Lords Chamber

Tuesday 16th December 2025

(began 1 month, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
14:37
None Portrait Oral questions: Ensuring schools' core budgets in more deprived communities are not disproportionately used to meet the costs of providing free school meals Baroness Boycott (Crossbench)
-

My Lords, the government already
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
None Portrait Oral questions: Expanding the use of large-scale sites for asylum accommodation Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-

Second oral question Lord German.
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:52
14:53
None Portrait Oral questions: Improving women’s healthcare as part of the Women’s Health Strategy for England Baroness Sugg (Conservative)
-

One question Baroness Stowell. Standing in my name in the Order Paper. My Lords.
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:15
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper I Lord Austin July, I formed the house of my intention to set up a formal mechanism by which the House could consider the issues in the government's manifesto regarding retirement from the House and participation in our proceedings. The debates on these matters formed a significant part of our discussion on the Hereditary Peers Bill, and led to many noble Lords from all parties beating a path to my door.

I know to other noble Lords with some constructive and at times very creative suggestions for reform of the House. In listening to that debate and the presentations, I formed the view that the House should be given the opportunity to take some ownership on how these issues can be taken forward. Following discussion and debate, I now propose the Select Committee be set up to make recommendations on retirement, on participation, and to consider what steps can we take on these measures without primary legislation and what would require primary legislation? The motion gives effect to my commitment that I made to your Lordships House, and I'm pleased to inform the House that this has been agreed in the usual channels, and I hope this is self-explanatory, but I'd like to just stress three points, which I think might be helpful.

First, the committee is time limited. As many noble Lords noted during the debate, and since Lords Reform has a rather long and impressive history of making progress quite slowly, I've therefore sought to give the committee a tight. But I believe we listic timeline for their work. Secondly, the committee will consider the impact of these measures not only on the size of the House, but also how it functions. For example, the committee could consider the cliff edge of retirement provisions as well as other impacts.

And finally, the motion specifically asked the committee to look at non-legislative solutions as well as those that will require primary legislation. This will allow the House to move forward with consensual and pragmatic reform in good time. My Lords, I look forward to hearing the committee's recommendations. My Lords, I beg to move EA.
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: United States’s National Security Strategy and its implications for the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States
-

My Lords, the new US strategy makes it even more vital that the UK remains a key part of European
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: Rise in flu and RSV admissions and the Government’s preparations for winter pressures on the NHS
-

My Lord Austin. I thank the Minister for the statement and ask the Minister about two cohorts in particular where there are concerns
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:42
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Portrait Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Labour)
-
-
disagreed with their reason. 120 t. I will also speak to motion A1 I will also speak to motion A1 throughout the passage of this bill, which arrived in your Lordships House nine months ago yesterday, we House nine months ago yesterday, we have scrutinised, deliberated and debated all areas. Once again, I would like to thank noble Lords for would like to thank noble Lords for fulfilling their scrutiny role and in the course of doing so, providing their invaluable insight. providing their invaluable insight.

But my Lords, we are now in round four of ping pong for a bill. The government has a clear electoral mandate to deliver. We cannot be accused of attempting to push the bill through without listening to the concerns raised by my noble Lords. We are immensely grateful for the more than 60 occasions on which noble Lords have engaged with us, offering rigorous scrutiny and thoughtful challenge. It's because of this valuable feedback that the government has been able to act and make changes where appropriate, including through technical amendments at committee and report and the publication of an implementation roadmap outlining what the government will consult on when and at what point your rights are expected to go live.

The government is pleased to have found commonality in the three previous rounds of ping pong. On 11 of the 12 issues the House asked the government to look at again, the contributions of noble Lords across the House have helped bring forward solutions on a range of specific issues, from heritage railways to paid time off for special constables, and on a number of other issues such as the right to be accompanied. The government has made non-legislative commitments which noble Lords have recognised as important progress, and most recently, during ping pong, the government has brought forward amendments to the bill on zero hours contracts, seasonal work, trade union ballot thresholds and trade union political funds, which will help ensure stakeholders views and insights are represented in the final policy outcomes.

As we shift into the implementation phase for this bill. On the final issue of unfair dismissal in the face of successive Lords votes against day one rights to protection from unfair dismissal, itself a manifesto commitment, the government took the extraordinary step of convening a series of constructive conversations between business representatives, representative organisations and trade unions, which reached a workable agreement on the unfair dismissal provisions. And yesterday those representatives from the British Chamber of Commerce, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, Small Business Britain, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Confederation of British Industry wrote to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, stating that the outcome of the dialogue represented a significant step forward which will have a positive impact on growth and opportunities.

The Commons amendments in lieu return to us for further consideration today. After being debated and scrutinised in both houses last week, directly delivered the agreement reached between business representatives and trade unions. They will reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal protections from 24 months to six months, ensure that the qualifying period can only be varied by primary legislation, and remove the compensation cap for unfair dismissal claims. This will remove both the 52 weeks gross pay and the £118,223 cap.

We have heard the House's concerns around the compensatory cap, and I think it's important to reiterate what was said in the last debate that in practice, few awards get anywhere close to these caps, with a median average award for unfair dismissal being £6,746 in 2324. Employment tribunals will also continue to assess compensation based on evidence of specific losses when determining awards. And furthermore, as I mentioned in your Lordships House last week, the government stands ready to continue working with businesses and other stakeholders as we implement this change.

I was pleased to see this sentiment reciprocated. In the letter to the Secretary of State from Business Representatives, and I reiterate the commitments I made from the Dispatch Box last week. The government will publish an enactment Impact assessment as soon as the Bill achieves Royal Assent and before commencement, regulations on the unfair dismissal package are brought to Parliament. This assessment will be public and will include an assessment of the impact of removing the compensation cap. We will also convene meetings early in the new year so stakeholders can share their views on the impact of this measure.

Based on the outcomes of these discussions, I can confirm the government will consider what additional dedicated support or guidance might be appropriate as we implement these measures. The unfair dismissal package should also be seen in the context of wider work to improve the employment dispute system, particularly through the new Dispute Resolution Task Force set up jointly by my department and the Ministry of Justice. The task force will take into consideration the government's Enactment Impact Assessment, which will be published upon Royal Assent and will include an assessment of the impact of removing the cap.

It will also examine the stakeholder perspectives of the impact of removing the cap, the task force's expertise, business trade unions and other experts will help support government to develop reform measures to to that promote prevention and resolution of workplace disputes. As we develop policy to ensure the current system, including Acas and employment tribunals, are more efficient and resilient, and the system works better for both workers and business. My Lords, I repeat that the government's amendments adhere to the negotiated outcome between trade unions and business representative organisations and celebrate a successful tripartite agreement.

The noble Lord Sharpe of Epsom will, I'm sure, disagree with my characterisation of the agreement when he moves his amendment, and I am grateful to him and the noble Lord Hunt of Wirral for our further engagement. Earlier today, I would once again draw his attention to the assurances given in another place by my ministerial colleague, Kate Dearden. The government wants to continue using the tripartite model going forward, as the positive contributions from business representative organisations and trade unions helped create a practical, proportional and workable agreement.

If we don't stick to the principles of this agreement, we cannot, in good faith, expect these groups to partake in future discussions. My Lords, in conclusion, the government has listened to the concerns of your Lordships House. We have worked collaboratively, collaboratively throughout the passage of the Bill with parliamentarians, employers and trade unions. We have found compromise on the unfair dismissal provisions, and we have now delivered on that compromise as part of a package deal to get this bill to Royal Assent last week, your Lordships' House asked the elected House to think again.

That is the right of noble Lords, and in spite of being a new member, one that I respect and defend, MPs have now done ASBOs supporting the government in delivering the tripartite deal in its totality. The letter from business representatives also states that now is the time for Parliament to pass the bill. Further attempts to unpick the agreement. At this, the fourth round of ping pong would add to uncertainty having a material impact on employers and workers alike.

I believe this is a good agreement. It involves compromise from all parties, including genuine movement from the government. I therefore respectfully ask your Lordships House to do as business groups have asked. Allow this important Bill. A manifesto commitment to pass and progress onto the statute book. I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. The question is that motion A be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to motion A1 Lord Sharpe of Epsom EA. My Lords, I beg to move motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion A1 as an amendment to motion A at end insert and do propose amendment end insert and do propose amendment 120 TU as an amendment to Commons Amendment 120 G. In lieu of
15:50
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment 120 G. In lieu of amendment 120 N, and amendments 120 V to 120 Y as amendments to Commons Amendment 120 H in lieu of amendments 120 to 120 S. My Lords, as the noble Lady, the Minister said yesterday. A letter was sent to members of the House by six major business organisations, setting out precisely what many of us said in the chamber last week. That letter makes one thing abundantly clear, and that is that the government did misrepresent when they claimed that the abolition of both compensation caps was agreed between businesses and the trade unions.

The agreement, and I choose that word carefully, was to remove the 52 week salary cap while retaining and increasing the overall monetary cap, which is currently just over £118,000. That was the compromise that was understood by the business community. But the government has now chosen to not only abandon that agreement, but to misrepresent it to the House. And to prove that point. I quote from the same letter from the six business organisations. Unfortunately, we have not been able to reach a compromise that satisfies both the unions request for removal of the cash cap and our position of retaining it while raising the overall limit.

My Lords, this is made all the more serious because the government has compounded that error by behaving unconstitutionally. The removal of the compensation cap was introduced at ping pong, having been debated at no previous stage of this bill, neither in your Lordships House nor in another place. This House exists to scrutinise legislation, not to rubberstamp late stage surprises, still less ones accompanied by misleading assurances. My Lords, let me be clear about the conservative amendment that's tabled in my name.

It reflects precisely the agreement that business groups believed they had reached with the government. The removal of the 52 week cap, coupled with the retention and review of the overall monetary limit, there is no credible reason that the Minister can give for the government to not accept it. The amendment also provides for a formal review and proper consultation, and I remind the House that when the cap was increased under the Labour government in 1999, that changed followed consultation. When the coalition government introduced a 52 week gross salary cap in 2015, the same approach was taken.

There is no reason whatsoever why the government should not proceed in the same careful, evidence based manner. Again, my Lords, it's the government's choice and the government's choice alone to delay this legislation by introducing an entirely new issue at this final stage and then attempting to justify it on the basis of an agreement that did not exist. My Lords, it is also wholly wrong for the TUC, for the Minister in another place, and for others to attack hereditary peers, for doing precisely what they, like all noble Lords, are here to do, which is to scrutinise legislation.

And I think it's also worth noting that the criticism of hereditary peers was unfairly universal. No thanks were offered to at least one Liberal Democrat hereditary peer who backed the government. If the 65 Labour peers who were absent last week had attended, the government would have likely prevailed. But I rather suspect that some of them might have developed cold feet feet once they realised they were being asked to support multi-million pound payouts to water bosses and failed senior executives in financial institutions.

Perhaps my Lords absence was in this case a mercy. My Lords, over the weekend, the latest employment Tribunal statistics were published and they are stark. There are now over 515,000 open cases and that figure will rise, not fall, as a result of this decision. Why? Because well-resourced senior executives, advised by the very best lawyers, will now enter the system in greater numbers, clogging up tribunals, prolonging hearings and consuming judicial time. The inevitable consequence is that ordinary working people, many of whom have legitimate and modest claims, will wait longer for justice or be denied it altogether.

My Lords, this debate does not take place in a vacuum. Unemployment has risen again this month, as it has every month under this government. Nearly 2 million people are now unemployed, and this Christmas there will be 192,000 fewer in private sector payrolled employment than last Christmas. And my Lords, it is the young people who are bearing the brunt at a time when their futures are already being crushed by rising costs, weaker growth and dwindling opportunities. The government chooses to inject yet more uncertainty into the labour market.

So what on earth do Ministers think they are doing? Instead of encouraging job creation, they're creating incentives for litigation, delay and risk precisely the opposite of what a fragile jobs market requires. May I also say to the Liberal Democrats, it's a curious position to to demand that water company bosses be dismissed whilst simultaneously supporting a policy that could hand such individuals eye watering compensation. Yeah, something does not add up. My Lords. What we are seeing instead is the Liberal Democrats choosing to form a coalition of chaos with the government and abandoning British business, working people and the constitutional role of your Lordships House.

In fact, according to data published by the Liberal Democrats themselves just last year, executives of water companies in England collected some £70 million in remuneration between 2021 and 2023, including nearly £41 million in bonuses. One is therefore entitled to ask why, in the space of a single week, their position appears to have shifted so dramatically. Perhaps the noble Lord Lord Fox could explain this sudden change of heart. My Lords, the government has claimed that removing the compensation cap will not affect the level of rewards.

The Ministry of Justice's own data shows that the median award of just under £7,000 is derived from just 650 tribunal awards, yet each year there are many thousands of potential unfair dismissal claims, the overwhelming majority of which never reached the point of an award because they're settled long before they reach that stage. The reason those cases settle is the existence of a statutory maximum. The cap provides a known end point and encourages realism from both parties. Remove that ceiling and settlement becomes vastly more difficult.

Claims run longer, positions harden and costs escalate, and tribunals which are already overwhelmed are left to pick up the pieces. My Lords, even President Macron recognised that the absence of such a cap was harming French competitiveness, and he introduced 1 in 2017. And I think it's a sorry state of affairs when France has something to teach a British government about competitiveness. My Lords, the only country in Europe without a statutory cap on unfair dismissal compensation is Luxembourg. Luxembourg has youth unemployment rate of 20%.

So, my Lords, a few questions for the Minister. What conversations have Ministers had with the financial services sector where concern about this change is profound? Will the promised impact assessment be serious, comprehensive and honest, and will it include the risk of opportunistic and speculative claims, the increased burden on the public sector and the likely cost to the taxpayer? The original Employment Rights Bill impact assessment was frankly inadequate, a fact that was recognised by the Regulatory Policy Committee, which issued a red rating.

Will the government now guarantee that the impact assessment on abolishing the compensation cap will not meet the same fate, that it will be detailed, rigorous and transparent? And if it becomes clear, as many of us fear, that the removal of the cap leads to tribunal congestion, rising costs and injustice for ordinary workers, will the government commit to reintroducing a cap like President Macron? Finally, will Ministers undertake to consult properly with employment law practitioners, the majority of whom oppose this decision, alongside businesses both large and small? My Lords, in conclusion, because of the Conservative Party, a six month qualifying period has been secured.

However, that alone does not remedy the fundamental flaws of this bill. The £5 billion cost remains the cost of a raft of 1970s style trade union reforms have not been properly identified, let alone accounted for by the government. And to repeat, all of this is against a backdrop of rising unemployment. So, my Lords, let me be completely clear. The next conservative government will repeal every job destroying, anti-business measure in this unemployment bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move a. The original question was that motion A be agreed to? Since when motion A be agreed to? Since when motion A1 has been moved as an amendment to motion A at end insert, amendment to motion A at end insert, and we propose amendment 100 TU as an amendment to Commons Amendment 120 G in lieu of amendment 120 N and amendment 120 V to 120 Y as and amendment 120 V to 120 Y as amendments to Commons Amendment 120 H in lieu of amendments one £0.20 to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

120 S. The question, therefore, is that motion A1 be agreed to Lord Sharpe. Mentioned parts of.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mentioned parts of. The. Letter written to the Business Secretary yesterday by six business groups, including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chamber of Commerce. What he didn't mention is that that letter from those groups also said, letter from those groups also said, I quote, now is the time for
16:00
16:01
Lord Vaux of Harrowden Portrait Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords Second Reading back in March. I think nine months ago yesterday, or I believe it feels yesterday, or I believe it feels like longer than that. I have to say, I said, that this bill will damage growth and most importantly, damage growth and most importantly, the employment opportunities of the most vulnerable people. After nine months of debate and scrutiny, it is less damaging, but I still believe it's not a good bill. It's still piles cost and regulation on businesses and indeed on the public sector at a time when we should be doing exactly the opposite.

But, my Lords, this House has done its job and I believe we've done it well and responsibly. We've pointed out the unintended consequences that the bill may cause, the potential damage to our employment prospects of the young and others, and the disproportionate impact on the backbone of our economy. Smaller businesses. We have given the Other place several opportunities to think again. And to be fair, they have done so in a number of areas. In particular, the government has compromised with respect to what I believe was the most damaging aspect.

Day one dismissal rights. We've also, quite rightly, registered our constitutional disapproval of the introduction of a material change at the very last minute being the abolition of the cap on unfair dismissal, which is the subject of motion A, I take the statement of the noble Lady, the Minister last week that the amendments were, and I quote context and bill specific together with her reference to and again, I quote the Leader of the House on how she and other members would like to conduct business more regularly as confirmation that the government accepts that this should not ever be seen as a precedent, and I believe this House would be right to reject it if it were ever used as a precedent in the future.

Now, I do have a lot of sympathy with the amendment proposed by the Labour Lord Sharpe, but I'm afraid I won't be supporting it at this stage. I think we are in danger of overegging the impact of the removal of the cap, the I don't support it. But for example, the the example of the water bosses, frankly, they're going to be remunerated if they are fired for contractual reasons, which is unlimited anyway. It's not going to be under the unfair dismissal rules.

