how the Chinese ambassador reacted and what this Government are going to do if that reaction is unsatisfactory?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I have good news for the noble and learned Lord. Since he asked that question—and he is right that I did not answer him at the time, because I was not at that meeting—a read-out has since been published, and he can read it at his leisure.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, before the Prime Minister went, many of us felt that this had been discussed in the back channels somehow, and that he would succeed in obtaining the release of Jimmy Lai. The Prime Minister is now apologising for many things, but has he apologised to the family? He went to China and we spent all this money and we had all those resources out there, but we did not bring back the one British citizen who is being held in solitary confinement.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is not how it works: I wish that we could secure everything that we want, and give nothing that anybody else wants, ahead of any diplomatic engagement. For many years there has been no engagement and we are playing catch up: we must start building a relationship now in order to get the things that we need for this country, one of them being the release of Jimmy Lai. We will not give up. The fact that there has been one visit does not set us back. We continue to make the case and we continue to argue for his release. That, I believe, is the right way to go about this.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

Scottish legislative consent granted, Welsh legislative consent sought. Relevant documents: 21st and 44th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee

15:47

Motion

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That the Bill be now read a third time.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, before dealing formally with the amendments at Third Reading of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, I will make a brief statement regarding legislative consent on this Bill.

During its development and parliamentary passage, the Secretary of State for Education has regularly corresponded and engaged with her devolved government counterparts, and this has been supported by continued engagement between officials. As a result, I can confirm that a legislative consent Motion has been successfully agreed in the Scottish Parliament and that the Senedd is in the process of agreeing a suitable date for the debate. This is to ensure that there is time to consider and discuss amendments that have been tabled and accepted by Your Lordships’ House on Report that also engage the consent process. Owing to the date that these amendments were tabled, it has not been possible for a further supplementary legislative consent Motion to be secured by the time of this statement. However, the Welsh Government have recommended that the Senedd gives consent to the Report amendments, and are committed to progressing the supplementary LCM as swiftly as possible.

More broadly, I am grateful to Ministers and officials in the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive for their positive and collaborative approach towards this legislation. We remain committed to sustained engagement with the devolved Governments for the remainder of the Bill’s passage as we look forward to its implementation. I beg to move that this Bill now be read a third time.

Clause 38: School uniforms: limits on branded items

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Storey]

1: Clause 38, page 62, line 18, leave out “limits mentioned in subsection [subsection removed] apply” and insert “amount specified in relation to a secondary pupil applies”

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I beg to move Amendment 1, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mohammed.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I recognise that Amendment 1, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, is a tidying-up amendment, consequential to his previous amendment on school uniform. While I am sure that the debate on the wider issue of school uniform will continue in the other place, we recognise that this amendment simply corrects a now redundant reference created by his prior amendment. For this reason, we are prepared to accept it at this stage, so that his proposed amendments can be considered together at the next stage.

I turn to the government amendments. Amendment 2 provides that regulations made by Welsh Ministers in relation to the mandatory meeting scheme for parents wishing to withdraw their child from school for home education will be subject to the Senedd’s approval procedure. This is an important and necessary correction which brings Wales into alignment with the position in England, where regulations made by the Secretary of State are subject to the affirmative procedure. As the Bill currently stands, no parliamentary procedure is attached to the Welsh regulations, and it is essential that this gap is addressed to ensure proper scrutiny and accountability.

Amendment 3 introduces legal definitions of “child” and “carer” for Wales. This is a small but important correction to ensure clarity in the provision and enable Welsh Ministers and the Secretary of State to require local authorities to record whether a child is a young carer on children not in school registers. As we discussed, young carers can shoulder responsibilities that impact their education. Understanding when a child is in that position could enable authorities to provide the right support. This amendment does not alter the policy intent of the Bill; it simply ensures that the Welsh legislative framework is complete and coherent. I trust that the House will agree that correcting this oversight strengthens the Bill and supports young carers.

Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7 concern academy trust inspections. They make a small drafting adjustment to move the parliamentary procedure for regulations made under new Chapter 2A of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to Section 182 of that Act, which already governs regulations made under the Act. The previous drafting inserted a bespoke section dealing with procedure for regulations into Chapter 2A, which conflicted with the existing Section 182. These amendments resolve a minor technical issue in the legislation, make no policy change and do not alter the level of parliamentary scrutiny that regulations will be subject to.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, we understand and accept these amendments.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Clause 39: Local authority consent for withdrawal of certain children from school

Amendment 2

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

2: Clause 39, page 68, line 40, leave out from first “section” to the end and insert “569 of that Act (regulations)—
(a) in subsection (2A), after “section” insert “434B,”;(b) in subsection (2BB), after “section” insert “434B or”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under new section 434B of the Education Act 1996 (inserted by clause 39) to be subject to the Senedd approval procedure.

Amendment 2 agreed.

Clause 40: Registration

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

3: Clause 40, page 72, line 19, leave out from “whether” to the end of line 21 and insert “—
(i) in the case of a child in England, the child is a young carer within the meaning of section 17ZA(3) of the Children Act 1989, as qualified by section 17ZB(3) of that Act, or(ii) in the case of a child in Wales, the child is a carer (within the meaning of “child” and “carer” given by section 3 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow information about whether the child is a carer (within the meanings given by section 3 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014) to be prescribed as information that may be included in the register of children not in school.

Amendment 3 agreed.

Clause 59: Inspection of Academy proprietors

Amendments 4 to 7

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

4: Clause 59, page 131, line 1, at end insert—
“(A1) The Education and Inspections Act 2006 is amended in accordance with subsections (1) and (1A).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendments to clause 59, page 131, line 2, page 137, lines 24 to 34, and page 139, line 20, would move provisions about parliamentary procedure for regulations under Chapter 2A of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (clause 59) to section 182 of that Act (regulations).

5: Clause 59, page 131, line 2, leave out “of the Education and Inspections Act 2006”
Member's explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 59, page 131, line 1.

6: Clause 59, page 137, leave out lines 24 to 34
Member's explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 59, page 131, line 1.

7: Clause 59, page 139, line 20, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 182 (parliamentary control of orders and regulations), in subsection (3), after paragraph (aza) insert—“(azb) regulations under section 122A(2) (power to exempt Academy proprietors from regular inspection),(azc) regulations under section 122B(2)(f) (power to make provision about content of inspection report),(azd) regulations under section 122F(4) (power to make provision about content of inspection framework),”.”Member's explanatory statement
See my amendment to clause 59, page 131, line 1.

Amendments 4 to 7 agreed.

Bill read a third time.

15:53

Motion

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by expressing my gratitude to your Lordships’ House for the careful and constructive scrutiny of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. This Bill brings forward once-in-a-generation and much-needed reforms to our children’s social care and education systems, and will deliver tangible changes for young people. It delivers on manifesto commitments, including free breakfast clubs in primary schools and limits on branded uniform items, as well as raising standards in every classroom, ensuring fair access to good local schools and strengthening support for the most vulnerable children.

The opportunity to bring about meaningful, lasting change in the lives of children and families through legislation of this kind is rare and it has been a privilege to take this Bill through. I am grateful to all Members who brought their significant expertise to debates, with contributions drawing on backgrounds in education, children’s social care, health, data and local government, which have enriched our discussions and strengthened the legislation. Over Second Reading, 12 days in Committee and 5 days on Report, many noble Lords have spoken powerfully on behalf of children, as well as parents, carers, teachers and professionals working on the front lines, and that perspective has played a key role in refining the legislation.

I thank all noble Lords with whom I have engaged inside and outside the Chamber. Over the course of the Bill’s passage through this House, the Government had over 60 engagements with Peers and many more with external bodies. Noble Lords, including the Opposition Front Benches, have been exceptionally generous with their time, expertise and scrutiny, and those contributions have been valuable. I express my thanks in particular to my noble friend Lady Blake for taking the Bill through this House alongside me. Her support, expertise and unwavering dedication to children’s social care and education have been evident at every stage. I am thankful also to my noble friends Lady Anderson and Lady Twycross for their support in Committee. I am also grateful to the officials who have supported me throughout its passage, including my private office, the Bill team and the policy, strategy and legal teams. I extend my gratitude to the Whips’ team, parliamentary business and legislation team, and Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. This Bill has been vast in scope and, with 875 amendments debated, logistically complex.

Finally, I thank the clerks, doorkeepers and staff of the House. This Bill has frequently been debated late at night or until the early hours of the morning, and I appreciate their work greatly. I am confident that this legislation will greatly improve the lives of children and young people, and I look forward to further consideration as it moves to the other place. I beg to move.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the Minister’s words in thanking all Members of the House who have been involved—some more than others—in the passage of this Bill and for the quality of scrutiny it received. I also thank the Ministers, their private offices and the Bill team for their time and engagement over the course of the Bill and the very detailed correspondence they sent us. I thank Beatrice Hughes and Dan Cohen in our research team for their support throughout the course of the Bill, which feels like quite a long time, and of course my noble friend the Earl of Effingham for his invaluable support.

However, if this Bill had been a weather forecast, I think it might have been for the west coast of Scotland in November. It has felt at times quite depressing, with a lot of rain and clouds, and only rare glimpses of sunshine. I say that because I fear that, in Part 1 of the Bill, the Government never really went to the root of the very real problem they were seeking to address. Conversely, in Part 2, we heard again and again the question of what problem the Government were actually trying to solve. The Minister talks about meaningful and lasting change. All of us in your Lordships’ House hope that she right, but I gently suggest that that is much more likely to be the case if the Government accept our amendments when it reaches the other place.

When we think about our debates on this Bill, Part 1, rather than trying fundamentally to address the shortage of foster and kinship carers in this country, focuses on reorganisation and regulation. Also, in Part 2, rather than learning from the successes of our free schools and academies and embedding those in the school system, the Government have sought to centralise and micromanage.

We had some glimpses of sunshine in the Bill. Certainly, working together across all Benches in this House has been an absolute privilege and a pleasure, and has unquestionably improved the Bill. For me, bright spots in Part 1 included tightening the involvement of health as a partner in the commissioning for children in receipt of a deprivation of liberty order, and in the role of the regional commissioning co-operatives. Another bright spot was requiring the Government to have clear evidence of impact before rolling out the multiagency child protection teams nationally.

16:00

In Part 2, our amendments have tightened the rules around elective home education for children where there are valid reasons to have a safeguarding concern, and they have prevented reducing the published admission numbers for schools that are high-performing and popular, to protect the interests of children and parents. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the spirit of some of our amendments and debates in Committee, particularly in relation to Clauses 40 and 50—I hope those clause numbers have not changed for the latest version of the Bill.

Then, we had two whole days of sunshine. It was sunny even late into the night with amendments to delay the use of virtual private networks and social media for teenagers, and on the prohibition of smartphone use in schools, other than for very specific medical reasons such as diabetes. We could not have had the clarity and confidence on these Benches to focus on these areas without the unstinting help of so many people outside the House—campaigners, experts, and parents such as Ellen Roome, Esther Ghey and Ian Russell, who have all shared their own points of view and all called for change.

When I worked in the City, nobody ever talked to me about domestic abuse. When I ran a domestic abuse charity, everybody I sat next to on the bus talked to me about domestic abuse. Working on the amendments on social media and phones, there is literally no one I speak to who does not raise this issue with me and stress how important it is that we get these changes right.

As we move forward, I hope the Government will be in a springlike mood and will focus on the sunshine and make sure that they are not responsible for yet more rain, by accepting the Bill as it now stands. That would demonstrate the humility and commitment to service that the Prime Minister has so often talked about, and the leadership this country and its children need.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I will make a few comments and express my thanks to everybody involved in the Bill, particularly the Minister, who was always fully on her brief, who was prepared to listen—always— and to meet quite regularly, and who was a model as to how Ministers should take the House with them. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, who would look at you as though she agreed with everything you said, making you feel important. She often did not, but she actually looked at you and her eyes bore down on you.

I also thank all Members who got involved. It is a joy to be involved in a Bill on which we might have differences of opinion, but through which we all want to make a difference, from wherever we come. If I may say so, it is good to work on a school Bill which actually finishes and is not cut short mid-amendment.

Our team was one person, mainly: Ulysse Abbate. Ulysse was recently appointed to our team. He rushed around and was just an absolute joy to work with. In fact, he could have taken my job quite easily: he knew more about it than I did at the end of it.

I thank the Bill team and all those Members who spoke. I particularly thank Minister MacAlister for meeting me on two occasions. I also thank Minister Smith’s staff, who made a wonderful, fantastic team. The Bill will make a difference to the lives of children and parents; there are no two ways about that. I found Part 1 to be an amazing change from where we are.

As for Part 2, some people might argue that we did not go far enough, particularly on academisation. Some might argue that we went too far. Perhaps, therefore, the Government got it absolutely right. Personally, for me, that moment of sunshine—this is like “The Sound of Music”—was actually after 10 years. When this issue was first raised, I was jeered; I was told I was completely mad. It has taken us 10 years to get the issue of home education addressed; to reach an absolute understanding of how important it is to get home educators in the right frame. Their value is enormous.

As an example of the commitment of this House, on the fifth day, I think, we got to 11.30 at night, and normally at 11.30 at night, people’s energy levels sink—but did they? No, everybody suddenly sprang to life and there was renewed energy, and we finished at 1.30 in the morning. So that, again, shows the commitment.

Finally, I thank my colleagues on these Benches who worked with me: the new Lib Dem education spokesperson—my noble friend Lord Mohammed—and my noble friends Lord Addington and Lady Tyler, who made a lot of sacrifices to be here. My noble friend had paid for a very expensive fine arts course, and she gave up a number of sessions so that she could speak, with real vigour and determination, on those issues. Again, I thank everybody who made a real difference to the lives of children and families.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I always like to bring both the energy and the sunshine, and on that basis, I thank all noble Lords, and I beg to move.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with Amendments.

Victims and Courts Bill

Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Committee (1st Day)

Welsh legislative consent sought.

16:06

Clause 1: Power to compel attendance at sentencing hearing

Amendment 1

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out “by the Crown Court”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes the rationale behind restricting the power to order offenders to attend a sentencing hearing to only the Crown Courts.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments in my name relates to Clauses 1 and 2. I start by observing that we on these Benches are broadly supportive of most of the provisions in the Bill. Many of the amendments tabled in my name, save one or two exceptions, have the aim of strengthening the Bill’s existing provisions rather than removing them. The use of reasonable force to compel attendance at sentencing hearings was a measure first proposed by the previous Conservative Government in the Criminal Justice Bill, which fell at the Dissolution of Parliament. It is, therefore, a policy that we on these Benches strongly support.

As the Government have consistently said, victims and their families deserve to see justice done. They deserve to hear directly those remarks which explain the court’s reasons for the sentences that are being imposed, and they deserve the chance to face their offenders and have their own voices heard in open court. In that spirit, many of the amendments in my name probe details of Clauses 1 and 2, and question how they would operate in practice. These clauses set out the statutory powers for judges to order an offender to attend court for their sentencing hearing, by reasonable force if necessary. As we have heard previously, offenders who refuse to attend their sentencing hearing thereby insult their victims. Offenders should not be able to undermine the final moment of justice in such a way. The amendments in this group ask the important question of why the Government are not taking this opportunity to expand the applicability of Clauses 1 and 2, given their upcoming and substantial court reforms.

I understand that the application only to the Crown Court in these clauses is the same as the approach taken in our Criminal Justice Bill, but I point out a crucial difference between the positions of the last Government and this Government. When this clause was originally proposed, there were no plans to alter the sentencing powers of the magistrates’ courts. However, this Government are now proposing to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers to three years, thereby shifting a large number of cases away from the Crown Court towards magistrates. As such, magistrates will hear a much greater proportion of increasingly serious cases, which surely throws into question the application and scope of Clauses 1 and 2.

In fact, this is a different contextual background from not only that of the previous Government but that of this Government. The Bill was introduced in the other place before the Government announced their court reforms. So, as published, Clauses 1 and 2 would have permitted the compulsory attendance of an offender for sentences between one year and three years. Now, however, if the Bill is unamended, and the Government’s court reforms go ahead, a person convicted in a magistrates’ court for an offence that would have previously been heard only before a Crown Court will not be required to attend their sentencing hearing.

If it was previously the Government’s view that offenders facing between one and three years’ imprisonment should be subject to compulsory attendance at their sentencing hearing, why have they not made the necessary amendments to the Bill? Perhaps that is because they have changed their mind, in which case the Minister should be clear about that. If it is the Government’s position that the scope of offenders who should be compelled to attend their sentencing hearing should remain the same as when the Bill was introduced, they must surely accept these amendments. The question that then arises is: why stop at the Crown Court, when extending these powers to other courts could make a meaningful and positive difference to the victims of other crimes?

We should not dismiss the experience of victims of, for example, burglary. Requiring an offender to attend their sentencing hearing may give those victims just as much closure. Conversely, an offender refusing to attend could cause just as much insult, if this series of amendments is not accepted. If anything, by reserving these powers for the Crown Court only, we risk playing down the significance of other crimes by signalling that offenders do not have to face their victims. Extending these powers to other courts would not only provide greater consistency but show that no crime is more permissible than another, or that one victim’s experience is not more or less important than another’s. If the rationale is one of practicality or resource, the Government should make that case. If, however, there is no compelling reason, whether it be legal, procedural or financial, the Bill presents an ideal opportunity to address a gap, rather than requiring further primary legislation later on down the line after court reform has been implemented.

If the Government’s intention is to strengthen victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system, surely consistency must be at the heart of that ambition. Victims do not experience crime through the lens of jurisdictional boundaries. They experience the indignity of being wronged and they rightly expect the justice system to deal with offenders in a manner that recognises that harm each time, regardless of which court is sentencing. It is for these reasons that I believe the Government should revisit the decision to confine these powers solely to the Crown Court; otherwise, the Bill risks creating a two-tier system, where the victims of some crimes are afforded the closure of seeing justice done in person, while others are denied it for reasons that are administrative rather than principled.

I would be grateful if the Minister could also clarify what consideration has been given to victims’ expectations and their confidence in the justice process when limiting these powers to the Crown Court. I hope that the Minister will reflect on these points and consider whether there is scope for a more ambitious and comprehensive approach. I look forward to her response and to working to strengthen this legislation for the benefit of all victims. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I will make a brief observation about the amendment. The exercise of this power by a judge is never going to be easy, and we should be very cautious about the way this is introduced. Let us first see how it works with people who have the experience of handling what, in the circumstances, will be a very difficult position before we move on to doing it in all courts. This power must be confined to those cases where it is really necessary, because I think that a number of us who have had experience of this would be very worried indeed if this power came to be routinely deployed.

16:15

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord is probing at this stage and I am with him in wanting to see procedures from the point of view of victims, but I simply do not know whether magistrates have the same powers as Crown Court judges. When we debated this issue before, we were told about the powers that judges have now, without the need for an extension.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, came quite close to my question. Magistrates come from a very different background. Do they currently have the same powers as the judges who will be covered by this legislation, quite apart from the powers that are given by the Bill, in dealing with recalcitrant—if that is the right word—defendants?

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for the way in which he has explained these amendments. I am also extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for injecting a note of caution and to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for injecting a note of questioning about the proposed amendments.

In their explanatory statement, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, state that the amendments in this group probe

“the rationale behind restricting the power to order offenders to attend a sentencing hearing to only the Crown Courts”.

The noble and learned Lord explained why he suggests that there is no difference, for the purpose of this power, between the Crown Courts and the magistrates’ courts.

I should make it clear that we on these Benches start from the position that defendants should be obliged to attend court for their sentencing hearings. But the fact that they are obliged to attend court does not lead to the conclusion that the courts ought to have the power to get them to court however much they wish to resist.

It is, of course, important from the victims’ point of view—this is a point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, made—that the defendants who have committed offences against them are in court for the occasion when they are brought to justice. It is appropriate, therefore, that in the right cases, the court should have the power to order them to do so.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out what a serious power this is. It is particularly a serious power, as I will come to say, because the use of force is sanctioned to get defendants to court. We have heard tell, in the press and in the House of Commons, from some of the wilder speeches—if I may put it that way—of, in effect, the court having the power to order that offenders be brought to court by considerable force and in chains. I am quite clear that that is not the way the Bill puts it; it puts it in terms of the use of force being reasonable, proportionate and appropriate. Nevertheless, it is a very serious power.

It is also important from the offenders’ point of view that they should come to court, first, to hear what the court says about their offences as well as what their counsel and the prosecution say about their offences. It is also important because their attending court and listening, hopefully with some care, to what goes on at their sentencing hearing may be taken as a sign of their understanding of the import of the hearing. If an order is made, the breach of such an order to attend court for a sentencing hearing is a sign of a lack of remorse on the part of the defendant. A lack of remorse will usually involve a court treating a defendant more severely than it might treat a defendant who does show remorse for the offences that they have committed and an understanding of the impact of those offences on the victims.

The scheme of this Bill is to bring in a very strong regime of compulsion with a specific incorporation of provisions about contempt of court and significantly, as I adumbrated, about the right to use force to bring defendants to court who are unwilling and refuse to attend their sentencing hearings. The conditions for the new regime, as set out in the Bill, are that the defendant has been convicted and is in custody awaiting sentencing by the Crown Court. That brings into play the kind of reservation that the noble and learned Lord spoke about. This new regime is designed to deal with serious offences. A third condition is that the offender has refused or is likely to refuse to attend the sentencing hearing.

It follows that the code for punishment for contempt should be confined to adult offenders. The amendments seek to make this procedure and all its features applicable to a wider group of offenders, and to magistrates’ courts as well as Crown Courts. I ask the Minister and the noble and learned Lord when they close how far a change to include magistrates’ courts will help victims. One can see how it is justified and might help victims in serious cases, but I question how far the use of force will ever be in the public interest. One must question the purpose of the use of force. It could be twofold. It could be to force offenders to face up to their offences and help them to avoid reoffending. It could be to help the victims by letting them see that those who have committed offences against them are being brought to justice. There may be force in that.

However, there is also a risk, which may be important, of forced attendance becoming a means for defendants to get publicity for themselves, their offences and their resistance to justice: to portray themselves as public martyrs and, in some cases, to make political gestures that could be thoroughly undesirable. If these orders became the norm, those dangers would be real. If it is to have a positive effect, this power is likely to be much more effective for serious cases in the Crown Court than it is for cases in the magistrates’ court. Of course we take the point that the scope of hearings in magistrates’ courts has been increased over what it was before the distinction was changed. Nevertheless, I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response on the distinction. Our position at the moment is that the distinction is plainly justified.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, explores the reasons for limiting this power to the Crown Court.

Before I begin, I am sure that the whole Committee will wish to join me in paying tribute to the families of Jan Mustafa, Henriett Szucs, Sabina Nessa, Zara Aleena, and Olivia Pratt-Korbel—whose mother and aunt sit below the Bar today. Their tireless campaigning has brought about this change. They have persuaded the Government that when a cowardly offender refuses to attend court, it causes anger and upset, which can feel like a final insult to victims and their families, who have sat through the trial waiting for the moment when they can tell the world—and, importantly, the offender—about the impact their crimes have had. Many of them want the opportunity to look the offender in the eye as he or she hears about the effects of what they have done.

Offenders are expected to attend court for sentence, and the overwhelming majority do so. Because magistrates’ courts hear less serious cases, offenders are more likely to be on bail, and where an offender is on bail, the courts have powers to compel attendance by issuing a warrant. When a warrant is issued, the defendant is brought before the court in custody for the warrant to be executed, and the judge can add an additional sentence for the offence of failing to surrender to bail, which will appear on their record in future.

However, in the Crown Court, which deals only with the top level of serious crime, offenders are much more often remanded in custody, and so court powers to get them physically into court are more restricted. That is why the Government have acted by bringing forward this legislation which gives three powers that can be used in relation to recalcitrant—that is the right word, as used by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—offenders: first, authorising the use of reasonable force, except in the case of children, because we are a civilised country, and this Government do not believe in using force on children; secondly, for offenders who still refuse to attend, or for those who are disruptive once they are there, the power to add an additional sentence; and, thirdly, the power to impose the same kinds of prison sanctions as a prison governor can impose.

However, getting an unwilling and often disruptive offender to court is by no means straightforward, and it inevitably causes a delay to the sentencing hearing for the following reasons. At the outset, the judge will have to hear submissions from prosecution and defence counsel, as well as possibly from the prison and escort staff, as to whether the offender has a reasonable excuse for non-attendance and, if not, whether to exercise these new statutory powers. Then the judge will need to give a ruling, giving reasons as to why, in the circumstances of that particular case, it would be necessary, reasonable and proportionate to use reasonable force to get the offender to court.

Then the prison and transport staff will have to go and get the prisoner from the place, whether it is a prison or a court cell, which they are refusing to leave. The prison and transport staff will then have to use their judgment as to how best to execute the judge’s ruling, including what degree of force to use. Finally, if the offender is forced into court and is then disruptive, this is likely to cause more delay while the judge decides what to do next.

There is probably one thing we can all agree on: the criminal courts do not need any additional delays. Judges will need to weigh up carefully whether and when to use their new powers. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the question of the inherent powers that courts already have. Both the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts have inherent powers to deal with a non-attendance as a contempt of court, but these are used sparingly because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out very powerfully, it is far from straightforward.

For these reasons, the Government’s view is that this new legislation is appropriately restricted to Crown Court sentencing. It represents a reasonable and proportionate response to the problem, because it is the Crown Court where these powers are needed. Operational arrangements are already in place for producing the most serious and violent offenders at the Crown Court, managing the risks that that involves and, where necessary, using proportionate force. So, for these reasons, we consider that expanding the power to magistrates’ courts might create legal and operational uncertainty and unnecessary delay to court proceedings. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to the debate, and indeed the observations with regard to the timing of any extension of these powers.

I would observe, with respect to the submissions made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that if these provisions help victims in the Crown Court, it is not clear why they would not help victims in magistrates’ courts.

The Minister talked at length of the difficulty of implementation with regard to these provisions, but that would apply equally in the Crown Court and the magistrates’ courts. Indeed, the appearance of serious offenders in the magistrates’ courts will of course be an immediate development with the changes under the Sentencing Act, which extend the sentencing powers of magistrates to three years.

16:30

Of course, the question before us today is not whether these powers are necessary—on that the Committee appears to be agreed—it is the scope and application of the powers that are being considered. In that context, I have highlighted the way in which these proposals have undergone, as it were, something of a sea change in view of the proposed changes in sentencing power and the transfer of increasingly serious cases from the Crown Court to magistrates’ courts.

I respectfully suggest that limiting these powers to one jurisdiction risks sending the wrong message to victims and causing confusion for victims, who are not hidebound by jurisdictional boundaries between the Crown Court and magistrates’ courts. If attendance matters, for all the reasons outlined by the Government, the principle does not end at the doors of the Crown Court but extends across the courts system.

It is important to consider—no doubt the Government will come back on this—the impact of these powers on the Crown Court, and indeed on magistrates’ courts. If resources are the concern, for example, that needs to be addressed expressly.

We remain supportive of these clauses in the Bill and intend only to strengthen them and make the benefits accessible to a wider cohort of victims. I therefore urge the Minister to reflect on the potential inconsistency created by restricting these powers to the Crown Court when sentencing powers are in the course of amendment, transferring increasingly serious cases to the magistrates’ courts, and the risk that that entails of creating a two-tier system of justice for victims.

The Bill provides an opportunity to ensure genuine and system-wide consistency. I invite the Government to consider that. At this stage, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 2 not moved.

Amendment 3

Moved by

[Lord Sandhurst]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert “or at the at victim’s request.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes the role of the victim in the exercise the power to order offenders to attend a sentencing hearing under clause 1.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group, in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen, seek to ensure that the Bill lives up to its purpose in the name of victims.

