Lords Chamber

Wednesday 11th February 2026

(began 2 days, 12 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
None Portrait Oral questions: Post-opening project evaluations of smart motorways in relation to safety and value for money Lord Harries of Pentregarth (Crossbench)
-

>> I beg leave to ask the question in my name. Standing on the Order Paper. >> Can I thank the noble and right

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the noble and right reverend Lord Harris for his question? And can I reassure him
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:50
15:51
Lord Kakkar Portrait Lord Kakkar (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords. >> Standing in my name on the Order Paper. The motion invites the. >> House to. >> Approve the appointment of Dame

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Approve the appointment of Dame Anne Rafferty as Commissioner for standards for a five year term, and an extension of the term of the existing Commissioner, Martin Jelley for a further three years. Since 2021, the House has appointed two commissioners who divide the duties of the role between them. The last five years have demonstrated the benefits of this model. Last September, our previous commissioner, Margaret Obi, who had taken up the position of commissioner only a few months earlier, was appointed to serve on the High Court bench.

I'd like to wish Dame Margaret well in her new role. I chaired the recruitment panel for Dame Margaret's successor, supported by other members of your Lordships Conduct Committee. The unanimous recommendation of that panel was that Dame Anne Rafferty be appointed as Commissioner. Dame Anne brings a vast experience. She is a former Lady Justice of Appeal, led the Iraq Fatalities Investigations and is chair of the State Honours Committee. A short biography giving further details of her experiences available in the printed paper office.

I turn next to the term of Martin Jelley. Mr. jelly was appointed to the role in 2021, and his term was due to end on 30th of June this year. The Conduct Committee is acutely aware of the need for continuity in this important role and given the changes over the past year which I have described, it was agreed in consultation with the usual channels to recommend an extension of Mr. Jelly's appointment for a further three years. This approach will stagger future appointments, maintaining continuity in the Commissioner's office.

My Lords, I beg to move.
15:53
None Portrait Business of the House
-

The question is the motion in the name of Lord Kakkar be agreed the name of Lord Kakkar be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say? Content contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lords, we The contents have it. My Lords, we now come to some instruments previously debated in Grand Committee. Local Government Finance Act 1988, (Prescription of Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) regulations 2026. Lord Livermore. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the motion. Standing in my name on the Order Paper. Is that this motion be agreed to,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that this motion be agreed to, as many of that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content. The Content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Social security benefits up. Rating order 2026 and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

benefits up. Rating order 2026 and one other motion Baroness Sherlock. Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move the motion.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House, I beg to move the motion. Standing in my name on the Order Paper. En bloc. The question is that the two motions in the name of Baroness Sherlock be agreed to En bloc, as many of that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content, the contents have it Tobacco and Vapes

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill order of consideration. Baroness Merron. My Lords, I beg to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move the order of consideration motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper. The question is that this motion be agreed to, as many of that opinion say. Content. Content contrary, not content, the contents contrary, not content, the contents have it Crime and Policing Bill order of consideration. Lord Hanson

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Flint. My Lords, I beg to move the order of consideration motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

standing in my name on the Order Paper. The question is that this motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to as many that will say content contrary, not content. The contents have it house to be in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it house to be in committee on the Rare Cancers Bill Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay. My Lords, I understand that no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill, and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in committee, unless, therefore any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged. The question is that the order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the order of commitment be discharged, as many of that opinion will say. Content contrary, not content. The contents have it questions on an answer to an urgent question asked answer to an urgent question asked in the House of Commons yesterday on the Ministry of Defence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contracts with Pantar. My Lords, everybody knew that this contract between Palantir and the Mod was going to expire in 2025, with we understand interest from
15:56
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: Ministry of Defence contracts with Palantir
-

British companies intending for the new contract. We now know that in
15:56
15:57
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
My Lord, first of all, can I thank the noble Baroness for the normal, courteous way in which she asks the questions? Can I also say, of course, I'll reflect on what the noble Baroness has said and respond appropriately once I have discussed it with others. But on the on the fundamental issue of the single source contract, I can do no better than quote the conservative spokesperson in the other place who said, it's true that many contracts in the Mod are rightly let on a single source basis, and it was in this particular instance that the Mod judged that it was the particular capabilities, the particular record of Palantir in the delivery of the systems that they've got, the analytic, the ability for artificial intelligence and the data sharing that can take place, which started under the last government with the enterprise agreement, the last government entered into in 2022, enabling Palantir to embed itself in all sorts of operations that were ongoing, are ongoing and will ongoing.

And in the transparency notice, which we published in December, a few weeks ago, it laid out why the direct award was justified in this case of giving to Palantir as a single source contract and not making it available to a more general competition. It was in our interest in the interest in Mod and in the interest of our country that we let that contractor, Palantir, to deliver the very special capabilities that they've got. Lords, leaving aside the nature of the ownership of Parliament here
15:58
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:02
16:02
16:03
16:04
16:04
16:05
16:06
16:06
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: Implications for open justice of the impending deletion of the Courtsdesk court reporting data archive
-

desk. Court reporting data archive. >> My Lords the court desk, court

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords the court desk, court reporting data has been a great. Success, a great success in providing access to data.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

providing access to data. From our courts. It's been. Reported that about 1500
16:07
16:09
16:10
16:11
16:12
16:13
16:13
16:14
16:14
16:15
16:16
16:17
16:17
16:18
16:18
None Portrait Amdt. 48 Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-

around the three part categorisation of offences in schedule six. A my Lords, we schedule six. A my Lords, we welcome the government's intention to expand the access of information for victims, the extension of the Victim Contact Scheme and the creation of a statutory helpline creation of a statutory helpline represent important recognition that the victim should not be left in the dark about the progress, in the dark about the progress, release or supervision of those who've harmed them. But the detail matters.

It is the detail of schedule six that these amendments probe. Amendments 48 and 49, address the decision to confine the statutory rights under section 35 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to victims of offences listed in parts one and two of schedule six, and subject to part in the case of part one, to a specified custodial threshold. Amendment 48 would align section 35 more broadly with schedule six as a whole. An amendment 49 probes why the current drafting draws the line where it does.

Noble Lords would have seen that schedule six divides offences into three parts. Victims of part one offences qualify where the offender receives, and I quote a sentence of imprisonment for a term of at least the specified length. Victims of part two offences qualify without that same threshold. Other offences are treated differently. Still, the question before us today is what is the principled basis for this three fold division? For example, part one includes crimes such as wounding with intent to cause GBH, rape, aggravated burglary, abduction, child sex offences.

That's part one. Part two includes crimes such as stalking, coercive behaviour, putting people in fear of violence. My Lords, it seems to us wrong that the latter list of offences that's the stalking, coercive behaviour and putting people in fear of violence does not include a custodial threshold for eligibility of the victim contact scheme. But the first list of offences does include such a threshold, noble Baroness the Minister said on Monday that use of the victim contact scheme is available for the most serious cases.

I therefore ask the Minister why then should the victim of, say, child sexual offences or abduction whose offender did not receive a sentence of imprisonment for a term of at least the specified sentence length, be ineligible for the victim contact scheme following the Sentencing Act and subsequent reforms which have been debated in this House, we have and will continue to have to see a marked shift in the sentencing landscape. Fewer people will receive immediate sentences of imprisonment, and sentences will be shorter.

So first, the automatic presumption for suspended sentences will mean that many offenders guilty of crimes under part one of the schedule, that some wounding with intent, rape and so on may receive suspended sentences that will make their victims ineligible for the victim contact scheme. This, frankly, is an insult to victims and to the public. Part one is a shopping list of serious crimes for which there should be no restrictions on victims. Eligibility for the victim contact scheme. Secondly, under the Sentencing Act, the majority of offenders will be released at just one third point of their sentence after one third.

The practical consequences that far more offenders than now are subject to be subject to supervision outside custody. My Lords, that shift makes the victim contact scheme more important, not less. The scheme is not a mere information line. It allows victims to make representations regarding licence conditions and where those apply parole decisions. In a world in which release and supervision decisions affect more and more cases, the ability of victims to engage meaningfully with those processes becomes essential to maintaining confidence in the system.

Lord Timpson stated that the Sentencing Act will more or less double the number of people being tagged. That will mean there's at least double the number of victims will want to engage with the victim contact scheme. Faced with these facts, it is difficult to see why eligibility should depend so rigidly on whether an offence falls into part one or part two, or whether a custodial sentence crosses a certain line. From the perspective of the victim, the impact of the offence of the offence is not measured in statutory parts or sentencing thresholds.

If the offender is subject to release conditions or to supervision in the community, the victim may well have legitimate concerns about notification about exclusion zones or contact restrictions. Those concerns do not disappear simply because the sentence imposed fell just a little below the specified sentence length. Amendment 50 turns to the new helpline. The government has rightly recognised that some victims fall outside the formal victim contact scheme, but nevertheless need access to information. The helpline is intended to fill that gap, however, as it stands as drafted, it is still limited by reference to the categorisation in schedule six a if the purpose of the helpline is to provide a route for victims to obtain basic information about the offender's custodial or supervisory status, why should it not extend to all victims of offences listed in schedule six? If Parliament has already determined that those offences merit inclusion in schedule six, what is gained by further subdividing access to information within that list? Amendments 51, 52 and 53 similarly address the exclusion of victims whose offenders are serving suspended sentences.

As matters stand, victims whose offenders are serving suspended sentences or community orders may not fall within the scope of the helpline in the same way as those offenders are in who are in custody, yet arguably, it is precisely in such cases that victims will have acute and immediate concerns. An offender not in custody, but serving a suspended sentence or community order remains in the community. The victim may live nearby. The potential for proximity, for breach or for renewed contact is real, not nugatory.

I once again point out that it is government policy that the presumption for most offenders for whom this clause is relevant will be to receive suspended sentences. This automatically means their victims will not be able to access the helpline. If the government are going as far as to legislate for helpline, it should reflect the realities of modern sentencing. The distinction between custody and community supervision is no longer as clear cut in terms of risk or impact.

This is the result of the government's own legislation. A victim whose offender is under probation supervision in the community is every bit as much interest in knowing the conditions imposed and the mechanisms for enforcement as one whose offender is imprisoned. Finally, amendment 54 probes the question of accountability. The bill places duties on providers of probation services to take reasonable steps to provide information to victims about release licence conditions and other relevant matters. That is welcome. But what is to happen if the victim believes that those reasonable steps have not been taken? It is not clear from the legislation what mechanism exists for review or appeal.

Probation officers increasingly exercise functions that have a quasi judicial character, particularly in relation to the formulation and management of licence conditions. This, my Lords, is once again due to the Sentencing Act, where discretion is exercised, there should be some form of oversight. Amendment 54 proposes a modest and practical solution that where a victim is dissatisfied, there should be a route to seek reconsideration by a senior probation officer. The government no doubt accept that the existence of an appeals process is important.

Indeed, it is fundamental is the fundamental element of our judicial process. It does not seem right, therefore, that probation officers who are already subject to fewer checks and balances and less public scrutiny, should be shielded from an appeals process concerning their decisions. These amendments ask the government to explain the rationale behind the categorisation in schedule six, and to consider whether access to the victim contact scheme and helpline should better reflect the contemporary sentencing landscape. My Lords, if we are serious about placing victims at the heart of the justice system, then access to information and to participation cannot depend on seemingly arbitrary distinctions.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Amendment proposed in schedule two, page 22. Line six. Leave out from IND end of line 13 and insert schedule six. A Lord Saatchi should schedule six. A Lord Saatchi should also inform the House that if amendment 48 is agreed to, I cannot amendment 48 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 49 by reason of pre-emption. And also, if amendment pre-emption. And also, if amendment 50 is agreed to, I cannot call amendments 51 to 53 by reason of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pre-emption. My Lords, I am very grateful for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am very grateful for Lord Sandhurst outlining the detail of the amendments in this particular group. And I was slightly surprised by what he said, because I understood that it isn't whether a prison term is suspended or not, it is the conviction itself
16:30
16:31
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
It's I'm grateful for the opportunity of setting out the government's position. Our approach is a carefully considered one, and I do regret the fact that the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst seeks to make party political points out of this by using language such as it being an insult to victims, particularly when in relation to the principle parts of his argument, he's just plain wrong. The starting point is that we must prioritise public funds to ensure that they go where they're most needed, and the way we've done this is by providing proactive support to those victims where the court has imposed a longer sentence.