I'm not convinced it makes an enormous difference. But he's quite right. We don't have an impact assessment yet, despite our giving it the opportunity to think again on many aspects, the Other place has disagreed with our changes and decided it wants to go ahead, and that does now also include the cap on unfair dismissal claims. The time has come, my Lords, for us in this House to respect the will of the elected chamber and let the Bill pass, regardless of any remaining concerns that I and I think many others still have, I will vote against the amendment for that reason.

I want to end with one final plea to the noble Lady, the Minister. However, she will be well aware of the latest employment figures and the worsening trend. She will also be well aware that what the ONS described as this subdued labour market is disproportionately affecting young people. We should all be very concerned about that. The Resolution Foundation is also clear on this, and I quote, as is typical in economic downturns, young people have been hit hardest with unemployment expected to stay elevated.

Government should be cautious about any further increase in labour costs. Much of the regulation of the implementation of this bill will be by regulation, which will follow over the coming years. I urge the noble Lady, the Minister, to ensure that the concerns that have been raised in this House and elsewhere are kept front and centre, and that the unintended consequences that may arise, especially for young people, are thought through very carefully whilst the regulations are being considered, are being created. It was encouraging that the government did listen to business organisations in the later stages of the bill, especially around the unfair dismissal question, and I urge the noble Lady, the Minister, to ensure that government continues to listen constructively to the concerns of those who will create the growth and jobs that will drive the economy, and especially that it makes a much greater effort to hear the concerns of smaller businesses who are feeling rather ignored and concerned at the moment.

But that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

said, my Lords, it is time to let this bill pass. Lords. This time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This time. Last week I said that much had happened in the preceding interval. happened in the preceding interval. Today the opposite is true. We are now down to one issue, but the arguments on that issue remain as arguments on that issue remain as they were last week. And for that reason, unlike last week, this speech will be short. Of course, speech will be short. Of course, there remains concerns about the removal of the cap on compensation, as we've heard, and as he did last week, the noble Lord Sharpe has taken those concerns and amplified them to the seeming exclusion of the wider strategic position of what we are discussing now.

I understand the motives and those motives became ever clearer just now. And if the noble Lord would like to have a face off on the water industry, I'd be very happy to discuss with him the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of sewage that went into the rivers under the conservative government and the the the compensation terms, which he very helpfully enumerated, which happened on his watch. However, this is not the arena for that argument, and I will pass without comment.

My Lords, my my critique, my critique of the noble Lords Amendment is is unchanged. We believe there are better ways of
16:06
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
dealing with the cap issue than derailing the package that got the key concession, to which we are all very pleased. My Lords, as set out last week, reiterated in the last week, reiterated in the Minister's letter and reiterated reiterated by the Minister just just now, the government will just now, the government will publish an enactment impact assessment for the bill and they will do so prior to commencement will do so prior to commencement regulations for the for which would in in put in place the dismissal package.

Now, that was what we on these benches were asking for, and we were pleased to receive that assurance. Further, the impact assessment will be publicly available, and I was pleased to hear the Minister say that will be engaging the community of business in the process of developing that impact assessment. My Lords, many UK business associations and organisations share the feeling that there is nothing to be gained from the opposition amendment. Today. They are asking the opposite. My Lords, as the noble Baroness, the Minister set out.

Six of the major organisations have sent a letter and it's a longish letter as the the the noble Lord Sharpe demonstrated by selectively picking elements out of that letter. But as the noble Lord Pannick pointed out, the conclusion is clear and actually unambiguous. We believe that the best way forward is to keep working with the government and trade unions to find a balanced solutions through secondary legislation to avoid losing the six month qualifying period. We therefore believe that now is the time for Parliament to pass the bill.

I said that last week and it's more true this week. My Lords, I also pointed out last week, as the business organisations pointed out, the key to enacting this bill will be through secondary legislation. And if His Majesty's loyal opposition care about how this bill is brought into life, it is through those Statutory Instruments that they should focus their attention and their critical actions must extend to include the possibility of fatal motions, to vote down secondary legislation and keep the government focussed on the needs of British business.

That is the real arena that we should be be be working on. My Lords, my Lords, if the noble Lord Lord Sharpe amendment is is put to a vote and he seeks to extend ping pong to yet another round, this is clearly against the advice of the business groups which which have been cited. My Lords, I urge your Lordships to heed the advice of those organisations, to heed the advice of the noble Lords that we have heard opposite, and pass this bill now.

Amen.
16:09
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Portrait Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'd like to thank again your Lordships House for its again your Lordships House for its attentive scrutiny through the passage of the Bill. There can be no doubt, as the noble Lord Lord Vaux mentioned, that the House has discharged its duties as a revising chamber. Your Lordships' House asked the government to look again, and we have worked collaboratively, collaboratively with noble Lords to reach this agreement. I would also like to thank the noble Lords Lord Fox, Lord Pannick and Lord Vaux for their speeches in favour of the compromise proposed by the government.

Just turning to a number of the issues raised, in particular by Lord Sharpe, I would remind noble Lords that negotiations only successful, that where there is compromise, as was so eloquently put in the previous debate by my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, the former chair of Acas, the government and representatives worker representatives move considerably during negotiations to agree to retaining a six month qualifying period without similar compromise from business representatives representatives on the removal. This deal would have been one sided and undeliverable.

On the question of the impact of the cap, I don't think I can do better than the noble Lord, Lord Pannick had said last week. He said that the concerns expressed about the impact of the removal of the cap are perhaps exaggerated. And this, this just now, he has mentioned that he does not believe it will lead to the chaos that the that the noble Lord outlined earlier. It's not our view, but in any case, we will publish, as I mentioned, the enactment impact assessment.

As soon as the Bill achieves Royal Assent, it will be public, it will be transparent. It will include an assessment of the impact of removing the compensation cap. And I also remind noble Lords of our commitment to convene meetings with shareholders so that those from the city law practitioners and others can feed in into that. And those findings will be taken into account by the the Dispute Resolution Task Force that we are also setting up. So they will have all that information to hand.

And we are obviously very keen to improve the functioning of the dispute resolution system. We inherited something that was not in a good state. We are providing Acas with over £65 million in resource funding a significant increase. So we are, we are, we are working actively to make this a system that works extremely well. So my Lords, I think, I hope that this afternoon will mark the end of this Bill's journey through Parliament. And I reiterate the government's commitment, which was also mentioned by others, other Lords who spoke today to our commitment to continue talking to interested parties in the way we have recently about the full range of issues discussed today and genuinely engaging this bill will deliver a generational shift in employment rights.

It will do so by working with businesses and trade unions in a collaborative manner. And these changes to the qualifying period and the compensation cap are proportionate and practical for those who are concerned about business impact. The joint letter should provide noble Lords with reassurances that businesses support this workable agreement and, as they have stated, now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill. I hope noble Lords will recognise the progress made over the past nine months. Oppose the amendment tabled by the opposition frontbench and in doing so, support the package to deliver certainty for businesses and fair rights for workers.

It is indeed time for Parliament to pass this bill. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the noble Baroness. The noble the Minister sits down. Yes, noble the Minister sits down. Yes, I've got a right to ask questions. I've got a right to ask questions. Sorry. Before the noble Lady. The Minister sits down. The thing which Minister sits down. The thing which has concerned most of us, at least for me, has not been the limit or the reducing of the compensation package. That's not the question. The question for most of us, using ping pong to produce a new clause that has never been debated in this your Lordships' House, or even in the Commons.

That's a constitutional question which bothers most of us. And what I want to know, I have not heard any word saying, for example, that yes, we reached an agreement and we felt we had to bring it in and we will not be doing this kind of thing again, because how do we know, as more bills come, that ping pong may be used in my book, not in the way it should be, because no one should introduce new clauses that have not been canvassed in both houses of Parliament.

And because that hasn't happened, some of us are not arguing about actual amendment as it stands. But will we know? Will we know that actually rules that have been established in this your Lordships' House for years, and I have been in the House since 2005. No ping pong has ever been used to introduce a new clause that has not been debated in both houses. Will we know?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord for his question. As I mentioned last week, this the context here is bill specific and the changes that have specific and the changes that have been proposed and have been put in terms of this tripartite agreement terms of this tripartite agreement were in response to issues that had been raised in your Lordships House. We went away. We convened a particular mode of operating. We brought it back as a package that is bill specific.

And as I also mentioned last week, there are many discussions in the House about how we want to take forward business. The Leader of the House has set those out very clearly, so that is the way that we intend to proceed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

more generally. My Lords, I'm grateful to all noble Lords who've spoken in this noble Lords who've spoken in this very brief debate. I would say to the noble Lord Lord Pannick, he's right. Of course, I didn't quote that bit from the letter because that bit from the letter because the noble Lady the Minister did, and I think the House generally doesn't like needless repetition. doesn't like needless repetition. So I'm following the rules. I'm very grateful to the Minister for those assurances, and I am somewhat reassured.

My Lords, I'm grateful that the impact assessment will be, and correct me if I have any of this wrong, that the impact assessment will be published before commencement, that it will be public, transparent, will include a dispute resolution mechanism in the tripartite agreement, will endure going forward in further discussions around this bill, and that all stakeholders will be consulted widely. That is, in effect, what we were asking for. The simple fact of the matter is, though, that we on these benches will continue to hold the government to account on behalf of the wealth creators, the businesses, the employers and their workers in this country.

My Lords, I've what's been said. I would just like to emphasise one point made by the noble Lord Vaux, which I should have made in my speech, which is, of course, that we are particularly concerned about the impact of this entire bill on small businesses, and we will be returning to that theme unless their interests are very, very carefully protected going forward. As to the noble Lord Fox comments regarding the strategic position, I'm not entirely sure what the strategic position is, but I'm grateful for his comments.

And my Lords, I'm also enormously grateful to all of those on His Majesty's Loyal Opposition Benches and the many on the Crossbenches who stuck to their principles. We've achieved a great deal, my Lords, and made a bad bill marginally more palatable. I beg leave to withdraw the motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A1 is it your Lordships pleasure that motion A1 be withdrawn. The that motion A1 be withdrawn. The motion is by leave withdrawn. The question is that motion A be agreed to as many of that opinion say content the contrary not content. The contents have it. My Lords, may I suggest a short pause before we I suggest a short pause before we My My Lords, Second Reading of the Victim and Crimes Bill Baroness Levitt.

this.
16:20
16:21
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
and improving the efficiency and fairness of our courts in a fair and proportionate way. A number of and proportionate way. A number of your Lordships have spoken to me about some of the provisions in this bill, and I'm very grateful to them for their measured and them for their measured and constructive approach. I had hoped to be able to answer some of their to be able to answer some of their questions in advance of this debate, but in the end, time constraints meant that this did not prove to be meant that this did not prove to be possible.

But I shall do my best to address some of them during this short speech. That said, as ever, with issues about the justice system, I and the government welcome the opportunity to work with members of your Lordships House, from all parties and from none, in order to ensure that we get these provisions right. My Lords, may I begin by addressing the issue of defendants who refuse to leave their cell in order to attend their sentencing hearing. This happens too often. It causes great distress to victims and their families, many of whom have sat through a difficult trial.

The sentencing hearing provides an important opportunity to tell the defendant exactly how the crime has affected them, usually done through a victim personal statement. And for many, it is important to be able to look the defendant in the eye as sentence is passed. So when the defendant chooses not to attend court, that can feel like the final insult. The government agrees with victims and their families that defendants should not have that choice. Judges have always had the power to order defendants to attend their sentencing hearing, but if the defendant refused, the judge was very restricted as to what she or he was able to do.

This bill will change that by putting the power on a statutory footing. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the families of Jan, Mustafa, Harriet, such, Olivia Pratt-korbel, Sabina Nessa and Zara Aleena. Their courage and tireless campaigning have brought about this change and for that we will thank them. Turning to the specific provisions, first, the Bill makes it clear that reasonable force may be used to get the defendant to court, but this has to be balanced against the risk to prison and security staff.

So there will be three issues which the judge will take into account necessity, reasonableness and proportionality. Second, in addition to the use of reasonable force, judges will have the power to impose up to two years imprisonment in addition to the sentence for the offence and or an unlimited fine. Thirdly, concerns were raised that because many of these defendants will be receiving very long sentences, an additional period of imprisonment might not have much effect. So in order to meet this concern, Crown Court judges will also be given the power to impose meaningful sanctions, which will have an impact on how the defendant serves their time in prison.

If defendants attend court but are disruptive or disrespectful and, as a result, have to be removed from the hearing, the judge will be able to impose the same penalties. My Lords, this government is clear. Victims and their families voices matter and defendants should be sentenced with those voices ringing in their ears. This bill will help to ensure that this happens. I turn to the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility. Protecting children is an absolute priority for this government, and these provisions are part of a wider exercise to ensure that the interests of children remain paramount in all proceedings.

My Lords, having children is a privilege, but it is also a responsibility, and the justice system must always ensure that these children are right at the centre of what we do. So as part of that, this bill provides that where a parent has been convicted of a serious offence involving child sexual abuse and has been sentenced to four or more years imprisonment, then there will be an automatic restriction preventing them from exercising parental responsibility for their own children. This measure will protect the children of child sex offenders, whose convictions will provide clear evidence that they pose a risk to children, including their own.

The bill will also restrict the exercise of parental responsibility for children of rapists, where their crimes have led to the conception and birth of the child in question. There will be two routes. In the first situation where the Crown Court is satisfied to the criminal standard, that the child was conceived as a result of the rape, then this mandatory restriction must be imposed at the same time as the defendant is sentenced. If the second situation is where rape has occurred as part of wider domestic abuse, and the court is satisfied that the child may have been conceived as a result of that rape, but cannot be sure, then the court must refer the case to the Family Court via the local authority.

This sends a clear message that we will protect all children conceived and born as a result of rape, no matter the circumstances. The noble Lord Lord Meston asked me when we met about the number of offenders this will capture. Our belief is that up to 20 offenders will be affected by this measure each year. Third, non-disclosure agreements, my Lords, non-disclosure agreements or NDAs should not be used to silence victims or to cover up crimes. This bill will make sure that they cannot be used in this way.

It makes clear that NDAs will not be legally enforceable to the extent that they seek to prevent victims, or those who reasonably believe they are victims, from disclosing information about relevant criminal behaviour. In addition, we want to make sure that victims can provide the full context and circumstances when speaking about crimes, so the bill will also ensure that such a victim will be able to speak about how the other party reacted, both to the criminal conduct itself and to the victim speaking out about it.

Of course, we recognise that there may be situations where both parties genuinely wish to have the closure that is offered by an NDA to accommodate that. The measure includes two powers. The first will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to set out the criteria for an accepted NDA. Such NDAs would not be voided under the measure. The second part allows the Secretary of State to specify that, speaking about the crime to some people, for specific purposes or in certain situations will always be allowed, even if an accepted NDA exists.

So, by way of example, a victim who wanted to speak to a victim support service in order to get support may be able to do so despite being party to an accepted NDA. My Lords, the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen of Elie and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst asked me about some of the exceptions set out in the clause. I'm sorry I was not able to answer their questions in advance of Second Reading, but I'll do my best to do so now. The measure will not apply to a narrow cohort of specified agreements.

This is in the interests of national security. Unlike with NDAs, victims of crime who sign such agreements will not always be able to make the disclosures specified by the Secretary of State in regulations made under the second power. Because the relevant bodies have their own appropriate arrangements for ensuring victims and witnesses of crime can speak up and seek support during the development of the clause, extensive engagement was undertaken with relevant government departments about which bodies an exemption should apply to.

An exemption for agreements entered into by the National Crime Agency in the interests of national security was not considered necessary. Legislation that binds the Crown does not ordinarily apply to the sovereign, unless there is a specific policy justification for it to do so, and for the purposes of this measure, the government does not consider that there is a specific policy justification for the measure to apply to agreements entered into by the sovereign personally. Fourth, strengthening the powers of the victims. Commissioner.

My Lords, I wish to start my remarks by paying tribute to the late Baroness Newlove, who will be greatly missed in your Lordships House. All of us have a great deal for which to thank her. This bill will enable the Victims Commissioner to hold the system to account more effectively, which we hope and expect will boost the confidence of victims. The victims Commissioner will have a number of new tools which we intend should be used to achieve systemic change. First, for the first time, the Commissioner will be able to exercise their functions in relation to individual cases where such a case raises public policy issues which go beyond that particular case and are likely to be of relevance to other victims and witnesses.