Clauses 1 and 2 set out how offenders can in future be compelled to attend their sentencing hearing. But, as currently drafted, they contain no mechanism to involve the victims directly in the process. This is contrary to the Bill’s purpose to make provision for an enhanced experience for victims within the criminal justice system. Indeed, it is unclear in what situation a judge would be minded to make such an order without the request of the prosecution and what the criteria for such a decision would be in that instance.

If, in the absence of a request by the prosecution, the court’s power to compel attendance is not automatic, I look to the Minister to say why that is the case. Further, I ask her to clarify whether published guidance will be provided to judges as to what factors should be considered when making an order, beyond the practical considerations of officer safety.

The amendments which we advance, on the other hand, would overcome some of our concerns. They would enable the victims to have a say and to request that the offender be ordered to attend. As the Minister set out at Second Reading, the reasoning behind this Bill’s provisions is to compel attendance in the first place and to provide an opportunity for victims to look the defendant in the eye and explain exactly how a crime has affected them. The sentencing remarks are often their last opportunity for this. Why, then, should victims not be given a say whereby they can expressly request that an offender is ordered to attend? This would both give the victim a greater voice and give the judge greater clarity on how to proceed.

The second two amendments in this group, Amendments 4 and 9, would also require the courts to consult the victims if the judge is minded not to make an order compelling an offender to attend sentencing. If a victim is deceased or incapacitated mentally or physically, our amendments would allow family members or another appropriate representative to be consulted in their place. Justice should not stop when the victim cannot speak for themselves. This would put victims at the centre of the process. It would ensure that such decisions are taken not behind closed doors but in consultation with those victims whom these decisions affect.

We cannot treat these issues as merely procedural. For a victim, a sentencing hearing can be a profoundly significant moment, and it is an opportunity for closure. I am sure that the last thing noble Lords would want is for a victim to feel disconnected, sidelined or unheard by the courts in the run-up to a hearing. This amendment would also give judges a chance to explain and justify their decisions. If the offender will not be in attendance or the judge will not exercise their powers to compel attendance, victims or their representatives deserve an explanation of why that is the case. This should happen both where a victim has made a request for an offender to be ordered to attend and where they have not. We do not consider this to be a heavy burden on the courts. It should instead be considered best practice. These steps would ensure that the judge’s decision-making process is consistently transparent. It would make our system more accessible and demonstrate to victims that they are a priority, not an afterthought, particularly at the point of sentencing.

This Bill was presented to Parliament as an opportunity to address these very concerns. Our amendments would fill real gaps in drafting. I am sure the Minister will want to reflect carefully on them. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords to this debate. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I shall make two observations. The first relates to the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in relation to how judges will exercise these powers and whether guidance will be given. No doubt the Lady Chief Justice will consider whether to give guidance, or such guidance might be given by practice direction or be the subject of discussion at the Judicial College, but the handling of this is entirely for the judiciary. It is difficult enough, and it certainly would not be in any way appropriate for the Ministry of Justice to give guidance. It seems to me that the exercise of this judicial power must be for the judicial branch of the state and it alone—unless, of course, Parliament in its infinite wisdom decides that it wants to set down the criteria. I strongly urge Members not to do that.

The second relates to a more practical point, and that is the ability of the victim to intervene in the decision and to be able to make a request. It is sometimes forgotten that a transformation occurred during the 2000s and the next decade in the way in which the Crown Prosecution Service dealt with victims. There was a time when the victim was regarded as peripheral to the way in which the courts operated and to matters that had to be taken into account. That position changed remarkably and for the better. I think it is appreciated that the judicial power to have someone brought into court has to be exercised with the greatest degree of thought. If the Crown Prosecution Service were to request this to happen, I would be astounded if it had not consulted the victim. In my experience, that is what often happens in these difficult circumstances. There is a discussion as to the best way of proceeding and it is very important that this is approached in that sort of way.

If the victim was to be allowed to make the request directly, this raises the question as to how. Is this to be done in open court with the discussion of the various issues? Is it not best left to the wisdom of the Crown prosecutor and the judge’s ability to ask questions as to the victim’s views? It seems to me this is a much more efficacious way of dealing with the matter rather than bringing the victim in personally—because there is no suggestion of a victim’s advocate for this—to what will be, if this power is to be exercised, an occasion of great difficulty. The last thing anyone wants to happen is to provide secondary victimisation by an awful scene in court. I urge the Government to exercise very considerable caution in considering this amendment.

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

My Lords, once again I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his note of caution about Amendment 3—and Amendment 8 in the case of service personnel—which would allow victims to request that an order be made. I completely agree with him that it is a matter for the judiciary to exercise its discretion as to whether orders are made. I am not entirely sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, took into account quite how difficult it is going to be to make these orders. I suggest that the caution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, about bringing the victim in as effectively a party to such an application is a point well made. But I accept that it is right that the victim’s voice should be heard. I also agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that the victim’s voice in court now is heard in a way that it certainly was not decades and even years ago. But a formal position whereby the victim was entitled to make a request is probably undesirable, though it is quite clear that the victim’s voice should be heard and that guidance to and from the judiciary should reflect that.

Amendments 4 and 9 are effectively seeking a very serious conflict:

“If the court is minded not to make an order under subsection (2), the court has a duty to consult the victim, or, where the victim is deceased or is unable to be consulted … a family member or other appropriate representative”.


That would put the victim in a wholly invidious position of effectively making the victim compulsorily a party to the application for an order. That is likely to stoke up hostility between the victim and the offender, which we are trying to avoid or at least reduce, and even possibly between the victim and the court, which would be a thoroughly undesirable position. Far better, I suggest, to leave it to the judge to decide how the victim’s views should be sought and taken into account, without imposing any duty on the court to consult the victim at any stage. It would be much better for the Bill to remain silent on how the victim’s views should be sought, but the expectation will be that they will be sought, and I have no doubt that that is how the judiciary would approach this exercise.

16:45

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 3, 4, 8 and 9, once again in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, seek to give a victim or a bereaved family a defined role in the process of ordering someone to attend their sentencing hearing.

Victims have been at the forefront of this measure. It is precisely because an offender’s refusal to attend sentencing can compound the trauma for victims that we are giving judges an express power to order attendance, building on the judge’s existing common-law powers. Whether to order attendance must remain a judicial assessment of what is in the interests of justice. It will be made case by case, with the judge retaining the ultimate discretion having considered all the circumstances.

As I said when responding to the previous group, we anticipate that judges who are considering making an attendance order will hear submissions from both prosecution and defence. Prosecuting counsel will inevitably be expected to advance the views of the victim and the family, having sought them beforehand and having asked them; I can tell the Committee from my own experience that if they have not spoken to the victim or the victim’s family, the judge is likely to tell them to go away and do so—so it happens now. If there is no victim personal statement, the judge will, in my experience, inevitably say, “Why isn’t there one? Does the victim want to make one?” I can tell the Committee, again from my own experience, that the views of victims and their families are given great weight by the judge.

That said, we are anxious not to create unrealistic expectations in the minds of victims or their families that they would have the right to require the offender’s attendance at court. That could lead to some difficult experiences for victims and their families. What if, for example, the judge were to find that the offender had a reasonable excuse for non-attendance but the family of the victim disagreed? Plainly, the judge’s decision would have to prevail, but at what cost to the family if they had believed that they had the right to require attendance? We do not want to make sentencing hearings any more stressful or distressing for victims than they already are.

Judges must have the discretion to do what is right based on the facts in front of them and the submissions that they hear. There will be cases where it is not in the best interests of victims or families for the offender to be in court, including the occasions—thankfully rare—when the offender is likely to be disruptive or disrespectful and cause further distress.

To place a statutory duty on the court to consult a victim whenever an order is not made risks creating additional delay at the point of sentence. What, for example, if the victim’s family have chosen not to attend court, yet there is a mandatory statutory duty upon the judge to find out and consult them? As I have already said, the one thing that the Crown Courts do not need is any additional delay. In addition, such a statutory requirement risks placing an additional unnecessary emotional burden on victims and families.

The Bill preserves judicial discretion. We expect judges to take account of all relevant circumstances, including victims’ interests, and we are confident that they will do so because that is what they already do. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who contributed to this short but thoughtful debate, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. This debate has underlined how crucial these provisions are to the overall purpose of the Bill, why they warrant close attention and the balance that may have to be struck. We must, of course, get this right.

The Bill was brought forward with the express purpose of strengthening victims’ rights and improving their experience of the criminal justice system. But, as drafted, if we are not careful, victims will remain on the sidelines of a key decision-making process: whether an order should be made to compel an offender to attend their sentencing hearing. If the Bill does not allow victims to make explicit requests for compelled attendance then it will fall short of its own purpose and logic.

Notwithstanding the Minister’s assurance as to what happens in practice so far as the CPS is concerned—or happened when she was sitting in the Crown Court—surely it should be made obligatory for the CPS to ask the victim whether they wish the defendant to be compelled to attend and, if in receipt of a positive answer, to pass that view to the court. It will then be for the judge.

The current position is that judges have discretion to use their powers to compel attendance, even without a request from the prosecution, but we suggest that it is not clear when judges would exercise that power. We look to Ministers to confirm that—whether from them or, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has pressed for, from the judiciary—there should be guidance as to the exercise of the powers. We would also be grateful if the Minister would outline the reasoning behind why these orders are not automatic in the event of non-attendance and when reasonable force can be safely administered.

Our amendments offer a simple and straightforward improvement. They would have ensured that victims could make such requests and are consulted where the court is minded not to make a compulsory order, regardless of whether they had made the request. Sentencing hearings are often the final opportunity for victims to be heard and to feel that they are heard, so why would we deprive them of a say in decisions that directly shape that experience? Victims’ voices must be embedded in the process; they should not be treated as merely passive observers.

We have also observed that where a victim has died or is incapacitated, the system must not simply move on without them. Family members or appropriate representatives should be consulted in their place. We hope the Minister will carefully reflect on the points raised today to help fulfil the Bill’s stated purpose and fill what I am sure are unintentional gaps in its drafting. We look forward to hearing how the Government intend to move forward in due course but, for the moment, we will not press these amendments.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Amendment 4 not moved.

Amendment 5

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

5: Clause 1, page 1, line 19, leave out “18” and insert “16”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes why the power to order offenders to attend a sentencing hearing applies to offenders aged 18 and above.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst propose that the provisions in Clauses 1 and 2 apply to offenders from the age of 16, rather than only to those aged 18 and over. As drafted, Clauses 1 and 2 are explicitly limited in their application to those aged 18 or over. That is a departure from the original Conservative proposal for this power, which would have required the court to consult the relevant youth offending team if the offender in question was under 18. We therefore believe that the blanket threshold of 18 should be examined.

The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales is, of course, 10 years of age. Even if it is believed that the age of criminal responsibility might reasonably be set higher than 10—a subject of recent debate in this Chamber—there is widespread cross-party consensus that it should be significantly lower than 18. Indeed, Scotland, after extensive consultation and careful consideration, chose to set the age of criminal responsibility at 14, reflecting evidence of developmental science and, indeed, public expectations in the field of criminal law.

A 16 year-old who has been convicted of a serious offence will be expected to go before a Crown Court judge to receive their sentence, yet will face no statutory obligation to attend their own sentencing hearing under these provisions. That appears inconsistent with the intent of these provisions.

We have seen both in recent cases and in parliamentary proceedings on this Bill how deeply distressing and unfortunate it can be for victims and families when an offender refuses to face the court at sentencing, an act described by Ministers as a “final insult” to those already traumatised. It is difficult to articulate why someone aged 16 who has been found guilty of a serious offence should be exempt from measures designed to ensure that they confront the consequences of their own criminal actions.

We should also reflect upon the wider tapestry of civic responsibility that has developed, and which this Government would also confer upon 16 year-olds. The Government have proposed to lower the voting age to 16. Someone aged 16 can marry; they can pay tax and join the Armed Forces. They assume a suite of responsibilities in civil society. They are treated as autonomous agents in a host of legal and social contexts, and to exempt them uniquely in this narrow but important sphere from the requirement to attend their own sentencing hearing when convicted of a crime appears inconsistent with those wider developments.

We owe it to victims and to the public to ensure that the measures we put on statute reflect a coherent and principled approach. These amendments ensure that they align with the realities of criminal responsibility and the Government’s wider policy. Someone who commits a serious crime at 16, such as murder or serious violence, should not be placed beyond the reach of these important attendant provisions. That is the inconsistency which appears to us in the present form of Clauses 1 and 2.

Accountability cannot be robust at conviction and sentencing in substance but simply optional at the point of sentencing in practice. We have seen very recent examples of relatively young people aged 15 and 16 committing the most heinous offences, in some instances murder. There can be no doubt, of course, that the existing framework for youth justice should be maintained and remain separate and distinct from these provisions. Nevertheless, when it comes to those of 16 years and older, their personal conduct does take them before the Crown Court. They appear there for sentencing and there is no principled justification for differentiating on the basis of age alone between 16 and 18 when culpability and legal responsibility have already been established. With that in mind, I respectfully commend these amendments.

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

My Lords, briefly, these amendments would treat offenders over the age of 16 in the same way as offenders over the age of 18 in relation to three aspects of the compulsory attendance regime. The first aspect is the requirement that the court consult a youth offending team before making an order; the second is the use of force against young offenders, and the third is the use of prison sanctions in the case of service offenders.

The Member’s Explanatory Statement explains that these amendments probe why these provisions apply only to offenders over the age of 18. The position that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has taken is that they should apply to everyone over the age of 16. I suggest that the answer to the question is that, modest as they are, these provisions make different arrangements for offenders under 18 because they are designed to protect 16 and 17 year-old offenders, who are children and not yet adults. I submit, and we on these Benches believe, that it is right that contemporary criminal justice attempts to treat offenders under 18 in a way that acknowledges the particular vulnerabilities of 16 and 17 year-olds.

In the first group of amendments today, the noble Baroness said that the Government broadly agree with that position. The amendments seek to remove the distinction between 16 and 17 year-olds on the one hand and adults, albeit young adults, on the other. We say that this would be a retrograde step and that it should be opposed. I would add that of the measures that are proposed in the amendments, those sanctioning the use of force against 16 year-olds—to bring them to sentencing hearings against their will—would be particularly egregious and potentially very damaging.

17:00

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by reassuring your Lordships’ House that an attendance order can be made in respect of all offenders, including children. Most children are not tried in the Crown Court; they are tried in the youth court, even for serious offences. It is very rare for children of this age to appear in the Crown Court. If they do, an attendance order for their sentencing hearing can be made. The only difference is that force will not be used to get those children to court. The reason is that current operational policy, informed by the Taylor review of 2020, restricts the use of force on children. Domestic policy is also informed by the UK Government’s signatory status to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We have committed to complying with its duties under the convention. During the debate a week ago in your Lordships’ House on the age of criminal responsibility, I said that this Government recognise that children in the youth justice system can be some of our most vulnerable citizens. Many of them are themselves victims of neglect and abuse, at the very least, and there is a disproportionate occurrence of special educational needs and neurodivergence in this cohort.

While we acknowledge that some children have committed very serious crimes for which they must be punished, this Government do not treat them merely as small adults. We have devised a separate but related regime for them. Where a child fails to attend court, or is disruptive once there, that may be treated as a contempt of court, but the maximum penalty is a fine, with the court taking into account limited means and making relevant arrangements for younger children. Lowering the threshold from 18 to 16 would cut across that safeguarding architecture. The Government’s view is that the strongest coercive path should be reserved for adults, where the legal, operational and ethical framework properly supports their use. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendments.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their measured observations on these proposed amendments. There is broad agreement across the House that attendance at sentencing is about accountability, about dignity for victims and about respect for the court. Refusal to attend sentencing has rightly been described by Ministers as a final insult to victims and families. The question before the House, then, is not whether the principle is right but to whom it should be applied.

These provisions are about ensuring that offenders confront the consequences of their actions, allowing victims to see justice done and hear sentencing remarks. They also uphold the authority and integrity of the court.

We are dealing with a situation in which 16 and 17 year-olds find themselves prosecuted in the Crown Court for serious offences, including murder, in respect of which they receive long custodial sentences. A 16 year-old can be convicted of murder or serious violence; that same 16 year-old would face no statutory obligation to attend their own sentencing hearing. Accountability cannot logically begin at conviction, however, and then disappear at sentencing. From a victim’s perspective, the same harm emerges regardless of whether an offender is 16, 17 or 18 years of age. The distress caused when an offender refuses to attend sentencing does not diminish by virtue of their age.

There is also the wider policy context that I mentioned before, which is that we now treat 16 year-olds, in essence, as adults in respect both of the proposal that they should be able to vote and of the fact that they can marry and can join the Armed Forces, and in respect of their wider social and political autonomy.

These amendments do not impact on the youth justice system. They do not remove judicial discretion. The courts will always retain discretion and take account of the welfare, capacity and safeguarding of 16 year-olds. In these circumstances, it respectfully appears to us that this proposal does not undermine Clauses 1 and 2, but rather seeks to strengthen them for the benefit of victims: someone whose conduct is serious enough to warrant Crown Court sentencing should not be shielded from accountability at the point of sentencing. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Amendments 6 and 7 not moved.

Clause 1 agreed.

Clause 2: Power to compel attendance at sentencing hearing: armed forces

Amendments 8 to 12 not moved.

Clause 2 agreed.

Clause 3: Restricting parental responsibility of certain sex offenders

Amendment 13

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

13: Clause 3, page 5, line 40, leave out from “(“the offender”)” to end of line 1 on page 6 and insert “for any sexual offence in relation to children, including online offences”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to probe whether the threshold of four years to trigger the restrictions in clause 3 should be lowered

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 13 and the other amendments in this group look at the arrangements set out in Clause 3 on how courts should manage the difficult issue of the rights of a person with parental responsibility who is a convicted child sex offender. The range of proposals, and indeed my Amendment 13, are probing at what point being a convicted child sex offender must take priority over the rights that a child sex offender may have as a parent himself or herself—although it is usually a man. A range of proposals in Amendments 14 and 22 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, argue for any sexual offence, which is broadly what we are arguing too, and Amendments 15, 19 and 27 from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, argue for a conviction of more than six months. The Government, of course, start at the point of four years and above. There are real tensions here, and I am particularly looking forward to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who with his practical experience can help us non-lawyers bridge the differing priorities of having parental responsibility and the role of the family court versus the criminal court. This is where I want to start.

I am pleased that the Government recognise, in Clause 3, that we should have a clearer position on when convicted child sex abusers lose their parental rights. It has been iniquitous that parental rights have trumped the safeguarding of children, even when the person with parental rights has been convicted of CSA, child sexual abuse, including, astonishingly, of their own child or stepchild. The charity We Stand and the Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman, have long campaigned to protect children from an abuser with parental responsibility and I thank them for their briefings. It is extraordinary that a parent convicted of raping their child has been able to retain access to and decision-making for that child even when they are in prison. There is absolutely no doubt that this has caused other parents and family members much distress, and often considerable expense when they have been to the family court to ask for access to be stopped, so we on these Benches welcome Clause 3 as a starting point. However, we are not convinced that it is quite strong enough.

One example is that the serious sexual offences listed in proposed new Schedule ZA1 to the Children Act 1989 include both indecent imagery offences and contact offences. Imagery offences have a minimum sentence of a community order, and this means that it could be argued that a Section 3 serious offence can be triggered at any sentencing threshold. However, the majority of sentences for indecent imagery tend to fall between three months and one year. Sentencing guidelines for contact offences start at a minimum of one year, so that would exclude these offenders under the Government’s proposals.

That is why Amendment 13 includes all convicted child sexual abusers. This is not about punishment of the offender; it is about protecting all children. We know from research that most child sex abuse takes place in the family environment and therefore that those children are at the highest risk from the offender. We Stand told us that research from the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse shows that natural parents are the highest-offending group in intra-familial child sex abuse, which accounts for over two-thirds of offences. As a result, the children of convicted child sex offenders are already at the most risk.

A non-abusing or protective parent has a legal duty to protect their child from any child sex offender and any level of offending. I personally saw, in a case some years ago, how hard it can be for a non-abusing parent to protect their child when they also have to fight the family court’s assumption about the rights of the other parent, even one who is a convicted child sex abuse offender, because that trumps the offence. We know that the protective parent will often have little or no legal aid to fight to protect their children, including having no right to know where the offender is. This means that papers cannot be served. They also have no right to any information about the offender’s rehabilitational risk assessments, and that is also extraordinary. How can they comment on them or ask for assessments to be made? They are the ones looking after the children. Another problem is the limited timeframe on protective orders, such as prohibited steps orders, and, worse, no powers of arrest if these orders are breached by the offender. One consequence of this is that it makes no sense at all.

Extraordinarily, the offender has the right to make multiple applications to vary or overturn protective orders and to make repeated requests for contact with the children. In households where there has also been coercive control and domestic abuse, these repeated requests continue that abuse. Too often, the family courts see it only through the eyes of the offending parent trying to assert their rights. Section 91(14) of the Children Act is the basis for that.

We Stand notes that the basis of the Children Act 1989, and more recent primary legislation that has not yet been repealed, states that the involvement of a parent in a child’s life is linked to the furthering of the welfare of a child. This means that judges and other authorities, such as social services and Cafcass, are forced into a legal anomaly. They must balance the potential harm to a child from a convicted sex offender and parent with legislation stating that both parents’ involvement in the child’s life furthers the welfare of that child. This leads to inconsistent outcomes. Even if the presumption is repealed, this fundamental belief is still enshrined in the introduction and guidance to the Children Act. Children of the CSA parent are often at greater risk than other children who are automatically protected by existing criminal restrictions, such as sexual harm prevention orders and registration requirements.

Other protective parental concerns include non-molestation orders granted by courts, often for very short durations—six months or a year—so they are not an alternative to prohibited steps orders. They have to defend themselves in a family court to counter allegations made by the offender, often including parental alienation, even after a CSA conviction. What is worse, the nature of the courts means that they often end up in a revolving door and are in and out of the family court for years, which has emotional and financial consequences for them, and the fact of the CSA conviction never changes. That leads to how the family court might think that parental responsibility being exercised by the offender parent is realistic; surely it is not.

Research shows that those guilty of online and non-penetrative offences are at just as high risk of reoffending against their own children. This is important, and the reason why Amendment 13 has reduced the bar from a four-year sentence to any CSA conviction. Surely, for safeguarding reasons, now is the time to change the legal responsibility to the offending parent having to prove why they are safe to exercise that parental responsibility, through rehabilitation courses and often assessment by professionals.

The position of the court must start with the assumption of the protection of the child, not with the rights of the offender parent. That is why all convicted child sex offenders with parental responsibilities should have a prohibited steps order for each child at the time of their conviction. The PSO should have a penal notice attached to it to prevent breaches, and a PSO is useless if it does not have the power of arrest if there is a safeguarding issue. Because many protective parents and their families are in a living hell, it would be good if the legislation can be retrospective, or there should be specific guidance to the family court that the protective parents are to be assumed to have overriding parental responsibility.

17:15

Amendment 19 in this group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, proposes a position between Amendment 13 and the clause that the arrangements regarding review and reduction of parental responsibility for a CSA offender should be a sentence of six months or more. I look forward to hearing his arguments for this, because it might be the halfway house that is helpful to both sides.

I have signed Amendment 34, also from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on extending Jade’s law. During the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Bill, we in your Lordships’ House debated extending Jade’s law to ensure that, when an offender is convicted of the murder or voluntary manslaughter of a person with whom they have shared parental responsibility, that responsibility is automatically suspended on sentencing. Jade Ward was a mother who was murdered by her former partner, leaving behind four children. He was sentenced to 25 years but was allowed to continue his parental responsibility. Despite the Victims and Prisoners Act coming into force in May 2024, Section 18 on Jade’s law has not been commenced, and we are struggling to understand why. I hope the Minister will explain—or even better, tell us—that it will be commenced. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, would go further, and we support him in this. I beg to move.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I have four amendments in this group, three of which, like that just proposed powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seek to explore the thinking behind the four-year minimum prison sentence required by Clause 3 to trigger the duty of the Crown Court to make a prohibited steps order to restrict the offender’s parental responsibility. My Amendments 15 and 19 would lower the minimum sentence required to one of more than six months.

Before I develop the argument a little further, I will comment on a couple of points made by the noble Baroness. Much of what she said, I entirely agree with, but please let us not talk about parental rights. The central reform of the Children Act 1989 was to substitute for the concept of parental rights the concept of parental responsibility, which is why it appears in the Bill and has been part of our law for a long time. As I have already said, it replaced the reference to rights as determining who had authority over aspects of the child’s life or upbringing. The other point I am afraid I take issue with is her suggestion that, in too many cases, the court sees matters only through the eyes of the parent who is seeking to assert his rights or responsibilities. That, I suggest, is not correct, and it is certainly not my experience of how the family courts work.

Returning to the substance of these amendments, it is clearly difficult to determine where to draw the line in such cases, bearing in mind that a convicted person whose sentence does not cross that line is still quite liable to have any parental responsibility restricted by the family court if it cannot be done in the Crown Court. During debates in another place, the logic of the four-year minimum sentence was questioned. The Minister there argued that the four-year threshold provided a predetermined marker of seriousness for cases in which the restriction of parental responsibility by the Crown Court is to happen automatically.

The Minister said that the Government wanted to minimise the strain placed on the family court. There is force in those points at a practical level. As I suggested at Second Reading, one reason to draw the line at four years is to make best use of the resources, expertise and powers of both the criminal and the family court respectively, without overburdening either. However, one disadvantage of leaving too many of these cases to the family court is that it would deprive the mother and other family members of the benefit of the automatic suspension of parental responsibility, which the Bill provides. Indeed, it would require those who want to restrict parental responsibility to make their own applications to the family court, possibly without legal assistance, as the noble Baroness has indicated.

It is possible, by use of Ministry of Justice statistics for 2023, to get some approximation of the cases involved, which would give some idea of the number of offenders and the number of children who would be affected. In this respect, I am indebted to Amanda Newby, associate professor at Northumbria University, for her research and expert assistance on this and other amendments. In 2023, in England and Wales, there were 1,924 cases of serious sexual abuse, where an immediate prison sentence of between four and 15 years was imposed, in addition to which there were 44 sentences of life imprisonment. In the same year, there were some 1,093 cases involving serious child sexual abuse, where an immediate prison sentence of more than six months and less than four years was imposed. Only 59 such offenders were sentenced to six months or less.

Those statistics all involve adult offenders. It is clearly not possible to ascertain how many of those held parental responsibility for a child at the time of sentencing, but I suggest that it could have been considerably lower. On that basis, moving the threshold down to more than six months’ imprisonment would or could increase the number of potential cases by approximately 1,000 annually—although I repeat that many of those probably would not hold parental responsibility. That likely increase does show that a significant number of children would not be protected under the Bill if the threshold is not lowered. That is indeed an argument for lowering the threshold, as I hope I have indicated.

Amendment 27, in my name, perhaps illustrates some of the difficulties in drawing lines. The offence of sexual communication with a child under Section 15A of the 2003 Act is not covered by the Bill as presently drafted, because the maximum sentence for that offence is two years. That was an offence added in 2015 to the 2003 Act to cover a specific form of sexually motivated grooming, and it might now be thought that it should be covered by the provisions of this Bill. Essentially, it should be accepted that one real difficulty is that the Crown Court, under the Bill, is going to be required to make orders under the Children Act for which the family court is generally the more appropriate forum. Further, the Bill does not contain any provision for mandatory review by the family court, as was provided under Section 18 of the Victims and Prisoners Act, known as Jade’s law. In the family court, the other parent would have the status of a party and could be represented, and that court would have access to the relevant family history and to evidence in the form of professional welfare and other reports if required. In other words, quite frankly, there are compelling arguments either way.

Amendment 34 is in my name and has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It does not concern sexual offences but, rather, seeks to extend what is now known as Jade’s law, which was enacted under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. As the noble Baroness reminded us, Section 18 restricts parental responsibility where one parent kills the other and is convicted of murder or a specific category of manslaughter. At the suggestion of the Victims’ Commissioner, we seek to amend that provision to include the attempted murder by one parent of the other.