And the reason is that the longer sentence reflects the seriousness of the offence. But of course, we recognise that all victims of crime will want information about the offender in their case. And for that reason, we're introducing a new route for all victims. And the noble Lady Baroness Brinton is quite right about this. To request information via a dedicated helpline. That is why schedule six is in three parts. Part one of schedule six ensures that the most serious cases. So for victims of violent, sexual and terrorism offences where the defendant has been sentenced to a custodial sentence of 12 months or more can receive proactive support through the Victim Contact Scheme.

Part two ensures support for victims of stalking and harassment offences, regardless of sentence length, as we recognise that even where there is a short sentence, this cohort of victims need and will receive proactive support through the Victim Contact Scheme. Part three of schedule six A. I was just ensuring that the noble could hear the information I'm giving him back because as I say, we what we think the noble Lord has said is not right. And so I thought he might be interested in hearing what I had to say about it.

Part three ensures that victims of other sexual and violent offences and breach offences linked to violence against women and girls will be able to get information through the helpline should they request it, including for those offences. In part one, where the offence is less than 12 months, we consider that this is the right place to draw the line, but we will keep eligibility under review to make sure that we are reaching the right victims. The bill includes regulation making powers for the Secretary of State to amend the list of offences, and the specified lengths of sentence of such offences, which determine eligibility for the service.

The bill also includes a discretionary discretionary power that enables victims of any offence where the offender is serving a sentence of imprisonment to be provided with either service if they request it, and if probation deem it to be appropriate. My Lords, the Victim Contact Scheme and the Victim Helpline will only apply where there is a custodial sentence. And that's not only because of the consideration of public funds, but also because the information provided via these routes, such as date of release on licence, conditions of license, self-evidently don't apply unless there have been a custodial sentence as a suspended or community sentence imposed by the court that under the Victims Code, the Police Witness Care Unit will explain the sentence to the victim.

Finally, regarding amendment 54, I'm pleased to reassure the noble Lord that there is already a route for victims to request a senior probation officer review a decision about what information to provide. So this is already catered for and in circumstances. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments.
16:35
16:36
None Portrait Amdt. 58 Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments 58, 59 and 60. These are intended to strengthen the role of the victims Commissioner. They ensure that the Commissioner can more effectively promote the interests of victims and witnesses, and respond to cases that have wider policy, public policy relevance. Amendment 58 clarifies that the victims Commissioner may take discretionary steps to support individuals who assist the victims of crime. This amendment was brought about following the recent case of Mark Heyer, the bus driver who courageously intervened to prevent one of his passengers being the victim of theft.

His actions were nothing short of heroic. He placed himself at real risk to protect passengers and members of the public. His decisiveness in a high pressure situation should be applauded. Public recognition. Recognition of his bravery has been strong. The petition in support of him gathered over 140,000 signatures. This demonstrates the widespread view that those who act courageously to protect others should be commended and supported, not left vulnerable to professional or personal consequences. The case highlighted the gaps in protections for citizens who step in to assist victims.

Ordinary people who act responsibly should not face penalties or career repercussions for doing the right thing. Amendment 58 goes some way to addressing that gap by explicitly allowing the victims commissioner to support individuals who assist victims, the amendment ensures that the Commissioner can take discretionary action in cases of public significance, such as providing advice, engaging relevant agencies, or highlighting best practice. This amendment represents a practical safeguard for citizens like Mr. Heyer, in a clear statement that society values and protects bravery and civic responsibility.

If individuals such as him do not deserve protection, then it is difficult to see who does. This is about recognising heroism and ensuring that those who intervene to protect victims are not left unsupported. My Lords Amendment 59 proposes the removal of the statutory restriction that currently prevents the Victims Commissioner from exercising functions in relation to an individual, victim or witness. We welcome the expansion of the Victims Commissioner's powers in clause eight, but would like to understand why the government have included a restriction to this expansion by removing the restriction entirely.

This amendment will ensure that the Commissioner can intervene in such cases without procedural or statutory impediment. It's important to stress that this amendment does not seek to replace existing complaints mechanisms, nor does it transform the commissioner into a case by case complaints handler. Instead, it will empower the commissioner to identify and address systemic issues revealed through individual cases, providing a crucial bridge between personal experiences and broader improvements in policy or practice. In doing so, it strengthens the Commissioner's statutory remit to promote the interests of victims and witnesses rather than to limit it.

My Lords, turning to amendment 60, which takes a more targeted approach should the noble Baroness oppose amendment 59. Instead, the amendment will limit the restriction on the Victims Commissioner exercising functions in individual cases to circumstances where there are ongoing criminal proceedings. This will strike a sensible balance. It preserves the integrity and independence of judicial proceedings, while also allowing greater engagement with victims and witnesses outside the live court processes. By doing so, it ensures that the Commissioner's statutory role in promoting the interests of victims and witnesses is meaningful and practical, rather than being constrained by overly rigid restrictions.

Amendment 60 would allow the Commissioner to request information from agencies to monitor how individual cases are handled and promote good practice, where lessons from a single case could benefit other victims or witnesses. It would maintain the commissioner's ability to drive improvements and to highlight systemic issues without creating any conflict with ongoing judicial processes. My Lords, these amendments are designed to enhance the Commissioner's role in supporting victims and witnesses to ensure that individual cases can inform systemic improvements and to promote best practice.

I look forward to the noble Baroness. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister's response. Amendment proposed before clause eight. Insert the new clause as eight. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords, I should inform the House that if amendment 59 is agreed to,
16:41
16:42
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
pre-emption. >> My Lords, I am very grateful for Lord Sandhurst laying these amendments, and I'm also grateful to the government for the expansion of the Commissioner's powers as set out in the bill. I do think that there are some broader issues that it might be helpful to air here, which are not the subject of amendments for obvious reasons. And the first is that it's now been 22 years since the office of the Victims Commissioner was created. And I wonder if, given the legislation that's going through, to remove police and crime commissioners, that will actually change the landscape in which the victims Commissioner's office works, and therefore, it may be worth reviewing exactly what the roles of the victims commissioner are.

And I do have some sympathy with the amendments laid by Lord Sandhurst in that context. My Lords, from our benches, we have argued before that the entirety of the responsibilities of the victims Commissioner should be broader than they were up until the presentation of this bill. But there's another point we have raised consistently, not just in legislation but in questions in other times. And that is the disparity of resources between the victims Commissioner's Office and the office of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner.

And I know in the past I have been told that part of this is that the victims commissioner's office only looks at policy. But we know the reality is and the complex world of victims, they see many, many more things. And it just seems to me that if the government would consider a review of the role in light of the change with police and crime commissioners, it might also be a time to look at whether the victims Commissioner's office actually has the resources it needs to deliver the very important job that it does.
16:43
Lord Pannick Portrait Lord Pannick (Crossbench)
-
-
I'm very doubtful about amendment 58. It does seem to me it would expand the role of the victims commissioner very substantially. Indeed. If the Commissioner is going to take action to support or protect individuals who act in good faith to assist victims of crime, that would involve a great deal more work for the Victims Commission. I'm very doubtful with the resources available that the the role of the victims Commissioner should be diverted away from the primary responsibility of considering victims of crime and, of course, has every sympathy with the bus driver who Lord Sandhurst mentioned his behaviour was heroic and his treatment seems to be very unjust indeed, although I understand he doesn't actually want his job back.

But that really isn't the point. The point is that to expand the role of the victims commissioner to other persons, persons who have assisted the victim seems to me to be unjustified and a diversion of resources. I do support the government's intention in clause eight to expand the role of the Commissioner, to consider the cases of particular victims or witnesses when their case raises issues of public policy of relevance to other victims or witnesses. In other words, the role.

The function is a general function, but I don't support what I understand. Lord Hannett Lord Sandhurst to be seeking by amendment 59, if I've understood it correctly, that that limitation, that it must be a case that raises general issues of importance should be removed. It seems to me quite right that that's what the victims commissioner should be focusing upon.
16:45
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, the government firmly believes that the victims Commissioner, the current occupant of the role, for whom I have known for many years and for whom I have the utmost regard. The Victims Commissioner has a crucial strategic role in representing the interests of victims and witnesses of crime and anti-social behaviour. Amendment 58 would significantly widen the Commissioner's remit by requiring her to support and protect individuals who assist victims. Now, we, of course, agree that the work of those who dedicate their efforts to supporting victims is crucial.

But the proposed widening of the victims Commissioner's statutory functions would, in the government's view, dilute, dilute the fundamental purpose of the Victims Commissioner, which is to promote the interests of victims and witnesses themselves. In fact, the Commissioner's statutory function of promoting the interests of victims and witnesses already allows her to work with and support those who support victims, and she doesn't need an additional explicit statutory function to continue with that. Since the definition of those assisting victims could be interpreted broadly.

This amendment also risks heavily extending the casework burden, which would be imposed by the other two changes to which I now turn. The government has always put. The government has already put forward clause eight of the bill, which proposes to amend the existing statutory limitation on the exercise of the Commissioner's functions in relation to individual cases, to allow her to exercise her functions in relation to cases that indicate a wider systemic issue. But amendments 58, 59 and 60 would go further, either entirely removing or narrowing the existing limitation.

We understand them to be creating an alternative. We don't believe that this is the right approach, and we consider that our carefully designed clause eight achieves the right balance. My Lords, the Victims Commissioner is not a complaints body and it is important to maintain this distinction. Her role is to advocate for victims as a group and to address system wide issues. And this is what clause eight does. It is up to her which cases she believes create those system wide issues.

Individual victims already have a clear escalation route through the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, if they are dissatisfied with their experience of the criminal justice system, expanding the commissioner's involvement in individual casework to this extent would shift his or her role towards handling complaints, rather than overseeing the system as a whole. It is also, my Lords, vital that decisions of the judiciary and other independent public bodies that support victims of crime remain free from external influence. The current legislative bar and the amendment that we have proposed through clause eight, safeguards this independence and avoids any uncertainty about the Commissioner's role in such processes.

We do not believe that amendments 59 or 60 achieve that. In relation to the point raised by the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, she has discussed that with me before, and raised it with me on one of the many occasions on which we've now met, and many more to which I obviously look forward to. It's a it's a good point and one that we do need to keep under review, and perhaps we can discuss it further the next time we meet each other. As I say, I very much look forward to it.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, agrees that preserving the Victim Commissioner's strategic function is essential to holding the system to account effectively, and I amendments.
16:49
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, I've listened with >> My Lord, I've listened with interest to what the noble Lady, Baroness Brinton, had to say, and indeed to the noble Lord Lord indeed to the noble Lord Lord Pannick. And I encourage the Minister to listen with care also to what Baroness Brinton has had to say, and perhaps to move our way on certain aspects. Just dealing with amendment 58. The law should not leave people such as Mr. Hare exposed to detriment for acting courageously.

It may be the victims Commissioner is not the right person, but we put this forward in the hope that this would give consideration to what to do in such situations. The amendment sends a clear message civic responsibility and bravery will not be should not be met with silence or indifference on the part of authority. Amendment 59 to remove the restriction on individual cases. We appreciate that the Commissioner has a strategic role to promote the interests of victims and witnesses generally, but that cannot be done effectively if individual cases are placed beyond reach, and we accept that clause eight enables the Commissioner to act in cases relevant to public policy, and we're grateful for that.

But individual cases often reveal systemic failings. Removing the restriction entirely would enable oversight and identification of patterns that will require reform. If we're serious about learning lessons, then we would suggest the commissioner should be able to look at cases from which those lessons arise, but do so with discretion. If the Minister considers that amendment 59 is too broad, then amendment 60 does provide a possible balanced alternative. It preserves the integrity of live criminal proceedings. It allows engagement in individual cases once proceedings have concluded, and it ensures the commissioner can examine outcomes, seek information, and promote improvements without interfering with the courts.