Second, local authorities and social housing providers will have a duty to cooperate with the victims commissioner in relation to anti-social behaviour and as a result, the Commissioner will be able to get the information they need to identify systemic issues, make informed recommendations and examine how the system responds to anti-social behaviour. Thirdly, this bill will place a new duty on the Victims Commissioner to produce an independent assessment as to. As to how public agencies are meeting their duties under the Victims Code.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's a report will be provided to Ministers who will then be required to consider it as part be required to consider it as part of preparing their own report on code compliance under the Victims and Prisoners, Victim and Prisoners and Prisoners, Victim and Prisoners Act 2024. Some of your Lordships have raised with me at meetings whether the Commissioner will have sufficient resources to take on this additional work. We have worked closely with the Victims worked closely with the Victims Commissioner's Office to understand the impact of the measures, and we have identified a small additional resource requirement amounting to £150,000 a year, and that is outlined in our impact assessment.

This will be accounted for as the measure is commenced and implemented. Victim contact scheme My Lords, the Victim Contact Scheme plays a critical role in communicating information about the release of offenders to be given to those who need it most. But the legislation governing it is more than 20 years old. So this bill will simplify and update the current system. It will bring victims currently served by different operational schemes into the single victim contact scheme. And as we implement this measure, we will make sure that the updated scheme works for the victims it's designed to serve.

The bill will also provide all victims with one clear route they can use to request information about an offender, the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen of Elie and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst. Asked about interactions with clinicians obligations and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, raised issues about when an offender is detained under the Mental Health Act 2013. We will consider how best to support victim liaison officers and indeed hospital managers, to provide this information to victims where it is appropriate to do so.

This requirement reflects current practice where the release of information must comply with data protection legislation and the convention rights. We also would not provide information that would put either the offender or the victim at risk for any reason. Where information is not disclosed, victims can seek a review through existing independent HMP complaints processes or make a complaint to the relevant NHS service provider, and if they are unhappy with the outcome, victims can escalate their complaint directly to the Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman.

For mentally disordered offenders, this includes information about discharge, leave and any other information as appropriate. Furthermore, the bill will allow victims to request information about an offender, which will be delivered via a new dedicated helpline. This means that eligible victims of mentally disordered offenders will receive information upon request. Our intention is to ensure that those who are eligible receive the right information about offenders at the right time and in addition, but outwith this bill, we will consult on a new victims code in due course.

My Lords, I would now like to turn to prosecutors. I declare not so much an interest as experience in this area, because I worked for the Crown Prosecution Service for five years. I am sure that all will agree that it is essential that we ensure that the CPS can recruit and retain sufficient qualified Crown prosecutors. Having inadequate numbers means that important decisions about, for example, who to charge with offences, choice of charge and evidence requests to be made from the police cannot take place in a timely way.

In England and Wales there are, of course, the members of the two well known branches of the legal profession, namely solicitors and barristers. But what is less widely known is that there are other routes by which a person may qualify as a lawyer. The biggest of these organisations is Cilex, the Chartered institution of Legal Executives. At present, as the law currently stands, it is difficult for the CPS to appoint lawyers other than solicitors or barristers to work as Crown prosecutors. This bill will remove those barriers by enabling further, suitably qualified and experienced legal professionals to be appointed to these important roles.

A number of noble Lords have raised with me whether this will involve lowering standards, and I am happy to reassure your Lordships that it will not. At present, the law requires Crown prosecutors to have what is known as the general qualification. The general qualification requires the lawyer in question to have very wide rights of audience, namely in all proceedings in the senior courts, in all proceedings in the county court or magistrates courts. But in practice, not all these rights are necessary for their role as a Crown prosecutor.

So the bill will remove that requirement. But what will remain is that Crown prosecutors, from whichever professional background, must have the necessary rights of audience and authorisation under the Legal Services Act 2007 to appear in the courts relevant to their role, and they will have to meet the necessary CPS competency standards to conduct prosecutions at the appropriate level, and the CPS will retain full discretion over who to appoint. My Lords, this will widen the pool of eligible prosecutors and support greater flexibility in staffing.

The hope is that in the longer term, this will shorten waiting times for prosecutorial decisions to be made. The measure supports in a proportionate way the intention underlying the manifesto commitment, rather than giving more powers to associate prosecutors. These measures will increase the pool of prospective Crown prosecutors private prosecutions. Once again, I declare that I have experience in this area, having been a partner in a firm of solicitors and head of a department which brought a number of private prosecutions.

I was also one of the founding members of the Private Prosecutors Association, and was heavily involved in the drafting of the Code of Practice and Conduct for private prosecutors. This government is committed to reforming the private prosecution system so that it is fairer and has the necessary safeguards in place, and whilst that will require more extensive and long term change, this bill is taking the first step as part of that plan for reform. A number of your Lordships raised with me the question of whether this reform would have a chilling effect on private prosecutions.

That is not the intention underlying these measures. The government agrees that private prosecutions play an important role in our justice system. But when a private prosecutor applies to the court for their costs to be paid by the public purse, there are no fixed rates. And this is not satisfactory for two reasons. First, costs determinations can be protracted, taking up valuable court time, and secondly, there is a lack of certainty for those who would like to consider bringing a private prosecution as to the amount that they may be able to recover.

That is why, my Lords, this Bill will give the Lord Chancellor the power to make regulations which set the rates at which private prosecutors can recover their costs from central funds. This will save court time when it's required to determine costs orders. It will reduce the number of appeals and give private prosecutors a better degree of certainty. We believe that it will ensure the best use of public funds. My Lords, this measure is purely an enabling power. I am aware that reservations have been expressed about the effect of setting the rates too low, and I have been assured that there will be extensive engagement with stakeholders, and a full consultation will be held before any regulations are introduced.

The defendant's costs order will not be the starting point, and I will be closely measuring the progress of the consultation. This engagement will help us determine the most appropriate, appropriate rates, including whether higher rates should be reserved for some more complex private prosecutions. In doing so, we will retain the central aim of this measure, which is to safeguard the right of an individual to bring private prosecutions whilst making the best use of public funds. My Lords, let me now turn to the measures affecting the unduly lenient Sentence scheme.

As many will know, when the Attorney General believes that the original sentence does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence, the scheme provides a power for the case to be referred to the Court of Appeal. There is a strict 28 day statutory time limit, which mirrors the time limit that defendants have in which to appeal their sentence in a not insubstantial number of cases, they're not brought to the attention of the attorney general until the end of the period, sometimes on the 28th day.

This has proved problematic for the attorney general, because it makes it difficult to be able to give the case proper consideration within the time remaining. The 28 day period will remain unaltered, my Lords, but the Bill will give the Attorney General 14 days to consider any request which has been made within the second half of the window. We believe that this is a proportionate response, respecting the need for fairness to all victims and balancing that with the need for certainty and sentencing.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, asked me about the unduly lenient sentence scheme in engagement and the shorter window for victims. My Lords, many of you may be aware of the commitment made in the other place by my hon. Friend, the victims Minister. She has committed to looking at the length of the time limit as this bill progresses, and I too, am happy to make that commitment in your Lordships' House, namely, to listen to and consider any thoughts that noble Lords may have as to length of the time limit for the ULS scheme.

But in doing so, I remind you, Lordships, that the unduly lenient sentence scheme is not a mechanism to provide an appeal for victims or members of the public. Rather, it is a legal safeguard which exists in order to correct sentences that fall outside the reasonable parameters for the sentence in question. Finally, My Lords, the Bill introduces a modest but important amendment to Magistrates Court sentencing powers in respect of six specific offences. As your Lordships will know, this government has increased magistrates sentencing powers from 6 to 12 months imprisonment for all offences which are triable either way, other than the six.

For technical reasons, all these six require primary legislation to make the magistrates courts sentencing powers consistent with those of all other either way offences, and doing this will reduce the risk of confusion or error in sentencing. My Lords, this bill is about ensuring trust and confidence in our justice system, one that is fair, efficient and takes the needs of victims into account. And it reflects our commitment to ensuring courts meet the demands both of today and tomorrow. I beg to move EA.
16:42
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
The question is this bill be now read a second time. read a second time. >> My Lords, this. >> Bill has been laid before us in the name of victims, so we must the name of victims, so we must grasp the opportunity to ensure that the bill lives up to its name. that the bill lives up to its name. The bill strengthens the measures proposed in the predecessor bill, which fell before the last election and was lost. I thank all those groups and organisations who have made valuable contributions so far.

The first important matter that I address is the attendance of convicted persons at their sentencing hearing. My Lords, if the courts cannot compel attendance by criminals, then justice is undermined. It is vital that the courts have power both to compel attendance by reasonable force if necessary, and to punish criminals who resist or fail to attend their sentencing hearings. Next I turn, and I'll expand on that in a moment. Next, I turn to those guilty of child sex offences.

We welcome the provision that parental responsibility is now to be restricted for for child sex offenders who have committed offences against any child, not just their own child or children. It is also paramount that victims are given more information about the release dates for their offenders, and are kept informed about their whereabouts and the risks, if any, that they may pose to their safety. That is particularly necessary once it because it was revealed that 91 prisoners may have been released by mistake between the 1st of April and the 31st of October of this year.

We are pleased with the provisions to address non-disclosure agreements, but we'll need more time to consider the detail of the proposed exemptions, and we look forward to hearing about those. My Lords, the bill before us does have some shortcomings. We must address these if we're to make the most of this opportunity and of precious parliamentary time. For example, we on these benches believe that courts should order offenders to pay compensation, which truly reflects the victims financial loss. When when penalties are imposed.

More broadly, there have been justified calls for greater transparency following the the crimes and the subsequent cover up of grooming gangs across the nation. These calls will grow louder and more urgent as victims demand justice. And we need more transparency. So I turn, first of all, to the provisions for unduly lenient sentences. The current deadline for applications for a review of sentence to the scheme is 28 days from the date when sentence is passed. The former Victims Commissioner for England and Wales, my late and much missed noble friend Baroness Newlove in the months before her untimely death, highlighted that victims are often unaware of this deadline because the prosecution has not brought it to their attention.

The government's own election manifesto committed to, and I quote, ensuring victims can access the information and support they need. That is why we recommended an extension of time for an application to be made from 28 days to 56 days. This will give victims more time to process an application. In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service should be obliged to notify victims that the scheme exists because they have to know about it if they are to do something, and within ten working days of a sentence being passed to provide information explaining the application process and the application process and the relevant deadlines.

Many victims. Relevant deadlines. I'm sorry for making victim impact statements. Many victim impact statements. Are have faced difficulties victims must be able fully to express in their personal statements the impact that crimes have had on them. Victims deserve a platform, but such statements are evidence in the case and as such, subject to strict rules. We accept that what they say must not be contrary to any statutory limitations on free speech. They must not make allegations of untried criminal conduct, or be offensive or inappropriately provocative.

But victims must have their voices heard. My Lords, at the heart of these calls is a call for greater transparency in the system, transparency about the courses of action available to victims after sentence, and allowing victims themselves to explain their suffering without inappropriate censorship. We must take this opportunity to help enhance trust in the courts and the process, and to bring accuracy to our public discourse. At present, we do not know enough about the backgrounds of those who commit offences. Too often, the public is left to speculate.

In the other place, the opposition tabled an amendment to set the record straight. It would require courts to collect data on sentenced offenders in relation to a number of factors nationality, sex at birth and, where applicable, country of birth. Method of entry to the United Kingdom, visa route and visa status and asylum status. The government should then publish these statistics every three months. This will ensure that both policy makers and the British public have an accurate debate, and can reach informed decisions when it comes to criminal justice, to integration and to border control.

My Lords, there are clear and legitimate concerns about integration and social cohesion. It's imperative that the government does not dismiss these or overlook them. Accurate data is important. It's abscess. It's absence allows for misleading statements to be made, sometimes deliberately and malevolently. But even if innocently made, they can have a damaging effect. So we implore the House to take this opportunity to make a profound impact on our current policies through this bill. As for the implementation of the bill as it currently stands, there are also practical issues which the government must consider.

I must ask, how exactly will offenders be compelled to attend sentencing when prison officers already find themselves ill equipped to handle violent or disruptive offenders? What provisions will be put in place? My Lords officers should be enabled to use reasonable force, so long as it is, as it is not disproportionate. This must include the power to restrain and to quieten disruptive offenders during hearings. Next. As for child sex offenders, now that sex offences against any child will result in a restricted parental responsibility order, what provisions is the government going to take to ensure that the family courts are not overwhelmed by appeals? Once the bill is passed into law? My Lords, until these questions are addressed, we fear that this Bill will not fulfil its aims nor be satisfactory for the victims in whose name this bill has been put forward.

We support the aims of this Bill, but there remain real gaps and real missed opportunities. We are fortunate enough in this House to have the chance to correct them. We must prove our worth by making necessary changes in the interests of victims and the public, so that there is trust in the system as a whole. Only then can we deliver real justice for victims, improve confidence, and improve trust in our courts and the justice system as a whole.

We need to be able to enjoy informed debates across our political life. I look forward to engaging constructively with the government and with noble Lords across the House to help this Bill live up to its name. Thank you.
16:50
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. I thank the noble Lord, >> My Lords. I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for her very clear introduction to the Bill this afternoon. And the Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the Democrats broadly welcome the principles behind the victims in court. Bill strengthening support for victims, strengthening the powers of the Victims Commissioner and improving the court system. The current systems for our courts is not just under severe stress, it is actually close to collapse. And there are important changes that we believe need to be made for the courts service to be fit for purpose in this current era.

But because we do have some concerns and proposals for the improvement of the bill, some echoing amendments that were laid for this bill by our Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Commons. I suspect that on this bill, as with the Crime and Policing Bill, the Sentencing Bill currently going through your Lordships House, as well as the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which was saved in the wash up just in the run up to the 24 general election. But most of it was not commenced other than the infected blood compensation arrangements.

And I wondered if this was the bill Lord Sandhurst was referring to, and I apologise if I got that wrong, but it was saved because I have a question for the Minister and we, which I'll come to in a minute. So I think during the passage of this bill, we will be discussing minute detail about technicalities of improving systems for victims. But, my Lords, we often don't hear enough what victims or survivors or complainants, however they may choose to describe themselves, actually face and how long it takes to recover.

And that's why I'm so grateful that many victims, NGOs and charities keep their voices in front of us. The definition of a victim in section one of the Victims and Prisoners Act starts with that. It's someone who suffers harm as a direct result of being subject to a criminal conduct, or one or more of the circumstances mentioned in subsection. And the key thing for me is exactly about what harm entails. Harm includes physical, mental or emotional harm, and economic loss or criminal conduct means conduct which constitutes an offence.

Now that, my Lords, I think is a good definition, a helpful starting point and a reminder to us that victims will have suffered physical, mental or emotional harm or economic loss, or being the victims of criminal conduct. By the way, neither the previous government or this government have commenced this section of the Victims and Prisoners Act, which continues to be disappointing. So can I ask the Minister if the government intends to bring in this section of that act in for a of that section? The clinical description of harm covers a wide range of experience.

For example, harm can lie dormant in victims for many years, as with children sexually abused when young, we know it can take decades before they face up to what has happened and that period of time, however long it is, can be mental agony as well as physically distressing. And adults abused as children often say, their life remains irreparably changed by the experience. For some
16:53
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
victims, the chance to see their perpetrator in the dock and convicted can be cathartic. But for too many, the mental and physical anguish of this type of severe anguish of this type of severe crime on and to a person just means that experience continues to live on long after the court hearing. Our starting point from these benches is that we have long called benches is that we have long called for more support for victims and survivors of crime. This government is saying many of the right things, and tomorrow or Thursday we will see the strategy for Vawg, which is much welcomed and will be a key pillar in that.

But over the course of the last 18 months, we've seen many good and worthy principles that have not been followed through with priority or worse, a lack of money to deliver the change that is actually needed. So I ask the Minister, will the government guarantee to deliver the resources in order to make the ideas and words in this bill and in the Vawg strategy, when it comes happen? Above all, there must be strategic and consistent planning and funding of victim support services, for without that, the services will not have victims at the heart of it, and it's likely that it will remain inconsistent across the country.

We welcome the strengthening of the victims commissioner role and the restriction of parental responsibility in certain heinous cases. The areas of the bill that we have particular concern with include an extension to the victim Contact Scheme, to include victims of offenders sentenced to less than 12 months for violence and sexual offences, victims of coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking or harassment, as well as bereaved families in manslaughter or death by dangerous driving. Also, access to free court transcripts for victims of criminal offences is increasingly important, and this is broader than the original pilot and early proposals, but we believe it would be the right thing to introduce and the provision for support of victims online and technology enabled crimes, and the application of the victims code in respect of victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad, which we have laid amendments to in the past.

The families of those killed deserve access to the same victim support back home in the UK as those whose family members may have been killed in the UK. The Liberal Democrats have long sought to get restorative justice implemented broadly across the criminal justice system, were delivered with care and willingness on both the victim and the offender's side. It can make a real difference to both parties. We laid amendments in the Commons for a victims right to referral, and a duty to report on the use of restorative justice services, and we want to continue to make progress on this.

The government proposal to increase the period in which the Attorney General may receive a request to challenge an unduly lenient sentence to 28 days, and the extra 14 days, if submitted in the second half of the 28 day period, in our view, remains too short and we supported the official opposition in some of their amendments in the Commons. Critically, it is unworkable unless a victim is notified of when a sentence has been given, because the window to apply to the Attorney General is too tight.