I do not recall that being suggested when the 2024 Act passed through Parliament—the omission of attempted murder may have been an oversight—but there was some caution when, at various stages, suggestions of extending Jade’s law to other offences of violence were ventilated. Be that as it may, I submit that it is clearly appropriate to include attempted murder involving the most extreme form of non-fatal assault. To do so would relieve the victim from the obligation to seek the perpetrator’s agreement on decisions concerning the child and, if agreement is not forthcoming, from having to apply to the court.

The Victims’ Commissioner has become aware of the concerns of survivors of attempted murder when the offender has retained parental responsibility over their children. Without giving details, I had to deal with a case where the convicted parent used his status to obstruct the other parent, clearly motivated only by a desire for revenge, causing the other parent further distress and expense, as well as an inescapable fear of what he might try to do when released from prison. People in that position should be relieved and shielded from having to go to court unless absolutely necessary to do so.

Finally, I join the noble Baroness in mentioning the commencement of Section 18—Jade’s law. It is not retrospective and has yet to be brought into force, so the reality is that nobody has yet benefited from it. Can the Minister say when it will be put into effect?

I do not want to trespass on arguments to be advanced on other amendments, but I share the curiosity about the provisions in the Bill covering what would happen in the event of an acquittal on appeal or when a sentence is reduced on appeal. To that I add the question of whether prohibited steps could be made where a sentence is increased on appeal or under the unduly lenient sentence scheme to one of more than four years.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on Amendment 34. As they mentioned, the Victims’ Commissioner has been approached by a variety of individuals who survived attempted murder by their other half or partner. In those cases, they face a dilemma. In some cases, the difference between being murdered or not is a matter of an ambulance arriving two minutes earlier and managing to stop a murder attempt, whereas if it arrived two minutes later that person might have died. Alternatively, it might be a matter of a neighbour hearing what was going on and making a telephone call so that the authorities arrive in time. It is a very narrow difference, frankly, as to whether somebody ends up dead or injured but alive.

In some of those instances, the perpetrator, who has gone to prison, retains parental responsibility but may not know that. The surviving partner has a dilemma: if they bring it to the attention of the partner who is in prison and he is unaware of those rights, he may be tempted to try to use them to disrupt the life of the surviving partner. I do not think that anybody would wish that to happen.

In the instance that a survivor feels strongly enough that they want to try to go through the courts to have the parental responsibility of the person who tried to kill them stripped away, the onus is on the survivor to go through the family courts. That can be quite a lengthy and complicated process. It is often made more difficult because the quality and flow of relevant information between the criminal court, which sends the attempted murderer to prison, and the family court is not always as open and as clear as it might be.

For all those reasons, I hope that, when she comes to reply, the Minister can clarify the Government’s view on this and, in particular, why commencement of the original Jade’s law seems to have been delayed. What is holding it up? How quickly can we expect it to be put into operation?

17:30

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

As my noble friend will recall, I raised this issue at Second Reading. I support Amendment 14, in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and Amendment 15, in the name of my learned friend, if I may refer to him in those terms, the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I add that I have sympathy towards the drafting of Amendment 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

As I say quite frequently in this House—the issue of sexual offending arose in the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and I said it then and I repeat it now—sexual offences in the family environment are appalling. The offence of a father—it is often the father, rather than the mother—sexually attacking, which I think is the right word, his own son or daughter, who are as young as 14 years-old, is absolutely appalling. It is beyond most of our comprehension that any father would do that—it is certainly beyond my comprehension.

The important thing here is the value of the prohibited steps order made in the family court, because that can be carefully fashioned to the particular needs of a family. Therefore, it is welcome that the family court has this provision. The use of this prohibited steps order is most valuable for the protection of children and spouses in the family.

I am a little puzzled by the provision in Clause 3, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to reply to this, under which it is obligatory, within the circumstances set out, for a prohibited steps order to be made. I would be grateful for guidance—I am sorry I have not researched this—on whether the power to make a prohibited steps order is a matter of discretion by the Crown Court, or whether it is the situation that a prohibited steps order can be brought into force only under the drafting of Clause 3? I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could answer that.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I will make a few observations. No one can doubt the revulsion towards sexual offenders who have attacked their own children or have the potential to do so, but there are two practical points that we must bear in mind.

First, the criminal justice system and the criminal courts, and the family justice system and the family courts, have been starved of resources by both Governments—there is no doubt about that. When sentence lengths are increased by both parties, we end up with a situation in the prisons that is a crisis. In deciding what orders to make in this kind of case, it is of paramount importance to have regard to the resource implications. It is no use saying that there is money for this. There is not. The courts system is starved, and the result of that is victims suffering in a whole host of other cases by the tremendous backlog. Both this Government and the last Government are responsible for the position into which the courts have been placed. When we look at this, please have regard to resources.

The second point, a point made by the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Meston, is that it is important that we get correct the balance as to what the Crown Court is to do and what the family court is to do. I am not sure, having listened to this debate, that that is a matter that has been sufficiently addressed. The one thing you cannot have—because it is a waste of resources and does not deploy expertise correctly—is the lines not clearly drawn. I hope very much that, before this comes back, there will be the opportunity for those who have day-to-day responsibility in the judiciary and the Courts Service, together with the ministry, to be sure that we have got the most effective and efficient use of resources and the right kind of drawing the line. It is very difficult, but we cannot ignore the bankrupt state of the courts. It is a regrettable fact, and we must not make the mistake we have made in relation to sentencing.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for organising my notes here—I have been listening hard. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this group, which concerns the operation of Clause 3 and the use of prohibited steps orders for the safeguarding of children where a parent or individual with parental responsibility has been convicted of serious sexual offending. The group rightly raises profound questions about thresholds, discretion, safeguards and consistency, and indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has pointed out, the balance between the two wings of the court system—the family and the criminal courts. I thank noble Lords for their searching and constructive contributions to this debate, all of which are motivated by a shared desire to protect children from harm.

I begin with Amendment 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, Amendment 14, in my name, and Amendments 15 and 19, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. All these amendments concern and probe the four-year custodial threshold that currently triggers the duty on the Crown Court to consider making a prohibited steps order. I thank the Government at the outset for the constructive manner in which they have already engaged with the clause. They accepted, during the Bill’s passage through the other place, that the original scope of Clause 3 was too narrow. As drafted on introduction, it applied only where the offender had committed sexual abuse against their own child. Following sustained concern, the Government rightly expanded that clause, so that it applies where the offender has abused any child. That change was welcome and necessary.

However, while the class of victims has been widened, the custodial threshold remains set at four years. It is here that noble Lords have expressed deep unease. A four-year sentence is an extremely high bar. There are numerous sexual offences involving children that may result in sentences well below four years yet would plainly justify the imposition of a prohibited steps order to safeguard a child, such as sexual communication with a child, causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, certain forms of indecent assault or online grooming behaviours. These may, depending on the facts, attract sentences of significantly less than four years. Yet it would be surprising to suggest that an individual convicted of such conduct should automatically fall outside the scope of a safeguarding measure which has been designed to prevent them from exercising parental responsibility without scrutiny.

I think all noble Lords accept that there is a balancing exercise here. The state should not intervene lightly in family life. We must be careful not to construct a regime which is too blunt and results in unnecessary or disproportionate separation of children from parents. However, equally, Clause 3 as drafted risks being too narrowly drawn and failing to engage precisely in those cases where concern is most acute. The current threshold risks excluding serious and dangerous individuals because the custodial term imposed falls short of an arbitrary figure. We look to the Minister to explain why four years was chosen, what evidence underpins that decision and why a lower threshold or an offence-based approach was not chosen.

Amendments 22 and 27 raise an issue of rather different but also troubling nature—the power of the Secretary of State by regulation to amend the list of offences to which Clause 3 applies. As drafted, that power is not limited to expansion. It allows the list to be amended. That necessarily includes the possibility of reduction. It is difficult to conceive of a principled reason why a future Government would wish to remove sexual offences from the scope of a safeguarding provision of this kind. That prospect should concern the whole House. We accept the need for flexibility. The criminal law evolves. New offences may be created, particularly in the online sphere, as was illustrated by the recent Grok AI scandal and by non-consensual deepfakes of women and children in particular.

I recognise that Parliament cannot foresee every future risk. Recent controversies involving emerging technologies only underline that reality. It is therefore sensible that Ministers should have the power to expand the list where gaps emerge. However, it is not at all clear why the power should run in the opposite direction. Our Amendment 22 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State would be able only to expand the list of relevant offences rather than shrink it. Opposition to what is modest drafting would raise serious questions about the Government’s intentions. We hope that the Minister will reflect carefully on that.

In that context, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for Amendment 27, which would add Section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, on sexual communication with a child, to the schedule. This offence criminalises the deliberate sexualised communication with a child for the purpose of sexual gratification. A technology-enabled form of abuse can be profoundly harmful. It often forms part of a wider pattern of grooming. Its inclusion in the schedule would materially strengthen the safeguarding framework, particularly if the threshold under Clause 3 were to be revisited.

Finally, Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, seeks to extend Jade’s law to cover attempted murder. This amendment raises an important principle. While the law recognises that certain conduct is so grave that parental responsibility should be curtailed automatically, it is difficult to see why the distinction between murder and attempted murder should be a point of difference, particularly given the catastrophic harm that attempted murder can cause.

This has been a thoughtful and serious debate. The amendments in this group are aimed at strengthening Clause 3 to protect children from harm while respecting the practical policy constraints which the Government face. We have no doubt that the Minister will engage constructively with the issues raised and provide the House with the assurances and explanations that these amendments request.

17:45

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government understand that the aim of this group of amendments is to ensure that the children, who are at the heart of these cases, are protected. We share that objective, but these amendments may cause more problems than they are intended to solve. The amendments are all intended to be made to legislation, either proposed or already enacted, which deals with slightly different situations—convictions for certain serious sexual offences, children conceived as a result of rape and where one parent has been convicted of the murder of the other. However, all these pieces of proposed or enacted legislation have one thing in common. They are not intended to be additional punishments or to replicate—far less, replace—the experience and expertise of the family court. They are intended to protect children who are caught up in these very serious situations as quickly as possible.

In each of these three situations, the Government have identified issues in which the crime for which the relevant person has been sentenced is so serious, with them usually serving a long prison sentence, that it is relatively straightforward to conclude that a prohibited steps order will be in the best interests of the child. These proposals allow the Crown Court judge automatically to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility at the time of sentence. At the moment, following sentence the remaining parent must apply to the family court to do the same thing, but this inevitably takes time and causes distress.

It is known that some perpetrators use their parental responsibility to continue to exercise control, even though they are behind bars. In relation to a parent serving a life sentence for the murder of the other parent, it is axiomatic that there will be no other parent to make the application. What this legislation does not do is automatically restrict the exercise of parental responsibility in all cases forever. The defendant who has had it restricted can apply to the family court to have it restored. It does put the onus on them to do so. These provisions merely provide a quick and convenient method of protecting children and victims. However, restricting the exercise of parental responsibility is an extremely serious thing to do. For this reason, the Government must give serious consideration to how to balance the competing principles that are involved.

Against this background, I turn to Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 22 and 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. They seek to broaden the offences that are within the scope of this measure and reduce the minimum sentencing threshold from four years. The Government believe that any individual who poses a serious risk to children should not be able to exercise their parental responsibility. For the avoidance of doubt, I make it clear that the Government’s view is that parents do not have rights. The only rights are those of the child.

However, to create a power allowing the automatic restriction at the point of sentence, we must be sure that to do so would be in the best interest of the child. That is why we have set the threshold at sentences of four years’ imprisonment. In our judgment, if the behaviour of the defendant is sufficiently serious to warrant a sentence of four years or more, it is safe to assume that it would be right to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility. We have set it at four years because this is already a threshold for seriousness used for other purposes in criminal sentencing. For certain offences, including sexual offences, an offender who is sentenced to four or more years serves two-thirds rather than a half of their sentence in prison. It already recognises the particular seriousness.

This pre-existing legislative provision is why we have chosen four years as the indicator of seriousness. If we were to lower the four-year threshold, we could risk moving away from where we can be sure that restricting the exercise of parental responsibility will always be in the best interests of a child into territory where it is less clear. Equally, we must ensure that these measures are not in contravention of a person’s human rights. In particular, we need to ensure that any interference with a person’s right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European convention is a justifiable and proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim. We have set the threshold at four years for serious child sexual offences as we are of the view that, given the risk of harm to children, this intervention is justified.

That is not to say that the parental responsibility of offenders who have committed sexual offences, whether against their own child or someone else’s, but have received a sentence of less than four years, cannot be restricted. In those cases, an application can still be made to the family court, which is best placed to consider all circumstances, including what is in the best interests of the child.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised a number of issues about shortcomings in the family court. With the greatest of respect to her, this is perhaps not the time and place to expand on those, though they are of course serious points. As I think the noble Baroness knows, I have responsibility for family justice policy within my department, so these are issues that perhaps she and I can discuss on another occasion.

When we met, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, asked about appeals, and it has been raised again today. I promised him a reply. In cases where there is a successful appeal and an offender is acquitted or the sentence is reduced below four years, the Bill provides a clear process for the review of the prohibited steps order. The relevant local authority will be under a duty to make an application within a very short time to the family court, so that the family court can consider, exercising its expertise and experience, whether the prohibited steps order imposed by the Crown Court should be varied or discharged.

I turn now to Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. The offence of having sexual communications with a child carries a maximum sentence of two years imprisonment, so this could not be added to the list unless the requirement of a four-year minimum sentence were removed.

I turn now to Amendment 34 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, put her name and has spoken. This would expand Jade’s law, which provides for the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility in cases where one parent kills the other. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness wish to amend the legislation so that it includes cases of attempted murder. I am grateful for being told that that was at the suggestion of the Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman, for whom I have the utmost respect.

I entirely recognise that, in order to be convicted of attempted murder, what the defendant has done will have been truly horrific—after all, a defendant can be convicted of this only if they had the intention actually to kill—and nothing I say is intended to minimise that. But I repeat what I said earlier. The automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility is not intended to punish the defendant, far less to act as a mark of societal disapproval. It is about children. I repeat that Parliament must be satisfied that restricting the exercise of parental responsibility will be in a child’s best interests.

The sad but determining factor in these killing cases is that the child is going to have only one parent left, and that parent will usually be serving a life sentence. There is no other comparable situation. Where the defendant did not succeed in murdering the other parent, although they intended to do so, they will usually be serving a long sentence, but there will be a surviving parent. In most cases, the surviving parent will be able to make an application to the family court if one is felt necessary. This lessens the need for an automatic referral to the family court.

It would also be difficult to justify why, if attempted murder were included, other serious criminal offences such as Section 18 wounding, which also carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, were not. Your Lordships should also be aware that adding a further measure into Jade’s law at this point will risk delaying its implementation, which has already taken a lot longer than the Government would have wished.

I have been asked for the reasons for that, and I will give them as quickly as I am able to. It is a complicated situation, but this is a unique piece of legislation. There is no existing process that we can import or learn from. There has been significant engagement with various partners that will be involved in the delivery of Jade’s law: local authorities; the Crown Prosecution Service; the National Police Chiefs’ Council; and His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service. The Government also have to make changes to criminal and family procedure rules, and we also have to develop broader guidance for practitioners and families. But we are on it. We must bring Jade’s law into force as soon as possible to protect the children who need it most. We must be cautious about doing anything at this stage that could extend this process.

As with the measures we are bringing in through this Bill, officials are developing a robust system to measure how Jade’s law works in practice. We want to understand how it works in practice, and from there we can properly consider whether other changes can be made to it. For all these reasons, I invite your Lordships not to press these amendments.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

If I understood my noble friend correctly, the protected steps order can be made only if Clause 3 is activated, and there is no discretion in the Crown Court to make a prohibited steps order in other circumstances, particularly where the offence did not, as drafted, carry a four-year imprisonment. In fact, I think my noble friend then said that parents can apply to the family court for the protected steps order. I find that rather awkward. Surely, when the Crown Court has all the facts in front of it and is in a position, therefore, to make a prohibited steps order, it should do so because it has the necessary knowledge. Of course, the prohibited steps order could be adjusted in a separate application to the family court.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The short answer to my noble friend’s question is that he is right: there is no discretion. The reason that there is no discretion is because, in fact, the Crown Court is the one court that does not have all the experience and all the knowledge—it will not have Cafcass reports or anything like that. It is simply making an automatic order when there is a certain level of seriousness that has been reached. It is for the family court to consider all the important factors in other cases about whether such an order is in the interests of the child. The Crown Court judge does not have the expertise, and it will cause delay. I have said it once before today—I may have already said it twice—the one thing the criminal courts do not need is any further delays.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken during this debate. As I said right at the start, we are looking at the entire spectrum of time as to where the responsibility for imposing these orders should start and stop, and that is anywhere between any child sexual offence and a sentence of four years.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for his comments about parental rights and responsibilities. I absolutely understand that. I am sure he also understands that, to the other parent, it often feels as though the convicted parent has more rights than their children. That is where the problems lie, and that is why there is such passion about this among those parents who are trying to make sure that their children are protected. I am also grateful to him for highlighting the data. It is important for us to remember that around 1,000 children might possibly be at risk if this goes wrong.

Just before I respond to the Minister, I want to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. Yes, the court system is starved of resources. I want to go further than he does. It is not just about looking at resources; it is about a clear plan to increase resources and ensure that duplication and anything else does not happen. But we know the court system is under real pressure, and I say to the Minister that I recognise, in the amendment that I have table, that the last thing that we would want to do is to impose further burdens on an already difficult area.

I completely understand that the Government have to balance their competing restrictions. The problem is that those of us who have tabled amendments say that four years is not the safety net that the Minister alluded to; it is too high. I wondered whether there might be any way to provide guidance to the family court that asks it to look very clearly at any child sexual offence, even if it is not a four-year sentence, so that the Crown Court is not burdened with the responsibilities of looking at it in the way that the family court would.

18:00

I turn to Jade’s law. The Minister said again that an automatic restriction is not intended as a punishment. Again, the burden here is upon the victim—the nearly murdered parent. Going beyond that, all the amendments in this group address the burden of the other parent having to take on the family court system at a time when they have been through a really traumatic period after the investigation, the court proceedings and the conviction of their other half for a very serious offence. We need to find a way to crack that.

If the Government are not prepared to give way on four years, some of the other issues that the parents face must be resolved more easily than them having to start an entirely new battle on the day that the offender starts a prison sentence. I would be very grateful if the Minister was prepared to have a meeting about this. In the meantime, I wish to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Amendments 14 and 15 not moved.

Amendment 16

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

16: Clause 3, page 6, line 20, after “justice” insert “or that it would not be in the child’s best interests”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable the Crown Court to take into account the best interests of the relevant child as well as the interests of justice when deciding whether to make an order.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendments 16, 25 28 and 33 arise from the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member. The Joint Committee has written to the Ministry of Justice on a number of occasions regarding these issues and has so far not met with a satisfactory response. I shall listen very carefully to what the Minister says on these points.

As the Bill stands, the Crown Court must make a prohibited steps order after sentencing. It is right that an offender should not be able to exercise parental responsibility, but there should be safeguards in the Bill to ensure that children do not suffer as a result, especially if the effect of the order is that there is no one who can exercise parental responsibility.

On Amendments 16 and 28 in my name, unlike the family court, the Crown Court would have limited discretion about how best to protect the interests of affected children, as we heard identified by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in the previous group. Under the Bill, the Crown Court’s main discretion is that it must not make an order if

“it appears to the Crown Court that it would not be in the interests of justice to do so”—

a well-hallowed phrase in legislation that noble Lords will find in Clause 3(4)(c).

In this context, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase—in particular, whether it would allow the court to consider the interests of the affected children or just of the offender. The Joint Committee wrote to the Minister asking for clarification as to whether the effect of the Human Rights Act would be that the Court would be able to consider the interests of the child when making the order. The Minister replied that the court would have to act compatibly with the ECHR. In fact, she said:

“Under our existing measure, the Crown Court will be able to consider all of the information available to it, as part of the criminal proceedings, when deciding whether to exercise the interests of justice test (and in doing so, will be bound to act compatibly with the Convention Rights given section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998)”.


As noble Lords can see, that is an answer that, I fear, lacks clarity.

Amendments 16 and 28 would provide clarity on this point. They would ensure that the Crown Court was able to get information about the children’s circumstances and itself consider the implications for the children before making an order. They would simply append, after

“in the interests of justice”,

the words

“or that it would not be in the child’s best interests”

to make the prohibited steps order.

On Amendments 25 and 33, there would be particular concerns if the effect of such an order was that no one was able to exercise parental responsibility for a child. In Jade’s law, as we heard in the previous group, there is an attempt to address this by requiring the relevant local authority to apply to the family court immediately after the Crown Court has made its order. We can see that in new Section 10B(2) of the Children Act 1989 in Section 18 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.

Amendments 25 and 33 are carefully modelled on that provision in the 2024 Act. They would impose the same requirement on the local authority if an order under the new provisions had the effect that there was no one who could exercise parental responsibility for the child. In correspondence with the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Minister said that such a provision was appropriate in the case of Jade’s law, where one parent had killed the other, because in those cases there would almost always be no one with parental responsibility. But in the cases covered by the Bill, in contrast, there might or there might not be. The Minister said that the local authority would be aware if the child might be left in this position and would be able to take appropriate action.

That is a very unsatisfactory answer. There can be no confidence that the local authority will simply be aware of this scenario and there would be no detriment to making it clear in the Bill. Relying entirely on a local authority’s discretion invites the risk that a child is left without someone with parental responsibility and falls between the gaps.

These amendments would mean that the local authority would be under a duty to apply to the family court in such cases in exactly the same form as it would under Jade’s law. The Minister said in correspondence that local authorities would always know the circumstances of a particular case, so the Government should agree, and have already agreed in principle, that it would be workable for the Bill to impose a duty on them. There is no good reason for these amendments not to be accepted. I beg to move.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I begin by commenting on two parts of the noble Lord’s amendments. I find it difficult to understand how his Amendment 16 would work in practice. These orders have to be made at the point of sentencing; they cannot come later on as an afterthought or at a later hearing. More importantly, I question how the Crown Court would be in a position to assess what is or is not in the interests of the child, and, certainly, how the Crown Court could do it without a report that typically, in the family court, might be available from Cafcass or a local authority.

Moreover, what would the Crown Court do if the suggestion of not making the order to remove or restrict parental responsibility is strongly opposed by the other parent, as would quite likely be? That other parent, certainly in the Crown Court, would not have party status and would probably not have legal representation.

On the face of it, the Crown Court might face the prospect of a contested hearing on the question of whether to restrict parental responsibility. Clearly, that is much better dealt with by the family court in the appropriate way. Having said that, I of course understand the force of the noble Lord’s Amendment 33, which seems to present a sensible solution to a potentially difficult problem.

I move briefly to my amendments in this group. They are procedural and evidential amendments. Amendment 23 would provide for the Crown Court that is required to make the prohibited steps order to be supplied with all necessary information to make the order, enabling it to make the order in appropriate terms, covering all the children to whom it might apply and enabling it to be provided to the other parent and others holding parental responsibility. As it appears from the very length of Amendment 23, parental responsibility can be acquired by a number of different people in a considerable range of situations. It almost goes without saying that the convicted offender may not be a reliable source of information about the children for whom he has parental responsibility, or the basis on which he might hold it. The Crown Court therefore cannot be expected simply to make a blanket, generic order referring to all or any children for whom the defendant holds or might hold parental responsibility. That would be of little use to anyone. The court therefore has to be in a position at the point of sentencing to make an order that should refer to specified children. For that, accurate and reliable information should be provided. As the amendment suggests, that would be best done by the Probation Service as part of the pre-sentence report.

Once that order has been made, it is also important that those who are affected by the order are notified of it. Hence, Amendment 17 would provide for notification by the Crown Court to the relevant local authority and the provision of a copy of the order, with a duty on the local authority to convey that information by onward notification to all persons who hold parental responsibility for the child or children concerned. Clearly, they need to know what has been ordered and to understand the effect of it. The local authority is best placed to provide that information.

Finally, Amendment 29 would ensure that in rape cases the victim is promptly and properly informed that the order has been made, with an obligation on the court to notify the relevant local authority within seven days of the order being made and an obligation on that local authority within 14 days thereafter to notify the victim of rape. Without this, there is a risk that the other parent or holder of parental responsibility for the child or children concerned, and the victim of the rape, are not made aware of the order or of its implications. They may be aware if they attend a sentencing hearing, but that is not certain. In any event, a local authority, particularly one involved with the family, would be best able to explain the effect of the prohibited steps order, its duration and other implications.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

I shall again make one very brief observation. It is obvious that what is to be provided is a short, speedy, summary step to protect whatever range of offence is decided on. I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that the Crown Court cannot be the appropriate place to start debating what is in the interests of the child. We need to see whether a form of order can be devised, and an exchange of information put forward, that does not impinge on resources, say for the Probation Service, which is probably going to be in a worse position than the courts, that can give the speedy remedy that is needed simply and transfer, for the making of the final order, to the family court, which is obviously the right place to do it. I am not sure we need all these complicated pieces of legislation to do that: rather, it should be something probably very much simpler, with a power for the Minister to make regulations once a proper, simple procedure has been worked out. I fear we are getting ourselves into a degree of complexity that is not desirable.

18:15

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a good and fairly brief debate. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. Our Benches have some concerns with the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for exactly the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, have mentioned. I think perhaps the best way of summing the debate up is to say that these Benches are completely in agreement with the common-sense speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. We are trying to resolve a problem that should not be resolved by legislation. It should not be in the Bill. This is about how two different courts work and about ensuring that the information flow works. The fact that we are laying amendments demonstrates that there are failures in the system. The Minister has the unfortunate role of trying to resolve that problem. We in this House cannot always legislate against the detail. However, I hope the Minister has heard the real concerns around this Committee.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions that have been made. I shall begin with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in his amendments, which seek to clarify what is meant by, for example, the “relevant local authority” in this Bill, as well as to put extra provisions in place concerning parental responsibility. We support the aim behind Amendment 17 that others with parental responsibility for the child in question are properly and, indeed, promptly informed if a prohibited steps order is made against an offender. These are clearly well-intentioned amendments that highlight that certain aspects of the Bill need to be thought through a little more carefully and clarified. I hope that the Minister will provide assurances about how that can be achieved.

I also thank my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth for bringing forward his amendments, which would allow the Crime Court to take into account not only the interests of justice but the best interests of the child when deciding whether to make a prohibited steps order. On these amendments, we are not at this stage able to adopt a settled position. That is not because the underlying principle is unsound, but because further clarification is required from the Minister. As drafted, one of the exemptions to the making of a prohibited steps order is where it would not be in the interests of justice to do so, but that, as has been observed, is a broad and somewhat opaque formulation. We would be grateful if the Minister could explain what circumstances the Government envisage falling within that exemption. In particular, can the Minister offer examples of cases in which it would genuinely be in the interests of justice for a child to remain under the parental responsibility of an individual convicted of a serious sexual offence and sentenced to more than four years’ imprisonment?

These amendments would add an explicit reference to the best interests of the child. That is a familiar concept in family law, but its interaction with the existing exemption is not at all clear. I invite the Minister to clarify whether the Government consider that the child’s best interests are already subsumed within the interests of justice, or whether this amendment would materially alter the test applied by the court.

Amendments 18, 20, 24, 30, 31 and 32 in my name reflect our concerns about the drafting of Clauses 3 and 4. As drafted, both clauses state that a prohibited steps order against an offender that restricts their parental responsibility will not immediately cease to have effect if an offender is acquitted on appeal. Instead, both clauses include sections that set out a review process whereby the relevant local authority must make an application to the court for the acquitted offender. That is hardly consistent with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, referred to as a short, speedy and summary order in circumstances where there is a successful appeal.