It reflects a sensible constitutional boundary. In summary, these amendments would not unduly expand the Commissioner's role, but would clarify and strengthen it. They would ensure that individual experiences inform systemic reform, and that statutory restrictions do not undermine the purpose of the office itself. The victims Commissioner, who cannot meaningfully engage when necessary with individual cases, is constrained in filling the commissioner's core duty. Nonetheless, I beg to remove.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think. What may be about to withdraw his amendment. He seems to be suggesting that the victims commissioner does not now engage with individual cases. My with individual cases. My understanding is she very much does, but to feed towards her statutory but to feed towards her statutory role. And that's quite different from getting involved in the from getting involved in the minutiae of an individual case, supporting a victim or witness, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

promoting that individual's interests. My Lords, there's clearly a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there's clearly a balance to be struck, but I think we should, as we go forward, we should, as we go forward, because we all have the same interests at heart, be looking carefully at whether, in fact, carefully at whether, in fact, there will be occasions when the commissioner should look at individual cases, not so much to individual cases, not so much to interfere, but to draw on the information which can be gleaned from them and use them in setting policy.

But that said, I beg leave to withdraw.
16:53
16:54
None Portrait Amendment:Clause 11 Stand Part. Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-

>> My Lords, I'm sorry. Forgive me if I'm. I oppose the question that if I'm. I oppose the question that clause 11 stand part of the bill. This clause seeks to extend the right to prosecute to those with right to prosecute to those with different qualifications to solicitors or barristers. As my noble friend Lord Gove highlighted noble friend Lord Gove highlighted its Second Reading, the Crown Prosecution Service does face constraints in in whom it can employ in the criminal bar, is facing a retention crisis.

Last year, a national survey by the Criminal Bar Association found that 1 in 3 criminal barristers intends to quit. It's obviously crucial that we have enough crime prosecutors for cases and we fully appreciate on this side this challenge for the government, the government faces. However, I do not believe this clause is an appropriate solution. Rather than carefully addressing the causes of those pressures and looking for proper solutions, this clause simply moves the goalposts. It redefines who is qualified to undertake what is highly serious work.

My Lords, that is not good enough. Whilst it has been argued that allowing Cilex members to prosecute will help to increase diversity, this argument should not be used as a smokescreen for what could potentially dilute standards. I dare say that is not what those truly calling for diversity want either. On their part, genuine diversity in the legal profession is not achieved by lowering thresholds, lowering thresholds, or by altering qualifications to fill gaps is achieved by facilitating pathways and by supporting structures within the profession, so that people from all backgrounds can succeed on an equal footing.

To suggest otherwise risks turning diversity into a box ticking exercise. It does not demonstrate an authentic commitment to broadening access to the profession. My Lords, we cannot risk lowering the quality of prosecution. This would not be fair on the defendant and certainly not on the victim, and it certainly not in the long term. Public interest victims and defendants rely on the competence of the prosecutor. A victim must have confidence that their case is being handled by someone who is suitably qualified.

Those who prosecute murders today, some years ago prosecuted in the magistrates court, they start at the lower level and they move up and they gain their experience moving from level to level as a proportionate to their their skills. A defendant whose liberty may be at stake is entitled to proper assurance. These are not minor concerns. They go to the heart of our justice system more widely. Any weakening of our standards risks undermining public confidence in the justice system as a whole and weakening the supply.

I suggest a future prosecutors of serious crimes line. Can the noble Baroness, the Minister, please explain what assessments were undertaken previously of the impact of this proposed change? My Lords, if we are to expand the pool of prosecutors, we must be absolutely sure that this shift is backed by sufficient evidence of good quality and that any necessary safeguards are in place to ensure that standards will not drift or diverge over time. The House deserves clear evidence that this reform will enhance and not diminish the quality of prosecutions.

We have not been shown that evidence without it. This clause risks creating more problems than it solves. I urge the Minister, please, to reflect carefully on these concerns and to ensure that any change to thresholds is supported by robust, transparent evidence and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proper safeguards. I beg to move. I'm sorry, did my colleague call
16:58
16:58
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
>> But first I must declare an interest in that. About ten years ago, I was made an honorary vice ago, I was made an honorary vice president of Cilex. And in case it is thought that I'm speaking with the interests of Cilex in mind, I wanted to make that absolutely clear. The observations I wanted to make was this, that the transformation of the way in which the legal profession operates and its financial position has been enormous over the last 20 or so years.

And sometimes I think we forget the huge difference there is in remuneration before those who practice in areas such as commercial and administrative law and those who practice in the criminal sphere. And this is having a very, very serious effect on the ability. How that problem is solved is a matter for Her Majesty's Government, not for me. But it does seem to me that in looking at what the state can afford, it really is necessary to look at the way in which an organisation such as Cilex has transformed itself.

The qualifications that are given and the reality of many cases. Sometimes one feels as a judge that the best experience for being a good prosecutor is having done a lot of prosecutions, not necessarily where they had a first class degree from a great university, or whether she had done extremely well in the solicitor's or bar finals. Experience is important, and as long as the director can assure us and through the Minister, that very serious safeguards are put in place, it just seems to me we have to do this.

There's no money in the criminal justice system, something that Sir Brian Leveson is constantly telling people. And I can only say that there is a need to put vastly more money into it. But making a reform like this will help on the budgetary pressures that are so damaging our criminal justice system. So I think subject to the suitable safeguards, we really ought to look at this reform as being one that is one that should be brought into effect because we can afford to do no other.
17:01
17:02
17:04
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> My Lords. >> It's vital to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service can recruit and retain a sufficient number of qualified Crown prosecutors. We suggest that clause 11 supports this aim by increasing the CPS recruitment flexibility through the removal of an unnecessary legislative barrier. In turn, this will help increase the pool of eligible candidates for appointment as Crown prosecutors. It is axiomatic that a shortage of Crown prosecutors adds to the backlog, because they cannot make decisions quite as quickly about prosecutions as they can if there are more of them.

Currently, the Crown Prosecution Service is restricted in who it can appoint as Crown prosecutors due to an unnecessary legal requirement. That unnecessary requirement is set out in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and it provides that Crown prosecutors and those who prosecute cases on behalf of the CPS must hold what is known as the general qualification. My Lords, the general qualification is a term of art having a very specific meaning in this context. What it means is that prospective Crown prosecutors must have rights of audience in relation to any class of proceedings, in any part of the senior courts, or all proceedings in county courts or magistrates court, even though most of those rights of audience, for example, before the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, are never going to be exercised by Crown prosecutor in a million years, but this requirement can exclude certain qualified legal professionals, including Cilex, which is the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives.

They are practitioners with relevant criminal practice rights, but they are prohibited from becoming Crown prosecutors. These legal professionals, including cilex practitioners, often hold the right skills and the specialist qualifications required to perform the Crown Prosecutor role, including rights of audience for the courts in which they are actually going to appear, as opposed to rights of audience for the courts in which they are not, but they do not meet the qualification criteria. So this restriction limits the DPP's ability to consider a wider pool of legal talent, and it also reduces the CPS flexibility in managing existing and future recruitment challenges.

So the purpose, my Lords, of this clause is to remove the requirement for the general qualification and in doing so, give the DPP the discretion to appoint appropriately qualified legal professionals. Professionals such as silence. Got my teeth got the wrong teeth in as Crown prosecutors for the CPS. My Lords, I can reassure your Lordships House that the removal of the general qualification requirement will not dilute in any way professional standards and there are appropriate safeguards to preserve standards.

Prospective professionals are now eligible to be a Crown prosecutor prosecution who do not at the moment hold the general qualification, must still meet the authorisation requirements of the Legal Services Act 2007, so they have got to be appropriately qualified, they have got to be authorised and they've got to be regulated and they've got to be able to exercise rights of audience and conduct litigation, both of which are reserved legal activities under the act, and it is a criminal offence under the act to carry out reserved legal activities in less entitled to do so.

In addition, it is important to note that the measure does not require the CPS to appoint any specific type of legal professional. Instead, it gives them the flexibility to do so where appropriate, and it ensures that recruitment decisions remain firmly within the DPP's control. The DPP will retain full discretion over appointments, ensuring that only suitably qualified and experienced individuals become Crown prosecutors, and newly eligible professionals must meet the same Crown Prosecutor competency standards as those who qualify through more traditional routes.

I also emphasise that those appointed following this change will, like all Crown prosecutors, be subject to performance monitoring by the CPS, including case strategy quality assessments which are focussed on the application of the code for Crown prosecutors. This change, My Lords, reflects the modern legal services landscape spoken to powerfully by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. Alternative routes to qualification are increasingly common, where professionals from non-traditional backgrounds play a growing role in the justice system, and by removing this unnecessary legislative barrier.

The clause may also support the recruitment of a diverse and representative cohort of Crown prosecutors. I do not know whether the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst has ever met any cilex practitioners. I certainly have, and they're an amazing cohort of people, and I'm sure he absolutely did not intend to suggest that somehow those who have qualified through an alternative route are, by very definition, less competent than those who have gone through the traditional route. If that is the suggestion, then it is not one that this government can support.

I therefore hope that the House will join me in supporting clause 11 to stand part of the Bill, and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his opposition to it.
17:09
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. At the heart of interesting debate. At the heart of it lies the underfunded state of our criminal justice system, something which the noble Lord and learned Lord. Lord Thomas has highlighted. Looking forward, the criminal justice system needs more money and and the prosecution service needs proper funding, as of course, do the those who defend in the criminal courts. But clause 11 does propose a significant shift, extending the right to prosecute to individuals who do not hold the long standing qualifications of solicitors and barristers.

I cast no aspersions at Cilex, but I do make that observation. There is a difference in their training and educational background. This will expand capacity, there's no doubt about it, and there's no doubt that the system requires it for the reasons that others in this debate have outlined. But this clause will not address the underlying cause of problems faced in the criminal courts. We must not go down a route which results in weakening of standards, undermining public confidence and unfairness to victims and other and witnesses involved in the criminal courts.

A central issue remains the absence of clear evidence in support of clause 11. We have sought clarity from the Minister on what assessments were undertaken on the impact of this change, whether risks to standards were considered, whether safeguards are in fact in place to maintain standards over time. Without clear evidence, Parliament cannot truly judge whether the proposed reform protects the quality of prosecutions. We must not embark on a position where they're unclear. Professional boundaries and variations in training and oversight.

We recognise the pressures facing the criminal justice system, the need for more good people to embark on careers in the criminal courts, whether in defence or in prosecution. In this case, we are talking about prosecutors. We share the desire for a stronger, more resilient system. But clause 11 does not, we suggest, properly address the causes of these pressures. So we urge the Minister to reflect carefully on the concerns which I have raised, and to consider whether clause 11 provides the assurance and evidence that this House justice system, and indeed victims, deserve.

But that said, I shall not pursue my motion.
17:12
17:13
None Portrait Amendment:Clause 12 Stand Part. Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-

this bill which we support. It concerns the recovery of costs in private prosecutions. On its face, it may seem like a minor and rather it may seem like a minor and rather technical amendment, but in substance, clause 12 represents a significant shift in long established policy and practice. It has serious implications for access to justice, particularly for victims of fraud and economic crime. Private prosecutions should be regarded as a safeguard rather than as an anomaly in our criminal justice system.

Such prosecutions exist precisely to ensure that where the state cannot or does not act, victims are not left without recourse. Private prosecutions are conducted in the criminal courts and subject to the same judicial oversight. Obligations of disclosure and prosecutorial duties as any other prosecution. Judges retain full control throughout, and the Crown Prosecution Service retains its power to take over cases where it considers that to be appropriate. For many years, Parliament Ministers and the courts have recognised that private prosecutions serve a public interest.

That is why the current cost regime allows courts to order payment from central funds for reasonable sums properly incurred by private prosecutors. This payment is not a windfall. It is simply reasonable compensations for costs already borne. And even then recovery is typically partial and not complete. My Lords, it is our strong belief that clause 12 would change that settlement fundamentally. It gives the government power through regulations to cap the recoverable costs of private prosecutors. In so doing, it risks making many legitimate prosecutions financially unviable.