And I note with regret that the Minister said that the ULS was not an appeal mechanism for a victim, but many victims. On the rare occasion it might be used, should have access to it. And one of the reasons for that is that too often, victims are encouraged by the CPS and the police not to be present at the end of a trial of the perpetrator, and they often miss the sentencing. Shockingly, too many are not even told about the unduly lenient sentencing arrangements and within a very short number of days, cannot even submit a request to the Attorney general.

I've been laying amendments and proposing changes to the ULS scheme for some years now. We will continue to do so in your Lordships House on this Bill. Whilst the court proposals are in the main sensible, we remain concerned that there are very limited proposals to tackle the court's backlog and the announcement by David Lammy MP in relation to reducing the number of cases in front of a jury hasn't helped. On this Monday, 60 courts sat empty because of lack of judges or barristers or other experts needed for court hearings.

There is little empirical evidence, proof or pilot that shows reducing juries will ease pressures on the court system alone. The real problems are the poor buildings, court closures and the legal aid cuts that penalise barristers and solicitors. What is needed is a long term commitment for investment in both restoring funding to legal aid and capital investment in the courts of the future. My Lords, these are some of the key issues that we believe need to be addressed in the Bill, but set in the context of giving a broad welcome for most of the Bill whilst wanting to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

strengthen it. My Lords, I join in welcoming

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I join in welcoming this bill. The long title states that it is to make provision about the experience of victims within the criminal justice system. In that context, it is strange to be considering such a bill in the absence of Lady Newlove, a good absence of Lady Newlove, a good test of what can be achieved by the bill will be whether or not she would have approved of it. I am sure we would all hope that our final product would meet her approval.

I wish to focus on two topics the power to order an offender to attend court for sentencing, and the proposed restrictions on parental responsibility. The problem of convicted criminals in serious cases who refuse to attend court for a sentencing hearing is relatively new, but regrettably it has not gone away and the government are now right to deal with it, involving deterrent measures. Sentencing judges are well used to dealing with attention seeking misbehaviour by some offenders, but the bill gives a clearer framework for the powers available to the judge, not just when the offender fails or refuses to attend, but also when he does attend.

He interrupts the hearing or otherwise misbehaves and has to be removed. A sentencing hearing is important because it is when the offender is made publicly accountable for his criminal action, and has to confront the disapproval of society for what he has done, and also to hear the evidence of the impact on the victim and on the victim's family. A refusal to attend adds insult to injury and highlights the lack of any remorse. It was, in one such case, rightly described by the judge as spineless.

Clearly, when a very long sentence is inevitable, a relatively short additional sentence may not persuade such defendants with little or nothing to lose, to cooperate or to behave. And there is a limit to what can be expected of prison or custody officers in manhandling a resistant offender into the dock. There can, in those cases, be a risk of making a bad
17:01
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
situation look worse. However, clarification in the bill that reasonable force may be used if reasonable force may be used if necessary and proportionate is welcome. The important point of these new provisions is that victims can be reassured that they will be heard, and that offenders will know that if they think about not attending, there will be not attending, there will be consequences, not just in the longer term with a further sentence, which may have little or no real meaning, but also in the short term, with new prison sanctions order.

Turning to clauses three and four of the bill, it is clearly right and necessary to introduce a an effective mechanism to curtail any exercise of parental responsibility by fathers who commit sexual offences against a child. That must mean a sexual offence against any child, not just a child, for whom the man may have had parental responsibility, which is what I now understand the bill to intend. As the Minister has been good enough to confer, I welcome that confirmation, because paragraph 176 of the explanatory notes accompanying the Bill suggests that it might still be restricted to offences against the children for whom he holds parental responsibility.

I understand that that not to be correct. I suspect none of us have any reservations about the essential principles underlying these proposals. The chair of the Bar Council has said parental responsibility should not be regarded as an inalienable right, which is retained regardless of parental parental behaviour and actions. Restricting parental responsibility for perpetrators of child sex offences is a strong protective measure for those left behind after acts of violence and abuse within the family. I suggest that this should also apply to any such serious sexual acts committed outside the family context, and which are in fact wholly incompatible with the retention of parental responsibility without now getting too involved in the details of the current law.

It is important to appreciate that not all fathers automatically have parental responsibility if not married to the mother. A father would only acquire it with her agreement for him to be registered and named as father on the birth certificate, or by later agreement or order. It is also important to appreciate that the Family Court can and does already terminate, suspend or restrict parental responsibility when there is a risk of significant harm to the child or siblings, and when the father's conduct and retention of parental responsibility has become an intolerable concern to the mother.

But there have been cases in which obstructive fathers, out of malice or lack of insight or empathy, force a mother into protracted and costly litigation to protect the children and herself as their mother, and to remove the need for her to involve the father in decision making about their future care and upbringing. At least in the cases covered by this bill. A more summary mechanism will be made available. This bill builds on section 18 of the 2024 act.

Jade's law not yet in force. It will prevent the exercise of parental responsibility, but without actually altogether terminating parental responsibility. Clause three requires a sentence of at least four years before it operates. That leaves the cases of those with lesser sentences remaining to be dealt with in the Family Court, as now. I accept there is a need to draw lines so as to make best use of the resources, expertise and powers of both courts without overburdening either. But where lines are drawn may need more exploration during the passage of this bill.

I would briefly raise some other procedural and evidential points. First, I would ask whether consideration has been given to any mechanism to restrict applications for, or exercise of parental responsibility during what is now likely to be a long period between the initial charge and the final sentencing. Is that to be left to bail conditions or left to the Family Court on a separate application by the mother or a local authority? Or could the Crown Court now be given power to make an interim order? Secondly, assuming the Crown Court will be making orders covering all children for whom the defendant has parental responsibility without later review by the Family Court, how will the Crown Court get reliable information about who those children are and about their status and circumstances, particularly if the defendant is unwilling or unable to assist and the court has no access to existing court orders concerning those children.

Regrettably, some men have selective memories about their offspring. How also will the mothers of those children be identified? Are located and then informed about what the Crown Court is doing or may have done. Finally, as to as to children who have been or may have been conceived as the result of rape, it may be difficult at the time of sentencing to ascertain if the child was in fact so conceived. If there was a pre-existing relationship between the couple.

Continuing at least until the rape, the difficulty no doubt already exists. If the criminal court has to decide whether the mother's enforced pregnancy was an aggravating factor for for sentencing purposes in rape cases broadly. However, in cases of uncertainty, I welcome the measures in the proposed new section ten, which requires the Crown Court to notify the local authority who will have to assess the likely co-operation or otherwise of the mother and any possible need for orders from the Family Court, which may require further fact finding in this regard.

I consider the Bill goes as far as it needs to in such situations, subject to those comments. Most of the provisions of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this bill are welcome. My Lords, I was at Saint

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I was at Saint Thomas's at 8 a.m. this morning and return to guys 8 a.m. tomorrow. My return to guys 8 a.m. tomorrow. My lack of balance, but I was determined to speak on this determined to speak on this important bill. But I've informed the clerks that I will do so
17:09
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe Portrait Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Labour)
-
-
the clerks that I will do so sitting down. My Lords. I welcome this Bill warmly and applaud the work of my noble friend, the Minister and her team. I consider this House to be so lucky to have somebody of such relevant

**** Possible New Speaker ****

experience leading this work. Here. Here, here, here. This bill marks a really important step forward in rebuilding a much shaken justice rebuilding a much shaken justice system, a system to serve victims who in recent years have so often who in recent years have so often been failed. Imagine if the victim been failed. Imagine if the victim was your daughter, cousin, granddaughter, niece. As my noble friend the Baroness clearly said, the justice system must serve victims rather than subjecting them to further trauma on top of what they have already suffered.

This bill strengthens victims rights, forcing offenders to attend their sentencing hearing. Where was the justice for Louise? Hannah and Carol hunt when Clifford was a no show at sentencing? Those who refuse to comply will be liable to an additional custodial penalty of up to 24 months and restriction of social visits and removal of privileges. In my view, quite rightly so, absolutely. I also welcome the protection of children of sex offenders and the NCA should not prevent victims from disclosing relevant information.

Because of this important bill. My Lords, cowardly offenders who try to avoid facing the consequences of their actions on victims and insult victims families will no longer be able to get away with it. Yeah. Can I ask my noble friend, the Minister, that given that one of the sanctions for non-attendance at sentencing is an additional prison sentence, will that have an impact on prison capacity? My Lords, I welcome this Bill and look forward to further discussion with all of you.

Thank you.
17:11
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
Very good. >> Very good. We did very well. >> My Lords, I'm delighted to see the noble Lady, Lady Griffin, in her place, and I wish her a very her place, and I wish her a very speedy recovery. I also congratulate her on her precision and the brevity of her remarks. I wish I was going to be as brief as she. What? So does my noble and learned friend. But. So that's the free drink. He's not going to get.

Unusually for a modern criminal justice bill, I must say, ably opened by my by the noble Lady, the Minister. This is, relatively speaking, a remarkably short one. It's only got 18 clauses. It's rather spoilt, however, because there are 53 pages of schedules, and I dream of the day when any government decides to stop producing criminal justice bills of voluminous length. But there we are. I do understand the political and the moral basis for the provisions about defendants who refuse to appear in court to be sentenced, and I listened with great care to the noble Lord Lord Meston.

But I agree with my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. In his scepticism about whether they will actually work in practice. Well, we'll see at committee how those arguments are developed. I do, however, welcome the proposals with regard to the ULS scheme. I had to operate it myself as a law officer when the noble Lady of the Minister was at the Crown Prosecution Service. So we we suffered together. I think it's fair to say in that particular struggle now, there will be more to say in committee about the NDA provisions which amend the Victims and Prisoners Bill or act of 2024.

And this afternoon, I want to address the point about overseas victims not mentioned in this bill, which I spoke about on the 7th of February, 2024, on the fourth day of the Committee stage of the then Victims and Prisoners Bill. And I make no apology for doing so again, and will be tabling the same amendment to this bill as I tabled to that bill. And in introducing this set of remarks, I refer to my interest as a barrister whose practice includes corporate crime cases.

Multinational companies have been fined more than £1.5 billion over the past ten years or so, after investigations by the Serious Fraud Office into corruption abroad. But only 1.4% of those fines, about £20 million, has been used to compensate victim countries or communities abroad. And in my view, this needs to change. Much of this corruption occurs in African countries that are already suffering terrible economic hardship from food and energy crises, and from inflation. They are in dire need of economic support to repair the damage caused by corruption.

The United Kingdom government have been vocal in their support for compensating foreign state victims of corruption, but the action actually taken to compensate foreign states tells a different story and leaves us open to charges of hypocrisy. Most corruption cases brought before the English courts involve foreign jurisdictions. We step in as the world's policeman, investigating and prosecuting crimes that take place in other countries, but keep all the fines for ourselves. This is important because corruption causes insidious damage to the poor and the not so poor, particularly in emerging markets.

The United Nations says it impedes international trade and investment, undermines sustainable development, threatens democracy and deprives citizens of vital public services. Public resources. The African Union estimated in 2015 that 25% of the continent's gross domestic product was lost to corruption. Every company convicted of overseas corruption in this jurisdiction should be ordered to compensate the communities they have harmed. That would be both just and effective. Compensation should come through investment in programmes targeted at decreasing corruption and benefiting local communities by, for example, building and resourcing more schools and hospitals.

At first glance, English law encourages compensation. It's required to take precedence over all other financial sanctions. So far, so good. But as with many noble ambitions, problems lurk in the detail. Compensation is ordered in criminal cases only, where the loss is straightforward to assess, even though the trial judge is usually of High Court or senior Crown Court level, who deal with complex issues every day. For example, in 2022, in a case in which I appeared for a victim state, Glencore pleaded guilty to widespread corruption in the oil markets of several African states.

Although it was ordered to pay £281 million. Not a single penny has gone back to the communities where the corruption happened, largely because it was held that the compensation would be too complicated to quantify. The Airbus deferred prosecution agreement tells a similar story. The company was required to pay 991 million to the United Kingdom in fines, but compensation to the numerous Asian countries where the corruption took place formed no part of the agreement. The process for compensating overseas victims, and particularly overseas state victims, need simplification so that real money can be returned to them.

An answer, perhaps lies in incentivising the companies that commit the crimes to pay compensation voluntarily, on the understanding that it would not increase the total amount, including penalties and costs that they would have to pay. The company could be further incentivised by receiving a discount on the fine. It would still be required to pay to the United Kingdom Treasury, or an increase in the fine if they refuse or fail to make redress at the required changes are, I suggest, straightforward and would cost the taxpayer nothing.

It could create a standard measure of compensation which would ensure consistency and transparency, as well as avoiding the difficulty of calculating a specific amount of loss or damage. In each case, the compensation figure could be equal, whichever could equal, whichever is the higher of the profit made by the company from its corrupt conduct, or the amount of the bribes it paid to obtain the profits. This already happens when companies are sentenced. Say that all the money goes to the Treasury. The defendant company would pay nothing more, but at least some of the money would benefit the victim state or the communities harmed within that state.

Of course, it would be naive to think that compensation paid to a foreign state could never lead to further corruption. That's clearly a risk. So to address this defendant, companies would be encouraged or required to enter into an agreement with the relevant state, which would include obligations to comply with United Nations guidance on the treatment of compensation funds, and to identify projects for which the funds would be used, possibly with the involvement of a local non-governmental organisation and and to encourage all states to enter into these types of agreements.

Corporations would be permitted, for example, to donate the compensation funds to the world Bank or International Monetary Fund for projects in the region instead, or to pay down a country's debt if an agreement cannot otherwise be reached. The benefit of this approach is I suggest that, unlike at present, where there is no disadvantage in doing nothing, it puts the onus on the defendant companies to take restorative action, something I hope will appeal to the noble Lady, Lady Brenton. It also addresses the difficulties in quantifying losses by creating a simple approach that gives companies early sight of the amount they will have to pay.

My Lord, this bill, I'm sure, is full of wonderful provisions, but it does lack this wonderful diamond which needs to be added to the ring around the minister's finger. I don't know how far I can go with that one, but. Anyhow, let's, let's, let's do this and then we can hold our heads high and enhance our national reputation in the fight against international corruption. This is not a matter of party politics. It's a matter of simple

**** Possible New Speaker ****

justice. My Lords, I thank the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her persuasive introduction to the Bill, and I hope that Baroness Griffin is soon dancing round the Griffin is soon dancing round the chamber again. May I start at all? Actually, before the beginning of Actually, before the beginning of the bill. The long title tells us that, among other things, it is to make provision. I quote about procedure and the administration of criminal justice. There's a lot going on at the moment in relation to the administration of criminal justice, including the first part of Brian Leveson's review and the government's recent response.

And I've been asked no doubt, other noble Lords have as well, whether the government might use this bill to introduce the major reforms it's proposing. Obviously, I'm in no position to give any assurances, though I have said there would be a hell of a row if that happened. If this House, with all its expertise and strong views, did not have the opportunity of Second Reading debate. If the Commons the elected chamber was excluded from initial general debate and scrutiny.

I trust them, the Minister shaking her head already. So that's now in Hansard. But I was going to say that as a question. I trust you give us an assurance on this. There is much I raised it because if it's around there as gossip, I think it needs answering. There is much to welcome in the bill, but our role as a revising chamber does mean that many of our comments may come over as opposition or criticism. I hope not to sound too much like
17:22
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Scrooge when I heard there was to be a victims helpline, I was interested as to what it might cover and hoped it would be more than a signposting exercise, pointing victims to where they pointing victims to where they might get help. But of course, it's not that and the victims contact scheme may suggest more than it is to provide. Many victims need to provide. Many victims need support as witnesses. I am aware of the issue of coaching or the suggestion that a victim witness.

However he or she wishes to describe themselves. Has been coached and the postponement of support and indeed treatment for some badly affected victims is another argument for dealing with delays in the courts and victims experience. I hate the word journey doesn't end with the verdict, so support before and following a trial, often for a long period. As a survivor, this bill is a sort of Rubik's Cube, part of a Rubik's Cube of criminal justice legislation.

The Second Reading comes not just during public debate about juries, but partway through the Sentencing Bill and the issue of resources for non-custodial sentences and for purposeful activity in custody is being discussed. Resources to support victims survivors are needed, too. As I've said, the position of so many organisations in the third sector is precarious and appreciative words are no substitute for services and funding. As we know, too many victims and alleged offenders have a long wait for the trial.

Some of the alleged offenders are not on bail but released under investigation. An alternative to bail but without set timeframes or conditions attached. It has been suggested that for the police, this is a cop out. Sorry, no pun intended there. As it reduces the load on them, the Leveson recommendation was to return to the pre 2017 system of conditional or unconditional bail. What priority does this bill have? It was introduced in the Commons in May. And then there's been a sort of hiatus.