The clauses as drafted unnecessarily complicate and confuse the issue. The law should be clear that an acquittal brings the prohibited steps order to an end. People who are found to be not guilty of an offence should not have their parental responsibility, or indeed any other rights, restricted, even on a temporary basis. That principle is straightforward and our amendments seek only to ensure that the legislation reflects that clarity. I hope that will have the support of the House, and I urge the Minister to reconsider and simplify the drafting of Clauses 3 and 4. There is no compelling reason why these review orders should be left in place for innocent citizens and then be the subject of applications by a local authority on their behalf to another division of the court.

Amendment 18 is tabled to affirm our support for the provision of Clause 3 that, where an offender only has their sentence reduced, a prohibited steps order should continue to apply. We on these Benches already have reservations over why an offender’s length of imprisonment or detention must be four years or more for parental responsibility to be restricted. I note that the amendment made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, refers to a period of six months rather than four years. Clearly, there is scope for consideration as to where the line might be drawn as a matter of policy. If a sentence of four years is reduced on appeal, we do not believe that this should result in a prohibited steps order ceasing to have effect. It is quite unlike the situation where there is an acquittal on appeal. Such an outcome could create significant uncertainty for the child for whom the offender previously had parental responsibility. Crucially, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the offender remains guilty of a serious sexual offence against the child regardless of any adjustment in the sentence. An increased risk to the child’s safety or well-being could well emerge from such a situation.

There is also the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about what happens in circumstances where a sentence is increased under the unduly lenient sentencing scheme. I invite the Government to address that point because clearly it has not been considered in the context of the present drafting of Clauses 3 and 4. For these reasons, I hope the Government will take all these amendments very seriously and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by repeating what I said in the debate about an earlier group. A prohibited steps order is not intended to be an additional punishment; rather, it is a tool devised to protect children. The aim of keeping the child safe and doing what is best for them is the central factor in every case. As I have already said, these powers are not intended to replicate, far less replace, the powers of the family court. Crown Court judges are simply not trained to make decisions about children, and they do not have the time to do so. The point has been made most powerfully by both the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. To ask the Crown Court to replicate the procedures of the family court could lead only to more time being needed to consider every case. As I have now said on at least three occasions today, the one thing the Crown Courts do not need is for cases to take longer.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

Jade’s law was brought in specifically to prevent victims having to immediately go to the family courts. Why have things changed since that principle emerged in the Victims and Prisoners Act?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

As far as the Jade’s law situation is concerned, it remains the case that it will be dealt with automatically.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

If the principle stands, why is that not also true when an offender has committed a sexual offence of a certain bar?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

We might be slightly at cross-purposes here. The question is whether the Crown Courts have the ability to consider what is in the best interests of the child rather than automatically making the order when the threshold is reached. That is the difference. As I say, the point has been made most powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. The Crown Court is simply not equipped to go that extra mile of starting to look at things like reports from experts as to what is in the best interests of the child.

I turn to Amendments 18, 20, 24, 30, 31 and 32 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. The aim of these is to ensure that a prohibited steps order made under Clauses 3 or 4 would cease to have an effect if the offender was acquitted on appeal. I repeat what I have said. This is not a punishment; it is designed to protect the child. The measures require that, following an acquittal, the relevant local authority must, in very short order, bring an application before the family court to consider whether the prohibited steps order should be upheld, varied or discharged. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, mentioned an innocent parent. This is not about the rights of parents; it is about the rights of children and protecting them. It is not a punishment and therefore it is not something that should be automatically swept away on acquittal.

We recognise the need for a quick resolution in these situations, which is why both clauses state that the application must be made by the local authority within 30 days of the acquittal. This process brings the consideration of the child’s best interests and their potentially very complex family dynamics to the correct forum, which is the family court. It will mean that in every case a judge will undertake a review of all the circumstances, including whether the original prohibited steps order has already been varied by the family court while the appeal was under consideration, or whether other related orders are in place, before deciding what should happen in the best interests of the child. The family court is the right place for this to happen because that puts the interests of the child front and centre, where they should be.

I turn to Amendments 17, 21, 23, 26 and 29 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Meston. I think we can all agree that it is vital to have clear processes for identifying the offender’s children, notifying other parental responsibility holders of a prohibited steps order, and making the victims of a rape aware when the court has made an automatic order, but the Government’s view is that primary legislation is not the best way of doing this. These matters are better suited to being addressed in guidance, where we can work closely with those responsible for delivering it to ensure that we have a process that works in practice. We do not want a system that ties practitioners to an approach that cannot evolve with their own processes and where every time we want to make a change we have to come back and amend the primary legislation.

By way of example, we are not using primary legislation to prescribe the processes as we are working to implement Jade’s law. Instead, work is taking place across government—I ran through some of the things that we are doing earlier in relation to the previous debate—and with partners to develop a process that is clear and practical and that delivers the spirit of the aims of the amendment. In the case of these provisions, we will ensure that all relevant parties, including all other parental responsibility holders, are kept informed at each stage. We will take lessons from Jade’s law when this is implemented and, where possible, work with our partners to apply the same processes here. This will allow for consistency across all legislation in this space, rather than multiple processes for the same aim, which could lead to confusion and inconsistency in application. I warmly invite your Lordships to work with the Government to make sure that we get this right. I am more than happy to meet any of your Lordships who would like to discuss those matters with me, both in my capacity as Lords Minister and as Minister responsible for family justice policy.

In relation to identifying the children of offenders, this Government have separately committed to developing a mechanism to identify children who are affected by parental imprisonment to make it easier to provide support to them. I can assure your Lordships that the Ministry of Justice is working closely with the Department for Education to determine how we can best identify all children affected and ensure that they get support to enable them to thrive, but to legislate only for children in the scope of this measure risks distracting from the broader work intended to support all children.

18:30

I turn to Amendments 16 and 28. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for raising the important issue of how we ensure that any restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility under Clauses 3 and 4 is in the best interests of the child. The defendants who will be affected by these measures have clearly demonstrated through the crimes they have committed that they are risks to children, whether that risk be physical or mental. The nature of the offences committed and the seriousness indicated by the length of the sentence allow us to be clear that the restriction in such cases is overwhelmingly likely to be in the child’s best interests. In those cases, as we have already debated, the restriction kicks in automatically to offer immediate protection to the child by preventing the offender being involved in the day-to-day decisions regarding the child. However, I repeat what I said: it is not intended that these powers should replicate those of the family court.

The noble Lord’s amendment would require the Crown Court to request evidence, such as reports from social workers. That cannot or would not happen quickly at the point of sentencing. It would inevitably and significantly extend sentencing hearings, making delays in the system even worse, and that would work against what we are trying to do with this measure, which is to provide a streamlined process to protect children. I repeat that Crown Court judges are not trained to make decisions of this kind and they do not have the time. To ask them to replicate procedures of the family court can lead only to more time being needed to consider each case.

The appropriate place for considerations that involve looking at reports and other things relating to where the child’s best interests lie is the family court. There is already a mechanism by which the offender, or another parental responsibility holder, can apply to the family courts to review the Crown Court order should they believe that the circumstances mean it is not in the interests of the child for the order to have been made. Where such an application is made, the family courts will consider all the circumstances of the case and make a decision in the child’s best interests.

On Amendments 25 and 33, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Murray, that there are already clear processes in place for safeguarding children. Where an offender who has sole parental responsibility for a child has been charged with a serious sexual offence, that represents a clear risk to the child and their safety, and there is an existing duty on the police to inform the relevant local authority where that type of risk exists. The multi-agency guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, makes it clear that under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 local authorities have a duty to make inquiries and take decisive action where a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm.

Situations where a child does not have anyone able to exercise parental responsibility for them are clearly a safeguarding issue, but the local authority is already under a duty to step in, and it will follow its usual practices to ensure that the child is safe and protected. As we work to implement these measures, we will ensure that clear operational processes are in place to identify cases where a child has no other person with parental responsibility and, once identified, we will ensure that the necessary referrals are made and delivery partners follow the duties that are already in place to ensure that no child is left unprotected.

I hope that the existing legislation and the statutory guidance provide some reassurance to your Lordships that local authorities are already under a duty to act in these cases, but we will carefully monitor how this provision operates once it is implemented. As part of implementation, officials will develop a system to help us to understand how the measures work in practice and how we can make improvements.

I understand the aim of the amendments and the importance of ensuring that families are informed throughout this process but, for the reasons I have just given, legislation is not the appropriate route for achieving these aims, and I invite the noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I am particularly grateful for the comments about Amendments 16 and 28 from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

Of course, I hear the criticisms of the amendments that were levelled by the JCHR and indeed the Minister; they are points with great merit, and I cannot say that that is not the case. However, there are two points that go some way to addressing the criticism. The first is that of course the court will have some reports on the offender, and it is conceivable, in the very rare cases where it may be necessary to consider the best interests of the child, that reports may be provided. The second is that, according to the answer provided by Minister’s colleague in the Commons in her letter to the JCHR, it is already rolled into the interests of justice test, which is a slightly different complexion put on the point to that given to us this evening by the Minister at the Dispatch Box—and, frankly, the answer just given by the Minister was rather more credible and coherent.

For those reasons, I have much to think about in relation to my amendments. I am grateful to everyone who contributed. In relation to the other amendments in the group, this has been a useful tour of the technicalities of Clause 3. The Minister kindly indicated that she would meet me to discuss it, perhaps with other noble Lords who are interested. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn,

Amendments 17 to 26 not moved.

Clause 3 agreed.

Schedule 1: Restriction of parental responsibility: serious sexual offences

Amendment 27 not moved.

Schedule 1 agreed.

Clause 4: Restricting parental responsibility for child conceived as a result of rape

Amendments 28 to 33 not moved.

Clause 4 agreed.

Amendment 34 not moved.

Amendment 35

Moved by

[Lord Sandhurst]

35: After Clause 4, insert the following new Clause—
“Restricting parental responsibility of offenders convicted of child crueltyAfter section 10G of the Children Act 1989 (review of orders made under section 10E or following an application under section 10F) (inserted by section 4), insert—“10H Duty to make prohibited steps order where serious child cruelty is committed(1) This section applies where—(a) the Crown Court sentences a person (“the offender”) for an offence listed in subsection 10 for a term of imprisonment of 2 years or more, and (b) the offender has parental responsibility for at least one child.(2) The Crown Court must make a prohibited steps order with respect to each child for whom the offender has parental responsibility.(3) The order must—(a) specify that no step of any kind which could be taken by a parent in meeting their parental responsibility for a child may be taken by the offender with respect to the child without the consent of the High Court or the family court, and(b) be made to have effect until the order is varied or discharged by the High Court or the family court.(4) But the Crown Court must not make a prohibited steps order under this section if—(a) making the order is prohibited by section 29(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002,(b) a prohibited steps order is already in force that meets the requirements in subsection (3), or(c) it appears to the Crown Court that it would not be in the interests of justice to do so.(5) A prohibited steps order made under this section ceases to have effect if the offender is acquitted of the offence on appeal(6) Sections 1, 7 and 11 do not apply where the Crown Court proceeds under this section.(7) A prohibited steps order made under this section is to be treated for the purposes of section 31F(6) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (proceedings and decisions) as if it were made by the family court.(8) The Crown Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings in connection with the enforcement of a prohibited steps order made under this section.(9) A reference in this Act to an order under this section includes, so far as the context permits, an order varying or discharging it.(10) The relevant offences for subsection (1) are —(a) causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, or allowing them to suffer serious harm (section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004);(b) child cruelty, neglect and violence (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933);(c) infanticide (section 1 of the Infanticide Act 1938);(d) exposing children whereby life is endangered (section 27 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861);(e) an offence under sections 4, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 or 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1860, if the victim is under the age of 16;(f) an offence under any of the following provisions of the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003—(i) female genital mutilation (section 1);(ii) assisting a girl to mutilate her own genitalia (section 2);(iii) assisting a non-UK person to mutilate overseas a girl's genitalia (section 3);(g) cruelty to children (section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933).””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would apply similar provisions, including prohibited steps orders, from Clause 3 to certain offenders of child cruelty.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 35, standing in both my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, would insert a new clause into the Bill to extend the safeguarding framework in Clause 3 beyond serious sexual offending so that it also applied to those convicted of the most serious child cruelty offences. In effect, it would mirror Clause 3.

Before I address the amendment in detail, I want to place on record my thanks to Helen Grant, Member of Parliament, for her tireless work on this issue. Over a number of years and across several Bills, she has consistently drawn Parliament’s attention to a clear and troubling gap in our safeguarding framework—that is, the absence of a coherent, systematic response to the most serious forms of child cruelty. Her campaigns for a child cruelty register and her persistence in ensuring that these issues remain firmly on the parliamentary agenda are no doubt something that all noble Lords can both respect and support.

Clause 3 introduces an important and welcome provision for the protection of children. The logic is compelling: where conduct is so grave that it demonstrates a fundamental incompatibility with the exercise of parental responsibility, there should be an automatic safeguarding mechanism. Amendment 35 asks a simple but profound question: why should that logic apply only to sexual offences and not to other, most serious forms of child cruelty?

The new clause proposed by the amendment would mirror the architecture of Clause 3 in many ways. It would introduce a duty on the Crown Court to make a prohibited steps order where an offender with parental responsibility was convicted and sentenced for a defined list of serious child cruelty offences. The threshold for such offences would be a custodial sentence of two years or more. We suggest that that is an appropriate balance between protection and practicability.

These offences have been carefully selected and reflect those on Helen Grant’s proposed child cruelty register, for which the Government have previously expressed support. They embrace serious crimes such as causing or allowing the death or serious harm of a child, child cruelty and neglect, infanticide, certain offences under the Offences Against the Person Act where the victim is a child, and offences relating to female genital mutilation, FGM. During the Crime and Policing Bill, the noble Baroness said,

“Ministers will continue to pursue this issue with vigour”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 250.].

The offences set out in this amendment strike at the very heart of a child’s safety and well-being. It is only right that a prohibited steps order be imposed.

If the Government truly believe in acting to prevent child cruelty, then to reject this amendment would be to defend an inconsistency in the current framework which we say is difficult to justify. A parent convicted of a serious sexual offence might automatically be prevented from exercising parental responsibility, while a parent convicted of causing severe physical harm or life-threatening neglect may not be. From the child’s perspective, that distinction is artificial. The harm is real, the risk is real and the need for safeguarding is just as acute. This amendment does not undermine family life unnecessarily. It does not sever parental responsibility permanently. It simply ensures that in the most serious cases, no steps may be taken by the offender without the oversight and consent of the family courts. They are best placed to make decisions concerning welfare and long-term outcomes. The amendment would bring coherence to the Bill and align it with the broader safeguarding principles that Parliament has repeatedly endorsed.

This amendment is motivated by a simple proposition. Children who have suffered the most serious forms of cruelty deserve the same automatic safeguarding protections as those who have suffered serious sexual abuse. I commend this amendment to the Committee and urge the Government to engage constructively with it, in the same spirit in which Clause 3 itself was conceived. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, the automatic restriction of a person’s parental responsibility is a novel change to the law and must be done in a responsible and proportionate manner. The Government want to understand how these new measures operate in practice before we consider expanding the scope to other offences. We will carefully monitor how the provision operates once it is implemented and, as part of that implementation, officials will develop a system to help us understand the impact the measures are having, how the measures work in practice and how we can make improvements. For cases not in scope of the measure, whether that is because they fall outside the four-year threshold that has previously been debated or because they involve different crimes such as child cruelty, there are existing routes available in the family courts to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility. It is our evaluation that it is right that children are protected in that way while we evaluate the effect of the measures in the Bill. For these reasons I invite the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I find that an interesting reply. No reasons are given other than that this is novel. The provisions in Clause 3 are themselves novel, and all we ask is that where a serious offence of cruelty has been committed in respect of a child, that should be sufficient reason to adopt the same approach as that taken with sexual assault. What is the difference in practice for the child between being sexually assaulted and suffering cruelty? Having said that, we hear what is said and will engage with the Minister between now and Report, but we will wish to consider the position on Report.

Amendment 35 withdrawn.

Clause 5 agreed.

18:45

Clause 6: Victims’ rights to make disclosures relating to criminal conduct

Amendment 36

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

36: Clause 6, page 12, line 20, at end insert—
“(d) the National Crime Agency.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds the National Crime Agency to the list of relevant bodies.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group which concern the operation of Clauses 6 and 7 and the scope and operation of the victim contact scheme. I turn first to Amendment 42 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I recognise the intention behind this amendment and the principle that underpins it: that victims whose close family members have been murdered, killed unlawfully or subjected to infanticide abroad should not find themselves falling between the cracks of the victims’ code simply because the offence occurred outside the United Kingdom. There is a strong case for ensuring that any victim should receive clear information and appropriate support on how to engage with the criminal justice system. The amendment seeks to give effect to that principle by requiring an appendix to the victims’ code setting out how it applies in such circumstances.

That said, it is also right to acknowledge that this amendment raises practical and operational questions that would need careful consideration. These include questions about jurisdiction, the extent to which criminal justice processes are engaged domestically, and how responsibilities would be allocated between domestic agencies and those overseas. I therefore look to the Minister to address how the Government would envisage this operating in practice while recognising and engaging with the important principle that the amendment seeks to advance.

Amendments 47A and 47B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, extend the definition of “victim” to include those who have experienced persistent antisocial behaviour meeting the statutory threshold for an antisocial behaviour case review. They also create a victim identifier linked to compliance with the victims’ code across criminal justice agencies. Both proposals are ideas that I am sure will instigate interesting debate; I look forward to hearing the noble Lord expand on them, and the Government’s response.

Amendments 56 and 57 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby—which may or may not be spoken to—concern transparency and accountability in decisions taken by hospital managers not to disclose information requested under Sections 44F or 44K. Clearly, if hospital managers are to be entrusted with the discretion to withhold information in cases that may directly affect victim safety, it is entirely reasonable that there should be clear written reasons for such decisions and a meaningful route to appeal. Transparency in decision-making is essential, not only for victims but for other parties, such as the Probation Service, which are tasked with managing risks.

I turn to Amendments 36 and 37 in my name. Amendment 36 is a technical amendment that adds the National Crime Agency to the list of relevant bodies to which Clause 6 does not apply. Given the National Crime Agency’s distinct operational role and intelligence-handling functions, it may be appropriate that it be expressly included in that provision. I hope the Government will see this amendment as a sensible clarification rather than as a point of contention.

Amendment 37 would require the Secretary of State to extend the victim contact scheme to certain categories of victim who are currently excluded from it—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. It would also require information to be communicated in a timely manner and for annual data to be published on the scheme’s uptake and accessibility.

The importance of this amendment has only been heightened by recent legislative developments. The Sentencing Bill, which has now passed, represented a marked shift in sentencing policy, particularly through the automatic and blanket presumption against short custodial sentences, regardless of offence type. During the passage of that legislation, particularly in debate in this House, a number of noble Lords repeatedly raised the consequences for victims. Although the Government may respond by saying that in exceptional circumstances this presumption may be overturned, the reality is rather clearer. An increasing number of offenders convicted of violent and sexual offences will now serve their sentences in the community, rather than in custody.

From the victim’s perspective, that is not an abstract policy choice. It has immediate and practical consequences for their perception of justice being served, for their sense of safety, for their ability to plan their lives and for their need to receive appropriate information. Under the current framework, many of these victims are excluded from the victim contact scheme because the custodial threshold is not met. That is now, I suggest, a glaring inconsistency in the light of the Government’s Sentencing Act. If anything, victims whose offenders are serving sentences in the community have a greater need for timely, accurate and trauma-informed information, not a lesser one. Further, without timeliness the scheme risks becoming meaningless. Information provided late is often information too late to be of use, and, without transparencies, such as through the publication of annual data on uptake and accessibility, there can be no meaningful accountability for offenders or for the Government.

We now live in a sentencing landscape that places a far greater reliance on community supervision. The Government have said that they expect to more or less double the number of people being tagged rather than incarcerated. The need for transparency and accurate data has never been more pressing. Amendment 37 insists that, where the state chooses to sentence offenders in the community, it must accept the corresponding responsibility to support and protect victims properly. In the absence of custody, robust victim engagement is really not an option; it is essential. I therefore urge the Government to engage seriously with this amendment and, if they are minded to resist it, explain how victims are to be adequately protected in a system that is going to leave an increasing number of offenders in the community. I beg to move.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 42, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay; to the two amendments in my name, Amendments 47A and 47B—I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for adding her name to them; and to Amendments 55, 56 and 57, on which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, may speak to us by some supernatural means. I am not quite sure, but the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I will try to cover it.

I point out that what all these amendments have in common is that they have been laid with the active engagement and support of the Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman. The Minister mentioned that she knows and has a high regard for her. Rather than going on at great length about each amendment, although I am sure that your Lordships are dying to hear about them, I suspect that it would be better to have follow-up meetings involving Claire Waxman to go into the detail as to why she feels, and we feel, that these amendments are important enough to raise in Committee.

On bereaved victims of murder abroad, as in Amendment 42, we covered this ground in previous legislation when we attempted to get it into a Bill. My noble friend Lady Finlay will be able to go into much more detail about this but, in essence, we are dealing with a slight anomaly in the way that victims are treated. On average per annum, between 80 and 90 individuals who are UK citizens are murdered while they are abroad. At the moment, the experience of their families when those unfortunate incidents happen ranges from quite good to absolutely appalling. That is because there is no consistency in the way they are treated.

The Government have made attempts to get their house in order on what happens within the United Kingdom’s jurisdiction. Where we seem to have an issue is in getting the FCDO to apply a form of guidance, and above all training, across its key consulates in the areas where these incidents take place to ensure that those consulates are properly equipped, if and when such a tragedy appears, to deal with it effectively and consistently. The experience from the victims whose loved ones have been murdered abroad is that, in some cases, the consulates are absolutely brilliant and go out of their way to be helpful, while in other instances the victim truly is left entirely on their own. In particular, if this has happened when the partner of the person who has been murdered is abroad, they may find no help whatever and not be familiar with the language of that country. You can imagine the complexity and agony of trying to deal with all of that, on top of the shock of having had somebody very close to you murdered. However, my noble friend will go into that in more detail.

What Amendments 47A and 47B have in common is that for certain victims of antisocial behaviour, when that behaviour really is persistent—it often conforms to an escalating pattern—and has a deep effect on the victim, there is not consistency at the moment in the way that is dealt with. Amendment 47A tries to ensure that the authorities are more effective in identifying that pattern of behaviour and are able to join the dots, put them together and recognise that the behaviour has triggered a threshold at which proper support and access to victim services should be allowed.

Again, Amendment 47B is about joining up the dots. The way in which antisocial behaviour is dealt with is that it might come to the attention of the police, or it might come to the attention of a local authority or a housing association. There is no consistent way of that information, first, being recorded in a consistent and helpful manner, and, secondly, being communicated across those different boundaries in a way that enables whichever of those three jurisdictions is looking at the pattern of behaviour to pull the evidence together that it needs to understand exactly what has been going on. This is a request for a unique identifier for each victim which would, I hope, be the start of a process to enable that information to be channelled in a more consistent and co-ordinated manner. That would obviously be helpful to the victims, but also extremely helpful to whichever authority is trying to identify just how severe that pattern of antisocial behaviour is, and whether the effect it is having on the subject—the victim—is sufficient for it to trigger comprehensive wraparound support.

Lastly, I will deal with the three amendments that I think the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will deal with in more detail. They concern where somebody in one’s family has been murdered by an individual who is identified as mentally disordered and who is then detained because of their mental disorder. The ability of the victims to get access to the sort of information which they can get from the Prison Service and the courts is completely different from what is able to be accessed from the hospital system. Again, some hospitals and hospital managers go out of their way to be understanding and helpful, and try to give the victims whatever succour and information they can. Others refuse point blank. They say that a variety of laws and processes prevent them doing that and that they are not at liberty to do it. All that we and the Victims’ Commissioner are asking is to look at this closely.

Julian Hendy, the founder of an organisation called Hundred Families, is very involved in this; he can give chapter, book and verse. First, we need to establish just how much of a problem this is, perhaps through meetings. Secondly, what are the different ways in which we might do something about it? Thirdly, how complicated is that: does it need to be in primary legislation, or are there other ways of doing it?

19:00

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

I am most grateful for the way this has been introduced by my noble friend Lord Russell. When the family discover that their relative has been murdered abroad, the problem, as has been said, is that they have no idea what has happened. Unless a service from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is rapidly responsive, there is a serious danger that evidence will not be maintained, that it will be destroyed or lost, and therefore that any processes to bring someone to justice will be seriously impaired. As written, the victims’ code seems to differentiate between victims murdered on home soil versus murders that could occur anywhere in the world. The added difficulty is that different countries around the world have different police services and processes, and the language or dialect in different areas may create difficulties.

There are two aspects to this: there is the part that occurs in this country, which is where the family may be contacting the FCDO. I was glad to see that the information on the website had been recently updated. It reads as if everything will happen smoothly but, unfortunately, that is a very rose-tinted view of reality. Some parts have not been updated for a few years. I wonder whether one of the problems lies out there with our own staff in all these different countries. They may never have experienced managing a death before, and suddenly they find they are dealing with an incredibly difficult situation with all kinds of blocks because of the politics of wherever they are.

In terms of linking between here and our staff around the world, it would seem important that there is always one designated person who has responsibility for all aspects of deaths or injuries that could occur in that country, and that this is their designation from day one of their placement in that country. They would know the different dialects, the different police systems, the different ways of maintaining evidence. This would require a fair degree of forensic training; it cannot just be written in guidelines or in a handbook. It means that people need to be prepared ahead of time in order to cope with the situation. It may well be that the families—who are completely devastated and find themselves in a terrifying and unknown situation—are at least talking to somebody with some competencies regarding that country and how its judicial systems work. Sadly, the judicial standards that we expect here are not applicable everywhere around the world. Police services are not always as well organised as ours are. It can be extremely difficult to get the right people in the right place at the right time.

It is also important that whoever has that function holds a certain degree of responsibility to make sure that evidence is not inadvertently lost and destroyed. Until you have learned about evidence that should be kept, you may not realise how important some things are: it is not only aspects of clothing and the body. It might be any of the person’s personal effects; it might involve taking photographs before anything is moved in any way. Our own staff need to be equipped with those skills. I hope from this debate that we might see a link between the Ministry of Justice, which is obviously central to the Bill, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and the ability for them to ensure that staff have training wherever they are, including forensic understanding. This could include junior members of staff, as long as they are fully trained.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I tabled Amendment 42 in this group to ensure that certain parts of the victims’ code apply to victims whose close relative was the victim of murder, manslaughter or infanticide outside the UK. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for supporting the amendment, and for going into some detail. I will endeavour not to repeat what they have said.

I am grateful for the meeting with the Minister last week, during which she mentioned the new guidance that has been recently updated. It is a good document, but it gives the victims no formal rights at all and relies on two different people—the FCDO case manager and the Homicide Service officer, provided by the charity Victim Support—to help them navigate the system. I am sure that this guidance will help improve the service from its previous iteration, but the experience of families who have a loved one killed abroad is that it can be inconsistent. Some victims also receive fragmented, delayed updates about their case, and they often have to chase information themselves, not just with Victim Support or the FCDO but within the country.

Support from the Homicide Service is currently discretionary. This can leave families without dedicated help after the trauma if there are no resources. Having it in the victims’ code will ensure certainty for victims in receiving a service, despite the many differences and difficulties of dealing with the complex arrangements abroad. It is also clear from the guidance that only a certain level of financial help is available to victims from Homicide Service caseworkers. Finally, despite what is written in the guidance, many families have to find and pay for translation services themselves, and there is a risk of inconsistency in service provision. Having it in the victims’ code would ensure that the onus is no longer placed on the victim to get documents translated. This would also give families parity of support with foreign nationals who are victims in the UK, or with UK nationals whose first language is not English.