That is particularly so for charities and other public interest bodies, who pursue cases only after other routes have failed. This would represent a sharp departure from previous ministerial policy. In the past, successive Lord Chancellors have rightly taken the view that to cap recoverable costs would deter private prosecutions and would be contrary to the public interest. The courts have repeatedly recognised the same principle, namely that private prosecutions should not be discouraged precisely because they operate as a backstop where public enforcement is stretched or unavailable.

My Lords of most concern is the impact that this cause would have on charities. Charities are frequent targets of fraud and of theft. These often involve relatively modest sums for each offence, but cumulatively they can be substantial, suffer substantial harm. These crimes not only divert funds from their intended charitable purpose, but they also abuse public trust and can damage, ultimately donor confidence. After all, why give to a charity which is unable to recover one's money in the event of theft or fraud? The existing Police and Crown Prosecution Service capacity constraints mean that such cases are not always prioritised, even where the evidential case is strong, properly conducted, private prosecutions have therefore fulfilled a gap.

They have secured convictions, custodial sentences, compensation orders and deterrence. They have done so all without drawing on Crown Prosecution Service trial resources. And we've heard in the last debate about the pressures on the CPS, if clause 12 results in cost caps that prevent charities from recovering reasonable expenses, many of those prosecutions will simply not be brought. The House of Lords library briefing shares those concerns. It notes that clause 12 would allow the Lord Chancellor to replace the long standing test of, I quote, reasonably sufficient costs with capped rates by means of regulation that highlights that private prosecutions have historically been supported precisely because they enable cases to be brought where public authorities lack capacity, particularly in fraud and economic crime, which of course, today are such a real issue and concern to all of us.

The government's justification for this clause appears to rest on the need for certainty and saving of court time. I ask, is the government really serious about fraud? But that justification does not reflect how the system operates. In practice, courts do not routinely debate hourly rates. In open proceedings. Costs are assessed administratively. Judges already have discretion to reduce costs or to refuse them altogether. Where a prosecution has not been properly brought. My Lords, even less compelling is the financial case for clause 12, in the most recent year, for which figures are available.

Total reimbursement, total reimbursement of private prosecution costs amounted to approximately £3.9 million, or 0.18 0.18% of the overall legal aid budget. The idea that this cost saving justifies all the public harm that I have outlined is ludicrous. I turn now to the question of balance. Private prosecutors already bear heavier obligations than defendants. They investigate cases, they meet extensive disclosure duties. They carry the reputation and financial risk of proceedings. Clause 12 would act to the prosecutor's detriment.

It would impede their ability to carry out such activities by further limiting their ability to recover reasonable costs. It might also lead dangerously to corners being cut in the way prosecutions are conducted. My Lords, Clause 12 sits uneasily with the stated aims of this Bill. It will not strengthen justice outcomes for victims. It risks weakening one of the few mechanisms available to victims. Often charities relying on the goodwill of the public. They are the frequent victims of complex and economic crime for which the state is unable or unwilling to act.

Clause 12 risks fewer prosecutions, less deterrence, greater impunity for fraud, denial of justice to victims. My Lords, if the government believes reform is needed, then I look to the noble Baroness, the Minister, to make the case. It certainly has not been properly made in the explanatory notes or in our discussions. In the run up to committee. I anticipate the Minister will respond by saying the government intends to consult before any regulations are made. But, my Lords, that puts the cart before the horse.

If the need for reform is not certain, and if the impact on private prosecutors, charities and access to justice has not yet been assessed, why is the government seeking such broad regulatory power now? Why not conduct the review first, a consultation should inform whether a power is necessary in the first place, not be used to justify taking the power and deciding later whether to exercise it. We must also reflect on the fact that once the power is conferred, it would not be limited to the present government.

It would sit on the statute book available to be exercised by future Ministers in future fiscal or political circumstances, without further primary legislation, Parliament should be cautious about granting wide executive powers that alter long established constitutional arrangements, particularly where the case for change has not been made. And we await the review and the potential consequences for access to justice are so grave. For those reasons, we do not believe that clause 12 should stand. Part of the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question is that clause 12 stand part of the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

part of the bill. The issue of costs in private prosecutions is an extraordinarily prosecutions is an extraordinarily serious one. The noble Lord Lord Sandhurst has spoken of the Sandhurst has spoken of the position of charities, the RSPCA being one example, and I can well
17:22
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
being one example, and I can well understand the position of a charity conducting a prosecution through a small solicitor where costs are modest. But one must, on the other hand, recall that for good reasons of public interest, that is, there are private prosecutions by large corporations to protect intellectual property and the consequence of the change in the market for solicitors and barristers has produced a problem because what the CPS pay prosecutors to prosecute is completely out of line with what the the large industrial conglomerate who wants to enforce its intellectual property rights can pay.

And this is a this is a problem that has to be grappled with. The one of the reasons why the CPS cannot prosecute as much as it does is the government's constraint. And it was the last government as well as this government who are responsible for this. If there is not enough money in the system to enable the CPS to prosecute where it should be doing, and as long ago as ten years ago, this or more than ten years ago, the change in the market and the constraint arising out of the 2008 financial crisis on the finances of the CPS began to manifest itself in the contrast between what happened in private prosecutions by large conglomerates or associations of those interested to protect their economic position, and the CPS and the courts have, through a number of cases, tried to do something about it.

But it is an extraordinarily difficult area. For example, in a commercial case, many of these cases, they go to solicitors. There was didn't used to be the idea that you would actually have to get a tender before you prosecuted, that the courts now require. And the courts have made a number of very important changes to try and bring this cost under control, because although it cannot be shown that if you pay a large sum several hundred thousand pounds to A to defer the costs of a private prosecution, that that will directly come out of any bit of the overall justice budget, that anyone who has had to deal with the Treasury knows that that isn't the case.

The Treasury looks at a pot for justice, and if you take large sums out of it by pay for private prosecutions, then the other part of the justice system suffers. So this is a this is a matter that has to be grappled with, and the right people to grapple with it are the government. It's not a very good position for judges to be in to making these very difficult decisions because of the gross inequality between what you pay private lawyers, which many may think is far too much.

But that's not for me to judge. Or what you pay the Crown Prosecution Service, which may be not enough. Again, that is not enough for me to judge. But the problem of what I might call public penury and private affluence is absolutely illustrated by the problem of dealing with paying for private prosecutions. It's for the government to grapple with it and grappling with it in the way by setting rates is one of the ways to do it. I think it's probably the right way, but all I'm saying is we can't run away from this problem that has arisen because of changes in the market and the constraints on public expenditure.
17:26
17:28
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. >> In the view of the government, clause 12 provides a modest enabling power for the Lord Chancellor to set through regulations the rates at which private prosecutors may recover expenses from central funds, where a court has ordered that such costs be paid. I want to be clear at the outset this clause does not set any rates, and it does not affect the long established right to bring a private prosecution, which remains protected under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

My Lords, I should say at this stage that I have a great deal of experience in the area of private prosecutions, both as a state prosecutor. When I work for the Crown Prosecution Service, I oversaw all the private prosecutions that came to the CPS for consideration. And then in private practice, when I brought a number of private prosecutions on behalf of clients and advised on many more, my Lords, the Justice Select Committee, in its 2020 report, Private Prosecution Safeguards, invited the government to take a closer look at the private prosecution landscape, particularly when public funds are engaged.

Taking an enabling power of this kind allows us to do precisely that in a careful and evidence based way. The committee highlighted three key principles, which this government agrees should underpin reform. First, addressing the disparity between defence resources and those of private prosecutors. Secondly, safeguarding the right of individuals to bring a private prosecution and thirdly, ensuring the proportionate and responsible use of public funds. My Lords, at present, there are no prescribed rates for private prosecutors recovering costs, and this results in significant uncertainty, with courts and the legal aid agency required to assess claims case by case, often by reference to civil guideline rates leading to disputes to appeals and judicial reviews.

Most private prosecutors are assiduous in applying the code the test set out in the code for Crown prosecutors and in their ongoing conduct of the case. But there is, however, some evidence that at the margins, the near certainty of substantial cost recovery may cause private prosecutions to be pursued, which are either disproportionate or an unsuitable remedy to the presenting legal issues, a fact of which your Lordships may not be aware is that a private prosecutor can get their costs back in some circumstances, even where the defendant has been acquitted, provided the prosecution was properly brought.

My Lords, charges for litigation work can be far in excess of what a privately paying client would consider reasonable and proportionate to the losses incurred. For example, the Ministry of Justice received a claim for private prosecutor costs in a fraud case where the costs totalled £90,000, despite the losses only amounting to £5,000, and there being fewer than 400 pages of statements and exhibits to consider, we also see instances where private prosecutions may be being used as a no lose way of coercing parties involved in civil or commercial disputes.

For example, the litigation of a theft offence in the context of a neighbour dispute, where the police had already thoroughly investigated and found no evidence of wrongdoing. My Lords Clause 12 allows rates to be set in secondary legislation to make clear what the state considers to be appropriate remuneration. Any rates proposed would be subject to extensive engagement with stakeholders and a full public consultation, ensuring that they reflect the complexity and seriousness of cases, whilst also improving clarity and efficiency. We are acutely aware of the risk of getting it wrong and then having a chilling effect on private prosecutions, and that is why we are going to conduct such an extensive consultation.

I also want to reiterate the assurances I gave at Second Reading that the government remains open about where the rates should be set. The purpose of taking this power is to enable a proper assessment of the landscape, informed by evidence and consultation. The majority of private prosecutions do not, in fact, result in any claim on central funds and will be entirely unaffected by this measure. My Lords, this clause represents a measured first step towards reform that will improve clarity and efficiency and help ensure the responsible use of taxpayers money, whilst whilst safeguarding access to justice and the fundamental right to bring a private prosecution.

I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his opposition to clause 12.
17:33
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I am listened with interest to noble Lady, the Minister. I remain of the view that private prosecutions are a constitutional safeguard, for when constitutional safeguard, for when the CPS is unable or unwilling to act, as there remains the position of charities and the remains the position of corporations and other organisations trying to protect their intellectual property, and doing so by exercising perfectly lawful prosecutions. The example given of the costs in a particular case is not really helpful.

We don't know the details, and it's the sort of thing which we would have had detail of if there'd been a proper consultation first, we wouldn't have one cherry picked example given to us. That said, I remind the House that what we're looking at here is £3.9 million. Not a lot. It's not a small sum, of course, but it is not a large sum in the context of the criminal justice budget. My concerns are not put at rest, but in the circumstances I shan't occupy any longer of the court of the House time, and I shall beg leave to withdraw.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that clause 12 stand part of the bill. As many as of that opinion will say content, of that opinion will say content, the contrary, not content. The contents have it after clause 12,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it after clause 12, amendment 61 Baroness Chakrabarti. My Lords, this group contains two amendments that seek to address two amendments that seek to address dangerous practices relating to criminal evidence. Whilst this bill criminal evidence. Whilst this bill does much to protect victims of crime, our justice system must also protect people from becoming victims of miscarriages of justice.
17:35
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
Both of the problems we identify have already led to serious have already led to serious wrongful convictions and risk many more in the future. Amendment 61 is in my name and that of the noble Lords Arbuthnot of Idream and Beamish, who fought so hard for the subpostmasters in the Other place and the Baroness Kidron, who has been such a distinguished campaigner for the rule of law, to apply as much to Big Tech as anyone else.

Amendment 62. My Lords, I share with my noble friend and dear old friend, the Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon. So if if honour by association was as easy as guilt by association, I would be honoured. Indeed, 61 is a simple amendment that reinstates section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It was repealed by the Youth, Justice and Criminal Evidence Act of 1999 on a recommendation of the Law Commission, but long before contemporary understanding of both the capabilities and fallibilities of digital technology under the old section 69, a party seeking to rely on computer evidence had to show there was no improper use of the computer.