And in this House it is to go to grand committee rather than having its Committee stage on the floor of the House. Presumably, though, one shouldn't assume anything in time for it to be through by the end of the session. I appreciate that timing is not a matter for the Minister, but she may wish to comment. She may not, of course, to turn to some specific points. We will spend some time on the first two clauses. I know I confess to wondering whether, well, the failure of a convicted offender to appear at a sentencing hearing was caused a lot of distress to the victim.

Looking the offender in the eye well, while she he hears Vic, while he or she hears victim statements, would it be better to rely and perhaps use more the existing powers held by custody officers and prison governors and of course, by judges? Though I can see why there's a concern not to use contempt of court powers other than sparingly. There are risks associated with the sanctions and impacts on prison capacity and the Crown Court backlog. It's a difficult balance.

We'll also discuss the transcripts of sentencing remarks, an issue which for some time has been pursued by my hon. Friend, the Member for Richmond Park and North Kingston, and to which my noble friend Baroness Brinton has referred at a meeting in early September of the Constitution Committee, of which I'm a member, I asked the then Lord Chancellor just before she became Home Secretary about progress in this area. She said, I do not believe we are far from having a tech solution that meets the test of accuracy.

We're testing market solutions for speed and accuracy. Then we will need to take a view on operational viability and how quickly it could be rolled out. She also said it's a long process and it has a cost attached to it, and went on to emphasise that accuracy is the problem at the moment. If the Minister can update the House, that would be very welcome. I appreciate this is not as straightforward as some of us would like to think, but every day in this job we are aware of how quickly the Hansard writers record and reproduce what we say.

Mind you, they do tidy it up as well, which is certainly not what's wanted in the courts. In addition, can she update the House on when the prohibited steps provisions restricting parental responsibility are likely to come into force? As Lord Meston has said, section 18 of the Victims and Prisoners Act is still prospective. What discussion has the Moj had with local authorities, which will have to take on additional responsibilities, and will they have additional funding? It's inevitable that I keep coming back to resources.

The Victims' Commissioner, I'm sure, will need to be better resourced, given both her new powers and new duties, Baroness Newlove would undoubtedly have taken the opportunity to have made made the point that she could have used much more than £150,000. Whatever the agreement made, we all miss her, and we will welcome Claire Waxman to the position when she takes it up. The length of schedule two mentioned by Lord Garnier longer than the aggregate of all the bill's clauses, as I suppose a reflection of the way our statute book develops.

I don't want to sound churlish. Clause seven victims rights to make representations and receive information, etc. etc. is doing some heavy lifting or important out of all proportion to the clauses two lines, but proportionate to the schedule. How much heavy lifting can be done by, I quote issues of public policy of relevance to other victims or witnesses. We'll see. I'm pleased that victims rights to make certain disclosures are not to be precluded by NDAs. I hope the relevant regulations will be made with as little delay as possible, so that this comes into effect.

This is one of those occasions when seeing the regulations in draft during the course of the bill would be particularly helpful, given that not all NDAs will be covered. It's not just what's in the bill, it's also what it's not. I am we all are grateful to the organisations that have briefed us on the introduction of a duty to commission victim support services. 16 major organisations coming together to urge us to urge the government to drive change in the commissioning of specialist services for victims of exploitation and abuse and victims with specific needs, is not to be ignored.

I should declare an interest. I was many years ago for quite a number of years, a trustee and chair of the domestic violence charity refuge. Much that's in the bill and much else. To quote the long title, about the experience of victims within the criminal justice system, about the functions of the Commissioner for victims and witnesses, and about the procedure and administration of criminal justice, lends itself, indeed calls for consultation with those affected and with those working in the sector.

But or and I know that we have a group of Ministers who understand this very well. I've said this much in the Bill to welcome. What I've been saying should not detract from that. But we do want this bill to be as good as it can be. Thank you.
17:31
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
As always. It's a it's a great pleasure to follow the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee. And today it's an Baroness Hamwee. And today it's an enormous pleasure to congratulate my noble friend, the Minister, on my noble friend, the Minister, on bringing this bill forward and for introducing it with with the style and clarity that we are fast becoming used to. No pressure. In particular, the Bill addresses a number of concerns that many of us had about flaws and deficiencies in the act of last year specifically, and our regime for supporting victims of crime in general.

And so the Second Reading has felt at times, a little bit like a reunion. And it was a it was a pleasure to see the noble Lord, Lord Russell and his place before I think he'll return. And to hear in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Meston. And of course, I have to say it one more time. We all miss the noble Lady Baroness Newlove so much, and those of us who who worked quite hard on attempting to improve last year's bill tabled a large number of amendments and sat for a number of days with her advice, support and strategy.

And and it's therefore very heartening to see so much of the spirit of some of those amendments reflected in this, in this new bill. I hope my noble friend was able to take real pride in making what may have been her first section 19 statement on the on the cover of the of the bill. This is, of course, the section 19 of the Human Rights Act that requires Ministers to state their view of a bill's compatibility with human rights.

And noble Lords will notice that my noble friend felt able to do this on this occasion, and I hope she took pride in that, not least because as a criminal barrister and indeed a judge of some distinction, she will be very aware that it's perhaps in the realm of victims rights in particular, that the European Convention, by way of the Human Rights Act, has made the most positive difference here in the United Kingdom. But just briefly, on defendants rights, I was I was heartened to see my noble friend's body language in the face of the question from the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee about about the the proposals on jury trial because because panto season is upon us and the and the SSE one rumour mill is is working in in in full force.

And so I had heard the same rumours about this preposterous suggestion that limitations on jury trial would be would be dropped into this bill in Lords committee. And I was heartened to to see and still heartened to see the body language and no doubt we'll have it from from my noble friends mouth in in her in her summing up, of course, defendants were were well defendants rights were well developed in this jurisdiction long before even the European Convention and the draughters of that convention referred to article six as the English article because of things like the presumption of innocence in particular.

But this was far less the case in the context of the rights of victims of crime, and I in particular remember as a young lawyer and a young Home Office lawyer in the early 90s that, for example, rape complainants were routinely cross-examined in person, sometimes for days on end, by their alleged assailants in the Old Bailey, cross-examined on their sexual history, with judges understandably nervous about interfering before the commission as it then was in Strasbourg, suggested that might actually be degrading treatment and a new torture and inhuman and degrading treatment on the on the victim.

It was usually a woman need not be a woman, but it was usually a woman. And it took article three of the convention and and the Labour government's response to it to make sure that that should, should never happen. And that is just one example of many in the way that positive obligations under under the European Convention have animated and accelerated the development of victims rights in this country like, like never before. And I wanted to put that on the record because it is so infrequently discussed in all the in all the heat and noise around, around human rights debates in this country at the moment.

So in a similar vein, I so welcome clauses 3 to 5 of the bill in relation to restricting parental responsibility of sex offenders who who've abused children and similar amendment. We've discussed that there were similar attempts last year, but these go further. But the House and my noble friend will be much more comforted by the comments of the noble Lord Lord Meston, who is distinguished in that area as my noble friend is in the context of of criminal trials.

So that is so much to be, to be welcome. And yes, I agree, the explanatory notes are incorrect, but the the clause three, mercifully, is very clear that it's a crime against any child that meets the test, not just a crime against one's own child. That triggers the the new mandatory requirement to to to make a prohibited steps order in relation to parental responsibility. I also welcome the provisions on victims rights to make disclosures in the in the face of these abusive NDAs that have been so much in the public consciousness on both sides of the Atlantic in recent years, and to make representations and receive and and receive information.

These do seem to go further than before, and I think that's important. Perhaps in her summing up, my noble friend could comment on my comparison of the of what is section 17 of the 2024 act compared with the the new provision on non-disclosure? It seems to me that the presumption is much more in favour of disclosure now, and not just to this very limited collection of individuals like lawyers and so on. I think the new provision is is much more open, much more in favour of public interest, disclosure of criminal conduct against victims, much more in line with amendments that I tabled with others and supported.

But but my noble friend will be able to to to to clarify the comparison with the old provision and the new and I see it as an improvement and and more presumptively in favour of disclosure and and I also in particular welcome more teeth for the victims commissioner and for the victims code. I see the noble Lady Baroness Brinton nodding in her place. She will remember that we went to enormous lengths last year to to to plead for a victims code with teeth.

And who knows, maybe we could even seek more teeth. But we were, you know, I think at one point I even, I even tabled an amendment which was a new consolidated victims code that would have gone on to the face of the. It took a lot of careful typing on my part and a lot of patience from the public bill office, but it was rebuffed by the, by the by the last government. But what I, what I'm really heartened by in this bill is in particular that there's a duty of the victims commissioner to report on compliance with the victims code, because the code would, with no teeth, is is in danger of raising expectations victims in quite a cruel way that are then that are then not met.

And I wonder if my noble friend could also explain whether, like me, she thinks that the new ability of the victims commissioner to at times engage in individual cases that have a broader public policy interest, whether that could on occasion involve intervening in high profile cases, at least on appeal, in the higher courts, because that's certainly something that I think would be a good use of the victim commissioner's time. If a very serious point of law that affected victims rights were in the Court of Appeal or in the Supreme Court, is it anticipated by my noble friend and by the government that the Victims' Commissioner might, as part of her functions, be it, be able to intervene in that case? Because I think it would be incredibly helpful to to give in teeth to both the Commissioner and the code.

I support the provisions on unduly lenient sentences. I know that there's some debate about whether they go far enough, but but I, I support them and I noted my noble friend the minister's comments on private prosecutions. And obviously the provisions in the bill are about are about costs in certain cases. But I noted in and I wrote this down quite carefully that, that that in her introduction, my noble friend, the Minister talked about the right of an individual to bring a private prosecution.

Well, of course, that is an important right. I think, of our noble friend, the Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon, and how it important it was not just for her and her family, but for the whole country, that she persevered not just with campaigning, but with a private prosecution. That that demonstrates, I think, very graphically, the importance of this right of an individual who's been wronged and neglected by the authorities in the context of policing and prosecution to, to to bring a case.

However, the other side of the equation, my Lords, is that I am concerned about some corporate private prosecutions, and the Post Office is the most obvious example. This is not an individual who has been wronged. This is a corporate prosecuting for for private profit. And I, I have been slightly sceptical about whether this is a right that really should be afforded to private corporations as opposed to individuals at all. I just throw that into the air for consideration, not in any way to distract from or divert from my support for this bill, which I hope we can give a safe and speedy passage.

But allowing, no doubt enough time for adequate scrutiny and, if necessary, enhancement.
17:43
Lord Bailey of Paddington Portrait Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, it's always a bit daunting to speak to these things. After one of the lawyers in this place. I am not a lawyer. I, as always, will speak to this bill from the perspective of poor communities. My first plea to the communities. My first plea to the Minister is to remember in this country there's a great myth that poor people are the production of crime. Most poor people's experience of crime is as a victim. And it's from that point of view.

I come to this to this debate. I welcome the government's intention to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system. I think I can safely say this is an objective that we on the Conservative Benches share. But good intentions are not good, are not enough. The test is whether the bill strengthens public confidence, delivers justice in practice and protects victims, not whether it simply moves more cases through the system. For a lot of poorer people, they're hearing that prisons are full, the courts are full, so we won't bother doing it properly.

We'll just put them through quickly. I want to be very clear. The single greatest driver of crime is idea that you're going to get away with it. I spent over three decades working in the poorest communities. Crime is committed by a small number of people very regularly, and they have the conversation. What is the risk they are taking? If you're going to put victims at the centre of this, that's one of the key questions you have to answer. Ministers will say that the system is backed up, it's clogged up, and I accept that the backlog is serious.

But remember, moving juries does not fix the cause of this delay. It does not create more judges, more courtrooms or more capacity. Jury trials are not the problem. They're a safeguard. Faster justice can be seen as less legitimate and will weaken confidence in this. I was one of the people who did the report with with David Lammy, and he was very strong at the time that particularly poorer communities, particularly non-white communities, felt much safer in front of a jury.

So to remove that now, you could be removing the confidence of those particular communities in our system in its entirety. Again, the the sections of our public that are most exposed to criminal behaviour. So we need to think very carefully about what we do on that. Clause three in schedule one, restrict parental responsibility only whether a sentence is four years or more. I expect the Ministers to say they had to draw a line somewhere, and I accept that.

But why here? An offender with a sentence of three of or three years and 11 months still remains a serious risk. Victims will struggle to understand why safeguarding suddenly applies at four years. If the government does not explain this logic carefully, public confidence will suffer again. The reason I made the comment about rising after a lawyer. Lawyers have this in their thinking. They look at the world through the rules that they've learned. Most poor people are trying to make ends meet.

Things need to be simple. That simple simplicity is fairness. I want to be very clear about that. Most people don't have the time to pore over the fine detail in a way that we do in your Lordships' House, so I welcome improvements in the unduly lenient sentencing scheme. But for victims, the issue is not intent. It's access. The current 28 day limit is simply unrealistic for many victims and their families. They are grieving. They are traumatised and trying to navigate this.

I know Ministers will say they'll keep this under review, but can I gently suggest that victims need certainty, not future monitoring? I want to end on this idea of court backlogs. Again. I return to my theme that getting away with it is a single biggest driver. I expect Ministers to say this bill is not intended to solve every problem in the justice system, because of course that's reasonable. They may, but the court backlog is a central problem facing victims today.

One of the biggest problems is that you see that your your your the perpetrator, as far as you're concerned, walking around free as a bird, to use the expression that one young man used with me this morning. Yeah, that has to be addressed. This this bill contains little to address it directly. The noble Baroness Baroness Brinton was very clear about what went on in court or what goes on in court. And I think that needs looking at, because this jewellery system and the speed at which we get people through is why people think the British criminal justice system is the best, particularly people who who in their life experience may find themselves in front of that.

This bill contains measures that I welcome, but it also raises serious questions. If the government aim is to rebuild confidence in the criminal justice system, these reforms must be logical, coherent and visibly on the side of victims. I look forward to scrutinising the bill as we go through the process, because I do truly believe that the Minister wants to do the right things. I do believe that, and I want to be part of helping that happen, because I, for one, believe this is far beyond party

**** Possible New Speaker ****

shenanigans. This is about what it means to exist in Britain today. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this important bill to for bringing this important bill to the House as it gives me the opportunity to speak about the vital specialist support services that victims of abuse and exploitation so desperately needs.
17:49
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
exploitation so desperately needs. My Lords, the picture we see before us with regard to this is a bleak one, far worse than any nation should accept. But my Lords, with this Bill, we have the precious opportunity we can turn despair into hope and ensure that victims and survivors are finally met with compassion, understanding and the support they need when they need it. My Lords, the centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, which is hosted by Barnardo's and I declare an interest as vice president, estimates that 55,000 children and adults are currently on waiting lists for support for child sexual abuse.

My Lords, alongside this, 23 specialist services have closed in the last 18 months, with only 363 remaining. This leaves theoretically a caseload of around 16,500 victims per service, which is simply unimaginable. My Lords, for so many victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, just seeking help is an act of bravery. Yet most will discover services that can truly understand or empathise with their trauma are few and far between. My Lords, it is shameful that this has been allowed to happen.

Much of the time. Victims and supporters are left on a painfully long waiting list and their healing is put on hold, and they wonder whether they can bear to reopen old wounds. By the time help finally comes, my Lords, for domestic abuse, the picture is not much brighter. In 2025, a report by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner revealed that thousands of children are being left with nowhere to turn after experiencing abuse. More than a quarter of these vital services are having to turn children away because they simply do not have the resources to support them.

And between 2023 and 2024, over a third of organisations were running an area of the Domestic Abuse Service without any dedicated funding at all. My Lords, this is not a system that is putting victims first, and certainly not a system that's putting children first, my Lords. Some groups, such as women and children and minority individuals, need specialist trauma informed support which is tailored to their unique needs. It is essential that they have someone there who understand them, believes in them and can help them when they need it most.

My Lords, the specialism of these services are often a lifeline for victims as they have the expertise and knowledge to meet their needs. But unfortunately, many are struggling just to stay afloat. My Lords, children who have experienced unimaginable harm need specialist support which recognise their unique experiences, but instead they are met with services that cannot offer them the tailored help they require. Victims tell us at Barnardo's time and time again how crucial it is to speak with counsellors who truly understand their trauma and relevant experiences of abuse and exploitation.

My Lords, those counsellors need to be commended for their commitment and dedication to making a difference to vulnerable children's lives. Because such child focussed specialist knowledge can transform the direction of a child's life. But my Lords, research has shown that most mental health services available to child victims are very generalised, leaving them without the expert guidance they need to rebuild their lives. My Lords, that is why this bill must include a clear duty on local statutory agencies to commission high quality, specialist support services for victims and their families in line with local need.

These services must also ensure that those with specific requirements, such as women and children, receive support that is tailored for them. Only then, my Lords, we will be able to deliver the national guarantee of support that is, that the independent inquiry of child sexual abuse so rightly called for. My Lords, no survivor should face a postcode lottery of support. They should not be left holding their pain alone while they wait for help, which may never come.