Turning to the other amendments, we on these Benches support Amendment 37, on the extension of the victim contact scheme, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. This will probably be no surprise to him, given that it was tabled by Jess Brown-Fuller MP, my honourable friend in the House of Commons. I did write to the noble and learned Lord after it was tabled, asking him to withdraw the amendment, as we on these Benches had decided that we wanted to re-table it here in the House of Lords, as per our convention. The PBO told us recently that they received no such request, but that does not diminish our support for it.

I also signed Amendments 47A and 47B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. The first seeks to ensure that victims of persistent anti-social behaviour have access to victim support services provided by local police and crime commissioners. These services are only available to victims as defined by the victims’ code of practice. Persistent anti-social behaviour is not just tiresome and irritating: it can have a traumatising psychological effect on victims. I am particularly reminded of the late Baroness Newlove talking about the local youths who made her and her family’s lives an absolute misery before they brutally murdered her husband. If the police cannot stop it, then surely victims should be able to get support locally. Amendment 47B proposes that each victim have a unique identifier, to be used with all the different agencies involved in their experience. Given the debate we have had today on many of the amendments, this identifier might well solve some of the problems alluded to about different parts of the system and different bodies not understanding or even knowing what was going on.

At the moment, the experience of sharing data between relevant agencies can be woeful, and this number would strengthen the system. It would mean risk assessments can work better, as well as monitoring compliance with the victims’ code and improving communication and collaboration across agencies.

I have also signed Amendments 55, 56 and 57 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which tackle the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, referred to earlier, of how hospitals ensure that they balance the needs of the victim with those of a patient who has murdered a family member of the victim. At the moment, unfortunately, because of the code of ethics that medical practitioners are bound by, the balance is in the patient is their absolute priority, which can mean that victims of the most serious crimes cannot know where the offenders, the patients, are, or if there are any changes in the care that they might need to know about, which might include such things as short-term home release. This is much less than the information that is available when an offender is in prison, and the process for the victim to ask for information involves asking a victim liaison officer at the hospital, who will ask for the information from the clinicians. That is two Chinese walls between the victim and the person providing the information. Because, once behind hospital walls, there is no evidence that the medics balance or give due regard to the safety and well-being of victims, and this is very retraumatising for the victims.

I also wonder sometimes whether medical practitioners do not get to see all the relevant data about the actual act and the consequences for the victim. From these Benches, we support proposals that would ensure that the medical professionals must take a balanced approach when deciding whether to provide information to the victim and must write to the victim to explain when they have decided not to take that balanced view. There should also be an appeal mechanism. These amendments would ensure that right 11 of the victims’ code is delivered for victims, giving them the same right of requesting that information from prisons and from other bodies where a patient might be held.

[Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)]

My Lords, in general I support these amendments, particularly those put forward by my noble friend Lady Finlay. Having been in charge of some of these investigations over a long period of time, take it from me that they are very difficult, indeed nearly impossible, when the victim dies outside the jurisdiction. In a lot of cases, in the old days, talking to the DPP, some of us went out there personally to actually do the investigations. It was difficult in a way that is not necessary, and I think that what has been outlined by my noble friend is absolutely common sense. In the old days, if I might refer to them, things were a bit simpler: we dealt with the police, who were sometimes not quite up to our standards, and we tried to form some relationship. However, things have got more difficult in terms of the technical side of the law, so I make a kind of brief supplication, basically, as a practitioner over a long period of time: I really think that some of these amendments would have a massive effect on securing justice for victims, particularly in those places where we do not have any jurisdiction whatever.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has just used the phrase “common sense”, and I think that that is what is expected by people who are affected, who know that they could look to consular services for help if they have lost a passport, but not in such a difficult situation as this. I simply say—and this is not addressed to the noble Baroness but possibly to some of her colleagues—that over the period that we have discussed this issue, there has almost been a sense of, “That’s the Foreign Office, it’s not us”. If we could get this into the victims’ code, it might mean a duty on the FCDO to be prepared to be more effective, and actually to be more effective.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 36 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, seeks to add agreements entered into by the National Crime Agency, the NCA, to the list of agreements in new subsection (7) that are exempt from the measure. Non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, should not be used to silence victims or cover up crime: I think we can all agree on that. New subsections (7) and (8) of Clause 6 provide that the provision will not apply to a narrow cohort of specified agreements, in the interests of national security.

19:15

UK Special Forces and the security services have their own appropriate arrangements for ensuring that victims and direct witnesses of crime can speak up about criminal activity. During the development of this measure, the Government gave detailed consideration as to how the provision would work in practice and whether there were any national security issues that might need to be taken into account. Having done that, we remain of the view that it is not necessary to exempt from this provision any agreements entered into by the NCA in the interests of national security. The reason is that Clause 6 will not change the effects of the Official Secrets Act, which already prohibits the disclosure of certain types of sensitive information, such as information related to security, intelligence or defence. If disclosures are prohibited under the Official Secrets Act, including those relating to information gained through employment as a Crown servant, for example at the NCA, the Official Secrets Act will be legally binding and the consequences that follow such a disclosure will continue to apply. The purpose of Clause 6 is to ensure that victims of crime can speak out about criminal conduct. It follows that agreements should be excluded from this measure only where it is absolutely necessary to do so. The Government are satisfied that it is not necessary to add the NCA to the list of exempt bodies.

Amendment 37 is also in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. All victims are able to request information through the victim helpline, but, in some of the most serious cases, they are able to use the more resource-intensive and costly victim contact scheme. I have written to the noble and learned Lord to reassure him that victims of coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking and harassment are already eligible for the updated scheme, regardless of sentence length.

Bereaved families in cases of manslaughter or death by dangerous driving, where the offender receives a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment or more, are also eligible for the scheme under Part 1 of new Schedule 6A. Victims of an offender who receives a sentence of less than 12 months’ imprisonment will be able to request information from the new helpline. Timely and sensitive communication is important, but the Government believe that this is best achieved through guidance and training, not legislation. I would welcome the noble and learned Lord’s engagement on how we ensure that this is working in practice. In the meantime, we will be monitoring the scheme through the victims’ code compliance framework under the Victims and Prisoners Act, which will include an annual report.

I turn now to the question of homicides abroad. Amendment 42 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Finlay, has the objective of including bereaved families within the application of the victims’ code in cases of homicides of British nationals that have occurred outside the United Kingdom. I thank both noble Baronesses for continuing to raise this important matter. I completely understand how devastating it is for the families to be confronted by this and how arid and alien is the landscape that confronts them. The victims’ code applies to victims of crimes which can be prosecuted in England and Wales, and in fact this will already include some bereaved families where the homicide was committed abroad. Where offences are not capable of prosecution in the UK, most of the entitlements under the code cannot and therefore do not apply. We do not want to raise the expectations of the families in these cases unless we can actually deliver.

The services and support provided in England and Wales depend greatly on the individual case and the jurisdiction in which it is being prosecuted. This system does not lend itself to codification or the imposition of blanket duties on criminal justice agencies which they may just not be able to deliver. We have to be realistic. For example, we simply cannot require the police to provide case updates, which is right 6 under the code, or return evidence, which is right 10 under the code, in a case where no UK police force has any power of control.

When the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has principal responsibility for the communication and liaison with families, the police can be involved only if there is an investigative role for them to play and they are invited to do so by the foreign police force. Bereaved families will, in many instances, need support that is tailored to their case. That is why the Government continue to fund the Homicide Service, which provides support based on the needs of the individual, including specific needs that arise because the homicide happened abroad. That said, we, along with the FCDO, have listened to what these families told us about the support that they need, including to be clearer about the support available from UK agencies, what the Homicide Service is and how to access it.

That is why we have worked together with the Home Office, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Victims’ Commissioner’s office and the charity Murdered Abroad to publish a clear, accessible guide, which will help families to deal with the specific challenges that can be faced when trying to navigate these processes and improve awareness of the support available to them at such a difficult time. This approach provides a greater degree of flexibility to review and update the guidance quickly, avoiding the need for amending primary legislation. I had a very useful meeting the other day with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who had to leave before we got to this topic. We have sent copies of the code and I am pleased to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has found it broadly helpful, but we are here to listen and help to improve it if we can.

Alongside this, the FCDO is refreshing and republishing information about the roles and responsibilities of organisations in cases of murder or manslaughter of British nationals abroad. It is important that this happens to ensure that families understand who does what and to help organisations have clarity about each other’s roles. I can assure the noble Baronesses that, as we develop the new victims’ code, we will review what further signposting information can be included in the code to support families bereaved by homicide abroad. We would welcome the opportunity to work together with the noble Baronesses to make sure that we get it right.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for everything she said. Early on, she said that the problem is that the victims’ code is not always applicable abroad. Can she comment on proposed new subsection (2) in the amendment, which talks specifically about the Secretary of State by regulation issuing an appendix to the victims’ code, setting out how the code applies to these victims? It is understood, from our side, that it would be different.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this point. Our current position is that we do not believe that that is necessary, but I am happy to meet her and get her to try to persuade me why I am wrong and she is right—there is my challenge to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Finlay.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

The FCDO has a duty of care and a responsibility for UK citizens when they are in whichever country. It does not seem too bizarre or extreme to hope that it would accept a degree of responsibility for the very small number of unfortunate victims who, for whatever reason, are unlawfully killed in the course of a year. For the FCDO to accept that that is part of its responsibility—a very small part, albeit an important one—and to prepare itself thoroughly enough to be able to fulfil that duty in a professional, proper and sensitive way in the unhappy event that it is required does not seem too much to ask.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, puts it very persuasively and it is extremely tempting, particularly given that I do not speak for the FCDO, to say that it sounds utterly reasonable. However, I am sure he will understand why I cannot give that kind of commitment from the Dispatch Box, but I can commit to meeting and discussing this further.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

Forgive me for interrupting again on this issue. Can the Minister undertake to discuss with the FCDO the concept that each embassy or consulate has one named lead person for when it experiences managing one of these tragic situations, and that it is handed over to another named person when they leave? They could also come together as a group to provide support for, and learn from, each other, and compare where particular difficulties have occurred so that, over the years, the training can improve for each of these people. The worry at the moment is that these cases are so unusual in some places that it is a once-in-a-lifetime experience for some of the staff.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

Again, the noble Baroness puts it very persuasively and, listening to her now, it all seems to make total sense. If, as a Government, we are committed to supporting victims of crime and putting them front and centre, that does not stop at our borders. However, I do not think that I can give an answer today and it would not be right to do so. I will commit to meeting the noble Baroness and seeing whether I can find out from the FCDO at least what its approach would be to such a suggestion. If she would put it in writing to me I could then pass it on so that we can try to take matters further.

Amendment 47A, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks to add victims of persistent but non-criminal anti-social behaviour to the definition of a victim, as set out in Section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The Government agree that anti-social behaviour is a blight on our communities and its impact should never be underestimated. We have committed to provide better support and information to victims of anti-social behaviour and have taken significant steps to do so. This includes the measures in this Bill that will strengthen the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers to hold the agencies that support anti-social behaviour victims to account.

Where anti-social behaviour amounts to criminal conduct, such as criminal damage, victims will benefit from the rights and entitlements within the victims’ code. However, expanding the definition of a victim to bring those affected by non-criminal anti-social behaviour within the code would, in our view, not be appropriate, as it is not an effective or efficient response to this kind of the behaviour. For example, in our view, it would be neither appropriate nor necessary for a victim of a neighbour who is playing loud music on one occasion to be brought within the scope of the victims’ code. Doing so could create unrealistic expectations and divert attention and resources from those experiencing serious criminal harm, such as victims of child sexual abuse.

In our view, there are better routes available to help these victims, including the anti-social behaviour case review, which gives the victims of persistent behaviour the right to request a multi-agency review to secure a resolution. In the proposals for the new victims’ code, on which we are currently consulting, we have clarified what victims of criminal anti-social behaviour can expect from the code and provided information about the case review process. I would welcome your Lordships’ responses to the consultation to outline in detail what further provision would be required for these victims.

On Amendment 47B, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Bach and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I begin by acknowledging the problems brought by our current inability reliably to identify the same victim or witness across the criminal justice system. We accept that this results in duplication of records, slows the flow of information and leads to inconsistent data across the agencies. In addition, this fragmentation places a significant administrative burden on staff, who must reconcile records manually and then chase the missing information. However, perhaps most importantly, it means that victims and witnesses are sometimes provided with conflicting information, which can cause confusion at best and serious distress at worst.

The Government are already working to address these issues through the cross-criminal justice system data improvement programme, jointly led by the Ministry of Justice and Home Office. This programme aims to strengthen data sharing across the criminal justice system and is actively exploring how individuals, including victims, can be more reliably recognised across agencies. We are clear that improvements to data sharing must be underpinned by robust safeguards to ensure personal data is handled lawfully, securely and proportionately, with a strong focus on minimising unnecessary circulation of sensitive information, which I know is a key concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

The Government are open to considering legislative options to improve data sharing, data quality and the use of unique identifiers where that is shown to be necessary and proportionate. However, introducing a statutory requirement at this stage, ahead of the completion of the work of the programme, could unintentionally constrain future design and implementation choices, before we are confident it would deliver the intended benefits for victims and the wider criminal justice system. For these reasons, the Government do not believe that primary legislation at this stage is the appropriate mechanism.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

For well over a decade, since the passage of the Children and Families Act 2014, we have been discussing as a House a unique identifying number for children who may end up either in the health system or care system as well as schools. It has taken well over a decade—they are just about to use the NHS number as part of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I urge the Minister to have a look at this again; otherwise, we will be here for another 10 years, arguing the same point.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

This Government have not been in power over the whole of the last of the decade, and we are doing our best to look at it. I will certainly look at it and discuss it with her. We are simply saying that, at this stage, we do not think primary legislation is the right way of dealing with it.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 55, 56 and 57, in the names of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who is not in his place, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell. Before I do, let me say that I recently had the privilege of meeting with Emma Webber and with Julian Hendy of Hundred Families. They explained very clearly to me the issues as they see them, and it was a very moving experience. I pay tribute to their strength and honour the memories of those they have lost. Their experiences, along with the experiences of all victims of crime, must continue to guide us.

Part of the rationale for providing information to victims is to help them to feel safe and so they can plan for an offender’s eventual release or discharge. That is why the legislation requires that hospital managers provide victims with specified information where appropriate, regardless of any assessment by a hospital manager of the victim’s safety and well-being, because we acknowledge that the hospital manager’s assessment could well be different from the victim’s own assessment.

Where hospital managers receive a request for information from an eligible victim outwith the specified list within the Bill, they will consider whether it is necessary and proportionate to provid it, and this assessment can of course include considering the risk to the victim. Where there are specific concerns about a victim’s safety, there are other, more appropriate processes to be followed. It is important to note that this is not the primary purpose of the victim contact scheme.

Where a decision is made that it is not appropriate to provide some information, reasons can and should be provided wherever possible. However, these should reflect the victim’s communication preferences, and considerations about this would, in our view, be most appropriately set out in operational guidance, which would also provide the necessary flexibility to adjust requirements as we monitor practice.

We agree that victims should have a route for some recourse where information is not provided. There are existing complaint routes for all cohorts, and the Government consider that a more effective way of going about this would be to make sure hospital managers understand and fulfil their obligations to victims at the outset, rather than introducing additional bureaucracy. My officials are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to consider routes by which to support hospital managers, including whether a joint departmental protocol, or via planned updates to the Mental Health Act code of practice—statutory guidance under the Mental Health Act 1983—might provide an appropriate vehicle.

In relation to all the amendments in this group and many of the others, we are listening and we want to get it right. We will continue to work with your Lordships and with victims’ groups, but for now I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this wide-ranging and thoughtful debate on the operation of the victim contact scheme and the wider support network for victims. The debate has demonstrated broad consensus on the principle that victims’ rights and access to information must keep pace with changes in sentencing policy and criminal justice practice. The question is not whether victim engagement matters but whether our current structures are fit for purpose in the systems we now operate.

Several amendments in the group had common concerns: gaps in coverage within the victims’ code and the victim contact scheme; lack of transparency, consistency and accountability in how information is provided; the risk that victims fall through the cracks; and the technical thresholds or institutional boundaries that exist. Taken together, these amendments seek to ensure that victim support is timely, trauma-informed, consistent and capable of scrutiny. The amendments also recognise that, among others, where the state chooses to sentence offenders in the community, it assumes a greater, not a lesser, responsibility to support victims. Victim engagement must be strengthened not weakened in a non-custodial sentencing landscape. I therefore urge the Government to consider carefully how victims are to be protected and informed under current policy. In the meantime, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 36 withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed.

Clause 7 agreed.

Amendment 37 not moved.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.16 pm.

National Cancer Plan

Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Statement

19:38

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Thursday 5 February.

“With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s national cancer plan for England.

A cancer diagnosis changes you for ever. When I was diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer 18 months ago, I did not know whether I would be alive today, never mind standing at this Dispatch Box announcing a national cancer plan, but one year ago almost to the day, the Prime Minister asked me to do just that. Since the Government took office, over 212,000 more people are getting a cancer diagnosis on time, over 36,000 more are starting treatment on time, and rates of early diagnosis are hitting record highs. Despite those vital signs of recovery, though, the NHS is still failing far too many cancer patients and their families. That is why, first and foremost, this plan is a break with the failure of the past 15 years.

In 2011, the coalition Government published Improving Outcomes: A Strategy for Cancer. That strategy was followed in 2016 by Achieving World-Class Cancer Outcomes: a Strategy for England 2015-2020. In 2019, the long-term health plan for England made cancer a priority and included a headline ambition to diagnose 75% of cancers at stages 1 and 2. However well-intentioned those strategies were, not one of them has lived up to its promises. Cancer mortality rates in the UK are much higher than in other comparable countries, while survival rates are much lower. Cancer incidence is around 15% higher than when the 62-day standard was last met, and working-class communities are being failed most of all. The most deprived areas, including rural and coastal communities, often have fewer cancer consultants, leaving patients waiting longer. This all adds up to the chilling fact that someone living in Blackpool is almost twice as likely to die young from cancer than someone living in Harrow. Wherever in our country a person lives, they deserve the same shot at survival and quality of life as everyone else. Wealth should not dictate their health, and neither should their postcode.

Behind these statistics are real people. I have heard from those whose care lacked empathy and dignity, from those whose cancer was missed or whose test results were lost, from those who were passed from pillar to post and kept in the dark about their condition, and from those whose loved ones died before their turn came for surgery because the wait was too long. Those experiences are unacceptable—they are devastating. From day one, I was determined to put their voices front and centre of our plan. Over the past year, we have listened to and learned from cancer charities, clinicians and, most importantly, patients and their families. Every action is a response to someone’s lived experience. Every commitment is a promise to transform someone else’s life. Their stories have become the blueprint to make the biggest improvement in cancer outcomes in a generation.

Three major themes stood out from the 11,000 responses to our call for evidence, some 9,000 of which came from patients and their carers: core performance standards, improved survival, and quality of life after diagnosis. Those are not radical ideas but, unlike previous strategies, this plan is not limited to incremental improvement. Instead, it is an ambitious, bold plan to save 320,000 more lives by 2035, which will be the fastest rate of improvement this century. We will do that by modernising the NHS, harnessing the power of science and technology, putting our patients at the front of the queue for the latest medicines, and helping them to live well after diagnosis, not least for people diagnosed with stage 4, metastatic and incurable cancers—people like me.

How do we get there? We are placing big bets on genomics, data and artificial intelligence, as set out in our 10-year plan for health. We will hardwire the three shifts of our 10-year plan into cancer pathways. First, on moving from analogue to digital, we heard from patients about the importance of clinical trials, so we will make the UK one of the best places in the world to run a trial, with a new cancer trials accelerator. We will start people’s care earlier using liquid biopsy tests, which can return results up to two weeks sooner than conventional testing. We will harness AI to read scans, plan radiotherapy and identify the right path for each patient. We will harness genomics so that every eligible patient has access to precision medicines. We will harness data to make sure that all metastatic disease is counted properly—starting with breast cancer—so that people with incurable cancer are properly recognised and supported. When people are not counted, they feel like they do not count, but we will end that.

Innovation will also help us fight inequalities and make the shift from sickness to prevention. We will turn the NHS app into a gateway for cancer care. By 2028, it will host a dashboard for cancer prevention, with access to tests and self-referral. By 2035, it will bring together genomic and lifestyle data with the single patient record to advise every patient according to their risk. That will benefit people in rural and coastal communities who can find it difficult to access specialist care simply due to geography.

Finally, we will use the neighbourhood health service to make the shift from hospital to community. That will mean more care, from prehabilitation to recovery support, delivered closer to home. We will help people live well with cancer through tailored support closer to home. People will be given personal cancer plans, named neighbourhood care leads and clear end-of-treatment summaries so that no one feels abandoned after their treatment.

For too long, those with rarer cancers have seen little to no progress for many of their conditions. They told us we need a special focus on these cancers, and our plan sets out how they will benefit from the deployment of genomics, early detection and the development of new treatments. That was asked for by patients and will be delivered by this Government. I pay tribute to my honourable friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, Dame Siobhain McDonagh, for her campaigning in memory of her late sister Margaret. We should also remember that the late Tessa Jowell raised this issue in 2018, and her family have campaigned ever since.

Our plan also gives pride of place to children and young people. We will improve their experience of care at every level, from hospital food to youth worker support and play support. I pay tribute to my honourable friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for his campaigning on that point. Our children and young people cancer taskforce asked for support with travel costs, because when someone’s child has cancer, the last thing they should worry about is how they will pay for their train ticket. Today, I can announce that we will fund those travel costs.

Alongside rare and less common cancers, we will make research for children and young people a national priority. I take this moment to thank the children, young people and families who made up our Children and Young People Cancer Taskforce. It was a pleasure and a privilege to meet them earlier this week. I thank the many families and loved ones of people lost too soon who continue to fight to make change for others. I am so grateful to them, and I want people to hear their voices as they read the plan, because it is rooted in the voices of patients, families, clinicians and charities. It will turn cancer from one of this country’s biggest killers into a chronic condition that is treatable and manageable for three in four patients. It delivers the ambition of the 10-year health plan, embodies this Government’s three shifts and sets a clear path towards earlier diagnosis, faster treatment and world-leading survival rates by 2035.

This plan does not belong to the NHS, and it does not belong to the Government; it belongs to us all. We all must play a part in making it work. Over the past year, I have met the patients, families, carers, clinicians, researchers, cancer charities and voluntary groups who all contributed to our plan. This Government is on their side. We wrote this with them, and we cannot deliver it without them. Let us do it together. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by welcoming the publication of the national cancer plan and make it clear we fully share the Government’s desire to tackle cancer and to succeed in the fight against a condition that has affected almost every family in the country in one way or another. The Government have set out a clear ambition in this area, and we support them in that endeavour. It is appropriate for me also to pay tribute to all those who have contributed to the development of the plan, particularly those with lived experience with cancer and those close to them. Their willingness to share their experiences with such openness—and in many cases, courage—has, I am sure, been invaluable in shaping the finished result, and they deserve our thanks and recognition.

The national cancer plan sets out a number of significant commitments, including improving early diagnosis, restoring performance against cancer waiting time standards, accelerating the set-up of clinical trials and rolling out targeted lung screening nationally. It also places a strong emphasis on modernising services through technology and innovation.

These are all laudable aims and, indeed, Cancer Research UK has said that there is “much to welcome” in the plan. However, it has also rightly noted that delivery, funding and accountability will ultimately determine whether patients see real change. It is easy to put ambitious plans down on paper, but what matter in the end are clear delivery milestones and accountability. In that respect, this plan echoes many of the ambitions of the 10-year NHS plan, which was strong on aspiration but lighter on detail about how improvements would be delivered on the ground. My first question is, therefore, straightforward. When will the Government publish clear, fully funded milestones setting out how and when patients can expect to see tangible improvements over the next year or two?

It is also clear that the success of the plan will depend on having a sufficient workforce of cancer nurses, radiographers, pathologists and oncologists to deliver its aims. Can the Minister say whether we will shortly see a fully funded long-term workforce plan to support the staffing required to expand diagnostic and treatment capacity, not just in NHS trust settings but within neighbourhood health centres? In particular, can the Government explain clearly who will staff these services and how they will be funded? Blood Cancer UK has highlighted the importance of ensuring that blood cancers are properly recognised in workforce and service planning, and that patients receive consistent support from the point of diagnosis, including access to a named healthcare professional. Staff also need to know that they will be supported in delivering this plan, given current strains on capacity. In that context, we hear anecdotally of the difficulties involved in ensuring that staffing by doctors is adequate in all parts of the country. Some doctors, especially doctors in training, make up their minds that they will not be sent to work in an area that is not to their liking, perhaps because it would locate them far from friends and family. Will the welcome announcement of more training places in rural areas be enough to get sufficient doctors working in those areas?

Alongside the important question of staffing levels sits the Government’s ambition to invest in up-to-date capital equipment and cutting-edge technology. Investment in this often expensive technology is best and most efficiently met through capital budgets managed centrally. That leads me to a question about accountability for delivery, and where such accountability will lie. With the planned absorption of NHS England into the department, can the Minister give a sense of how the national cancer plan as a whole will be steered and monitored, not only centrally but regionally?

One specific aspect of the plan that I would like to welcome is the dedicated chapter for children, teenagers and young adults. This has been described by the Teenage Cancer Trust as a crucial step and an important acknowledgement that teenagers and young people deserve care designed around them and not as an afterthought. The work that the Government have done in recognising this is welcome. One point that the Teenage Cancer Trust has made particularly clearly is the importance of involving young people at the policy development stage. Can the Minister set out how young people with cancer were engaged in the development of this plan and how their voices were reflected in its content? Looking ahead, what steps will the Government take to ensure this becomes an ongoing process: listening to young people with cancer and systematically taking their feedback into account as the plan is implemented and reviewed?

Another point that charities and campaigners have consistently emphasised is the importance of clearly distinguishing between children and young people. The needs and challenges facing a three year-old child are self-evidently different from those of a 17 year-old young person, and it is important that this distinction is properly recognised in both policy and practice. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could set out for the House how these different groups within the broader category of children and young people are engaged with. In particular, it would be helpful to understand how mental health support is tailored to different age groups and how the impact of a cancer diagnosis at different stages of a young person’s educational journey is reflected in their treatment and support pathways. If the noble Baroness could confirm that this distinction is one which the Government actively make and which will be taken into account in future policy development, I should be most grateful.

Let me conclude by reiterating my support for this plan and for the ambitions it sets out. In particular, there are some welcome and promising commitments around improving access to clinical trials and speeding up diagnosis. As the Minister knows, we need to do better in both those areas, and we share the Government’s ambitions to do so. For our part, we will continue to play our role in opposition by scrutinising delivery closely to ensure that ambition is matched by action and that the Government’s very laudable commitments translate into tangible improvement on the ground for patients.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, we very much welcome the national cancer plan and support its ambitions—and it is very ambitious. Many organisations and committees have called for an integrated, long-term plan, so it is very good that the Government have listened and, in particular, have taken note of the views of patients and their families—the people with lived experience of all these problems. However, may I reiterate Cancer Research UK’s response to the plan? It said:

“The key question that patients and their loved ones will ask, however, is how quickly will they see progress in cancer survival and outcomes? The improvements they are waiting for will depend on how this plan translates into delivery. Funding must match the ambition of what has been promised, or the NHS will struggle to expand its diagnostic capacity or introduce innovation at scale. And clear leadership and accountability are also crucial”.


Many of those points have also been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, just now.

We know that outcomes in England have lagged behind comparable countries for decades, so it is positive to see improving cancer survival at the centre of the plan. However, it is going to be tough to achieve and will require much faster progress than what we have heard so far indicates. The key, of course, is improved diagnosis at an early stage, so I welcome the renewed commitment to earlier diagnosis and to meeting all cancer waiting time targets by 2029. It is outrageous that 92% of trusts do not reach the target for starting treatment. I welcome the full rollout of lung screening by 2030 and increasing the sensitivity of the tests used in bowel screening by 2028. However, what about breast screening? There have been problems in some parts of the country in getting that done. Can the Minister say whether these plans will be fully resourced? There is no point in doing the screening and tests unless an expert is there to interpret them. There are bold promises, but will they be matched with the resources and training required?