It was operating properly at all material times, or that any faults didn't affect output, and it also allowed for court rules to scrutinise computer evidence. Since the repeal of that vital protection, a common law presumption of computer reliability and accuracy has applied, if effectively reversing the criminal burden of proof in some cases and leading to serious harm. My Lords, most recently in the Post Office Horizon scandal, several justice Ministers have acknowledged this since 2018. Ministry of justice released a call for evidence in January 2025.

I hope my noble friend, the Minister will tell us what has come as a result, because that is that is too that is too long. I would suggest the presumption is inaccurate, unsafe and far from future proof. Technology is not infallible, as we saw so graphically. In the end, with the Fujitsu Horizon scandal. Perhaps my noble friend can also tell us what attempts that corporation has made to recompense us, the UK taxpayer and the victims of the of the abuse and the scandal.

Flaws can be hidden and very difficult for a lone defendant, or even a group of defendants to to detect they they cannot take on the corporation, let alone look in the black box. Developments in artificial intelligence, including the capabilities for deep fakery, make the risks of presuming computer evidence reliability even more dangerous. So I hope that the government will either accept our amendment or offer an alternative in this bill. The clock is ticking, my Lords.

As for amendment 42, this is a problem of pure prejudice. I say sorry, 6262. I feel like I'm 62 and I wish I were 42, and I'm somewhere in the I'm somewhere in the middle as as amendment 42. I ask, sorry 62 I ask members of the committee to to consider whether they've ever indulged in crime procedurals as a guilty pleasure, whether reading them or watching them on their favourite streamer. After a long night in committee in your Lordships House, I think Middle England is addicted to these dramas, whether whether on TV or in books.

The creativity behind them is is big business. But what if those who participated in the creation of that art, or even just enjoyed it, found themselves prosecuted on the basis that that interest was somehow probative of criminal intention or propensity? If if noble Lords find that a ridiculous proposition, they should spare a thought for the young black men and boys who have increasingly been prosecuted with reliance on their enjoyment of rap and drill music.

Disgraceful, my Lords, and this has been allowed to go on for some years now. Even more outrageous, there are groups and units of mostly middle aged white police officers who hold themselves out as expert witnesses. To translate this music and these lyrics and the patois for juries and and and and friends learned friends at the bar, including my learned friend Kim Monteith KC who, who is who's currently in the chamber have have had to have had to take this on in court and have dealt with miscarriages of justice in in the Court of Appeal because of this kind of prejudicial and racially prejudiced practice, the the figures are not good.

This the Crown Prosecution Service doesn't doesn't, doesn't keep records of of music evidence being used in this way in court. But studies in the University of Manchester in particular, show that there have been many cases, we think 68 cases involving 252 defendants between 2020 and 23. Probably an underestimate because he's a first instance. Trials not always, not always reported. Two thirds of the defendants in the Manchester study were black, 12% were mixed race, 82% were under 25 years old, 15%
17:42
None Portrait Amendment: 61 Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-

aged 17 or younger. Over half the cases were, of course, joint cases were, of course, joint enterprise prosecutions because there's a particularly toxic cocktail. My Lords, when you cocktail. My Lords, when you combine the use of this prejudicial material with casting the net so material with casting the net so wide in terms of joint enterprise, in the case of the Manchester, ten, in the case of the Manchester, ten, black teenagers were collectively sentenced to 131 years in prison for conspiracy to murder and to cause grievous bodily harm during the trial.

On nine second video clip of someone identified as one of the defendants, with drill music playing in the background, was used as evidence of his gang membership. In closing, the prosecution told the jury that some of the defendants had become involved in gang culture, quote, because they had an interest in drill with its themes of violence, drugs and criminality. The Night Manager, anyone? The Court of Appeal found that the young man had been misidentified and there wasn't even rapping in in the video.

This is how this is how bad this practice is. He was of good character, head boy, captain of the rugby team, unconditional offer to study law. Forgive me. Being particularly attached to the study of law as a noble pursuit. But you, noble Lords, take my point. His conviction was quashed, but only after serving three years in prison. So, my Lords, we talk about equality before the law. That requires that no one is above the law's reach, nor anyone below its protection.

The shameful events currently rocking our politics only highlight the dangers of entitlement, hypocrisy, and the obvious destruction of trust in our vital institutions. When there is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one law for some and no fair hearing for others. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. This is a modest but vital reform. It would create a presumption that creative presumption that creative expression, not just rap and drill music, but any creative expression on the part of a defendant on the part of a defendant defendant should be inadmissible unless four tests are met. Firstly, the expression must have a literal the expression must have a literal rather than figurative or fictional meaning. Then it was referred to the specific facts of the case. Thirdly, it's relevant to an issue of dispute.

And finally, that issue can't be decided by other evidence. In applying these common sense principles, our courts would have to consider factors, including artistic conventions of the genre in question. Experts, my Lord, should be truly independent. Further, in the rare cases where creative expression were admitted, the judge would give directions to the jury not to be influenced by stereotypes. Racial stereotypes are such a danger in this context. A lack of knowledge or understanding of rap lyrics and imagery will ignore the symbolism, storytelling and exaggeration that a key features of one of the UK's most widely consumed cultural forms the misuse of the music in prosecution, also risks suppressing the enjoyment and expression of the art in underprivileged communities that find it both creative and cathartic.

My Lords, every limb of our Constitution needs to step up in the current moment. Yes, the executive and yes, the courts. But sometimes it is for Parliament, not least your Lordships House and this committee, to step up when the other limbs have have have been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

derelict in their duty. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 12. Insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord. I rise to speak on amendment 61. I did not speak on the Second I did not speak on the Second Reading of this bill, and I apologise to you Lordships house apologise to you Lordships house for that, but I lacked the ingenuity of the noble Baroness Chakrabarti in moving an amendment to this bill, and I would like to pay tribute to her for doing so, and also for everything she said about amendment 61, which was right.
17:46
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom Portrait Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Conservative)
-
-
But I'd also like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness Kidron for the noble Baroness Kidron for pursuing this issue. With her usual persistence and eloquence and involving me, I'm grateful to her in some of the meetings that she in some of the meetings that she has. She has organised on this. My notes. My first point is that evidence derived from a computer is hearsay. There are very good reasons why we treat hearsay evidence with caution.

When hearsay evidence is admissible. That is therefore a step in itself, but to presume that it is reliable is a giant stride beyond that second point, where all aware from the number of times that we have to redo the programming on our Apple iPhones or whatever, how frequently we have to do that, partly because of bugs in the programming of the computer technology on which we rely on so much. Bugs are inevitable in computer programs, and that is why Fujitsu and I do hope my noble friend, the Baroness, the Minister, will answer the point about whether Fujitsu has or might pay any money towards the taxpayer or to the subpostmasters.

That's why Fujitsu had an office dedicated not just to altering the subpostmasters balances, shocking as that is, but to altering and amending a program that was never going to be perfect because no computer program is. If computer programs are inherently unreliable, to have a presumption in law that they are reliable is unsustainable. Fourth, the consequences of the repeal of section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which I will remind your Lordships House, happened partly because the Post Office asked for it to happen to make their prosecutions easier for them.

The consequences of that were that Seema misra was sent to prison when she was eight weeks pregnant, and on her son's 10th birthday, she collapsed when she was sentenced. This is an urgent matter, my Lords. It is something which, if we leave in place, will mean that further injustices may happen as soon as tomorrow. And that's the first point about why it is urgent, the second point about why it is urgent is that any defence lawyer, in any event, will point to the horizon case and will say, look, it's perfectly obvious that this presumption is wrong.

It is perfectly obvious. We cannot in all good conscience permit to continue in law a presumption which we know to be incorrect. And I do hope the noble Lady, the Minister, will at least set out a path to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

changing it. I rise also to support Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chakrabarti. 61.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

61. When I left home on Monday morning for my home in Durham, I morning for my home in Durham, I had a phone call and it was from an individual I'd met five years individual I'd met five years earlier. He was ringing me. He was the husband of a postmistress in Northumberland who had been prosecuted by the post office, and he was ringing me to tell me that it was 1998 when she was prosecuted.
17:51
Lord Beamish Portrait Lord Beamish (Labour)
-
-
He was ringing me to tell me that on the Saturday morning she'd received the letter now overturning received the letter now overturning her conviction under the horizon her conviction under the horizon post Office scandal. That woman, I met him five years ago, I'm at the met him five years ago, I'm at the couple five years ago. They're a thriving business and were well respected in the community. A small respected in the community. A small village in Northumberland, they now live in a small council house in the same village.

As explained to me when I sat in their living room, that everyone still thinks that's the woman that stole the money from the post office. That woman was traumatised and that's the only word you can use. She wanted blackness out of her mind. It was very difficult for me to get the information from her so traumatised she was. That woman has suffered for 30 years, nearly. She's now got that letter where she can hold her head up now high in her community, saying that she did nothing wrong.

As I said to her husband, you know, that must be, you know, an unbelievable feeling. Now they're going to get compensation and quite rightly, they should get compensation. But as you said, that's not important. The important thing was that woman and their family's good name. And that was ruined because computer evidence in their case, like Lord Lemos has just said, was used to persecute a decent, hard working woman woman. Now, over the last. What? 15 or 16 years since myself and Laura have been campaigned on this.

I've met many victims of this scandal. They are decent, ordinary people. You pass on the street and if you were, you were a friend of them. You consider it a privilege. Their lives have been completely ruined. And that's because the presumption was that computer evidence, the computer had to be right. It was classed, I think, as a mechanical machine, that this couldn't be infallible. And I would also ask people, and this is where I've got to say, the judiciary do need to take some blame in the Post office scandal, because I've read many court transcripts.

Now of the cases, I think of one postmistress from County Durham called June 2nd, who was actually not involved in horizon. She was involved in the pre arising scheme, which was capture. If you read the transcript of a case, and she was an absolutely marvellous woman, she defended herself in court and she said to the judge, well, you know, my argument is that this computer is wrong. This is these are the reasons why he completely dismissed her out of hand and wouldn't listen to her, that somehow this was a possibility.

Now, that is not the only case I've seen in this where judges have taken that that approach to actually just completely dismiss that. And I'm not one for attacking our judiciary, but I do get a little bit annoyed when they get the high horse, when they say that somehow they can't be criticised in this scandal. They played a part in it, and they've played a part in it, and they've got to take responsibility for that. Lord Lemos just said to the House that this is urgent.

It is, Baroness Chakrabarti said that the consultation started on the 21st of January last year. It did, and I think it's important just to read what Sarah Saxton, who was then the Minister, said in the opening to that we must learn the lessons from the Post Office scandal, ensuring people are protected from miscarriages of justice are one of the parts of this government's change plan. Well, that was over, you know, well over a year ago now. Now, I know things move very slowly in this government, and things sometimes have gestation periods longer than African elephant.

But this is can't wait, you know, and I would just urge the Minister we don't want any more reviews. We don't need any more consultations, which seems to be the in word these days, that if you want to not make a decision, have a consultation or a, you know, we're considering it, this is now urgent. And I do congratulate my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti for bringing forward this amendment. For this bill. I would say to the Minister, it's got to be done in this bill.

It can't wait. And I'm sure there are my myself and I'm not. I think I can speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot. You know, we will not let this rest in this bill. This is the opportunity for the government to to put this right. I'd love to know what the Minister just had been doing for the last year, because it's a very simple thing. It's not also the fact that it's controversial either. But as Lord Botham has just said, you know, people will still be found guilty.

There'll be more victims if we don't change this. But it would also, I think, send a clear signal to those victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal that this government is taking the thing seriously. So please just say to the. And I say it very gently to the Minister, don't come back with some that we're going to review it or there's some next stage to go through. Frankly, this government and a lot of these things that come forward like this, I'm getting sick.