My Lords, when they finally find the courage to speak their truth, we should respond with compassion, understanding and unwavering support. Let us ensure that survivors are never again left to carry their trauma in solitude, but are instead supported to step forward with hope and dignity. As I always say, childhood last a lifetime. So let's do everything in our power to eliminate pain and trauma from the lives of all children, which so often can be passed down to their children.

My Lord, this bill has the power to help achieve this goal, and we at Barnardo's are happy to work with the government to ensure the support and provision we are calling for become a reality for the sake of the nation's children's happiness and well-being. And I look forward to the Minister's response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the Victims and Courts Bill aims to enhance the rights of victims within the criminal justice victims within the criminal justice system, introducing measures to ensure their voices are heard and offenders are held accountable. As offenders are held accountable. As we've heard, it's actually quite a brief bill, only 18 clauses long. brief bill, only 18 clauses long. And I think also, as we've heard in today's debate, it's not a party political bill in a in a number of ways, because of course, everyone taking part in this bill wants to
17:56
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Portrait Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Labour)
-
-
get the best out of it and to move as constructive amendments as as constructive amendments as possible. Turning to the first point, which I wanted to discuss a point, which I wanted to discuss a little bit more widely, which is compelling offenders to attend sentencing hearings for the first time, judges will have the statutory power to order offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. to attend their sentencing hearings. Those who refuse without reasonable excuse may fail, face additional custodial sentences of up to 24 months and additional mean of meaningful sanctions.

But as we've heard from Lord Meston, it's and as anyone knows, who's who's sat in a court, it's frequently very difficult to to to find a balance between making sure that the, the, the interests of the victims is properly catered for with the reading of victim personal statement, but that the, the the offender shouldn't basically kick off and make the situation much worse. So I do think that the the the changes put forward in this bill are a better framework for which for which judges can operate.

But I also think we need to be frank that judges do need to be given discretion where it may not be appropriate and there should be suitable sanctions if the offenders are not turning up for the sentencing hearings. My Lords, moving on to the strengthening of the role of the Victims Commissioner. Now the powers of the Victims Commissioner will be enhanced, allowing them to investigate individual cases, request information from local authorities and publish annual reports on compliance with the victims code.

I thought the question of the noble Lady Baroness, my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti, was very interesting about whether the Victims Commission may be able to intervene in a Court of Appeal cases or something like that, and I'll be very interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about that suggestion. And of course, I, amongst all other noble peers in this debate, want to pay my tribute to Baroness Newlove, and I hope that she would see some of the fruits of her work in this bill.

And I have no doubt that her successor, Claire Waxman, will do a sterling job as well. My Lords, moving on to expanding victim support. As Baroness Hamwee said, we've all received letters from 16 organisations working in this sector, and as Baroness Benjamin said that they're asking for very specific. Specific things through this bill. Firstly, requiring local statutory agencies to commission sufficient specialist support services. Secondly, ensure victims with specific needs, such as women and children, receive high quality specialist services.

And thirdly, guarantee that agencies commission support in line with local victims needs. Baroness Benjamin put these points with her usual passion and I very much hope the my noble friend, the Minister, will be able to say something about those specific requests. Also. Baroness Brinton, I thought, raised a very interesting point when she was talking about the dovetailing of this bill with the government's vawg strategy. This is, I know, is something which my noble friend and her colleagues within the Home Office will be talking about a great deal.

Of course, it is resource intensive, but it really does go to the heart of the government's intent in trying to reduce halve the level of violence against women and girls over the next ten years, and also the noble Lady. Baroness Hamwee asked about transcripts of sentencing remarks. I really fail to understand why this is such a difficult problem to get over the line. I do understand there's a cost to it. I do understand there are sensitivities, but really it is something which I do think the government should be able to sort out.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord Lord Garnier raised his, a subject which he has raised in other bills, and that is effectively encouraging some sort of restorative justice for in the international corporate level, if I can put it like that. And I look I look forward to him pursuing that, because I think it's a very interesting idea. And to be frank, there hasn't been much take up of that idea by the previous government, and we'll see whether the current government is more interested in his ideas.

My Lords. I wanted to say something about the issue of addressing parental responsibility. The bill automatically restricts parental responsibility in cases where a child is conceived through rape, or where a parent is convicted of serious sexual offences against any child, ensuring that perpetrators do not have a say in critical decisions regarding child's welfare. And I noted the point which my noble friend said that about up to 20 offenders may be captured by this change in the law. If, after it goes through the noble Lord.

Meston gave a number of examples, which I know from my own experience as a family magistrate, where parental responsibility has already not been given in the first place or withdrawn, usually from fathers. And so really, this, this is taking the, the, the existing provisions a step further, which, which I welcome and specifically in the cases of where the father has been convicted of these serious sexual offences. But nevertheless, I look forward to the noble Lord Dear Lord Meston pursuing the practical difficulties of doing this at Committee stage of the Bill.

My Lords, the Bill also seeks to improve transparency and accountability. The Bill introduces measures to modernise the criminal justice system, including flexibility for the Director of Public Prosecutions in appointing Crown Court prosecutors and updating sentencing powers in magistrates courts. I only really wanted to make one point on this regarding the select members, which my noble friend referred to in her introductory remarks. I think we should we should be very clear about this, that select members are from more diverse backgrounds than than lawyers who go, who are either solicitors or barristers.

And that is to be welcomed. And I'm sure there is and ambition to have more diverse people in acting as prosecutors. And this is a route to achieve that. It's not just about the numbers, which of course is welcome in itself, but it's also a route to achieve greater diversity. And I noticed I noted my noble friend's assurance that there will be no dilution in standards. So I think it's a welcome move by the government. My Lords, in conclusion, I think this is a good bill and I hope that it will increase trust and confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole.

And I look forward to taking part more constructively when we move to Committee stage.
18:04
Baroness Maclean of Redditch Portrait Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, as I speak towards. >> Find it. >> Slightly daunting to follow so many. Eminent noble Lords, and in my short time in this place, I've my short time in this place, I've learned that your Lordships do not like needless repetition, so I will absolutely attempt to abide by that stricture. But my first observation I make while broadly welcoming this bill is that nobody really expects to be a victim of crime, and it's not something that ever really appears in our political debates.

It's not something that politicians will really major on when they're making election campaign promises. It's not something that really appears on the media with a great degree of regularity. But then what happens when someone is a victim of crime? They find themselves very often being badly failed by the services that are supposed to be there to support them, and which they really assumed would be there. But until they actually come to need to use them, they really don't understand what's actually going on in the system.

I did I did serve as a Minister in the Home Office and and in the Ministry of Justice, and it's a huge privilege to hear from victims who are brave enough to come forward and speak about their experiences. And I know that I, and many others will welcome the government's work on this, and strengthening support and services for those victims. And, you know, when they do come forward to speak about those things, it does exhibit a huge amount of bravery and we can learn a lot from it.

And that's how we go forward and tailor the services and get it right for them in the future. I think obviously, again, as people have said, it's not a party political point. We did make some progress towards improving services for victims. Under the last government. We quadrupled legal aid for victims. We enshrined the victims code in law, and we did begin the task of unpicking automatic halfway early release for serious offenders. But there is always more to do. It is the start point, not the end point of a journey.

So with this bill, I have a couple of key concerns, and particularly around rape and serious sexual offences. So I will add my comments to what others have said about the window for victims to apply to the unduly lenient sentencing scheme, and I don't think 28 days is enough. I think the government, please can they look again at the issue of the court transcripts? Because, like so many others have said, I think that really does need to be something that is provided for those cases, such as the grooming gangs, and that will give confidence to everybody in the system.

And then the attendance. Attendance at sentencing is so, so important. I think it's just fantastic that the government are doing this, taking forward some of the early steps that we did in the last government, and I have some knowledge of Zara Elena's case as well. Her family said that when her the her their niece's killer did not appear in court, it was a slap in the face to them. They wanted the opportunity for the killer, McSweeney, to to face his actions.

They wanted to see that they felt it was so important for them. They wanted to hear what impact his despicable actions had had on their family and how he destroyed them as a family. So I really hope that in the name of them and so many others, we, you know, as a parliament, we we can get that done and we can help those people. But I think around that there are some operational difficulties that we will look forward to working with the government on, because I think that if police officers are required to do that, they should be issued with stab vests, they should be issued with tasers.

They need to have the right kit so that they can do that. Otherwise, there is a worry about this use of the defence of reasonableness and appropriateness. And we've all seen that sometimes how people can use that to get away with actually doing what they need to do, which is facing justice in open court. Before I conclude, if I may, just ask the Minister to reflect on some work that I think was really important that we did in the last government on rape prosecutions, it might be slightly outwith the scope of this bill, but against the backdrop of the work that the government are doing on the Vawg strategy and the court system as a whole, we introduced an operation called Operation Soteria.

We worked with the Crown Prosecution System, with police forces across the country and also with the courts. And what we were doing there was we were improving the experience of rape victims when they went into court, and we were improving the pace at which those trials moved through the court system. And by the time I left the role, we had Saint George's City University performing an objective study, and they found that it had objectively improved both the the time for those cases to come to court and also the experience of victims.

So be really interested. And I'd be grateful if the Minister, when she comes to sum up, could touch on that, or else write to me about how that work has been taken forward and how that fits into to the wider plans. I think the government is completely right in its ambition to tackle the backlog of 74,000 cases standing at the Crown Court, but I think that the public outside of here would find it extraordinary that that we are looking at getting rid of jury trials or even magistrates trials when we know that there are courts sitting empty.

She's shaking her head, so perhaps she can address that when she comes to respond. But as I said, I look forward to seeing this bill go forward and working with the government and with others, and I think very much hope that hopefully victims outside of here will see that we are doing our job

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and standing up for them. Thank you very much indeed for giving way to me. I seek to say a giving way to me. I seek to say a few words in the gap and I've notified the clerk for that purpose. I think I should begin by apologising to noble Lord Marks of Henley on Thames, because I spoke Henley on Thames, because I spoke in the Gap very recently, just before he was about to speak. So I
18:10
18:10
18:10
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
essential features of this debate. And of course, my noble friend, the Minister has done a marvellous job Minister has done a marvellous job in her opening speech to cover all the major issues in this bill. And I think I was right about that. I think that the led by my noble friend, the Minister, this House friend, the Minister, this House has done very well to cover all the major points of the bill. But my intention, my Lord Sedwill I sat listening to this debate, was drawn to section three, and under section three, the Crown Court is under a duty to make prohibited steps where serious sexual offence has been committed.

And effectively that means to prohibit contact between the offender and the the damaged child, or indeed the damaged child's family. And when one contemplates it by Lord Singh that when a, for example, a father commits a vile sexual offence on a son or a daughter and can see exactly why this offence the the introduction of this offence in section three is to be greatly welcomed. My concern, however, my Lords, is the stipulation that the offender has to have had a sentence of a life sentence.

Life sentence or a term of imprisonment or detention of four years or more. And surely that this this section should be drafted differently. It should be when a sexual offence has taken place and the offender has been committed. For that there is a kind of loosening up. My Lords, subsection five, that the prohibited steps order can still be made when the offender is acquitted of offence on appeal or the sentences reduced on appeal, so it is no longer a life sentence or the term of imprisonment of over four years.

So there is a loosening up. But it seems to me that the, the straightforward principle is that when a offender has been convicted of a serious sexual sexual fine, that should be sufficient to trigger the right of the Crown Court to introduce prohibited steps. I just end by saying that this is a very difficult area, and I'm heavily involved in the children's well-being and schools Bill. And there is in that bill a provision preventing a parent under certain circumstances, having contact with the child in that case, that the the party who has approached me has explained that the father is the offender, but he hasn't yet been convicted because the decision of the DPP has not yet been made to make that conviction, to make that conviction.

My Lords, that there was always a difficulty with when a young child has been molested. It's always a difficulty of proof. And I do wonder whether this provision shouldn't be further extended when

**** Possible New Speaker ****

there hasn't been a conviction. I. I rise. To speak in the gap to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To speak in the gap to acknowledge that this bill has many virtues, and I can't enumerate them better than the Minister did, and better than the Minister did, and that my noble friend Lord Sandhurst did. And in this debate we've heard many valuable contributions, and I many valuable contributions, and I can't begin to encompass a response to them as elegantly as my noble friend Lord Keen of Elie will do.
18:14
Lord Gove Portrait Lord Gove (Conservative)
-
-
friend Lord Keen of Elie will do. And I cannot bring the front line experience of dealing with violence against women and girls as effectively as my noble friend Baroness Maclean has done to this debate. But I can bring one thing, and it's an appreciation from my time in the Ministry of Justice that the single most important thing for victims is not the advocacy of the Victims' Commissioner welcome as that is. It's not the support of victim services, valuable as that is. It is effective, speedy justice with high quality prosecutions of those who deserve to face the highest sanctions for their criminal acts.

We know that the area where the justice system most poorly serves our citizens is when it comes to rape and serious sexual offences. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, we know that in the most recent report by the inspectorate that looks at the work of the Crown Prosecution Service, that early contact with victims by the CPS is still tragically far from the level that the CPS would like to see and that victims would like to see. We know also that the CPS faces constraints in the quality of people whom it can employ.

And we know above all that the criminal bar, those experts who deal most effectively and most sensitively with these cases is facing a drought. With a quarter of people at the criminal bar having departed and a further quarter potentially likely to depart. That is why I'm concerned that in this bill, the CPS is given the power to increase the number of those working as prosecutors by potentially diluting the quality threshold and bringing in, as Lord Ponsonby pointed out, those who have other qualifications.

Now, that change may be justified on the basis of diversity. What I want to see are changes justified on the basis of efficiency. What is the government doing in order to ensure that we can reverse the flight from the criminal bar, that we can continue to make it an area where our very best lawyers see their careers developing, because nothing is more important than ensuring when we have vital questions of guilt or innocence, or when we have horrific crimes like those which my noble friend Baroness McClean have mentioned, nothing is more important than ensuring that we have the best possible prosecutors, as well as the accused having the best possible defence.

And there is no question but that the criminal bar provides it. Whether or not there are gifted solicitor advocates, whether or not silks are trained, individuals have skills, no one is as well equipped as those who are either called to the English and Welsh bar, or who are advocates in Scotland. And unless and until we can have that guarantee, what I fear we have once again, is another measure to dilute quality and to cut costs with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

justice. Unfortunately being the victim. Here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. I, I say at the outset that as far as the speakers in the gap are concerned, the noble Lord Lord concerned, the noble Lord Lord Hacking needs no fear to intervene in the gap, as he has done on other occasions before my speaking, and he's always very welcome. And it's
18:18
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Portrait Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
it's very good to hear the noble and Lord Lord Gove intervening in and Lord Lord Gove intervening in this debate with his experience and speaking in the gap and showing, speaking in the gap and showing, above all, that this is very much a non-party political debate. We're non-party political debate. We're all worried about the concerns that he expressed, my Lords, from these benches as my noble friends, Baroness Brinton and Baroness Hamwee in particular have said, we broadly welcome the bill.

And just by way of introduction, I'd say this for too long, victims in our criminal courts were largely ignored and unprotected by the system. Frankly, shamefully treated as bit part players in the business of criminal justice as no more than witnesses. And when offenders guilty were pleaded guilty, they were not often. They were often not even informed about the date and place of trial. Certainly, they were not given an opportunity to make any meaningful contribution to the proceedings.

Procedure of the case. Recent years, however, have seen a great deal of welcome change. The introduction of victim impact statements and the attention that is now paid to them. The establishment of the office of the Victims Commissioner, given statutory authority in 2004, and the formal introduction of the Victims Code and its statutory strengthening by the Victims and Prisoners Act in 2024, have all been important milestones along the way, and now we genuinely do have a system that seeks to put victims of crime at its heart.

But in many ways, this important ambition is not achieved. In practice. It is hoped that the measures in this bill will close some of the gaps, but certainly not all of them. And at this stage I join with everyone else in paying a warm tribute to the noble Lady Baroness Newlove, with whom I worked in the past on a number of important measures to improve our system, and who has had such an important influence on the criminal justice system and on public awareness of the importance of victims within it, and the importance of victims and looking after them within society as a whole? And I very much welcome the appointment of Claire Waxman to the post.

She has done a wonderful job as the victims commissioner for London, and I believe she'll do such a wonderful job now as Victims' Commissioner. So this bill takes forward the government's intention to strengthen the position of victims. And it fits particularly with the government's ambition to halve violence against women and girls. Among the most important and welcome provisions of the bill are those, as in clause 3 to 5, as the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti pointed out in the schedules one and two that go with them, restricting parental responsibility for convicted sex offenders, committing committing offences against children, and requiring the court to make a prohibited steps order.

I agree with the noble Lord Lord Meston on the good sense and the likely utility of these measures, and we welcome them and the general valuable protection of vulnerable children who are at risk of violence or abuse from convicted offenders. I am bound to add one note of caution. However, on these benches, we would prefer to see greater discretion in the courts about the making of prohibited steps orders. Sometimes we resort to quickly to mandatory requirements where those may not be necessary or appropriate in every case, turning to non-disclosure agreements and the measures in clause six for avoiding unacceptable provisions in such agreements, it is clear that NDAs have often been misused, often, but not always, in the context of employment and used to prevent victims and direct witnesses from reporting behaviour that is patently criminal, that kind of behaviour that should be reported.