The plan talks about AI tools and liquid biopsy tests, which could certainly hold real potential for increasing productivity. However, before they are introduced, they must be robustly tested so that only safe and effective innovations reach patients and those that do not work can be dropped.

While there is a focus on diagnosis and treatment, I was pleased to see that the plan includes a commitment to increase action on lifestyle factors which we know cause cancer. Smoking tobacco, being overweight or obese, alcohol and UV exposure still cause many cancers that could be prevented. Fortunately, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill should certainly have a positive effect over the coming years in stopping people smoking in the first place. It is also positive to see action to strengthen protections on sunbed use and measures to drive HPV vaccination uptake, particularly in underserved groups. The new ad hoc committee on childhood vaccine rates is, I hope, going to contribute to that.

More action is needed to drive the shift from sickness to prevention, which is one of the Government’s core objectives in their 10-year health plan. There is still more to do to help millions of existing smokers quit smoking and to prevent someone becoming overweight or obese in the first place. Tightening regulation on alcohol through introducing minimum unit pricing, as implemented in Scotland and Wales, was a missed opportunity. Will the Government reconsider?

Rare cancers make up about 24% of cancers diagnosed in the UK and the EU every year. This includes cancers of children and young people, because they are less likely to suffer from the cancers caused by the lifestyle issues I have just mentioned. This is where research comes in, and the ability to implement research findings into the NHS. It is a sad fact that the NHS has been slow in the past to implement new cutting-edge treatments, so it is welcome that the plan has some important commitments in that respect. However, as with other aspects of the plan, the devil is in the detail.

The focus on ending delays in cancer treatment is a step forward, but funding 28 new radiotherapy machines is not enough when the treatment is so cost-effective and successful. We need to end the radiotherapy deserts. Will the Minister extend her ambition to the 200 extra radiotherapy machines that the Liberal Democrats have proposed? Another 28 will probably only replace the old machines that need to be replaced anyway—it will not take us forward. Can the Minister tell us about the plan to train the operatives for these new machines? Resources, training and accountability are at the heart of this. We have not had a lot of detail yet, so I look forward to getting more.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the warm welcome from both Front Benches for the national cancer plan. This is a moment when we transform our cancer care and we make it personalised—we wrap it around the person instead of expecting it to be the other way around. The 62-day treatment standard has not been met since 2015, and outcomes, as we have talked about a lot in this Chamber, continue to lag behind those of comparable countries. That is what has driven us to this point to ensure that, by 2035, three in four people diagnosed with cancer will be alive five years later, whereas at present, the figure is three in five. That represents 320,000 more lives saved, with all the effects on their friends, families and communities, as well as themselves. That will be the fastest improvement in cancer survival this country has ever seen.

I will try to deal with some of the Front-Bench questions. I agree with much of what has been raised, including the recognition of all those, including those with lived experience, who contributed to what is, in my view and experience, a very bold 10-year strategy that actually sets out how we will do this. Both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about clear milestones. I am glad to say that those are set out at the end of each chapter, with dates and the responsible organisations for all key actions and commitments.

The noble Earl raised the workforce plan. It will be published in the spring and will set out guidance—this goes to the point raised by the noble Baroness—not just on expanding numbers but on ensuring that staff are properly trained and supported. This will require a multidisciplinary team approach. We will use training directly as a lever to prioritise training places in trusts, often in the rural and coastal areas that the noble Earl asked about, as it is indeed the case that vacancy rates are higher and performance is lower. Training doctors of course takes time, but this is about long-term sustainable change and about turning around the whole of the cancer pathway. It is the exact opposite of us tinkering here and there. We are working with the royal colleges to boost the numbers of doctors specialising in clinical and medical oncology.

The noble Earl asked about bringing NHS England into the department. I see that as a great opportunity. Within the plan, we have set out a reformed national cancer board. It will be comprised of cancer experts, and it will be accountable—this is so important, as the noble Baroness said—for the overall delivery of the plan. Regionally, we will keep and strengthen the role of cancer alliances, which will work hand in glove with NHS regions to deliver cancer improvements.

The noble Earl asked how young people are being engaged. We worked with the Children and Young People Cancer Taskforce to ensure their voices were heard through its patient experience panel. Importantly, we will appoint a lead for children and young people with cancer to be part of the revamped national cancer board. We want their voices to continue to be heard. We definitely recognise the distinction between children and young people; they have different needs. For example, the plan highlights the importance of play for children, as well as the role of youth support co-ordinators in providing educational, emotional and fertility support for teenagers and young people. I agree with the noble Earl that cancer has a profound psychological impact on all patients and those supporting them. The plan sets out how that support must be standardised for children and young people, including the provision of longer-term support.

The noble Baroness asked about improving early diagnosis. We are providing £2.3 billion of investment in diagnostics to deliver 9.5 million additional tests by 2029 across screening and symptomatic diagnosis. The noble Baroness asked about seeing change; I say go to a community diagnostic centre. That epitomises where we are going with our National Health Service. We will also spend more than £650 million to complete the rollout of lung cancer screening by 2030, which is one of the things that can make the biggest difference in more disadvantaged areas, as well in prevention.

On radiotherapy machines, the responsibility lies at a local level. We expect local systems to continue to invest in new machines to meet the ambitious targets. Through the spending review, providers have been allocated with £15 billion in operational capital for local priorities and £5 billion to support a return to constitutional standards, including for radiotherapy machines.

19:58

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I must declare my interests in palliative care over the years. I will not list them all now, but I had the pleasure of working on the palliative care commission under the chairmanship of Sir Mike Richards. From speaking to him, I am glad to learn that he will have a role in the modern service framework.

My concern about chapter 4 is that action 7 seems to compound palliative care with end-of-life care. It does not recognise the benefit of someone receiving interventions early. It has been shown that patients benefit maximally from having at least three months of involvement with palliative care, rather than it coming in too little too late. Therefore, when we have integrated services in a cancer centre, time is allowed for a recurrence—when there is a crisis—to be dealt with immediately, rather than patients going home and being told, “Oh, you will see somebody later”. You have to be on the spot and you have to be available 24/7. I hope that there will be recognition that palliative care services save money.

I was glad to see that that the RIPEL study in Oxford was referred to. I ask the Minister whether she recognises the figures that have come from Hull York which show that, where you have fully integrated specialist palliative care services, you can save about £800 million a year by avoiding wasted interventions. I should declare an interest in that I have a young family member with an extremely rare cancer.

I also hope that the Minister will be able to provide reassurance that the speedy processes for modern and semi-experimental treatments will be available much more rapidly because, at the moment, many patients are having to pay privately through fundraising schemes because there are treatments that are emerging but are not yet available on the NHS.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am sorry to hear about the member of the noble Baroness’s family.

To the point about treatment, by 2028, every cancer patient will have access to a personal cancer care plan via the NHS app. Tailoring treatment and support through the whole care journey is important, including before the care journey starts. It will be a complete innovation that we are not talking about rehabilitation but what we are now calling “prehabilitation”, to support people.

We are also investing £80 million in four new NHS aseptic medicine production hubs, which will be operational by next year, to increase the supply of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, using advanced automation.

To the points about hospices and palliative care, for some, treatment is not enough; it is about the timely and proactive availability of palliative and end-of-life care. That is what is going to make the difference to their quality of life. We are working with the royal colleges to deliver enhanced levels of care, known as acute and supportive oncology, to consistent standards, and that will integrate palliative and end-of-life care while supporting clinicians to provide the best treatment. We are delivering the biggest investment in hospices in a generation—some £100 million to upgrade buildings, facilities and digital systems.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the praise of other noble Lords for the report. Professor Peter Johnson has done an enormously worthwhile job, and there is so much richness and so many good things in the report.

I will put a spotlight on the unfortunate framing that catching cancer is, largely speaking and for the majority of people, simply a matter of bad luck. The report says quite clearly, under prevention:

“As much as a third of cancers are preventable”.


That is a very conservative estimation of the proportion of cancers that are preventable. Modern analysis would point to systemically preventable exposure to multiple risk factors, which are entirely clustered around class. This framing is incredibly important, because it leads to consequential decisions in the Treasury, among health colleagues and in the rest of government about what we should and could be doing as a society and as a Government to try to reduce the prevalence of cancer.

In Europe, the European Code Against Cancer puts prevention absolutely at the centre of the cancer plan. In countries such as Malta, Portugal and Spain, cancer reduction is not seen as something that is relegated to a paragraph in the introduction: it is absolutely front and centre of the whole cancer plan. It embraces all of health.

The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned screening and vaccines, but it is a shame that those are not much more front and centre and that the Government’s ambitions are not greater. Where are the targets on things such as obesity and clean air? These are the kinds of things that one would expect to see built into a cancer plan. In terms of the “all of government” approach, where is taxation and the planning system, mentioned in the plan as important levers for reducing cancer?

The bad-luck attitude to cancer is an old-fashioned clinicians’ bias that is no longer supported by the epidemiology. So, I ask the Minister, first, is it possible to perhaps review the research framework that has led to that kind of understatement of the preventability of cancer? Coming out of that, secondly, I ask the Minister whether she could perhaps consider looking at a cancer prevention plan, as they have in other countries?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for the cancer plan. I should have mentioned this. I will be honest: even as a Minister, I do not always pay full attention to the foreword, and I am sure that other former Ministers might share that, within a plan, but I commend this one to noble Lords, not least because the Secretary of State himself talked about his own experience of being told he had kidney cancer. He described his world being turned upside down. He talked about fear and foreboding, as does our Minister, Ashley Dalton MP. They both talked about fear and foreboding and the need to turn that round with action. That kind of drive, as well as the facts before us, drive this plan.

On the point about a cancer prevention plan and the question of where the strategy is for the reduction of obesity and so on, I say that this is a plan to be read alongside our other commitments. It builds on the 10-year health plan, which laid out the way we would be going forward with our shifts. This is about turning round the whole cancer pathway.

To the point specifically about prevention, I heard what the noble Lord said. We do not take the view that it is “just bad luck”. Where there is prevention, we should absolutely tackle that.

The plan tackles the causes head-on, not just by talking but with government action to cut smoking with the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, reduce obesity, act on alcohol harm and protect people from dangerous UV exposure, including through sunbeds. No one should lose someone to cancer that should have been prevented. We will not ignore the communities that are hit hardest. By having those preventions, we are supporting the communities that are hit hardest. Rolling out lung cancer screening more extensively will be one of the areas of importance.

I referred earlier to cancer alliances. They will promote, for example, new catch-up schemes to enable young people who have missed out on the HPV vaccination at school. They can have it administered at their local pharmacy. We are not leaving matters to chance. We are rolling out home testing kits for cervical cancer for those who do not go to appointments for a range of reasons, rather than offering only one opportunity.

In all these ways, the national cancer plan tackles the causes of cancer. We will continue to see that through. As the noble Lord knows, moving from sickness to prevention is a key factor in our 10-year plan.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I too support the national cancer plan, but I am not here to blow the Government’s trumpet. I will pick up on some of the points.

This is an ambitious plan, and that is good, because it might act as a catalyst for some progress. However, if that progress is to be achieved, the Government need to commit much more than what the cancer plan suggests. The plan suggests:

“Every patient will get a personalised assessment of their needs and a personal cancer plan—a complete support plan complementing their diagnosis and treatment”


and focusing on their wider needs. It goes on to say:

“Every patient will have a named neighbourhood care lead to coordinate their care and support after treatment”.


If that can be achieved, it will be fantastic. Apart from all the technological advances that we will have to fund in research terms, it is ambitious to suggest that liquid blood tests and cancer vaccines could be developed, be tested and be available tomorrow. It could be a long-term shot. Without investment, that will not happen. One of the key areas of deficiency is that there is nothing on what the manpower requirements would be and how this will fit into the manpower plan that the Government already have.

I heard what the Minister said about prevention. I heard nothing about developing cancer centres; we know from experience that outcomes are best when patients are treated in cancer centres, rather than in every hospital in the country. We have no targets to eliminate cancer. For example, it is possible to eliminate cervical cancer by a proper immunisation programme of HPV vaccines.

I am allowed only to ask questions, but it would be nice to have a longer debate. We never had one on the national health plan either. I hope that could be managed somehow.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

That last point will, of course, be drawn to the attention of the usual channels. I too would welcome a debate on this. Noble Lords might wish to note that when they have an opportunity to suggest or apply for debates.

The noble Lord’s last point was about elimination of cancer. That is possible in some cases. I am glad that he mentioned cervical cancer. I mentioned in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, that we have committed to catch-up HPV vaccination campaigns from this year, to eliminate cervical cancer by 2040. That is absolutely the right thing to do, and to introduce the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which I hope will become an Act, to phase out smoking and reduce youth vaping, which can be a gateway to smoking. That will also reduce risk factors.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, is always right to press us to go further. I understand that. This is a plan for the long term but with staging posts along the way. We have already made progress. For example, I was very pleased when we announced a trial called EDITH for breast cancer screening, to harness the benefits of AI, working with operatives for sped up and more accurate diagnoses. This is one example and is to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, raised about AI.

I hear what the noble Lord says about cancer centres. We are seeking to move treatment and diagnosis from hospitals to community. That is one model, but there are others, as the noble Lord would acknowledge. It is right to push us to go further, but what sets this plan apart is not just its level of ambition and its recognition that all is not right in the world but that it is setting out how we will get there. However, I welcome the transparency and leadership which is attached to this—which noble Lords have called for. This plan merits a lot of attention and support. I shall be pleased to discuss it in this Chamber further.

[Baroness Swinburne (Con)]

My Lords, I too recognise that this plan is a really good step forward in terms of the long-term plan for cancer sufferers. Many of our families have been touched by this awful disease, which is many and varied. However, I would like to focus on the innovation and research side of this, our speed of uptake within the NHS across the United Kingdom and how quickly, relative to other places in the world, we get some of the testing that is available out to our UK nationals.

A test called an Oncotype DX test, which is used to determine whether or not it is suitable for breast cancer sufferers to have chemotherapy, has recently been brought to my attention. In many cases, people can avoid chemotherapy if the test is actually telling the clinician that it is not necessary. In fact, the majority of patients with a particular type of breast cancer will not need chemotherapy, and that test will tell them and identify them.

The reality is that that test was available in the US from 2004. It was adopted by NICE in its guidelines in the UK in 2015. It is only now being widely adopted in the NHS across the whole country, rather than just in specialist teaching hospitals. That speed of adoption means that many people are actually having unfortunate treatment that they may not have required.

Therefore, I urge the Minister to look at how quickly we adopt these new genomic tests and how quickly we can actually improve that patient path for each and every patient. This was personalised medicine that was designed 20 years ago and we are only just starting to see it roll out nationally.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point, particularly as we are in what I regard as a whole new area of scientific and technological advancement, and we have the chance to harness it.

In general terms, I can say to the noble Baroness that where, for example, there are regulatory problems with getting new treatments out there, we are working to remove all those blocks. That work is going on.

With regard to genomics, the plan does talk about routine genomic testing to match patients to targeted therapies and trials, and it also talks about investment in AI-guided radiotherapy, in cell therapy and in novel immunotherapies. There is also going to be the establishment of a cancer trial accelerator programme by next year, to increase trial access and speed.

My last point, which I hope will be helpful, is that six national research priorities are established, including early detection, mRNA vaccines, rare cancers and paediatric therapies. I take the point that the noble Baroness is making. The cancer plan addresses that, as well as seeking to remove blocks that should not be there.

Victims and Courts Bill

Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Committee (1st Day) (Continued)

20:17

Amendment 38

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

38: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to commission support services for caregivers of victims of abuse and exploitation(1) This section applies in respect of victims of offences relating to—(a) domestic abuse,(b) sexual violence, or(c) child criminal exploitation, where the victim—(i) at the time of the offence, was under the age of 18, or(ii) is an adult at risk of harm.(2) It is the duty of relevant authorities to commission sufficient and specific services for the parent, guardian or person who has responsibility for the victim under subsection (1) for the purpose of securing the rights of the victim under the Victims Code of Practice for England and Wales.(3) Victim is defined as outlined in Section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.(4) The services commissioned and provided under subsection (2) must be—(a) appropriate to the needs of the caregiver in supporting the victim,(b) trauma-informed and culturally competent, and(c) accessible without unreasonable delay or procedural burden. (5) In exercising their duty under this section, relevant authorities must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.(6) The Secretary of State must publish such guidance within six months of the passing of this Act, following consultation with relevant stakeholders including—(a) victim support organisations,(b) organisations representing children and vulnerable adults, and(c) persons with the lived-experience of the effects of sexual or violent offences.(7) In this section—“child criminal exploitation” has the meaning given in the Crime and Policing Act 2026;“adult at risk of harm” means a person aged 18 or over who—(a) has needs for care and support,(b) is experiencing, or is at risk of, abuse or neglect, and(c) as a result of those needs is unable to protect themselves against the abuse or neglect or the risk of it;“relevant authorities” has the meaning given in section 13 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on relevant authorities to provide specific services to the parent, guardian or person who has responsibility for a victim of domestic abuse, sexual violence or child criminal exploitation for the purposes of securing the rights of the victim under the Victims Code.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I laid Amendment 38, which proposes a duty to commission support services for caregivers of victims of abuse and exploitation. I am grateful to Restitute for its briefing, not just for this Bill but over the years. Cath Pickles from Restitute and her colleagues do an amazing job working with the caregivers—mainly parents, but also siblings—of victims of very serious abuse who have to pick up the pieces after the abuse, witnessing lives lived in trauma. Of course, it is obvious that, over time, many of these caregivers are traumatised, too.

Cath said in an interview with the Daily Express that the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse had findings showing that non-offending parents, particularly mothers, of survivors can experience psychological effects similar to those of the victims. A recent independent report by the University of Suffolk showed that Restitute has built a model of support for victims’ families from literally nothing. However, despite the sea change across the country, Cath knows from her bitter personal experience of the guilt, shame, stigmatisation and isolation that the work that Restitute can do is far from enough and more is needed. That is why Amendment 38 is so important.

It is important to recognise that support does not confer victim status for sentencing, compensation or criminal proceedings, but it can last for the mother—as it is in most cases—who often has to accept a child back into her home who has been an adult elsewhere and has been raped or badly sexually assaulted and may not be able to work or live independently for a very long time. That will of course affect the very close family caregivers. The Child Sexual Abuse Centre is due to publish national guidance in April. It is thought that it will explicitly recognise that parents and carers should be treated as victims in their own right, reflecting the harm that they experience as a consequence of child sexual abuse and the criminal justice response.

The amendment would provide clarity and coherence. It recognises that parents and carers of child or vulnerable adult victims may require proportionate support, distinct from evidential witness support. It would not expand sentencing or compensation rights, or dilute the primacy of the direct victim. However, it would resolve a documented structural inconsistency and support safeguarding, justice outcomes and cost-effective early intervention. Is the Minister prepared to meet me and Cath Pickles to discuss these issues further?

Amendment 43, also in my name, seeks to strengthen victims’ rights to access to restorative justice services. I thank the Common Ground Justice Project and the Why Me? group for their briefing. Today, we have heard so many different speeches mentioning the ongoing trauma faced by victims of serious crime. Many find that moving on is very difficult and they feel unheard. Restorative justice provides an opportunity for them to have a dialogue with the person who harmed them. They have the chance to explain the impact of the crime, then and now, to ask questions to understand why it happened, and to then have a way to move forward, which is often positive not just for them but for the offender.

At a time when only one in 10 victims trusts the criminal justice system, restorative justice achieves 85% victim satisfaction, reduces reoffending by up to 27% and saves £14 for every £1 invested in it. Despite these incredible impacts, access to restorative justice is poor and, shockingly, 95% of victims are not even told about it. We know that restorative justice providers have the capacity to do more, but poor awareness and low numbers of referrals are depriving victims of the opportunity to have their say.

The MoJ mechanism for improving RJ, re:hub, needs radical improvement and putting on a proper footing. The amendment seeks a legal right for all victims of crime to be told about restorative justice at all stages of the criminal justice process and to be offered a referral if that is the right thing. My honourable friend Paul Kohler MP laid this amendment in the Commons, and we were pleased with the Commons Minister’s positive response. We have laid it here because we think that this is the perfect time and the perfect Bill for the Government to make this commitment and make the UK a world leader in restorative justice. Paul is passionate about restorative justice because he was seriously attacked in his home. He and his wife and daughter met one of the attackers and it transformed Paul and his family. It was not about forgiveness, though that can be a byproduct. What it can really do is give victims an understanding and the ability to move on. What is more, it can help the offender as well.

In these tough financial times, using RJ consistently throughout the system would create substantial savings on spending across all the different bodies involved, because of its ability to substantially reduce offending—by up to 27%, as research has shown. I beg to move.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

I will speak to Amendment 45, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I apologise to the Minister for being unable to come to her briefing. It was at the same time as my Committee of the House, so I was pulled deeply. We may be able to discuss these issues at another time, but I thank her for the opportunity.

The amendment would ensure that police forces across England and Wales have access to victim navigators to support modern slavery victims. This would fulfil the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee and the House of Lords Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee, which stated:

“Victim navigators should be rolled out nationally. The objective must be that they are available in all cases”.


The provision of victim navigators will be essential to achieving the Safeguarding Minister’s pledge to drive up the prosecutions of modern slavery predators. It will help to fulfil the Government’s mission of safer streets, including tackling violence against women and girls, and achieve their election promise to deliver a justice system that puts the needs of victims first by enabling more successful prosecutions and convictions of traffickers who prey on the most vulnerable.

An independent economic impact assessment concluded in 2025 that a single victim navigator benefitted the country by £150,000. This came through saving police costs, reducing victims’ needs and thus the cost of support, and increasing convictions ensuring that predators are dealt with and victims give evidence. This is vital. It also saves the exploitation of further victims.

The chief executive of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority described the benefit of victims having a victim navigator:

“That means they’re better able to get help, and it also helps us when we’re taking people to court, because they understand the process better, they understand how to engage, and they feel supported. It has made a real difference to us”.


A detective sergeant in the Metropolitan Police recently said:

“I am in no doubt that a dangerous predator would not have received a 31-year jail sentence without the support of Justice and Care ... I led the police investigation into the case and think that the Victim Navigators’ work was nothing short of exceptional”.

[Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)]

I support this amendment. It is rare that we have an amendment that goes way back on good practice.

After the riots in 1990, Northumbria Police introduced a way of monitoring and mentoring witnesses going to court. At that stage, that part of the country had the highest crime rate in Europe in relation to car crime and the like. As a result of the monitoring and mentoring—where an officer was paired up with witnesses to go to court—there was an increase of five in the convictions in that area, and it is well documented that crime in that part of the country went down by record levels, still not beaten.

Navigators are surely an expansion of the scheme and will probably deal with more difficult cases than we were dealing with in Northumbria. We know that, in trafficking and slave trafficking, it is extremely difficult to get people to come forward and give evidence, and that when they do, with the justice system as it stands at the moment, taking four to five years to get to the Crown Court, there needs to be an extra delivery to the witnesses. It is the victims who will achieve something in relation to the benefits of this.

The argument from certain quarters, I guess, will be that this is going to cost more money. That is not the case. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, said, there are massive savings in this. If it is £150,000 for each case, you only have to combine that with multiples to make the sum extraordinary.

I go back to what I said at the beginning. This is a scheme, in a different way, that worked and was created as best practice by the Prime Minister of the time, John Major. It is an old scheme that is practical and works. So, from my point of view and that of my colleagues I have talked to—you have already heard quoted a detective sergeant, but there are others higher up the tree, and constables—we would welcome this as a positive step forward.

20:30

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I have signed all three of my noble friend Baroness Brinton’s amendments. I will not speak to them at any length. Amendment 38 prompts me to declare an interest, having been chair of the organisation Refuge for very many years. In connection with Amendments 43 and 44, it strikes me that there is quite a read-across between these and those we debated earlier on the response of a victim and how they are affected, and how an offender is prompted, under the amendments on appearance in court, to address what has happened. But it is not that read-across that I want to spend time on.

I was a member of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, has picked up one of its recommendations. Her amendment is a good deal more ambitious than the recommendation in our report, which just talked about the objective being to have victim navigators available in all cases. She is calling for rollout within six months, which strikes me as ambitious. Ambition is good.

The report was headed “evidence gathering”, and the evidence we heard was about assisting the police and getting best evidence. Through a friend who has been involved in assisting the police in a number of slavery cases, I realise how difficult this is. I will mention a couple of them. On one occasion a big police operation was set up to rescue people who were block-paving. It was almost impossible to hold any of the people who were the subject of this. They managed to keep one, despite all the preparation and all the common-sense, humane ideas, such as: do not just pull them into a room and start questioning them, but sit them down and say, “Would you like a glass of juice?” It sounds obvious, but apparently it was not entirely obvious. On another occasion, throughout the police interview a woman who was being prostituted was in touch with her “boyfriend”, who was telling her what she should be saying. How that could have got through, I do not know.

One of the things which prompted us to make this recommendation was that the then Minister who gave evidence seemed not to have heard of victim navigators. They are not the same as advisers who assist victims to cope with the process. There is obviously quite a lot of crossover, but they are very focused on the process and not just a support.

As the noble Lord has just said, and as we so often argue, a bit of investment could yield good financial results. That is one reason why victim navigators are a good idea. I believe there are only 11 at the moment. I pay tribute to Tatiana Gren-Jardan and Louise Gleich, who have been very much behind the scheme, and its success is in large part due to their own skills and input. It is also worth saying that it is not just about getting convictions; one of their achievements has been helping to repatriate victims who want safely to go back to their countries of origin. It is a great scheme, and it is up to the police to pursue it. So perhaps this is something for the MoJ and the Home Office, but I hope this debate can prompt some government support to forward the scheme.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Goudie, for bringing forward the amendments.

Amendment 38 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, proposes a new clause that seeks to place a duty on relevant authorities to commission support services for caregivers of victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence or exploitation. The amendment would ensure that those with responsibility for the victims are not overlooked by the system and have access to the appropriate support. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response as to how the amendment could be delivered and might function in practice.

Amendments 43 and 44 would introduce new clauses concerning restorative justice. These build on the provisions in the Bill, better to enable victims to explain the impact of a crime to the offender and to participate meaningfully in the justice process. Some victims engage with restorative justice services, but such engagement must be voluntary. Victims should not be placed under any pressure to engage further with the offender. None the less, there are findings showing that these services reduce the likelihood of offenders reoffending and can result in other social benefits, including delivering value for money. We on this side are interested to hear from the Minister how the Government will ensure that services such as these are used where it is thought they are likely to be beneficial.

Amendment 45 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, seeks to implement the recommendation of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee that victim navigators be rolled out nationally so that they are available in all cases. In response to that recommendation, the Government stated in December 2024 that they want to build on the research of the previous Government on how best to support victims. In addition, the Government said they had met the NGOs delivering the victim navigator programme to understand its impact and to explore options for expansion. We have also heard an authoritative and persuasive speech from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, who obviously has real hands-on experience in this area. We should listen carefully to what he has to say, and I hope the Minister will speak to him and engage with him.

We look forward to hearing an update from the Minister on what further research has been undertaken and what conclusions the Government have reached since then. I reiterate my thanks to noble Lords for raising these important issues, all of which speak to the purpose of the Bill: to ensure that victims receive the support and services they deserve throughout their journey through the justice system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

I shall speak first to Amendment 38 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Hamwee. While entirely understanding the motivation for the amendment, the Government believe that it would be neither necessary nor helpful to place a statutory obligation on certain authorities to commission certain support services for this cohort. In a world of finite resources, that would prioritise provision to third parties.