My heart drops when I hear another review or a consultation. It seems a way a, you know, a great yes Minister way of actually being able to put things into the long grass. This cannot be kicked into the long grass. And I tell you now, I'll be determined. It won't get kicked into the long grass.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I also rise to support amendment 61. To which I added. My name.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My name. But before I do, I just want to associate myself with the noble associate myself with the noble Lady's words on amendment 62. And I was sitting here in the House and was sitting here in the House and thinking, if I was guilty of the sum total of the creative sum total of the creative expression that I have consumed, you would have to lock me up for
17:58
Baroness Kidron Portrait Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-
life. So I really do think that it was actually quite moving to hear was actually quite moving to hear how one small fraction of the population is being discriminated population is being discriminated against on this particular count. So I just wanted to to add my So I just wanted to to add my support on that issue. The noble support on that issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and indeed Lord Beamish and Arbuthnot have have laid out the case very comprehensively, persuasively, and there is indeed a great deal of history to it.

But I thought it might be useful for me to just concentrate on the justification of successive governments, what they've offered as a reason for resisting it. And it primarily centres around the idea that computers now permeate every aspect of life, and that altering the presumption in law would, in the words of former Minister the noble Lady Jones, bring into scope evidence presented in every type of court proceeding and would have a detrimental effect on the courts and prosecution, potentially leading to unnecessary delays.

And I think it's important to hear that because it was almost identical to the words spoken to the previous Minister, the noble Viscount Camrose, who said almost all criminal cases rely on computer evidence to some extent. So any change to the burden of proof could or would or could impede the work of the Crown Prosecution and other prosecutors, leading to great delays, i.e. they had exactly the same rebuttal to a suggestion that we made as the Lord.

The noble Lord Arbuthnot has already explained in not one, but two previous bills. So my worry is, you know that the argument appears to be that computer evidence is so pervasive that we cannot change the law. But, my Lords, the reverse must also be true. If it's going to be so pervasive, how can we allow it to remain above the law? Now, we have already heard about the Post Office Horizon scandal, which is sort of I don't think it's a very parliamentary word, but gobsmacking in the scale and the amount of time it's taken to resolve and the amount of harm it's done to individual people.

But I think it's also important to say that this is not the only scandal, and that there are many scandals in the making if we don't deal with this. And and so I would like to just mention to the House the tragic case of the Prince of Wales Hospital, in which nurses were wrongly accused of falsifying patient records because of discrepancies found with computer evidence. The nurses were subjected subjected to a criminal trial which collapsed three years later when it was discovered that a visit by an engineer fixing a bug had had actually taken all the data that the nurses were accused of failing to gather, and in that case two women were criminalised, their careers were stopped and one of them sadly committed suicide.

This is not a minor matter. These are the human consequences. And and I really do want to impress upon the Minister, the noble Lady, the Minister, that the function of the law is not to shield poorly designed systems from scrutiny. Of course not. Of course not. It's there to protect people. And I think that the idea that it must protect technology simply because it's widespread, you know, the scale of adoption cannot confirm moral immunity. And on the contrary, if the if digital services are going to be everywhere, then they must not be given immunity.

And, and I really want to impress upon the noble Lady, the Minister, you know, as someone who works on issues of digital tech, I engage with multiple departments. Ministry of justice, Ministry of Education, DSIT, Home Office, Treasury, DCMS. And there's a recurring blind spot where technology is treated as neutral as though it has a right to exist outside the norms that govern the rest of our collective life, outside our culture, outside regulation, outside accountability, and in this case, outside the law.

But technology is not neutral. It's designed. It reflects choices, it embeds assumptions, and it produces consequences, the consequences of which we have just been talking. So I really want to be clear. This amendment does not create automatic wrongdoing. It does not presume guilt. It simply allows the computer evidence be treated as all other evidence, neither presumed reliable or otherwise, but must be tested by the court. And I echo what the noble Lord Arbuthnot said every computer scientist would offer that computer evidence and systems are inherently not reliable.

We are all used to updates and bug fixes, warranty provisions in software contracts almost universally state that software is that no warranty is provided, and the operation of the software will be. No warranty is provided that the operation of the software will be uninterrupted or error free, or even that software errors will be corrected. In computer science, a bug is not an uncommon event. It is an anticipated event, leaving it to an individual with no access to underlying code data.

System architecture. To prove that a complex digital system has failed is literally nonsense. It is asking the victim, without access to the information, to prove that the person with the access has done something wrong. And my Lord, you know, it's not only the definition of unjust, it's it's simply not an equality of arms. It's a structural imbalance in the courts. So as the noble Lord Arbuthnot mentioned, this amendment has the same amendment as an amendment. He and I and the noble Lord Clement-jones previously laid.

And in the course of doing so we had many meetings, and on each occasion we were told the same thing. Ministers were aware, sympathetic to the cause, looking at the issue, and we were assured that conclusions would follow. And indeed, the Minister, Sarah Sackman, who then brought forward yet another consultation. Yet another said the same thing. But here we are two years later, 12 months after my most recent ministerial meeting, and even after Minister Vallance said at the Dispatch Box, the government absolutely recognised the law in this area needs to be reviewed and I must ask the noble Lady, the Minister, what has been the outcome of all this sympathy of all these reviews and of all this time? Because ultimately I agree with other noble Lords.

This is this has to be the bill. This has to be the moment, because it's not only the grave injustice that we've already seen, but those that are coming up the pike here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Can I say that I support the principle behind amendment 61? The principle behind amendment 61? The real question is how quickly can this be done? Now I just want to take an illustration of a problem that has arisen in the civil courts across the world, the ability of artificial intelligence to hallucinate, create cases, hallucinate, create cases, precedents for lawyers to use that don't exist. And all civil courts across the world, including those in this country, have realised this is an immense problem and it has been dealt with by practice, practice, direction, some cases very, very fast indeed because it is corrosive to the proper conduct of litigation.

And it seems to me that there is no reason why, when this comes back on report, it cannot be dealt with. It is not a difficult problem. And it is. It's if it's been around for two years,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that's 18 months too long. OK. And the second point I want to address in a slightly different address in a slightly different manner, and that's amendment 62. This is a much more difficult This is a much more difficult problem. And the problem has arisen problem. And the problem has arisen because of the way in which drill music and similar music has been used in the prosecution of cases and the admissibility of such evidence is quite complicated.

It seems to me that what is very worrying is the fact, as has been seen by the attendance here today of one of the counsel who've been involved in these cases. Is that the way in which this evidence has been used in some cases has caused a lot of deep misunderstanding and a lot of suspicion about the way in which our criminal justice system
18:08
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
operates for certain minorities. And the thought that you can be you will be found guilty because of the will be found guilty because of the music you listen to, is deeply troubling. However, it does seem to me that what we need to do first is to is to look at the cases where this has been used. And I looked at the case of the Manchester ten, and the case of the Manchester ten, and coincidentally in that case, the evidence had been admitted by agreement and the Court of Appeal upheld the way in which it had been used for certain purposes.

It seems to me that this is a more complicated problem, and it would be helpful if the Minister was able to, between now and report, to be able to put before the House a short letter explaining what the problem is. And I think it would be easier to look at the amendment in the light of a better understanding. The last thing I want to do is to try and bore you all by explaining the way in which evidence can be used legitimately and can't be used legitimately.

It's much better that you have the benefit of reading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that on a piece of paper. I have two brief points I want to raise on amendment 61, and thank to raise on amendment 61, and thank Lady Chakrabarti for laying it. I Lady Chakrabarti for laying it. I mean, it's it is really wrong that computers have or systems have ever deemed to be reliable, let alone infallible. And my husband, who has is a research and design engineer is a research and design engineer who has worked on Science Park in Cambridge for well over 40 years now, he and all his friends had a phrase that they used amongst themselves and about themselves,
18:10
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
which was garbage in, garbage out. And when we started hearing about the Post Office Horizon scandal in Fujitsu, it was the first thing he Fujitsu, it was the first thing he said to me garbage in, garbage out. And the problem we have is that to many people, the courts and the many people, the courts and the court of public opinion believe that computer systems are that computer systems are infallible. I also wanted to just touch very briefly on AI, because we are already seeing cases in the courts now.

Facial facial recognition cases are coming up. Big Brother Watch reported on one last June, but I noticed they're not quite weekly, but they're really quite frequent where an individual is arrested as they go into a store accused of taking something very, very small. And then evidence is produced of them on a facial recognition watch list. It then transpires sometime later, if they are not that individual. Now, there is one particular firm whose name keeps coming up and I won't go into that.

But again, the reaction of the firm at the shop is exactly that, that there is infallibility there. So absolutely support the amendment, urge the Minister and the government not to pause on this at all. It is needed not just for the legacy of Post Office horizon, but for cases in our courts right now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I excuse me, I rise in support of amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness Chakrabarti. Maybe I noble Baroness Chakrabarti. Maybe I can help the Minister with some of the intricacies of this. We've heard from our Noble and learned members here who are who have a legal background. I have a I have a youth work background, and I'd like youth work background, and I'd like to say this much of the music that you'll be talking about during
18:12
Lord Bailey of Paddington Portrait Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
you'll be talking about during music, rap music is horrific. The content of the music is horrific. It's horrible, but unfortunately it's also very entertaining and many, many young people will listen to it. Just by association, the music's entertaining people party. You have no other choice. So for someone to view your output as an individual through your membership of that genre is a very, very slippery slope. Many years ago, I dealt with a group of young men who did make a video that did point to some serious criminality, and the police dealt with it in a right manner.

They used it to understand who they might then have further investigation on. They didn't use the evidence, except one part of it was quite blatant as a reason to prosecute, prosecute particular individuals. And when someone tells you they're an expert in interpreting music, I'm afraid they're wrong. I was born in that community. I come from that community. Many of my members of family make that music, but because young people make the music and technology allows them to make it so quickly, the words they use, the meanings they use, the characters they build, change almost on a daily basis.

If you were to say to my son, the Mandem, he would understand, would you? When I grew up, the man them as a as a concept existed, but the words didn't. So he and I can have a conversation about the same thing and and not know that we're talking about the same thing. Very rarely will you hear me stand up and talk about race in and accuse the police of being racist, but this cuts very close to that, because when you have someone who's a lovely, well-meaning, educated, middle class man or woman who listens to the music, they have no understanding of the cultural background of that music or the fact that that music might have been produced in the way it was to display a character.

Much of the bragging and the boasting is simply that bragging and boasting about fictitious situations that they themselves hope they'll never be in, and we also hope they'll never be in. So to then present that in court as some kind of evidence of their associations and their behaviour, I think, is a very, very slippery slope. And if you want to destroy the relationship between young people and particularly young black people and our system, this would be the way to go. So when I say we really do need to remove this as a thing the police do, I cannot express to you how important it will be because you'll be making sure that a, a almost an entire generation of young people cannot join our system cannot become part of what it is to be British just because of a cultural relationship they have, and in the mind of someone who doesn't understand them, have no way of disassociating themselves with.

So that bearing in mind, I really do believe this is something we should get behind and support. And again, if anybody doubts me, find a 16 or 15 year old black boy and ask him to tell you about Parliament in the way he would speak to his friends, it will sound like a gunfight. Now, I don't know if you've ever been to Parliament. I've never witnessed a gunfight. The point I'm trying to make, they young people live in a separate world. This music is another separate world.

Again, we must be very careful about demonising and villainizing them before we have any real evidence.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sir. My Lords, I declare.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My interest as anti as anti-racism adviser to to the Labour leadership. I share Labour leadership. I share recommendations 62 with my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti. I hope. I hope the noble Lords might understand why I have done this, given my years of campaigning for given my years of campaigning for the rise, for race equality and in criminal justice system space in particular, our amendment is essential. It's essential, but also modest in, in, in in operation. Sorry.

My right. We do not say that creative expression can never be admissible in criminal trials. We just say that there must be a strict rule that ensure that against racial prejudice in particular, it is not new in our system to try to ensure that the prejudice associated with criminal evidence should not should not outweigh the probative value, nor, unfortunately, it is it new to find that the police prosecution system working against people of colour, when it should be protecting everyone from all our diverse community equally? As my noble friend has said, we wouldn't dream of prosecuting a middle class, middle aged white person for crimes on the basis of their writing or enjoyment of crime.