But where NDAs can be used to silence victims of abuse, including sexual abuse, bullying or racial, religious or sex discrimination, some protection of victims has been offered by the Victims and Prisoners Act of 2024, but clause six of the bill will strengthen the protection that victims and witnesses get and is welcome. It's a major step forward that the victims contact scheme is to be strengthened. This will make it easier for victims to be kept informed about the release of perpetrators, and in particular, will introduce a dedicated helpline for victims.

Victims of stalkers, for example, have been shamefully ignored too often in the past. They've had good reason to complain about the lack of information they've been entitled to receive. And I note the important contribution that my noble friend Baroness Brinton has made in this area in the past. It's right that the definition of victims should be widened, as it will be by schedule two, to include bereaved family members and children who have witnessed domestic abuse.

We'd like to see a reporting obligation in respect of the working of the Victim Contact scheme, to include reports on its accessibility to victims and on its uptake, and we'd like to see proposals for improvement of the scheme made public on a regular basis. My Lords, strengthening the powers of the Victims' Commissioner to give the Commissioner the power to act in the general public interest where particular cases or circumstances or the plight of particular victims raise questions of general importance, will broaden the Commissioner's office to enable them to work more effectively in the public interest.

My Lords, I have not so far mentioned as particularly important the powers in clauses one and two of the bill to compel attendance of defendants at their sentencing hearings. Of course, I agree with the government that defendants should be obliged to attend sentencing hearings, and I recognise the importance to victims of obliging offenders to look them in the eye. As the noble Lady Baroness Levitt mentioned in opening, victim impact needs to be understood by the public and by defendants.

As the noble Lord, Lord Mawson said. So of course, the court should have the power to order defendants to attend such hearings, and it's right that they should do so, and right that those who fail to do so should be penalised. But is there any real point in including a power, as the bill does, for a prison or custody officer, to use reasonable force to compel such attendance? And what force is reasonable for that purpose? We've read press stories of offenders being likely to be bound and gagged to bring them to court.

Indeed, these were fuelled and reinforced by amendments the Conservatives introduced in the Commons to sanction such treatment, a concept that may have been supported by the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst today in opening. I'm not sure he meant to go as far as perhaps he did. I question whether we wish to risk giving offenders the chance of appearing publicly as martyrs, and making the criminal justice system into a public spectacle of what could be seen or portrayed as oppression with a fairly or unfairly far better.

I suggest, to make the order to treat non-compliance as contempt, as the bill suggests, to allow judicial discretion, as the noble Lord Lord Ponsonby suggested, and to sanction it with reasonable but not excessive extra time in custody or financial penalties as appropriate, just as we would for other contempt of court. Unusually in this case, I disagree with the noble Lord Lord Meston, that extra sentences would not act as a deterrent to defendants thinking of avoiding their sentencing hearings.

I suspect I share the doubt of the noble and learned Lord Lord Garnier about the use of force. My Lords, I turn now to a number of amendments to the Bill which we would wish to see, and which we propose to introduce. First, we need to see that we can be sure that victim support services will be improved by these measures, and adequately funded. My noble friend Baroness Hamwee made some important points on victim support services and the degree to which provision needs to be made increased and properly resourced.

We would want to see not just national government, but local authorities also required to produce victim support strategies for meeting the needs of victims of offences relating to domestic or family related abuse, sexual offences or child criminal exploitation in their areas. My noble friend Baroness Benjamin talked of trauma informed support for victims and particularly child victims. We'd want to see reports on support services for victims as they're developed, and especially for child victims. But such reports should also include the carers of victims, carers for victims, whether they be for children or for elderly or disabled victims of crime.

We will also introduce a amendment seeking a commitment to make transcripts of sentencing remarks and summings up available to victims. I agree with the. With with those who suggested that a solution based on new technology and AI may make it easier, but the availability of transcripts is very important, and it should not be put off by a supposed lack of resources. I welcome the agreement by the noble Lord Lord Ponsonby, both as to the importance of transcripts, but also as to the lack of validity of the excuse that the cost is a justifiable reason for failing to address this issue.

My Lords, no one who heard the sentencing today of Paul Doyle to more than 21 years imprisonment by judge for the dreadful road rage. Road rage attack on the Liverpool Football Club's victory parade could fail to realise the need for public awareness of sentencing and its justification, while importance to the public is vitally important, victim understanding is just as important, even more so, and so the provision of transcripts and of sentencing hearings is a crucial service. My Lords, I look forward to considering the important amendments to be moved by the noble and learned Lord Lord Garnier on improving our provisions for compensation in a corporate context.

Lord Ponsonby put that in the frame of restorative justice, which I agree with him, is an interesting and sensible way of introducing this topic and of taking the approach Lord Garnier suggests. We also support the amendment proposed in the House of Commons by Joshua Reynolds, MP, to amend the Victims Code to ensure that it will apply to assist relatives of victims of murder or manslaughter committed abroad on the unduly Lenient Sentence scheme. My noble friend Baroness Brinton outlined the degree to which we do not believe that the short extra time to be given to the Attorney General to introduce an application does goes far enough.

There is, I suggest, no reason in principle why the unduly lenient sentence scheme should not ensure that questioning the leniency of sentences is as available as appeals against excessive sentences are available to offenders. But before closing, I say this for all the merits of this bill. As my noble friend Baroness Brinton and others have highlighted, the bill exposes a glaring failure in the government's approach to the criminal justice system, and that is the failure to take sufficient measures to address the delays in the criminal justice system, which have led to the current appalling court backlogs.

We heard, as the very last speaker in the gap in this debate, the noble and learned Lord Lord Gove saying that the most important thing for victims was speedy and effective justice. And he emphasised the importance of the qualified criminal bar in providing that the delay in court hearings has been the starkest denial of victims rights to justice that we can imagine as the depressing prevalence of abandoned cases in the face of delay attests. And that's particularly so in the case of sexual offences.

For every victim that abandons a case because it is not brought to trial in a reasonable time, that is a denial of justice and it is a betrayal by society of that victim who justifiably loses any confidence that the system or the state is on the victim's side. The noble Lady Baroness Maclean of Redditch, in an important speech I suggest, said that no one expects to be a victim of crime, and she highlighted the lack of political attention that crime therefore attracts.

And that also means that she highlighted the lack of resources that is allocated by government government to criminal justice. As a result, I agree with the noble Lord Lord Bailey of Paddington in what he said about the importance of not just cutting but ending these disastrous delays. I do not accept along with him that the only way of cutting delays is by restricting jury trials, which I regard as extremely important. It's a question of resources. It's a question of efficiency.

It's a question of being more adventurous in the ways we deal with it. More court sitting days, more hours, better repair and refurbishment of disused or decrepit buildings, ensuring that we don't have courts standing empty, ensuring that we have more barristers, solicitors, judges all properly remunerated and attracted to continue the work they do in their professional lives. On efficiency. We need to improve prison delivery services and all those wasteful things that cause endless adjournments.

Prosecutors need to avoid overcharging when that will make no difference to ultimate disposal or sentence. We need to make more use of new technology for listing, for pre-trial hearings, for evidence preparation and presentation, making cases more economic. We need to have an overall inventive approach. If we do that, if we cut the delays, then we will be doing more for victims than what we do in this bill. But meanwhile, what we do in this bill is, of course, extremely important.

And that is why generally we welcome it and we will seek to improve it.
18:35
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
Yes. >> Yes. >> My Lords, victims demand effective and speedy justice and we effective and speedy justice and we should deliver effective and speedy legislation. Well, Lords, we welcome many measures in this Bill which build on the previous government's efforts in the Criminal Justice Bill and in the Victims and Prisoners Act of 2024. Clearly, the bill is intended to put victims first when addressing issues of justice and is intended to enhance their voice in the criminal justice process, and it's vital that victims are heard and that the justice system is transparent and accessible to victims.

And that includes in particular how offenders are sentenced and how victims can access the information given by the court on that issue. So we are grateful for the many of the provisions in this bill, and for the fact that the government has been open to constructive suggestions during the bill's passage, resulting in new clauses and clarifications that have now been added to the Bill. And indeed, we're supportive of the steps taken by the government to strengthen the bill's approach to parental responsibility so that restrictions apply to offenders who have committed offences against any child, rather than just their own.

There are, however, certain areas where we believe that there is further scope still for the bill's provisions to be improved, and there are several important points upon which the bill is silent, and in particular that touches upon the issue of justice delayed is justice denied, a point made by a number of noble Lords. There is also the parallel development of legislation going through this House that was touched upon by the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee, in particular the Sentencing Bill.

And it's important to be clear that while this bill puts victims at the centre of justice, there is concern that the Sentencing Bill currently passing through this House tends to do the opposite. Under the suspended sentence. Presumption in the Sentencing Bill. Many offenders who would previously have gone to prison will now remain in the community. And for victims, this often means living alongside the offenders, seeing them in the street, in local shops, in shared public spaces. And this is not an abstract policy choice, but in fact a daily reality for the victims of crime.

So can a system that leaves victims to live with the consequences of offending in this way really claim to put victims first, and is perhaps a tension between the government's Victims Bill and its proposed sentencing provisions. The Lords turning to the clauses of the Bill itself, we are broadly supportive of clause one with regard to the issue of sentencing. Sentencing is not a purely administrative act. It's a moment of public accountability for victims.

The sentencing hearing is often the first and only opportunity to see an offender confronted with the true consequences of their actions and their physical presence in court does matter to victims and indeed, the absence of an offender at sentencing, particularly where it is deliberate, can no doubt exacerbate the victim's trauma arising out of the original offence. With regard to the specific provisions themselves, there is a reference to reasonable force being employed to bring an individual into court that does raise question marks of onus.

Is it going to be for the police officer to prove that only reasonable force was employed? It appears to us it might be more appropriate to approach this on the basis that such force as is necessary, will be employed, provided that it is not disproportionate, and that we consider would be a safety net for police officers who might very often be accused of using unnecessary force in the situation that they're faced with. There is also, we would suggest, the need to ensure that police and prison officers who are already under significant pressure, are provided with the appropriate instruction, the appropriate training and the appropriate means to carry out this particular task, and that will need to be addressed in due course.

Turning to clauses three, four and five on the restriction of parental responsibility. As I indicated earlier, we generally support the government's steps in this area. It is we consider, as the government considers, an important child protection measure. But there is a question mark as to the four year threshold provision touched upon by the noble Lord Meston, because of which otherwise threw the onus back on the Family Court to address this issue, and equally with regard to interim measures, is that to be left to the Family Court to determine and deal with? These are issues which we hope will be addressed going forward in discussion with the Minister, and I look forward to that opportunity.

Turning to clauses six and seven on victims rights. Again, we're broadly supportive of these measures, and indeed, it does appear to us that it's essential, really, that we extend these measures in order that victims can be confident that their interests, their concerns, have been properly dealt with. Some criticism was made of the length of schedule two to the bill. I think it's only fair to observe that schedule two is such length because of the attendant number of existing statutory measures actually required to be amended, which maybe doesn't reflect very well on our existing statutory provision.

But that is the necessary consequence of having so many diverse provisions that touch upon this very issue. There are 1 or 2 issues that we would want to raise with the Minister in due course. For example, schedule two requires certain parties to take such steps as they consider appropriate, and that seems to be rather open ended. And we do hope that in the course of time, the Minister will have an opportunity to address that sort of issue in schedule two, in order that we can be reassured as to the effectiveness of these measures going forward.

With regard to clauses eight, nine and ten with respect to the position of the Victims Commissioner, we are, of course, broadly supportive of all these measures, and we would also acknowledge the very considerable contribution that was made in this regard by the late noble Lady Baroness Newlove. And we look forward to her replacement with the experience she's had as victims commissioner for London. Turning to clauses 11 and 12, first of all, clause 11 dealing with the extension of the right to prosecute to those other than qualified as solicitors or barristers, I acknowledge the point made by Lord Ponsonby Lord Roborough that by extending this to those with the Cilex qualifications, you will increase diversity, and that in itself is to be welcomed.

I also acknowledge that the point made by the noble Lord Gove is correct, namely that the provision will dilute qualification. That is undoubtedly correct. The question is, will it dilute the quality of prosecution? And that is something that is going to have to be monitored with very conspicuous care going forward. And I look forward to the Minister explaining to us how they will seek to monitor that. It is, of course, important that we should have Crown prosecutors available, but it is equally important that they should be of a quality and of a standard to ensure fair and effective prosecution.

And that is a matter for the interests of victims and for society as a whole. I turn briefly to clause 12, which deals with the introduction of regulations to set rates of remuneration in the case of private prosecutions. And, let it be noted, my Lords, that private prosecutions are a very significant and important aspect of overall prosecutions within our courts. Such matters as shoplifting, for example, which are a scourge upon society, a scourge upon the high street, are generally taken up as prosecutions privately by major institutions and indeed, in the case of fraud.

Again, private prosecutions play a very important part, not just in respect of minor fraud, but very often in the case of major fraud, which are extremely expensive to prosecute. And the noble Lady, the Minister said that what would be introduced would be fairer, would be safeguards and so on. I wonder if she's being a little economical when she describes the matter in that way. I take as my guide the explanatory notes that have been prepared by the Ministry of Justice in order to assist the reader, in this case myself.

If we look at the explanatory notes, we're reminded that in the case of a private prosecution, it is provided by the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, that there will be reasonably sufficient compensation to the prosecutor as required, and the Legal Aid Agency monitors this matter and they employ the Senior Courts cost Office guidelines for solicitors in respect of such costs, and those particular costs have been the subject of review by the master of the rolls.

Pursuant to a recommendation from the Civil Justice Council, so that in 2021 those rates were increased for the first time in 11 years. There is now a provision for them to be reviewed annually in line with the Service Producer Price Index. And M'Lord, the consequence of this is that those reasonable rates of remuneration and now about five times higher than the criminal legal aid rates, and that's got nothing to do with the reasonableness of remuneration for those undertaking private prosecution.

It has everything to do with the poverty of the criminal legal aid rates that are in place at the present time. And you do not you do not encourage the very formidable burden of private prosecution by trying to bring down a reasonable level remuneration to what is, frankly, a poverty level of remuneration that had and continues to have a very significant impact on the prosecution of criminal offences in our courts. It's not just physical buildings. You have to invest in people as well as property, and we have failed singularly to invest in people and that has to be improved.

So I would rather see a victims provision that said, we are going to pay a reasonable rate to those undertaking criminal prosecution so that we can get adequate prosecutors so that we can get adequate defence counsel than, say, in order to try and remove this embarrassing disparity, we will try and impoverish those who take up the burden of private prosecution. Of course, the noble Lady, the Minister said this will have no chilling effect on private prosecutions. I merely raise the question where is the impact assessment? Perhaps we'll hear in due course.

My Lords, can I move on to clauses 13 and 14 dealing with sentencing reviews and a number of noble Lords have observed that with regard to unduly lenient sentencing, there is a need for transcripts to be available to victims in order that they can understand how a sentence was arrived at and, if necessary, make a request to the law officers that a ULS should be carried out. And in that context, I have no difficulty with the suggestion that the Attorney General should have 14 days from the time of the request in order to deal with that matter.

But while I accept that the unduly lenient sentence mechanism is not an appeal mechanism for victims, it is a means by which victims can make a request of the law officers, and they have to be given a reasonable period of time to do that. So I would acknowledge the point made by the noble Lady Baroness Brinton that really, for that to be effective, there has to be a more realistic time limit available. Can I turn briefly to matters which we say should properly be in this bill, but are not yet there? Although I look forward to their introduction in due course, possibly at the instigation of the noble Lady, the Minister herself.

First of all, there are no provisions to address the court backlog. And that, let us be clear, is probably the greatest barrier to victims achieving justice, disposal and closure. Without any doubt, we know that there are many, many Crown courtrooms which are not sitting on a single day indicating that there is at least the property capacity to deal with it. But I equally acknowledge that it's not just the need for property, it's the need for personnel. And it would be good to see that fundamental problem addressed in this bill as well.

I also notice that Where offers additional court sitting date have been made by the Lord, I should say the Lady Chief Justice, I apologise. They have not been fully taken up by the government and it would be helpful to know why not, given the enormous backlog that is faced at the present time. Secondly, there is no real provision for increased transparency. And again, we come back to the issue of court transcripts. And it does appear to us that there is at least perhaps a halfway house, because I appreciate that very often the government will come up with the cost implications of transcripts as well as the time implication.

But surely there is scope for a mechanism whereby if victims request a transcript of sentencing remarks, the court should be able to request that transcript as soon as the request is made. It wouldn't be in every case by any means, and it would curtail both costs and delay. The third area touched upon in the other place is data on who actually commits crimes. The bill contains no provision that mandates the collection and publication of data on offenders, visa status or asylum status or related immigration information, and that is important from the point of view of public perception and victims perception.