I reassure the noble Baronesses that the parents and carers of victims of abuse and exploitation can already access support services. The funding that the Ministry of Justice provides to the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Fund and to police and crime commissioners can be, and is, used to commission specific support services for parents and carers.

Parents and carers will often access services that the victim themselves is accessing, particularly where the victim is a child. Parents and carers of victims of crime can also seek mental health support or other support through local services and the NHS. Having said this, I recognise that more can be done to support this cohort. As part of the violence against women and girls strategy, this Government has committed up to £50 million to transform support for victims of child sexual abuse through expanding the use of child houses. These are incredible places, as anybody who has had a chance to visit the one in London can tell you. They offer vital wraparound support to non-abusing parents and carers in one physical location. In addition, the Ministry of Justice has founded the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse to develop an online directory of support services for those affected by child sexual abuse. This can be easily navigated to identify services for parents and carers and other affected adults.

I turn now to Amendments 43 and 44 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Jones and Lady Hamwee. This Government recognise the positive impact that restorative justice can have in appropriate cases and are very grateful to the restorative justice providers who continue to offer this important service. We agree that when delivered in the right circumstances restorative justice can improve victim satisfaction, reduce reoffending and bring benefits to victims, offenders and their communities. Under the current victims’ code, victims must be told about restorative justice services when reporting a crime, but we have been told that this may be too early—we are listening— and that is why under the new code consultation launched last week we are retaining this but have proposed an additional entitlement for the victim to be told about restorative justice again after an offender has been convicted. We look forward to engaging stakeholders during the code consultation.

Where services are available and victims and offenders are willing, referrals are already made, and that is supported through PCC-funded local services alongside our facilitation of restorative justice across prisons and probation. However, placing referral to restorative justice for all victims on a statutory footing, in our view, is neither necessary nor appropriate. Restorative justice self-evidently requires the consent and participation of both parties and the safety and welfare of those involved is paramount. Automatic referral is therefore not always suitable. For example, a victim of stalking who has fought tooth and nail to end all contact might understandably see the offer of restorative justice as, at best, insensitive and, at worst, a way in which the perpetrator in their case could continue their campaign.

The Government already monitor delivery. PCCs submit biannual reports as part of the MoJ grant management process, providing insight into victim support services, including restorative justice. Many PCC police and crime plans also set out clear commitments to supporting restorative justice. In our view, introducing a further national assessment would simply duplicate these existing measures. As we prepare for upcoming changes to the PCC commissioning model, we will explore changes to the delivery of victims’ funding, including restorative justice, to ensure that this is delivered in the best way in the future while avoiding unnecessary statutory requirements. For these reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to not to press her amendments.

I turn now to Amendment 45 in the name of my noble friend Lady Goudie and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. We value the excellent work delivered by Justice and Care through its victim navigator programme. This Government are committed to ensuring that victims of modern slavery and human trafficking are supported to help rebuild their lives and to engage with the criminal justice system to bring those who have exploited them to justice. We recognise the positive impact that tailored support can have on securing victim engagement, and that is why we have already put provision in place across a number of areas important for supporting prosecutions. Adult victims of modern slavery and human trafficking are already supported by the modern slavery victim care contacts in England and Wales. That is where they have access to a dedicated support worker who will support them to help access legal aid, legal advice and legal representation and assistance during criminal proceedings.

The Home Office is also in the process of procuring the new support for victims of modern slavery contract for adults. To support child victims of exploitation and modern slavery, the government-funded independent child trafficking guardian service provides specialist modern slavery support and advocacy, across two-thirds of local authorities in England and Wales, to child victims and professionals who work with them. This includes help for the child to navigate the complexities of the criminal justice system. An invitation to tender for the national contract, which covers all of England and Wales from 2027, is currently live. Because of the existing provision, the Government do not consider it necessary to enact an additional statutory requirement to fund independent victim navigators, as this would duplicate the support services they have already put in place. I hope that, in the light of this, my noble friend will feel able not to press her amendment.

20:45

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all the speakers in this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for his support and curiosity on how the Minister would respond. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, for speaking so powerfully on the issue of navigators for victims of modern slavery as well.

I thank the Minister for her response, too. She will not be surprised to hear that I do not quite agree with everything that she said. On Amendment 38 and the support for caregivers, she said it was not necessary for this cohort because they can already access support. It is not necessarily clear to that particular cohort that it is available, because they present as trying to fight for the support for their child. That is part of the problem and, as a result, the personal trauma and damage that they live with is often quite repressed. One reason for the amendment was to find a mechanism where people actually say, “And how are you? What can we do to support you?”. I asked the Minister earlier if it would be possible to have a meeting. It would be good, perhaps, to assess this. It is also financial—perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer should hear—because often these parents give up work to look after their children. Their lifestyles change, so it is a very big deal, but I thank the Minister for what she said on that point.

I am glad the Government agree that restorative justice can work. I am sorry to be a bit of a pain, but we were clear in our Amendment 43, in subsection (3) of its proposed new clause, that

“a victim must at all times give informed consent, and participation in any restorative justice process shall be voluntary”.

That is the core, because it would not work if not. The Minister said that it might be a problem for victims of stalking, for example, because they might not want to do it, but that is easy, as they can say, “No, I’m not interested in meeting my stalker”—I personally never want to meet my stalker; absolutely no, sorry—but that crime is of a different nature and there are plenty of other crimes, particularly some of the slightly lower-level ones, where if it really reduces reoffending that much, the Government have to look at it. On that basis, I really hope that the Government will seriously look at expanding it beyond its very small nature at the moment, where it seems to be a few people who might be interested rather than recognising that it will transform the court system and the justice system overall. I beg to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 38 withdrawn.

Amendment 39

Moved by

[Lord Keen of Elie]

39: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Victim personal statements(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue revised guidance on the content of victim personal statements.(2) The revised guidance issued under subsection (1) must stipulate that when making a victim personal statement, a victim must be able to say anything they wish about the defendant, provided it is not contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech, makes allegations of untried criminal conduct or is disorderly language.(3) The court must disregard any prejudicial comments made during a victim personal statement.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review how to make victim personal statements less restrictive and clarify what can be included.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 39 in my name would require the Secretary of State to issue revised guidance on victim personal statements, clarifying what victims may include and ensuring that the courts appropriately disregard prejudicial material.

Victim personal statements are a valuable and important part of our criminal justice process. They allow victims to articulate in their own words the impact that a crime has had on them and on their families. This personal element is often deeply cathartic and can provide a sense of agency in a system that victims have described as otherwise procedural and somewhat distant. However, as this Bill was scrutinised in the other place, it became clear that many victims and practitioners find the current approach to personal statements unclear and, in some cases, unnecessarily restrictive.

Members spoke of victims feeling that they were sometimes advised to omit heartfelt and deeply personal material from their statements. These omissions were not for any legal reason, but appeared to be due to an overly cautious interpretation of the guidance. There is also a concern that victims do not always understand what is and is not permissible, and that this lack of clarity can undermine their confidence in the entire process.

One recurring theme from previous debates is that victims should not be left uncertain about what they can and cannot say, nor should they feel that their legitimate expressions of harm are being suppressed for procedural reasons. At the same time, the amendment acknowledges the equally important principle that personal statements must not be vehicles for

“allegations of untried criminal conduct”,

or material that is contrary to

“statutory limitations on free speech”

or due process. It is designed precisely to strike the appropriate balance. It would not remove any existing safeguards. It simply asks the Secretary of State to revisit and clarify the guidance governing the content of personal statements in a way that gives victims clarity and a genuine sense of voice.

The amendment would require revised guidance to be issued within six months of the Bill passing. The revised guidance must stipulate that, when making a victim personal statement, the victim should be able to say

“anything they wish about the defendant”,

so long as it does not go beyond lawful free speech, make untested allegations of new criminal conduct, or contain “disorderly language”. These are sensible and well-established legal boundaries.

The amendment also states that the court must disregard any

“prejudicial comments made during a victim personal statement”.

In practice, this would simply enshrine what is already understood by judges: that victims may express themselves freely, while judges continue to confine themselves to factors that are legally relevant and admissible. Placing this in the Bill would reassure victims that greater freedom of expression in their statements will not be misconstrued as diminishing the fairness of proceedings, or indeed as providing a basis for an appeal. This would not mean that victims would be able to litigate matters that fall outside the scope of the case before the court, nor would it mean that victim personal statements would supplant other evidence or judicial reasoning. It would mean that victims would know where they stand, and that they would not be discouraged from expressing the full impact of their experience simply because the existing guidance is interpreted excessively cautiously.

The importance of clarity in this area cannot be overstated. Victims and their families often report that they do not know what is expected of them when making a personal statement, or that they are told they must temper their comments in ways that feel artificial or perhaps insensitive. That undermines public confidence in the system and risks denying victims a meaningful voice at a critical moment in the justice process. This amendment offers a proportionate way forward. It respects judicial integrity and would preserve the lawful limits on personal statements. At the same time, it would provide victims with the clarity and the dignity that they deserve. It would ensure that they can say what they need to say without fear that well-meaning but over cautious guidance may curtail their voice.

I present the amendment in a constructive spirit. I look forward to the Minister outlining how the Government believe that the current guidance is operating—whether it achieves its objectives, and whether there is an appetite for revision that reflects victims’ legitimate expectations—and speaking to the points raised by Members on both sides of the House and in the other place. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My brief observations draw on my experience of what happened about 20 years ago when the statements were being developed. For more serious cases, such as murder and manslaughter, there was an attempt to give the victim’s family an advocate. It had transpired that drafting these statements was not easy, and so this was trialled for a few years. It proved to be an extremely expensive way forward, and the scheme came to an end with the financial crisis of 2008.

That left us with the problem, in all these cases, of how you formulate what was then called a victim impact statement and is now called a personal statement? They are extraordinarily difficult to formulate. Those with experience of civil cases will know that, if you ask a witness to produce something in his own words, or you ask the claimant in a case to do the same, you get something you could never put before the court, because it would never really convey what had to be put forward. Therefore, the way in which progress was made was along the cautious lines of developing guidance. I think such guidance always needs to be kept under review. You need consultation with the Crown Court judges, who see this all the time. Clarity in the guidance is essential, but I greatly caution against allowing a victim to do more than explain to the court the way in which the crime has affected the victim, his family and the community. Going beyond that seems to raise all sorts of problems, and the last thing one wants to do is to revictimise a victim by saying, “You shouldn’t say that in court”. Clarity is essential, but I say, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, that his formulation goes too wide of the mark.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I shall add a couple of very brief points. First, from my own experience, also nearly 20 years ago now when I was a victim of stalking, as were some of my colleagues, I found that the police encouraged me to make a victim statement, but we were advised quite specifically to talk not about what the stalker had done but solely about the effect on us of what he had done: in other words, to completely avoid making any comment about him or his actions. That was quite difficult. I was advised very heavily not to get involved and show how emotional many of us were as a result of his actions, and I chose not to do that at all.

However, I talked last week to Glenn Youens, the father of a four year-old who was killed. He and his family were asked if they wanted to do a victim impact statement, and the police advised them not to use certain language because the court had advised them not to. They were told that bluntness might upset the perpetrator, they could not call him a child killer; they were not allowed any props in court, such as their daughter’s teddy bear; and the CPS advised them not to appeal the unduly lenient sentence, because it might actually make the Attorney-General get less for him in the long run. So, this particular family’s experience of making a statement was the exact opposite of what it was intended to be. While I have some sympathy with some elements of the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, I think I am more with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, on the grounds that we would have to design it so carefully to make sure that a victim is doing it willingly and that they are able to say what they want without jeopardising the court process. I am afraid that that would also mean very strict guidance on the officials helping them not to do so in a way that prevents victims speaking in their own voice.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for talking about what happened to her, because in your Lordships’ House, that kind of personal experience really resonates with all of us. I thank her for that. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for speaking from his experience in the courts. He speaks with a great deal of authority and I know the House has vast respect for him.

Let me start with that with which we all agree: of course I recognise that victim personal statements are a powerful tool for victims and their families to tell the court about the effect that these crimes have had on them. The victim personal statement is also important for the judge when deciding the appropriate sentence. The VPS provides evidence and information which can help the judge in determining the seriousness of the offence as part of the sentencing process, and plainly it is right that victims should have a voice in that. However, it is also right that this must be done fairly. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, that there are limits to what can be said in the VPS, as we cannot have legally irrelevant matters—for example, other behaviour of which the defendant has not been convicted. The judge is not by law allowed to take account of such things.

That said, I too have heard from victims and their families about their concerns about how the VPS process operates in practice. I completely understand how frustrating it must be to be told that they cannot express themselves in the way in which they expected to be able to, or to include all the information which they feel the judge ought to have. We agree that further work is needed to consider how we can make sure that victims fully understand the process, including the value of being able to have their voice heard in the sentencing process, but also an explanation as to why there have to be limitations on this.

21:00

I have given careful consideration as to whether the Government can accept the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, but I have concluded that parts of the proposed approach risk increasing the likelihood of a victim being cross-examined on their VPS. While a judge is always good at ignoring irrelevant material, where a VPS contains inadmissible or irrelevant material, the defence is always going to want to be heard about that to protect the position of their client. The Government are determined that the sentencing hearing should not become any more contentious than is absolutely necessary, because this adds to the stress and upset for victims.

In any event, I do not believe that the amendment will have the desired effect because the criminal practice directions and a significant body of case law already provide the legal basis for the VPS in the context of sentencing. Criminal practice directions are issued by judges, not Ministers, and the legal position is then reflected in publicly available guidance. The Secretary of State for Justice is not responsible for any of these pieces of guidance; nor have they previously issued such guidance. To us, this reflects the proper division of powers in a constitutional sense.

For these reasons, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment, but I ask him to work with me, through the recently launched victims’ code consultation and beyond, better to understand victims’ experiences of the VPS process and how any issues might be addressed, while ensuring that the criminal justice system operates safely and fairly for all.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, clearly, we have to achieve a balance between preserving due process in the justice system and empowering victims. We have to be able to reassure victims but, at the same time, protect the judicial process. We must reduce the risk of misunderstanding, or indeed even of appeal, in the context of these statements.

However, there does seem to be a widely held concern that these guidance provisions are not working as they should at the present time. There seems to be an understanding that further work is needed to clarify how victim guidance is construed and applied. I suggest that it is not simply a matter for the criminal practice directions, but one that we should consider, whether in the form of a review or further directions or guidance from the House.

In the circumstances, I seek to withdraw the amendment, but I do so on the basis that the Government understand the need to revisit this issue and why the guidance is not working, and will come to a view as to how it can be improved going forward.

Amendment 39 withdrawn.

Amendment 40

Moved by

[Lord Garnier]

40: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Compensation for victims of fraud and other economic crimes(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a review of victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences.(2) The purpose of the review under subsection (1) is to identify how victims of such economic crimes could be better compensated without such victims needing to pursue civil action.(3) The Secretary of State must provide for a public consultation on the review.(4) In this section “victims of economic crime” includes United Kingdom and overseas victims of complex corruption cases where the harm caused by the offending is not easily quantifiable.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause requires a review to explore how domestic and overseas victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences could be better compensated without the need for civil proceedings to recover their losses or compensation.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, this is not the first time I have argued that this jurisdiction does not do enough to ensure that domestic—but more importantly, overseas—victims of economic crime committed by people or organisations based here are adequately compensated for their losses.

If the last Government and the present one have been less than enthusiastic about my proposals, I have received support from, among others, Sam Tate, a partner of the London law firm, Clyde & Co, other legal practitioners who have read my speeches and articles on this subject over the years, and from Sam Hickey, a lawyer qualified in Australia and the United States, in his paper entitled Compensating the Victims of Foreign Bribery: UK Legislation, Practice and Recommended Reforms, published in February 2025 by the International Centre for Asset Recovery, which is part of the Basel Institute on Governance, at Basel University in Switzerland.

Having been the initiator politically of the deferred prosecution agreement—DPA—system in this jurisdiction, and as a vocal advocate for the extension of the failure to prevent economic crime regime, and, I should make clear, also as a barrister whose practice includes economic crime cases, I have taken a long-term interest in this aspect of our justice system. It is, regrettably, my experience from the time I was reappointed as the shadow Attorney-General in 2009, then as Solicitor-General during the early part of the coalition Government in 2010, followed by what is now 14 years on the government and opposition Back Benches, both here and in the other place, that all three parties of government—the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party—have acknowledged with warm words the problems my amendment outlines but have not done enough to make the necessary practical changes.

I do not say that the United Kingdom has done nothing, and there is a reasonable case to suggest that we have been at the forefront of efforts to get a grip on foreign corruption. Several of the DPA cases concluded here have involved admitted allegations of failure to prevent bribery overseas, leading to the imposition of serious financial penalties. But when it comes to compensating the overseas victims of these offences, we have fallen short. It is not right that Crown Court judges—and it will usually be High Court or senior Crown Court judges well able to make the necessary assessments with the right evidence who will be dealing with these cases—should feel inhibited by existing statute law and practice from assessing and awarding compensation to the victims I had in mind because the assessment is or may be thought to be complicated. These judges deal with complex points of law and evidence every day, and victims should not be required to take out separate civil proceedings that are expensive in terms of cost and time in order to get justice.

As I said in your Lordships’ House on 7 February 2024, since the introduction of DPAs in 2014, the courts had by then fined corporations more than £1.5 billion for violations of the Bribery Act, yet only 1.4% of that sum had been given to the citizens of victim countries of the indicted corruption. We are therefore open to charges of hypocrisy, because the United Kingdom has been essentially acting as the world’s policeman while keeping the fines for the Treasury.

Sam Hickey in his paper makes six recommendations on how we can improve our performance as providers of just and appropriate compensation to the victims of overseas corruption. Having overburdened the House only last Thursday evening with my thoughts on the need to reform the criminal law of joint enterprise, I will not go into such depth or detail in arguing for my amendment today. But I recommend that the Minister just takes a few minutes to read Mr Hickey’s paper and the basis for his recommendations, even though he kindly makes several references to things I have already said in your Lordships’ House. If the Minister is really short of sleep, I invite her to read my speeches and published articles on the subject—but in any event, Mr Hickey’s paper should be part of the review I am asking for via Amendment 40.

In essence, Mr Hickey and I, both jointly and severally, urge upon the Government—and I have said as much myself several times in this House and in the articles I have written—that we should no longer simply rely on legal principles relating to compensation orders in favour of identifiable human victims in this jurisdiction when deciding whether to include compensation in the terms of a DPA or when sentencing a corporate defendant following a conviction or plea of guilty by the Crown Court. There should be a rebuttable presumption in favour of including compensation in such agreements or following conviction. Where compensation is included in the terms of a DPA, it should be tailored to the facts of each case.

More specifically, the Serious Fraud Office, as the usual prosecutor in cases of this sort, should actively apply for compensation to be awarded to discrete victims who have suffered quantifiable losses. In the case of Glencore, the SFO did not, despite my prompting when I was acting for the Government of Nigeria, seek to apply for compensation. There were legislative problems that prevented the court dealing with it, but at least the judge had the decency to hear my argument before saying, “Thanks, but no thanks”. However, it does seem to me that there should be a preference for compensation to be put toward the benefit of victim communities or societies in the foreign state through, for example, infrastructure projects such as schools or medical facilities, or towards the reduction of national debt. If none of those is possible, compensation moneys should be put towards the anti-corruption initiatives of governments, NGOs or international organisations—as I have suggested in the past, a United Nations ESCO account might be a suitable destination—as a final resort to ensure that some measure of compensation is paid in every case.

In any event, we should legislate for a rebuttable presumption in favour of real compensation. We should, as I have suggested before, consider a variety of methods for calculating the amount of compensation, including a victim’s losses, the value of the bribe, a percentage of the fines and penalties, or the gross profit of the briber. If there are no discrete victims with quantifiable losses, we should look to whichever measure of compensation is the greatest.

We should devise a formal procedure that victims, states and NGOs could use to request compensation. We need to clarify the concepts underlying compensatory practices, including the kinds of remedies available, the harm that might lead to compensation and the victims who might receive it. We also need, as I have said on several occasions before, to incentivise corporations to pay compensation by, for example, subtracting the compensation from the penalty. I accept that it could be said of my argument that repetition never made a bad point better. But I gently suggest that successive government failures to listen to a reasonable argument, year after year, is not evidence of its successful refutation but of a wilful or negligent refusal to see what is in front of them: that is to say, injustice piled on injustice, and corrupt companies being given license to bribe with impunity and to act without concern for their victims because it is happening out of sight and overseas. Amendment 40 is, if I may say so, a moderate amendment in its ambitions—perhaps too moderate—but it is certainly worthy of the Government’s consideration, and I urge them to do so. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 46 in this group. In the Commons, it was tabled by Sarah Champion MP, who has long argued for supporting victims effectively and has a particular interest in the function of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The amendment asks the Secretary of State to amend the criminal injuries compensation scheme to widen eligibility for compensation to all victims of child sex abuse, including online-facilitated sexual abuse, to ensure applicants with unspent convictions are not automatically excluded where offences are linked to the circumstances of their sexual abuse, and to increase the time limit for applications for compensation from victims of child sexual abuse to seven years. I will not give any more detail of that.

The reason for this is that, until the 2012 scheme, a crime was generally considered violent if it involved physical injury, the threat of immediate violence or a non-consensual sexual assault. Those were the ones the compensation scheme could look at. In practice, this means that many cases of online child sexual abuse are excluded, even where the abuse involves sustained coercion, blackmail or domination and the child experiences profound and lasting harm.

We know that victims often face significant barriers in accessing compensation for this reason. There is a problem with the strict time limits that the CICA imposes, because that means that many traumatised victims, who may be navigating complex criminal justice processes and/or are unaware of their eligibility, often struggle to apply in time. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse report on accountability and reparations recommended extending the time limit for child sexual abuse cases and giving claims officers greater discretion, but these proposals were sadly rejected by the previous Government.

21:15

The CICA can also refuse or reduce awards where applicants have unspent criminal convictions, a criterion that disproportionately affects victims whose offending is linked to the trauma they experienced. This is often seen in cases involving child sexual abuse and exploitation. IICSA recommended that such cases be assessed on their individual merits rather than rejected automatically, but sadly this was also rejected by the previous Government.

The scheme also has significant shortcomings in how it communicates with victims. While we are aware of work to improve this, many victims continue to contact the commissioner to express their concerns, describing how their experiences with the scheme left them feeling re-traumatised. It is clear that meaningful holistic reform of the scheme is needed, and we hope that this amendment will start to address that.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I also put my name to Amendment 46, which was originally laid by Sarah Champion in the Commons; the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has spoken to it comprehensively, so I will not add anything to that. Instead, I will speak to Amendment 47 in my name, which, in many ways, is very closely related. Amendment 46 came through discussions with Claire Waxman, the Victims’ Commissioner; Amendment 47 comes through working with another organisation, the Marie Collins Foundation in Northern Ireland, which specifically works with child sex abuse victims who have been abused online.

Amendment 47 is an attempt to find, in essence, a clearer definition of what is harmful to CSA victims and, in a sense, to give the Government breathing space while they decide whether they need to go further and be clearer. Under the current CICS, a crime is considered violent only if it involves physical injury, the threat of immediate violence or a non-consensual sexual assault. To a large extent, that excludes online child sexual abuse.

There was a court case in 2023, where an individual called “RN” went to court against the CICA. The Court of Appeal in this case confirmed that online grooming may fall within the scheme where threats cause a child to fear immediate physical violence even if the threats are made remotely. However, the court also said that many online cases would still fall outside the scheme and that this can produce outcomes that are counterintuitive and unjust. It also made it clear—this is the reason for the amendment—that any broader clarification of coverage is a matter for Parliament and not for judicial interpretation.

What we are trying to achieve is to recognise exactly what this type of abuse is. It commonly consists of a combination of blackmail, coercion, threats and domination, which are, in effect, a combination of emotional and psychological abuse. It involves compelled actions, such as the creation and sharing of sexual images, livestreamed sexual activity, or other sexual acts directed by an offender against the child—all of which is online. It results in sustained fear, loss of autonomy and erosion of individual agency. It can also lead to long-term psychological harm, including trauma-related conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression and so on.

What we are trying to achieve is, first, to capture online-only child sex abuse cases where the nature of abuse is such that the conduct meets the scheme’s existing criteria for a crime of violence. Secondly, it seeks to operate within the existing legal framework by clarifying how violence is understood, rather than by redefining CSA or injury. Thirdly, it proposes to support consistent and workable decision-making by the CICA on online-only CSA cases, which is not the case at the moment. Fourthly, it would avoid creating any hierarchy of abuse by grounding eligibility in established scheme principles. Fifthly, and lastly, it would provide an interim pragmatic response, pending wider consideration of scheme reform.

I hope that the Government will look at the evidence, take on board what is happening and, in particular, as is often the case with online abuse, look at the scale at which this is increasing year on year, to see whether it is something that needs to be looked at more clearly and recognised in law for the harm that it is doing.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for bringing forward their amendments and helping to shape what has been a valuable debate about the issue of just compensation for victims.

Amendment 40, in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, raises an important concern about how the victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences can be better compensated both domestically and abroad. Indeed, I have heard his arguments on more than one occasion before and never failed to be persuaded by them.

These crimes do not just inflict monetary loss on victims; they often involve sophisticated deception. They can cause significant psychological distress, emotional trauma and lasting insecurity. More widely, they undermine trust in our society, and so deserve the Government’s attention. The Government must look carefully at my noble and learned friend’s suggestions for a review. It could be important and beneficial for the City of London, as a centre of finance of worldwide renown. If we can take the lead on this, that would be an encouragement to people to do business here.

This brings me to Amendment 67, in my name. I should say that a gremlin came in here—and I am not blaming the typist. Where it says:

“Sentencing guidelines on court fines”,


it should of course say compensation orders. The amendment is intended to correct an imbalance for victims. Its purpose is clear: to ensure that victims are compensated properly, according to the actual value of items stolen. This principle would apply in cases of fraud, burglary or theft, and in any other crime which has resulted in a victim suffering financial loss. The responsibility for repayment should be put squarely on the offender through the issuing of compensation orders. It is only right and just that offenders pay back the value of what they have stolen to their victims. There should be a direct link, so that offenders fully face up to the consequences of their actions in a real and logical way.

This measure is simply proportionate. At present, offenders may not be made even to begin to compensate for the damage inflicted, which only adds further insult to injury. To correct this imbalance, the amendment would require the Sentencing Council to revise the relevant sentencing guidelines within 18 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. This would lead to a more consistent approach across cases, and sentencing would recognise and account for the amount actually taken or lost. Justice for victims should be material, not merely symbolic. That would help to strengthen public confidence in our courts. We urge the Minister to give serious consideration to the amendment.

Amendment 46, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and Amendment 47, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, concern the criminal injuries compensation scheme. The former seeks to broaden its eligibility to all victims of child abuse; the latter aims to bring online-only child sexual abuse into the scope of recognition of the scheme. It is important that the scheme keeps apace with the evolving landscape in which criminal activity now takes place. All victims must be properly supported, with access to the appropriate mechanisms for compensation and redress. I look forward to hearing the response of the Minister, on how the scheme can be updated.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords—

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

My Lords—

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I do apologise.

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

Not at all. I apologise. I waited for the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, to introduce his amendment before I spoke.

I will speak briefly to Amendment 40, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and then to Amendment 67, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. I will say nothing on Amendments 46 and 47 on child sexual abuse, except that I fully support them, for the reasons that have been given.

Amendment 40 is on fraud, bribery and money laundering. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, rightly says that it is not the first time that he has brought this issue before the House or before Parliament. Indeed, he has been a formidable campaigner on the issue for a number of years. On these Benches, we think he is right about it. It is a very difficult area on which to propose legislation in precise or specific terms. With this amendment, he seeks to require a review of the whole area of fraud, bribery and money laundering within the UK and abroad.