Of crime fiction. Sorry. Why then are we being happily prosecuting young black men and boys on the basis of rap and drill music? I think we all know why we talk about equality, about before the law, about 2828 years ago. Stephen Stephen inquiry. We would know the principle as it's as principle is still not a reality. My noble friend I mentioned Chakrabarti, I mentioned a mancunian young, a young man, a model student, a headboy, aspiring to be a law student with unconditional offer to study law at the University of Birmingham.

That is, until the police and the prosecutor, the prosecutors, wrongly mistook him for a youngster. In a nine second video in which drill music was playing in the background in reliance on this ridiculous evidence, he was convicted of violence. Violence, conspiracy, conviction was overturned, but only after only after he served three years in prison. My Lords, I, I urge the whole the whole committee to support our amendment. And my noble friends in the government to accept

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. I might. Very briefly to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very briefly to speak to amendment 61. And in doing a little bit of background on this, I looked at the Law Society's response to at the Law Society's response to the MoJ call for evidence, and the Law Society produced this in April of last year. And I just wish to of last year. And I just wish to read two brief excerpts, because I think they are both particularly pertinent to what we're talking pertinent to what we're talking about. The first is it says, I quote, but given the increasing complexity of computational systems, computers should not be assumed to be operating correctly instead.

And this is where it's important, because this is what other jurisdictions outside the UK systematically do. Instead, it should be evidenced and demonstrated through assurance, regular review and disclosure of the technical standards applied by the system. That is what happens in Germany. That is what happens in France. That is what mostly happens in the United States. Secondly, returning to the issue of artificial intelligence, the Law Society has been thinking about this and is clearly very worried about it. And I quote again, careful consideration needs to be given to emerging AI technologies that overlap with but go beyond the scope of this call for evidence for artificial intelligence.

An additional layer of certification for meeting internationally recognised standards is important to ensure accountability and transparency, especially if they were designed and developed, which they mostly are outside of our jurisdiction. Attention must be given to the ability for domestic regulation and requirements to be adhered to for computer systems and and such AI tools.
18:20
18:21
18:21
18:23
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
Yes. >> Yes. >> Sorry. My Lord. I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti and her eminent supporters for bringing forward these amendments and for the contributions of all noble Lords in respect of amendment 61 and indeed, amendment 62, amendment 61. I think I can deal with quite shortly. We've had powerful and compelling speeches from the amendment and its proposers. It seeks to remove a presumption that a computer and software system on which a prosecution relies is working and reliable.

We all know what prompted this. It's the terrible post office scandal. My Lords, it's absolutely plain that prosecutors must no longer be able to rely on their systems as on the systems, as evidence for the purpose of criminal cases, that that is necessarily in working order. The government has had long enough now and officials even longer than this government to look at this problem. If it's not, it's been prodded with a sharp stick. By these amendments.

And I am confident that prodded with that sharp stick, it will come up with a solution. And it will have to do so by Report stage, because otherwise I think this amendment will be carried. Then I need not say any more. As to amendment 62, this proposes a new clause to prevent an over reliance on a person's musical taste as probative of criminal proclivity or intent. We agree on this side that a person's creative or artistic taste should not result in them being treated prejudicially by the judicial system.

And we've heard from Lord Bailey of Paddington and from Baroness Lawrence of. Clarendon. In support of this amendment, as well as Baroness Chakrabarti and indeed others. We do have some reservations about this amendment as it's currently drafted. We accept the good intentions behind it. We understand the danger which it is designed to meet, namely that people are treated prejudicially for their creative and artistic tastes. And it's undoubtedly the case that those from particular backgrounds are vulnerable to this and may suffer or risk suffering mistreatment in effect in our courts.

Against that, we fear also that the amendment might create other difficulties creating a genre specific shields for certain evidence, and thereby treating some expressions differently from others. In other words, shifting the balance too far in creating another class which is not protected. My Lord, we suggest that while we are sympathetic to this amendment for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

those reasons, we cannot support it. My Lords. I get to my feet with some

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I get to my feet with some diffidence, given the range of speakers, eminent speakers, and speakers, eminent speakers, and many of whom I have the most utmost respect for, who have spoken in favour of this group of amendments. favour of this group of amendments. May I start with amendment 61? In the names of my noble friends Baroness Chakrabarti and Lord Baroness Chakrabarti and Lord Beamish. My other friend, who is in fact also noble Lord Arbuthnot, and the noble Lady Baroness Kidron.

This is a powerful group, and I entirely accept what is said by them about the difficulties created when there is a presumption that a computer is working properly. Unless the defendant is able to produce evidence that it is not. That can create create an enormous obstacle for defendants, it is extremely difficult to prove that something is not working in those circumstances. So I accept that. And I also understand that what is sought here is to reverse that position, to take it back to the position of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act with section 69.

I have already discussed briefly with my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti that the difficulty I have with this amendment is that it is extremely broad, and the problem with that is that since section 69 was introduced, what constitutes digital material has evolved significantly. And the noble Lady Baroness Kidron says that it's no answer to say that computers are everywhere. But I'm afraid we do have to be realistic about this. The the evidence, computer evidence that is deduced in the criminal courts is, for example, the extremely complicated accounting software that is relied on by banks.

That's at one extreme. But there is also the routine evidence which it comes into criminal courts every single day, which can include text messages from from mobile telephones, email chains, social media posts, DVLA printouts, medical records from GP surgeries and even criminal records themselves from the police national computer. There is a real risk that if the amendment in this broad form were introduced, it could bring the criminal courts to a standstill. Now, I know that that is obviously not the intention, but one of the things I'm concerned about is whether there is a way of finding that we can limit it, so that it excludes the routine use of computers, often things that people wouldn't even think of as computers at all.

And the law recognises that a mobile phone is a computer, but most people wouldn't think of it that way to the cases, which are the ones that have caused real concern to those in your Lordships House, which is where a conviction is often based solely or mainly upon the evidence of a computer. I can see a very different case to be made for that kind of evidence as well. So I entirely understand the intention behind this amendment. And I, of course, pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Beamish and the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for the work that they've done in relation to horizon.

It's humbling to stand here and talk about the horizon victims and survivors and what happened to them. And I would not want anyone to think that the government is not listening in relation to this. So we acknowledge the current problems around the use of evidence. And that is why last year, the Ministry of Justice launched a call for evidence, which
18:30
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
closed on the 15th of April. Now my learned friend Lord Beamish and one, learned friend Lord Beamish and one, other 1 or 2 others have expressed concern about consultations. But the problem with not conducting the problem with not conducting consultations is the risk of not acting on evidence. And the maxim acting on evidence. And the maxim that we are all familiar with, that hard cases can make bad law. And that is why we consult in order to get the widest range of opinions.

And of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Look, I'm not opposed to consultation, but I'm sorry this government is hiding behind government is hiding behind consultation. You know, in terms of once consultation is finished, we then need action. And that's not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then need action. And that's not happening. It's not just in this area, it's in a whole host of other areas. I don't accept that. My noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't accept that. My noble friend, I think you should think carefully about that. Making accusations such as that point is accusations such as that point is that we're looking at the evidence that we received in order to evaluate it, to ensure that we make evidence based and informed changes. So the government is considering this matter carefully. I'm not announcing another review or another consultation. I'm simply saying that we're looking at the evidence that we've got. But I hope that the noble Lady Baroness Shah, my noble friend at Baroness Chakrabarti, will hear the words that I'm using.

She knows that I understand the problem. She knows that I'm not unsympathetic. But we do need to find a way that doesn't create a lot of unintended

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consequences. You're competing with a noble. I would. Never compete. I just. Want what?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Want what? What we've had. You've had nine months. If you normally go to a months. If you normally go to a competent lawyer and ask, this is the evidence. We need a solution. the evidence. We need a solution. You would be horrified if you had to wait nine months. Why is there to wait nine months. Why is there not an answer? And if there, if and can we have an answer? When this comes back on report, there is no excuse for delay.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And then I of course give way to the noble Lady because, as you know, we don't permit interventions or interventions. I will, of course interventions. I will, of course give way. The answer to that is because it's not the only thing we're doing. The Lordships has we're doing. The Lordships has knows how much legislation is passing through this House, and it's a question of the bandwidth it's a question of the bandwidth and the time to do things. What I'm trying to do is to give the assurance to the House that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

assurance to the House that the intentions are good ones, and that we are listening. Now to the noble Lady Baroness Grender. Thank you very.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Much for giving way. The words that the noble Lady the Minister that the noble Lady the Minister used, which I believe her to believe, are exactly the same words believe, are exactly the same words as we have heard from several other Ministers. So the only words that Ministers. So the only words that would give succour to members of the committee are we will have the committee are we will have something at report. And whilst I take her point about broad and narrow, it's not an excuse that can last for years.

And that consultation was not the first consultation. So we have been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

waiting for years. Well. I entirely understand the point that the noble Lady is making, and that the noble Lady is making, and I of course pay great tribute to her expertise. You can imagine just her expertise. You can imagine just how popular I'd be if I gave that undertaking from the despatch box. Right now, all I can say is leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Right now, all I can say is leave it with me. Of course. Well, I haven't been a Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I haven't been a Minister myself. The Minister can do that tonight. But I have to say to her, she knows what she knows what's going to happen if she doesn't bring forward moving forward. There will be there will be an amendment put forward and it will get passed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I have already said I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I have already said I'm listening carefully. Of course. I'm most grateful. Before the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm most grateful. Before the noble Lady. The Minister moves on to amendment 62. Please would she to amendment 62. Please would she comment on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, about the noble Lord, Lord Russell, about the Law Society's contribution to the consultation, about a system of assurances, because that may be the way forward which might allow her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to bring forward her own amendment report? Well. That's exactly what the government is evaluating. I can't go any further than that today, but those are all the things that are being considered. I can't go any being considered. I can't go any further than say, I'm listening. further than say, I'm listening. May I now turn to amendment 62 again in the name of my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti and of friend Baroness Chakrabarti and of my noble friend, Baroness Lawrence.

I am very aware of these issues, particularly in relation to rap and drill. I have before this this I knew about this amendment. But in the course of my practice and when I was a judge, been to a number of lectures on the subject and read a number of articles, including some by Kim Monteith, King's Counsel, who I see is sitting below the bar this evening. My Lord, the question here, in terms of the use of this material is one of relevance.

And like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, I don't really want to go into a boring exegesis of when evidence is admissible and when it isn't, but I think the real concern here is to make sure that if and it's a big if this evidence is to be used, it has proper probative value on a basis that it goes further than either this defendant is a bad person because they like rap and drill music, or even worse, some spurious and crude racial stereotypes.

My Lords, judges, of course, have a duty to ensure that only evidence meeting these standards is produced, and they should exclude any evidence that does not meet the required threshold. It is not a matter of discretion, but I do understand the concerns about the fact that this has not happened in all cases. My Lords, it is axiomatic to say that creative and artistic expression is of itself not a crime, and it's very rare that it would feature in the evidence of a prosecution unless it inherently involved criminal activity, like damaging another person's property with graffiti or drawing sexual images of children.

As to musical expression, the Crown Prosecution Service are clear that creating or listening to music is not a crime, but they would say that on occasion they have encountered cases where upon investigation into a violent offence. It became clear that drill and rap music had been used in the build up to encourage or incite violence, or reveal information about a crime that only the attackers would know. These instances are rare and, importantly, are already subject to rigorous scrutiny under existing evidential rules.

But I am aware of the disquiet, and we do understand the community concerns. And I do take the point made by my noble friend Baroness Lawrence. I'm a lover of crime fiction, but I don't think anybody is ever going to use that in a hope they're not going to in a prosecution against me. And she makes a very valid point. So the Crown Prosecution Service is actively consulting on this matter through a public consultation seeking views on whether formal prosecution guidance should be issued regarding the use of musical expression evidence.