To what extent is crime going to be committed by those who've come into this country unlawfully, for example? And you've got to satisfy public concern about that issue. And the appropriate way to do that is by collecting the appropriate data. There is then the question of the need to recoup outstanding fines at the present time. I understand there's something in the region of £1 billion in outstanding fines and recovering that could only help the Ministry of Justice in its improvement of court services and improvement of legal aid rates.

Surely. But the scale of unpaid fines is truly astounding. Those are not my words. I quote the London Victims' Commissioner and surely some further steps need to be taken in that regard. And that question of fines then comes to the issue of overseas corruption, a point raised by the noble and learned Lord Garnier. And I listened with interest to the point he made and has previously made about the need to ensure compensation for the countries that are the victims of corruption.

And I look forward to considering the amendments which he has made it clear he intends to bring forward in that regard. Finally, the noble Lady Baroness Chakrabarti mentioned the possible concern that the issue of jury trials would be dropped into the Grand Committee as amendments. My understanding is that as a matter of precedent, that never, ever happens. And what happens is that if someone wishes to see an amendment, they indicate that they will bring it back at report.

But in any event, I don't anticipate that the premature and perhaps ill thought out proposals that have emanated from the Ministry of Justice on the limitations to jury trial will come before the House any time soon. But if they do, I have no doubt they will meet with the most robust of responses before closing. I thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for the clarity with which she presented the bill. I look forward to further engagement with her on its terms.

Very good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I thank you, Lordships, for the helpful and constructive approach taken to this Bill. And I really mean it when I say that many of those who spoken this evening of those who spoken this evening have enormous expertise in this area, and the contributions are really welcome, many of the points really welcome, many of the points made have given us food for thought and we will reflect upon them. I hope to answer most of the matters hope to answer most of the matters raised, but if I don't, then I will write to the noble Lord in question,
18:55
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
and I hope that I shall be forgiven if I single out one of your Lordships for the matters he raised. Lordships for the matters he raised. That's noble Lord Lord Bailey, who spoke very movingly in reminding us spoke very movingly in reminding us about the disproportionate effect on poorer communities of criminal offences. It's good to be reminded of that. And also the important reminder that of how important it is that there is clarity for citizens. I am often acutely aware that sometimes when I'm trying to explain one of the provisions in a piece of legislation, even to those in this House with the enormous expertise that they have, I'm not explaining it very well.

And it's a very well made point, and one that I shall take away, first of all, with the non-attendance at sentencing hearing spoken to by many of your Lordships, including the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst, the noble Lord Lord Meston, noble Lady Baroness Hamwee, my noble friend Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe, who I thank for her kind words, asked whether the power to add additional custodian custodial sentences would have an impact on the issues of prison capacity. We envisage that any impact would not be immediate, because any additional time in custody would be served at the end of the offender's existing sentence, and we estimate that the measure would result in five additional prison places at a steady state around 12 years after implementation.

Also, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby spoke about balance and proportionality in terms of requiring defendants to attend their sentencing hearing. We agree with that because although we're doing our best to compel defendants to attend, if they do attend, we cannot compel them either to behave properly or indeed to experience or express contrition for what they have done. And for some victims, a defendant who turns up and laughs or is disrespectful or shouts discourteous things can actually add to a victim's problem.

So we need to make sure that we strike the balance between forcing them to attend and ensuring that there is no bad behaviour that will simply make things worse for victims. The noble Lady, lady McLean, the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen, amongst others, raised the question of risk to those who are dealing with the question of reasonable force. Can I make it clear it's not police officers, it will be prison staff and pet staff, the prisoner escort and custody staff.

They already have training and experience in dealing with the question of reasonable force when it comes to getting offenders to court. It will be their assessment that counts. It won't be the judge who decides what kind of force will be used, or whether it will be used. It will be down to the assessment of the staff as to what the risk is. And we have made it absolutely clear that we do not expect any additional risk to staff. That is not the purpose of the exercise.

This is why it has to be proportionate. We're certainly not binding and gagging defendants to bring them to court. We're not doing that. It wouldn't be appropriate and we're not turning this into some kind of sideshow as the expressions are used. Turning to the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility mentioned by numerous of your Lordships, may I make the point in response to my noble friend Lord Hacking, parental responsibility is not the same thing as parental involvement. The removal of parental responsibility does not mean that those parents will never see those children again.

That will be a matter for the family courts to decide. What it does mean is that, for example, a defendant who's who's serving a very long sentence of imprisonment can't simply interfere with questions like which school the child is going to and so on and so forth. I thank the noble Lords for the broad welcome given to these provisions. And if I may, a number of points were made, including the one made by the noble Lord Lord Meston about the explanatory notes. Sorry about that.

We'll check. We've got them right, and we'll make sure that my Report stage, they are right. As far as the question of four years is concerned, a number of noble Lords made the observation about a line having to be drawn somewhere. These are new and radical provisions, and we want to balance the seriousness of an automatic restriction with the seriousness of the crime and the impact it will have on child. We. Made the assessment that this was not as this was not a decision to be taken lightly.

It should only be done in tightly restricted circumstances. And four years seem to us to strike the correct balance between the seriousness of the offence. The other issue is that we want to make sure that the system is not overwhelmed by the number of cases, but these are certainly matters upon which we can reflect the question of interim orders raised by, again, a number of your Lordships. That would pose difficulties for. My immediate response to that is that it would pose difficulties for the Crown Court.

First of all, what is the evidence upon which they would act? And secondly, it would drag the Crown Court into decisions that are properly those of the Family Court. But certainly we can reflect on this matter and will be happy to discuss them with as many of your Lordships as would wish to do so. Non-Disclosure agreements. I'm grateful to those who broadly welcomed these. They are. I was asked what to give an answer as to where where these differ from the those brought in under section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act, which came into force on the 1st of October, they do go.

These new measures do go further. Basically, it means that those subject to a non-disclosure agreement can speak to anyone, not simply to categories of individuals. But most important thing is that it aligns with and it complements with the legislation in the Employment Rights Bill. That's the purpose of it. My Lords, strengthening the powers of the victims Commissioner, my learned friend, Lady Chakrabarti, asked whether the victims commissioner would be able to intervene in individual cases. That's not anticipated at present, because in fact, that really is the function of the prosecution service.

If there are points of law to be made on behalf of victims, then that is really part of the function of the Crown Prosecution Service. But we can again reflect on this. And if she would like to meet me to discuss this, be very grateful. She'd be very welcome to do so. Noble Lady Baroness Maclean spoke about never expecting to be a victim. And indeed, as the noble Lady was saying that I reflected on the fact that that was, of course, the experience of the the late Baroness Newlove.

She never expected to be a victim, and events of one evening meant that she was propelled into a situation that she had never envisaged at all. However, that's the saying that victims don't get a lot of attention. There are a number of bills going through both houses of Parliament and will deal with the question of law and order, so certainly I would suggest that this government is giving a lot of attention to the question of victims. And I agree with the noble Lord Lord Marks his point about how victims simply used to be seen as a special category of of witness.

In fact, he and I are both probably old enough to remember a time when advocates prosecuting advocates weren't even allowed to go and introduce themselves to the victim of crime, far less explain anything about what was going on. I'm happy to say that that is not the the situation any longer. And successive governments, and I pay tribute to all those involved have sought to put this right, and I pay tribute to the party opposite for the part they've played in ensuring that victims also have been brought more centrally into the system.

As far as operations is concerned. The noble Lady Baroness Maclean mentioned that the many of the provisions of that are being taken further, and we have announced recently that we are going to firm up the rules of evidence about what victims can be asked about, about their previous sexual experience and so on and so forth. Victim contact scheme schedule two the noble and learned Lord Lord Garnier complained how long schedule two was. And I was going to say, well, the reason is it's tidying up a load of other provisions.

And then the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen made that point for me. The noble Lady Baroness Hamwee raised the question of support for victims, and this has now been echoed by a number of your Lordships, including, in her customary passionate fashion, the noble Lady Baroness Benjamin. We will reflect on this, and I issue an invitation to any members of your Lordships' House who would like to discuss any proposed amendments with me. I will be very happy to do so and see where we can work together in order to ensure that there is appropriate provision for victims to be made.

The. Question of Crown prosecutors, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, are very grateful to him for raising the point that the select members are more tend to be more diverse than barristers and solicitors. I deliberately did not make that point because that is not, in fact, the primary objective of this at all. It's a happy side effect of it. I want to make the point absolutely clear. This will not reduce standards. I would invite noble Lords to reflect on comments that suggest that somehow select lawyers are less good than barristers or solicitors.

They simply qualify via a different route. And I would remind, and I see the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen shaking his head. Remind him that people used to say that solicitors were inferior to barristers, and I don't think anybody's going to say that anymore as, as far as the you didn't say that the noble Lord Lord Jay did not say it now, but in the past that used to be said, we've moved on, and.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is absolutely no doubt that when it comes to the exercise of the prosecutorial or the defence of the prosecutorial or the defence function in court, that someone who has served at the criminal bar will provide a higher level of service provide a higher level of service in the most sensitive and the most important cases, and a misplaced respect for the role that solicitor advocates can and have played should not take away from the fact that the criminal bar is under that the criminal bar is under siege.

It is losing members, it needs support and it is absolutely vital that we recognise that without a healthy criminal bar, not just prosecution and defence, but also the future of the judiciary is threatened.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I have tried. Very hard to keep this nonpartisan, but I have to say very gently to the noble Lord that it is a little bit rich to hear from a member of the party opposite about what has happened to the criminal what has happened to the criminal bar, when pretty much everybody, and that includes me, was working there at the time, knows that it was the considerable cuts made to legal aid under the last administration that has put the criminal bar into the parlous state it is now in.

But I say no more about that contentious subject, because this is not an opportunity for us to fall out. And the noble and learned Lord. And I can debate in due course the various respective merits of barristers, solicitors and select lawyers, private prosecutions. My noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti agrees. I agree with her about the importance of private prosecutions, and I entirely understand her concerns, and I hope she is aware that the government intends to look at some of the issues, for example, that surround disclosure in private prosecutions.

We all know the cases to which I'm referring. She has, she says, reservations about corporate private prosecutions. Again, I was about to say something, and then the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen rather made the point for me that there are some very important commercial organisations that have brought private prosecutions in relation to quite big frauds, sometimes very big frauds. Indeed, economic economic crime is one of the scourges of our society. The investigation and prosecution of those economic crimes consumes a huge amount of public resource.

And certainly the government is of the view that there is a place for the private prosecution to help, to ensure that that economic crime is prosecuted successfully. The Noble and Leonard Lord Lord Keen drew my attention to the explanatory notes again, as did the noble Lord Lord Meston. If we've got them wrong, we'll correct

**** Possible New Speaker ****

them by Report stage. Well. I wasn't suggesting for a moment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wasn't suggesting for a moment. That the explanatory notes are wrong. They just happen to contradict the noble Lady, the Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister. Well, I would, of course, always say that I'm right, wouldn't I? And say that I'm right, wouldn't I? And in that sense, they're wrong. But he, the noble Lord, made the point he, the noble Lord, made the point about needing to invest in people. Another gentle reminder about who it was who was in power for the past 14 years. Turning now to turning to the question of the unduly lenient scheme, I entirely agree with noble Lords that there is no point in having a right that nobody knows they've got, and we plainly aren't getting this right in terms of information.

It needs to be more broadly known about the question of whether 28 days is the appropriate period is one upon which the government is giving, is one to which the government is giving urgent consideration. But the noble Lord Lord Marks said it should be made the same as for defendants. It is. They have 28 days. That's where the period came from. So there's parity between the two. But that doesn't necessarily

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mean it must remain. Knows the period for appeal is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Knows the period for appeal is extendable in certain circumstances, provision. It's very rare for to appeal out

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's very rare for to appeal out of time. You've pretty much had it as long as you have to have a as long as you have to have a really good reason to do so. So now I turn to the oh, sorry, sorry,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sorry. It'll be my pleasure to hear from both of my. My noble friend is very gracious,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend is very gracious, but I fear a new trend, which is not the practice of your Lordships not the practice of your Lordships House, which is to have extended back and forth at Second Reading, which I know may be the practice of which I know may be the practice of another place not far from here. And with all due respect to noble And with all due respect to noble Lords, and to my noble friend, with her good humour and fortitude, I'm not sure that that is something that we should innovate this evening.

Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Might support the noble Lady of the Minister. One of the the Minister. One of the differences, I think, between the appeal by a defendant and a criminal matter and the unduly criminal matter and the unduly lenient sentencing system, is that anybody can write to the the law officers to complain that a sentence was unduly lenient. Many of the people that she and I may have dealt with in the past wrote have dealt with in the past wrote in having read an article in a newspaper saying that this particular defendant had been given what they thought was a lenient sentence, and they wrote in.

Well, nobody does that to appeal a criminal sentence as a, as a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defendant. I'm grateful to the noble and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Now turning to what learned Lord. Now turning to what isn't in the bill and I, I will, of course, recall that the Crime and Policing Bill, with which the Policing Bill, with which the Ministry of Justice has owned some of the clauses in relation to that, has been extensively criticised for has been extensively criticised for being too long. I think this bill is now being criticised for being too short. So there's a slight sense of not being able to, to, to quite.

To being criticised whichever way we did it. But may I deal with very shortly some of the matters that were raised in relation to this noble Lady. Baroness Brinton asked, do we intend to bring in the sections in the Victims and Prisoners Bill dealing with the definition and so on and so forth? I hope that I may write to her in relation to that, because some parts have been implemented, some are planned to be implemented. I don't want to give her an answer that might turn out not to be entirely accurate.

As far as the question of homicide abroad is concerned. Again, raised by the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, we are conscious of this being an issue, as I'm sure the noble Lady knows. We're working on a code to give assistance to families abroad, but the question of whether the victims code is going to apply or not is a difficult one, because many of the provisions in the victims code only deal with cases that can be prosecuted in this country and therefore wouldn't apply.

But again, a matter that we are considering reflecting upon and will be very happy to engage with her and other noble Lords in relation to that noble and learned Lord. Lord Garnier raised the question of compensation for economic crimes abroad, such as corruption. I entirely agree with him about the importance of not forgetting about the effect of these cases on other countries. I think in the circumstances, it's best for me to suggest that he and I meet to discuss it, because it is an important matter, and one upon which I would like to give some serious thought.

Transcripts raised by many of your Lordships. Noble Lady Baroness Hamwee, noble Lord Lord Marks. Transparency is really important to the government. That's one of the reasons that we're now going to make the Magistrates Court a court of record. So there will be recordings of all proceedings in order that to shine that light on to what is happening. And part of that, if you're recording something, obviously your intention is that at some point it may need to be turned into a transcript. I'm old enough to remember the days of the shorthand writer in court.

They used to be the transcript used to be a phenomenally expensive, because you had somebody sitting there typing it out, and then you had to be ordered and checked and so on and so forth. We are really hopeful that artificial intelligence is going to help by being able to bring down the costs of these and so that they can be transcribed. We're all familiar with dictating to our computers these days. The cost may then be in checking rather than actually transcribing. But for the meantime, as far as the victims of rape and serious sexual offences are concerned there, the transcripts of those sentencing remarks are free to victims.

In those cases, there was we conducted a pilot. And following that, we've those those transcripts will be available free of charge to victims. The noble Lord Lord Sandhurst raised the question of victim personal statements and said that their anxieties about censorship. This is a really tricky one because, as the noble Lord will know, sometimes I think with victims there's a misunderstanding about the the purpose of a victim personal statement, and they don't quite understand why they can't include a number of things in it.

But again, it is something that is important to us. Know victims should feel that their words have been censored. They should be able to say what they want to say. We're going to think about that one. And then I turn finally to the question of backlog and delay. The noble Lady Baroness Brinton and my noble friend, noble and learned friend Baroness Chakrabarti, raised the question of a rumour about what was going to happen to the proposals contained in the review conducted by Sir Brian Leveson, and I think it could be seen that it was the first time I'd heard of that rumour.

From the expression on my face, I heard about it. Our intention is that proper consideration is given to these really important matters about how we deal with the question of the backlog and the delay. Speaking for myself, I want to persuade people and take them with us where we can do so. So these matters are ones that are to be discussed, where I hope that people will listen to each other. We are. Nobody thinks that the status quo is acceptable.

The question is how we deal with it. The government is currently proposing a package of measures of which, as noble Lords know, one aspect is the suggestion of slightly moving the line, as other governments have done in the past. But I do hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I don't engage in this and debate it today. There will be an absolutely confident other opportunities on which to do so. My Lords, this Bill will help strengthen our justice system. It used to be, as noble Lord Lord Marks said, that victims were treated as mere witnesses, very little by way of rights.

That's no longer the case. This bill continues the journey of putting them where they should be at the heart of the justice system.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is this bill be now read a second time. As many as are read a second time. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Contrary, not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. I beg to move the commitment motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This motion be agreed to as many as are that opinion will say content, content content. The content, content content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page