The background is the inevitable inadequacy of existing civil proceedings, in this jurisdiction or elsewhere, not only from a jurisdictional point of view but because of the inevitable cost of civil proceedings, the difficulty of valuation and the difficulties of enforcement for the victims of substantial economic crime. They cannot be properly compensated by the existing regime of compensation orders. A review is needed to consider how compensation might be ordered and to consider the principles that are brought into play by complex economic crime for criminal activity here and abroad, and not always just in one jurisdiction but often across countries and in multiple jurisdictions.

The noble and learned Lord highlights our poor record as a country—though rightly he says that we are better than many—in providing compensation for victims of economic offences. He highlights that there may not be just individual or corporate losers; there can also be organisations or states which deserve compensation but for which, presently, our law and the law elsewhere makes no proper provision.

These are difficult issues and there are very difficult issues concerning quantification. The inadequacy of how we fail the victims of overseas corruption and other economic crime amounts, in effect, to our holding our hands up and admitting defeat in the face of those issues. The review for which the noble and learned Lord calls needs to be illuminated and energised by some extremely innovative and imaginative thinking which holds out the prospect of real improvement of the position and accepts that we may not be precise in any award of compensation. A real attempt to provide adequate compensation can be made and should be made.

I am bound to say that I also agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, that grasping this issue could enhance the business reputation of London as a centre of economic and business excellence where others have failed in this area.

Amendment 67, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, seeks a review of sentencing guidelines to insist on compensation which is commensurate, they say, with the value of stolen items, although I appreciate that the way the amendment was opened goes wider than cases of theft.

21:30

I frankly disagree with the way in which that amendment is put, because the sentencing guidelines and the Sentencing Council’s publication on compensation orders seem to grasp the issues in a more subtle and appropriate way than does the amendment.

We are on these Benches, of course, fully in favour of compensation orders in the right cases that meet the requirements of justice. But this amendment is, frankly, a blunt instrument. The amendment is predicated on the view that the valuation of stolen items is simple. It is certainly the case that valuation by victims of theft, who are the losers in the police terminology, is not a precise art. The value of the stolen items may not be known, with the best will in the world. It may be exaggerated, and often is for insurance purposes. We have seen valuations on charge sheets that bear little relationship to what one might think of as the street value of the items that were unfortunately taken.

But the basis of valuation may be uncertain. What might be recoverable from insurers may be very different from replacement cost or saleable value. Furthermore, opinions on all these valuations will differ, necessarily, between two parties, so it is very difficult to ask a criminal court to award compensation on the basis of valuations when the valuations are so uncertain.

It would be wrong, and the Sentencing Council is right to say that it would not be sensible, to enter into detailed exercises of valuation to assess compensation orders before they are made. That sort of exercise is best left to civil proceedings, where both parties have the opportunity to argue on properly prepared evidence about valuation issues.

Furthermore, the amendment has no regard to the ability of an offender to pay, or to the question of an offender’s means, or to the question of an offender having other commitments which have to be met before considering whether the compensation order can be met. It is also important to consider, when a compensation order is made, the likely effect of other penalties. How much is appropriate for a compensation order of an employed individual may completely change when that employed individual loses his or her employment and becomes the subject of a custodial sentence which is going to keep them out of any earning power for a considerable time.

It is also important that any compensation order is not a civil debt. It ends up as a criminal sanction with a penalty for failure to pay and a sentence in default in cases worth more than £20,000. By making a compensation order, you are, in effect, converting what is a civil penalty, or civil “compensation” in the terms of the amendment, into a criminal sanction with no real justification.

I would also invite the Government to comment on, and the noble Lord who moved the amendment to think about, the effect on rehabilitation of the offenders concerned of compensation orders that are plainly excessive and which they cannot meet.

So, while the amendment may have some superficial attraction, to expect the criminal courts to act as civil courts in imposing and quantifying compensation orders is neither sensible nor just. I suggest that the Sentencing Council in its present approach, which embodies the kinds of submissions I have made, has got it about right and should remain undisturbed.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I apologise once again to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for standing up before him a few moments ago.

Amendment 40 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, raises the important issue of compensating victims of economic crime. I really mean it when I say that I am grateful to him for his continued interest in this matter. No one could accuse him of not being consistent. Indeed, he and I are due to meet after the Recess to discuss his amendment further, and I look forward to that.

As the noble and learned Lord knows, I practised at the Bar in the area of economic crime, including fraud and other crimes, and I want to make it clear that the Government take the compensation of victims of economic crime very seriously. It is of critical importance in limiting the harm of these often ruthless and cruel crimes. We are committed to ensuring that, whenever possible, funds are taken from criminals and returned to victims.

As the noble and learned Lord knows, as things currently stand, there are already several mechanisms that enable victims of economic crime to be compensated. For example, the asset recovery powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 already provide the court with the ability to prioritise the payment of compensation orders to victims. Noble Lords may be interested to learn that, where both a compensation order and a confiscation order are imposed but there are not enough funds available to satisfy both, the court may direct that the compensation order be paid out of the confiscation order funds to ensure that victims are prioritised. A total of £47.2 million was paid in compensation to victims from the proceeds of confiscation orders in the financial year ending March 2025. Of course, I acknowledge that we could do better.

In addition, the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 allows applications for stolen crypto assets or funds in accounts to be released to victims at any stage of civil forfeiture proceedings.  

 Through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, the then Government legislated to require the Payment Systems Regulator to introduce mandatory reimbursement for authorised push payment scams. In the first nine months of the APP reimbursement scheme, 88% of eligible losses were reimbursed, with £112 million returned to victims. This further protects victims and provides incentives for firms to prevent these scams in the first place.  

Victims of unauthorised fraud, where payment has been taken without the victim’s permission, are already reimbursed by payment service providers. But we want to go further. The Government recognise the serious financial and emotional impact that fraud can have on victims, which is why we will shortly publish a new fraud strategy that will improve how we safeguard and respond to victims of fraud.

I am of course acutely aware that one of the noble and learned Lord’s major considerations is overseas victims. As far as they are concerned, the Serious Fraud Office, Crown Prosecution Service and National Crime Agency compensation principles have committed law enforcement bodies to ensuring that compensation for overseas victims of economic crime is considered in every relevant case and to using whatever legal mechanisms are available to secure it whenever appropriate. 

Internationally, victims’ interests also continue to be a priority issue for the United Kingdom. As a signatory to the UN Convention Against Corruption, the UK places great importance on the recovery and return of the proceeds of corruption to those affected by bribery, embezzlement of public funds, money laundering, trading in influence and other abuses of official functions. The UK is required to return funds where the conditions for mandatory return are met. However, the UK also exercises its discretion to return funds in appropriate cases even when it is not otherwise required to do so. 

The noble and learned Lord’s amendment calls for a review, but the Government have already publicly committed to reviewing UK policies and procedures for compensating victims of foreign bribery in the UK Anti-Corruption Strategy 2025. We look forward to the results of this review, expected in 2027. 

In addition, I refer to the Crime and Policing Bill, which will introduce a new measure to redirect funds to victims when a confiscation order is increased if it is identified that the defendant has additional assets with which to satisfy it. The Bill will also reinforce that compensation orders are to be prioritised over confiscation orders.

There are already significant measures in place, and further work is being done to strengthen the rights of victims of economic crime to compensation. I hope that this provides the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, with some reassurance. I look forward to discussing this further with him, but for now I invite him to withdraw his amendment.

I turn now to Amendments 46 and 47 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell. This Government share the strength of feeling in this House and in the other place about the importance of supporting the victims of child sexual abuse. The proposed new clauses would implement a recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse about which the previous Government consulted. However, in April last year, the Government announced that we would not take it forward. The reason is that such changes would benefit only victims of child sexual abuse, and that would undermine the scheme’s core principle of universality—in other words, it compensates all seriously injured victims of violent crimes, and the payments are based on the injury suffered rather than the crime type from which they resulted. We are very concerned not to create a hierarchy of victims in which some are seen as more deserving than others. Different support for different violent crimes would imply that some victims are less important than others. It would also put the scheme under more financial pressure. It is taxpayer-funded and is already facing record and increasing demand. However, we agree that the scheme needs reform, and it is our intention to decide how best to support all victims with the resources that we have. We will update Members of both Houses as our work progresses.

Dealing very briefly with Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, I am going to ask him to leave it with me for the time being. I want to give this some further thought. He and I began to discuss it when we met about a week ago. We did not make an awful lot of progress on that occasion, but I would like to talk to him about it further. I know that he has sent me some literature, and I will look at that and consider it further. While I am grateful to the noble Baronesses and the noble Lord for ensuring that we remain focused on the criminal injuries compensation scheme, I ask them not to press their amendments.

Amendment 67 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would require the revision of sentencing guidelines so that the court would have to award compensation to a victim to the value of the items stolen. When a judge passes a sentence, she or he is already required to consider making a compensation order that requires the offender to make financial reparation to the victim for any personal injury, loss or damage resulting from an offence, and that includes the offences captured by this amendment. Magistrates are subject to the same duty, but for simplicity I am going to refer just to the judge for the rest of my remarks. If the judge decides not to make such an order, she or he must explain why they are not doing so. There is no set amount for compensation, because that would fetter the discretion of the independent judge. The law says that compensation may be ordered for such an amount as the court considers appropriate, having regard to any evidence and any representations made by the offender or the prosecutor. For adult offenders, there is no limit on the value of a single compensation order, and compensation is paid to the victim first before any other financial orders made by the court are satisfied by the offender.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, has already powerfully made the point that it is not always a straightforward process to determine the value of the loss. I am not going to repeat that, but I am going to add to the second part of his concerns about this. As part of the process of deciding on the level of compensation, the court must also consider the financial circumstances of the offender, so far as they are known. The reason is to ensure that the offender has sufficient means to pay. This amendment would require the judge to ignore the fact that there may in some cases be absolutely no prospect of the offender being able to pay. This would create a system requiring the authorities to spend time and money chasing people for money that they are never going to be able to pay, in the process causing a cycle of unnecessary harm and emotional distress to victims whose expectations had been raised that they were going to receive compensation for the full amount.

I want to reassure your Lordships that most judges will order the full amount unless the defendant does not have sufficient means. For these reasons, the Government are satisfied that the existing system allows courts to strike an appropriate balance between seeking compensation for the harm caused to victims in a way that is enforceable and ensuring that victims are not left waiting for debts to be paid to them which were always unrealistic. The Sentencing Council has issued explanatory information on compensation which outlines these matters to help sentencers when considering or making compensation orders. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

21:45

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by apologising to noble Lords who had other amendments in the group for not addressing their arguments, but I do not think they needed my assistance. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandhurst and to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for their support for my Amendment 40. As has been pointed out, my amendment asks for a review. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that we need to be imaginative and inventive—those were not his precise words, but I think that is the thrust of what he was saying. I suggest that doing nothing, doing a little slowly or patting ourselves on the back for what we might have done in the past are no longer acceptable.

I know that the Minister is sincere in her response. I am also aware of her professional experience, both in private practice and at the Crime Prosecution Service, and I look forward with gratitude to our meeting. I am aware of the terms of the 2002 Act to which she referred, but it does not meet the problem I have identified, as I know from my own professional experience. Furthermore, the provisions of FiSMA are untested, or insufficiently tested in my view, and I am not sure that reliance on that statute answers the problem we have been discussing. The review that the Minister spoke about is not due to report until 2027. Everything is always tomorrow, the week after, the month after or the year after; nothing is ever grabbed now and answered. This is my experience, having spoken about these questions for many years in the past, so I ask the House to forgive me if I come across as cynical.

That said, I look forward to having a positive discussion with the Minister during the Recess.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

After.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

After? There we are: a week after, a week after, a week after. The great god Delay is the one we all worship—for goodness’ sake. I thank the Minister for the meeting, but I think we spoke about this meeting before Christmas at Second Reading and it has slipped and slipped. I feel like an ice skater who is running out of bad jokes. I thank her for her forbearance. I know she is relatively new to her post and will not have had the joy of having to deal with my repetitive strain injury over the last several years. Anyhow, let us try to make some positive advances, produce some practical answers and not just push this thing further down the road, because there are victims out there whose lives have been ruined by corrupt criminal behaviour. I appreciate our Treasury should be in special measures, but it has been sucking in all this money in London, whereas people in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere are suffering. Having got that off my chest, again, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 40 withdrawn.

Amendment 41

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

41: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Access to free court transcripts for victims(1) Victims of criminal offences shall be entitled to receive, without charge, court transcripts of—(a) sentencing remarks;(b) judicial summings-up;(c) bail decisions and conditions relevant to their case.(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that such transcripts are provided within 14 days of a request.(3) The duty under subsection (1) shall apply irrespective of whether the victim gave evidence in the case.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would give victims a right to receive, free of charge, court transcripts of sentencing remarks, judicial summings-up, and bail decisions relevant to their case. It requires that transcripts be provided within 14 days of a request and clarifies that this right applies whether or not the victim gave evidence in the case.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, the Liberal Democrats have been concerned for a long time about the victim’s right to access court transcripts. We have tabled amendments to a number of Bills, including, most recently, the now Victim and Prisoners Act 2024, and I have Amendment 41 to this Bill. I thank open justice campaigners for the contact that we have had with them during the Victims and Prisoners Act and since then.

During the Victims and Prisoners Bill, the then Minister finally agreed to a trial in certain locations that would ensure that victims could have access to sentencing remarks but to nothing else. Ministers of both this and the last Government have said that it would just cost too much to extend the scheme but, as we have said, the process that is used is extraordinarily expensive, and technology should be our friend these days. To give the Committee a feel of some of the figures that we have been made aware of, we have seen people quoted £30 for a copy of sentencing remarks to over £300 for an original transcript, and where victims requested a transcript of the entire court case we have seen figures of £7,500 and even £22,000.

Victims and their families are in principle able to access remarks at no cost. I am not just talking about since the pilot; I am talking about some of the other things, and I will come on to the detail later on. They can sometimes get access at no cost, but the problem is that the paperwork that some courts have required families to fill out is burdensome and intrusive, requiring families to declare salaries, debts, bank balances and more. That really should not be the case when they are getting to the end of a trial, with all the burdens that that has brought them.

Amendment 41 would go beyond sentencing remarks but not as far as our amendments to the Victims and Prisoners Bill. It would include transcripts of judicial summings-up, bail decisions and conditions that are relevant to their case. It would also set a time limit for the Secretary of State to ensure that the transcripts were provided within 14 days.

We thank the Government for confirming that access to the judge’s sentencing remarks is being rolled out across the country, but we remain concerned that some victims need access to more. This is because for far too long, as we discussed in an earlier group, victims have been advised by the police and prosecutors either not to attend a trial or to frame their own remarks carefully.

I have three brief quotes on that. The first is:

“I wanted to go and watch the trial after I had given my evidence but was told by the prosecution barrister that it would not look good with the jury. The police said the same. I didn’t really question it. I was so scared to do anything that *might* have a detrimental effect on the outcome”.


Another victim said:

“We were advised not to attend because it may make us look bitter”.


And another said:

“I was told I couldn’t watch the court case after giving evidence as I’d look like I wasn’t scared of the perpetrator and it could harm the jury’s decision”.


Open justice campaigners say:

“This advice from professionals is in direct contrast to Judges we meet, who very much want the victims to attend hearings”.


So there is a gap there.

The reason why we propose including judicial summings-up and bail decisions is that there is often more detail in things like bail decisions and conditions that affect the victim directly. I have recently been involved in advising a family where there was a bail condition that required the alleged perpetrator not to go within two miles of the victim. That was changed without the victim’s knowledge, and suddenly she found the perpetrator nearby and could not understand why. A victim in that sort of instance should be able to ask for the details of those. It was clear that she was completely unaware that the bail conditions had been changed after the perpetrator’s solicitor had asked for a hearing. For judicial summing up, there is often more detail in there that can help the victim to come to terms with the entire process. That is one reason why we are pushing for that.

We would still like occasionally for some victims in really traumatic cases, particularly where a therapist advises this—this is not in the amendment, and there is a reason for that—to be able to access the entire court transcript, but we recognise that that is unlikely until technology can provide it at virtually no cost to the court. I think we are nearly there, but at the moment the structure of the way in which people can apply for help and the way that transcripts are made is overly expensive, given the world that we are living in in 2026. I beg to move.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and Amendment 73 in my name. Both these amendments are designed to strengthen victims’ engagement with the justice system by enhancing access to, and the availability of, transcripts of important court decisions.

We give full and unequivocal support to Amendment 41. This is a broader right than the one we were able to secure during the passage of the Sentencing Bill, where our amendments sought to ensure victims’ access to transcripts of sentencing remarks. Initially, that amendment was opposed by the Government, who argued that embedding a statutory duty for universal access and universal publication would create significant operational and resource pressures and risk increasing judicial workload.

The importance of these amendments has been further underscored by the report—released, I believe, today—that the Ministry of Justice has instructed the deletion of a substantial archive of court records held by Courtsdesk: data analysis that supports journalists and civil society in scrutinising the justice system. That archive has long been relied on to track sentencing outcomes and judicial decisions. Its removal has understandably raised concerns about the future accessibility of court information and the practical operation of open justice.

In that context, the case for clear, structured and victim-centred access to sentencing information becomes even more compelling. If independent archives and informal routes to transparency are diminishing, it is all the more important that Parliament ensures that formal mechanisms exist to guarantee access to core judicial material, particularly for victims whose lives are directly affected by these decisions.

In previous debates, Ministers made it clear that they supported the principle of transparency and of victim access to sentencing remarks. Sentencing remarks can already be published in high-profile cases but the Government maintained that expanding those limited provisions into a broad statutory requirement, as initially tabled, was not necessary to achieve the objective of openness and could impose burdens that the current system was not equipped to bear. We therefore tabled a more diluted version of our amendment to extend free provision of Crown Court sentencing transcripts to victims who request them.

The importance of this measure cannot, in my view, be overstated. Sentencing remarks explain the judge’s reasoning as well as the factors taken into account when outlining legal judgment behind a sentence. For victims and their families, this explanation is essential to understanding why justice has been administered in the way it has and becomes particularly important in the context of, for example, unduly lenient sentence appeals.

Amendment 73 complements the amendment passed in the Sentencing Bill, now the Sentencing Act, by addressing the publication of sentencing remarks online. It would require that, when a request is made for sentencing remarks delivered in the Crown Court, those remarks are made available publicly online within 14 days, subject to an important safeguard. The court must first inform the applicant of their right to request that the remarks not be published and, if such a request is made, the remarks must not be published.

This opt-out mechanism is a proportionate and indeed pragmatic response to government concerns that prevented broad publication being adopted previously. Ministers explained that, while they supported the principle of transparency, they could not accept a universal statutory obligation to publish all sentencing remarks, citing the risk of significant workload increases and resource pressures on an already stretched judiciary and courts system. By allowing individuals to choose not to have their own remarks published, this amendment preserves transparency for the public while safeguarding privacy and individual choice and reducing operational risk.

We stand in favour of open justice: the principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. When victims and the wider public can access the reasoning behind sentencing decisions, confidence in the rule of law and in the integrity of judicial decision-making is strengthened. A criminal justice system that is opaque risks undermining the very legitimacy that it seeks to uphold. If victims cannot see the reasoning behind the rulings that affect their lives, they and the public will struggle to have confidence that justice has actually been done. When sentences are handed down with discretion and complexity, the need for transparency is greater, not less. For these reasons, we support Amendment 41 and look forward to the Minister’s response to Amendment 73.

22:00

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend quoted from a briefing from the Victims’ Commissioner, I think from when she was the London victims’ commissioner, about the costs that have been charged and the costs of transcripts for a whole case—which have perhaps been requested rather than actually charged, for obvious reasons. She also mentioned paperwork. I had this briefing. It refers to a form which some courts are asking bereaved families to fill out, so I had a look at that form. I am appalled. I think it is four pages. The amount of detail requested is so intrusive, and it is unclear to me why that is necessary. Why disclose for this purpose the rent you are paying on a home and all your assets, in a whole number of categories? Does it matter how many Premium Bonds you have? On expenses, there are 14 categories, ranging from council tax to TV licences and anything else you can imagine. I wanted to express that, even though it is late. I will not take longer on it.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has just talked about open justice. It seems sad if the courts we are talking about cannot go in the same direction as other courts. The Lady Chief Justice talks about the work being done to issue press releases to explain the decisions of the courts elsewhere in our justice system.

The noble and learned Lord is looking puzzled, but I am saying that I agree with him—I know that may be unusual, but on this occasion the direction of travel—a horrible phrase—suggests that we should be going much faster than a trial pilot from next spring. That brings me to my question. When is spring for this purpose? We have known that the seasons of the year are somewhat false when it comes to what Governments propose to do.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I start with Amendment 41, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Hamwee. As your Lordships are of course aware, the Government recently announced the expansion of the provision of free transcripts of sentencing remarks to victims whose cases are heard in the Crown Court upon request. That is now contained in the recently passed Sentencing Act 2026. The detail of timeframes and processes for providing these transcripts will be set out in regulations, following a review of current operations. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, for his work with the Government during the passage of the Sentencing Bill which has brought this about.

Sentencing remarks have been chosen because the way they are structured and what they contain can give victims a real insight into what happened in the sentencing hearing. They are always structured in the same way. They start with a summary of the case and the facts, and go on to explain the background of how the plea came to be entered, if it is a plea, or how the conviction came about. They then set out why the sentence was imposed, which guidelines have been referred to and applied and, if not applied, why, and the various calculations that go on as to what the starting point was and whether it has been increased or decreased. That is all in the judge’s own words.

Bail decisions and summings-up are very different. Extending provision of free transcripts for victims to a wider range of hearing types also risks creating significant operational burdens on the court. I will deal first with bail decisions. The victims’ code sets out a victim’s right to be told the outcome of any bail hearing and any relevant conditions imposed “within five working days”. This is carried out by witness care units, which are also supposed to provide victims with other timely, tailored updates about proceedings. In that sense, we are already delivering the information the victims need in a proportionate and effective way, without the cost and risk that mandatory transcript provision would entail.

Bail decisions are rarely delivered in a structured way that would tell the victim any more than they will already have been told by the witness care unit. What happens normally is that the judge listens to both sides and then simply says that bail is refused—for instance, if there is a failure to surrender, or the prospect of the commission of further offences. Alternatively, they will say that they are prepared to grant bail subject to certain conditions, and they rattle those off. This is exactly what victims are going to be told by the witness care unit. I am not sure what more information I can offer to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton; in my experience, there is nothing more.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

The problem is that the witness care unit does not always provide that information.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

That is what needs to be looked at, then. Providing transcripts is not going to solve anything that would not be solved by making sure that the witness care unit does what it is meant to do. The noble Baroness gave the example of the victim who had not been told that the bail conditions had been amended. That simply should not happen. That is not a transcript issue, though; it is a witness care unit issue. It is something that plainly needs looking at, though, if it is a problem.

In addition, the vast majority of bail decisions are dealt with at magistrates’ courts, where proceedings are not currently recorded and cannot therefore be transcribed. Without that recording ability in place, it would not be operationally feasible to create a statutory entitlement of the kind proposed. We cannot extend an entitlement that the system is not yet equipped to deliver. As the noble Baroness will know, one of the proposals the Government seem likely to accept from Sir Brian Leveson’s review of the criminal courts is that all proceedings in the magistrates’ courts should be recorded, and that it will become a court of record. At that point the situation may change, but at the moment we simply cannot provide transcripts of bail decisions in the magistrates’ court.

In the Government’s view, a transcript of the summing-up is unlikely, in most cases, to add significant value for many victims. The summing-up consists of two parts: there is a set of directions on the law, which are written out and handed to the jury, and these could be given to the victim without any difficulty at all if it would help them. Most victims are not especially interested in what is said about the application of the law. The only other thing it contains is a summary of the evidence, wherein the judge decides the level of detail to include, what to put in and what to leave out. The important thing to note is that the summary has to be even-handed, and the judge is not meant to make any comment one way or the other, so the summing-up is not going to help the victim to understand how or why the jury reached its verdict. As these remarks are not an explanation of the outcome, victims may well feel that the summing-up bears little resemblance to their lived experience of the case. So there is a real danger of the summing-up being misunderstood and, in some instances, causing further distress, rather than providing clarity or closure.

For these reasons, we do not propose to extend free provision to include summings-up in cases where the defendants are acquitted. Expanding access further would also create significant operational and funding pressures. Providing transcripts of bail decisions and summings-up free of charge would require a substantial increase in resources, diverting key and limited resources away from core court functions. Importantly, it would take resources away from implementing our existing commitment to provide free sentencing remarks to all victims who request them.

I have heard what the noble Baroness said to me and to the Committee about victims being discouraged from attending the rest of the trial on many occasions. It should not happen. When I was a judge, I used to say to the victim, once they had completed their evidence, “Would you like to observe the rest of the trial? I can have arrangements made for you to do so; we encourage you to do so, and that includes attending remotely where you can’t be seen but you will be able to see and hear, and we can have those arrangements made”. It ought to happen all the time. If it does not, again, that is something that we should look at.

I turn to Amendment 73 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. While the Government remain firmly committed to improving transparency across the justice system, this has to be balanced carefully against our capacity to deliver existing priorities and commitments. Imposing a blanket obligation to publish all sentencing remarks where they have been requested would create significant operational and financial pressures at a time when we are focused on rolling out free access to Crown Court sentencing remarks for all victims, a major step towards increased transparency in its own right. The level of anonymisation required to protect victims’ identities in a published transcript is very different from the level required in a transcript provided to the victim themselves. It is not just a question of redacting the name; it is also a question of removing any other details which might permit a jigsaw identification of the victim. That anonymisation cannot yet reliably be carried out using AI; it has to be done manually and it would have to be done by a judge, taking them away from other duties and inevitably adding to the backlog.

Furthermore, this amendment as drafted places no constraints on who may request a transcript. It could be the offender; it could be their family; it could be a journalist or simply a curious member of the public. A situation where the victim does not have an opportunity to object to sentencing remarks containing intimate details of their case being published online, but another requester does, is not a proposal that this Government can support, and it is likely to contravene the victim’s Article 8 rights.

I reassure noble Lords that the Government’s commitment to openness and transparency is ongoing. In cases of high public interest, sentencing remarks are already made publicly available online. Furthermore, broadcasting of sentencing remarks is possible, with the agreement of the judge, providing an additional route through which the public may access this information. We are also actively exploring the opportunities offered by AI to reduce the cost of producing transcripts in the future. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment and the noble and learned Lord not to press his.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly my noble friend Lady Hamwee for giving details of the ridiculous form that victims have been asked to fill in to access sentencing remarks for free. I hope the noble Baroness will look at that and make sure that it does not continue in this format. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for his amendment and I very much appreciate what the Minister said, but I think we are looking for transparency in the longer term. I remain concerned, as is the noble and learned Lord, about the closure or erasure of information from Courtsdesk. I hope we might be able to discuss that in another forum, because it is extremely concerning that it seems to be happening very quickly and suddenly— I am sorry for that quick diversion, given the hour.

I thank the Minister for her explanation. I am not surprised that she has raised the issue of costs. I appreciate the issue about magistrates’ courts, and I really hope that Sir Brian Leveson manages to resolve that in his report in a way that will make it work. Judicial summings-up are important. When we meet on Wednesday, we will be looking at unduly lenient sentences, and judicial summings-up are very helpful to victims if they are considering making an application to the Attorney-General—they have quite a lot of information in them. Victims may not understand it, but if they are going that far, they are likely to consult a solicitor or somebody else involved, and it is quite likely to be helpful.

I think the issue about bail conditions is important, barring the example I gave, which may not have been quite correct. Again, it is useful for victims to see in writing, when something has been gabbled off, exactly what all the conditions are. This is particularly important in domestic abuse and stalking cases, where there may be a perpetrator who is particularly following people and there may have been some form of abuse. However, I am very aware of the hour, and I hope we can continue discussions with the noble Baroness outside your Lordships’ Committee, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 41 withdrawn.

Amendments 42 to 47B not moved.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.15 pm.