We want to ensure that any future approach is clear and informed by a wide range of perspectives. Its government's view that, as currently drafted, the amendment would be unduly restrictive and and effectively effectively frustrate the ability of the Crown to adduce relevant and probative evidence before the court, with potential consequences of frustrating justice for victims. In some serious cases, the government intends to await the outcome of the CPS consultation and announce next steps in due course. So I invite all noble Lords to withdraw their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. I didn't speak to amendment 62 when I briefly got up, but in doing when I briefly got up, but in doing some research for it, I think it is usually the case in a particular usually the case in a particular area of law where you have a body of experts in particular areas of of experts in particular areas of evidence. It is not uncommon for those experts to be used by both the prosecution and by the defence. the prosecution and by the defence.

OK. In doing my research on amendment 62, that is not the case. The so-called experts who are used by the prosecution are solely used by the prosecution. The experts that are used by the defence, who are experts who would be able to talk knowledgeably of the sort of detail that Lord Bailey was able to give us, are only used by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

defence. That in itself, I think, tells you something, that there is something wrong. I don't disagree with the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't disagree with the noble Lord. I think I've already made it clear that I understand the disquiet, and I understand the disquiet, and I understand the concerns about that disquiet and the very real possibility for the very real possibility for something that is, in fact, crude racial stereotyping to look as though it's evidence. And that's though it's evidence. And that's why we need to await the outcome of the CPS consultation.
18:39
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful. what I think was a was a very important debate that did credit to the whole whole committee. I'm most the whole whole committee. I'm most grateful of all to my noble friend, the Minister, who is a distinguished criminal lawyer and a distinguished former member of the CPS. But with all due respect, no one should mark their own homework. It is not even for the Crown Prosecution Service to mark its own homework, nor any other lawyers, even to mark their own homework.

So I do, in relation to amendment 62, to go to go in reverse order, urge my noble friend to consider, to consider what Russell of Liverpool and others have said about what is what is happening in practice. The University of Manchester study, so on and so forth. Because just reading out the official statement from the from the CPS is, is, is hope sapping. And and I know that my noble friend would not want to to sap my hope in in in in difficult times.

And I think in relation to 62 and 61, she suggested that she is listening and said it with some personal input. She is not an AI, she is not a you know, she is not a projection from the government. She she she'll forgive me saying so. She's one of our best advocates on these benches. The government is very, very lucky to have her. But as I know, our noble friend Lord Timpson has has said publicly and privately many times, you know, we're not all here forever.

We're not on this earth forever. We're not in this chamber forever. We're not in positions of power and influence forever. We must make the most of our opportunities to make change. Change as was promised, and to make it for good and race. Equality surely must be one of the foundations of any Labour government. Specifically, one that has promised so much in relation to 61. I think the case once more was incontrovertible. By the way, in relation to both amendments, I heard no proper pushback from from any side of the of of the Committee on 61.

I have to defer to the noble Lords Beamish and Arbuthnot of Edrom, and to the noble Baroness Kidron. The time is now. The vehicle is this bill, and I would just finally say gently to my noble friend when she walks into rooms in the Ministry of Justice with officials or even Commons Ministers, I hope she realises that she's the cleverest person in the room, or at least the one, or at least the one with the most direct experience of practising criminal law in the courts.

And if anyone can find a way through, I trust that that is my noble friend, and I urge her on. 61 and 62 could theoretically be dealt with by rules of court, but it must be dealt with. I think that with 61, we we need an urgent legislative amendment in this bill. And she she foreshadowed the possibility of of a way through partly on her concerns about sole and determinative evidence and partly responding to the noble Lord Russell of Liverpool.

I urge her to deliver for the Committee to deliver for the people of this country. Yes, for the past victims of miscarriages and for all those who might come. So I say that as respectfully and positively as I can to my to my noble friend, I hope she knows how much respect I have for her. But we are looking for something at report in both in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

both respects for 61 and 62. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw. Is it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it. Your Lordship's. Pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 62. Baroness Chakrabarti not moved. Amendment 63. Lord
18:43
18:44
None Portrait Amendment:63 Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-

the things it doesn't do. And she will know more than I suspect, anybody in the committee about the detail of what it is I'm about to address. The purpose of this amendment is to enable the Crown Prosecution Service to discontinue proceedings in the Crown Court up until the trial, which would bring their opportunity to discontinue proceedings in the Crown Court in line with their opportunity to do so in the Magistrates Court. Importantly, this change would mean that proceedings could be ended at a later point and still reinstated, where it is determined that the prosecution was ended in error.

And for victims of crime, this is an important safeguard which would enable them to meaningfully exercise their right to challenge Crown Prosecution Service decision making. So why is this amendment needed? Currently, the Crown Prosecution Service can end proceedings in two different ways in the Crown Court. Firstly, they can, within a narrow time frame, discontinue proceedings which would allow them to reinstate proceedings at a later point. Or secondly, they can offer no evidence which they can do up until the start of the trial, and this acts as an acquittal of the defendant, meaning that even where proceedings are ended in error, there is no means to reinstate proceedings.

And due to the narrow time frame for discontinuing a case in the Crown Court where the CPS decides to end a prosecution, they often have no other option but to offer no evidence. The victim's right to review the VRR, which was introduced in 2013, does allow victims to challenge certain CPS decisions, such as not charging, discontinuing or offering no evidence in a case for survivors of rape and serious sexual offences and other victims. VRR is often the only route to challenge CPS decisions, but in the Crown Court it usually comes after the CPS have already offered no evidence in court, at which point the case is effectively dead.

Unfortunately they are. Our data shows that sometimes the CPS decision to offer no evidence is incorrect, and freedom of information data between 2021 and 2025 indicates that over 820 VRR requests were submitted in those four years, 106 original decisions were overturned, about 13%, and in rape and serious sexual offences cases, 77 requests were submitted, with nine overturned, proving that the CPS sometimes does get it wrong and that victims challenge can and do make a difference.

In such cases, victims are left with an apology but no chance at a justice outcome because the defendant has been acquitted and the prosecution cannot be reinstated. And a well known case study is is Jade blue, whom I'm sure the noble Lady, the Minister is aware. So I won't go into the detail of that case. Why does this issue matter? There are other unsuccessful defendants like Jade, who have lost their opportunity to see justice done because the CPS, out of time to discontinue proceedings, offered no evidence in their cases and in circumstances like Jade's, the VRR is effectively redundant because the decision cannot be put right.

Even where there's been an error. In general, it is neither possible nor realistic to demand the decision making is infallible, but this is particularly the case given the current unfortunate state of the justice system and the pressures upon agencies within the system, which I'm afraid means probably some mistakes are inevitable. Now. The system asks a great deal of victims, and the VRR is one of the relatively few opportunities victims have to challenge decisions that affect them, so it is imperative that it offers remedies that actually mean something, and as well as the individual implications for victims.

That fact that prosecutable offences are sometimes ended has wider implications on society because it means perpetrators don't have to face justice. And I'll go into a bit more detail so the CPS. Has two main methods of discontinuing a case during proceedings in the Crown Court. The first is to issue a discontinuance notice under section 23 A of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which permits the CPS to bring a fresh prosecution in respect of the same matter at a later point, i.e.

to reinstitute proceedings and discontinuing a case is only available to the CPS in the Crown Court before an indictment is preferred, which means within the first few weeks of the matter, reaching the Crown Court to offer no evidence. Under section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 at a court hearing, when the CPS offers no evidence, is effectively an acquittal of the defendant, meaning that proceedings cannot be reinstated and section 23 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 covers the circumstances in which the CPS can discontinue proceedings in the Magistrates Court and in the Magistrates Court.

They can discontinue up until the trial. Once the decision has been made to cease the prosecution, the CPS are under a duty to communicate their decision to the court and the defendant as quickly as possible, and for that reason, it is usual for the CPS to formally offer no evidence in a case before notifying the victim about the decision or their right to renew. Following the campaigning. After the case of Jade Blue in June 2025, the CPS launched a pilot in the West Midlands for rape cases, enabling survivors to be told that a decision had been made to offer no evidence and to request a review before final closure.

This approach aims to provide an additional safeguard, allowing decisions to be reconsidered before proceedings are halted. The scheme is currently being evaluated to ensure the right balance is being struck between victims rights, to review the requirements of the court process and defendants rights for timely notification. And the CPS has now announced that it intends to roll this pilot out for rape complaints across England and where it. So if one looks at some of the questions one might have around this issue, is the CPS pilot the answer? Does it address this issue? So while the pilot is very welcome in giving rise to a scheme which enables VRR to take place before the CPS formally offers no evidence in rape cases, the scheme only applies in rape cases and does not address the broader issue, which is that, save for very early in proceedings, the CPS must offer no evidence to end the prosecution in the Crown Court, which is fatal to the prosecution.

One might ask Will the pilot scheme end if this change is enacted? From what I understand, the pilot rollout would remain unaffected by any change or discontinuance because it is a fundamental part of the CPS best practice attempts in relation to rape and sexual offences. Would this impact a very large number of cases? If this is changed in total, the CPS receives about 1600 requests for VRR each year, with a small proportion of the original decisions overturned. Now, not all of these will be cases where the CPS has offered no evidence, and whilst it is possible that more victims might seek a VRR if they knew the case could be reinstated, the number of VRR requests is unlikely to rise significantly.

And importantly, this would mean more victims achieve justice. Instead of simply an apology. Another question might be, given the enormous issues with workload and delays in the Crown Court, would this have an impact on court time? The CPS ends proceedings in the Crown Court by offering no evidence in about 10,000 cases per annum, which usually requires a hearing. If these hearings were no longer needed, significant savings and court efficiencies could be realised, contributing to more timely outcomes. I can see the noble Lady, the Minister, shaking her head.

Perhaps she will explain that when she comes to answer the Dispatch Box, one might ask the question why could the CPS not extend this to all offence types? The pilot was used very specifically to look at rape cases because of Jade's case, and perhaps it is simply not possible or realistic given the pressure on the system for them to extend this system to all offence types nationwide, one might ask Will this increase the likelihood of more cases being reinstated? It is common in other jurisdictions, including parts of Australia, New Zealand, for more extensive discontinuance.

Powers to be used. While different models are used, all of them permit discontinuance more widely than is currently the case in England and Wales, which is also to some degree the case in Scotland, the United States of America and in Canada. So, my Lords, when one looks at all of that, one really says, are there any circumstances where this change could enable the CPS to reinstitute proceedings? And I think in the case of in response to a complaint, MP correspondence or following an inquest, one can read re-institute the proceedings and this change would enable the CPS to reopen cases where further evidence comes to light that tips the code test in favour of a realistic prospect of conviction, which they are currently largely prohibited from doing under the double jeopardy rules, which only allow the restitution reinstitution of proceedings in very strict circumstances.

And I would finally just say some two statements of support for calling, looking at the the earlier review process as it currently is, and to look at how it might be improved. Claire Waxman, the victims commissioner, has said this change is vital to ensure that where the CPS makes the decision to end the prosecution, victims can meaningfully challenge that decision, as is their right. And, crucially, where that decision is found to have been a mistake, prosecutions can be reinstated and perpetrators made to face justice.

And secondly, Professor Catherine Hull, the independent adviser to the UK government on criminal justice responses to sexual violence, who said I quote at present there is a gap between victims rights on paper and victims ability to exercise their rights in practice. Permanent early VRR

**** Possible New Speaker ****

narrows that gap. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 12, insert the following new clause 12, insert the following new clause the words as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. Lord Russell's amendment 63. And I won't go into any of the detail that he has just given so that he has just given so comprehensively, but I did want to give you a Lordships house, a chance to hear two voices of
18:56
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
chance to hear two voices of victims who found that VRR really worked for them. Daria, who is an anonymous survivor, reported in 2021 offences of harassment, stalking and image based abuse to the police. The perpetrator was arrested in November 2021. However, confusion between police forces and errors in case handling resulted in delays and lapses in time limits for some offences. By December 2022, the CPS issued issued a decision of no further action for the most serious charge of disclosing and threatening to disclose private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress.

And this was despite Dharia providing detailed evidence that the intent threshold was met. She immediately requested a review under the Victims Right to Review Scheme. Over the following months, the CPS kept updated and requested further statements, and in May 2023, a District Crown prosecutor overturned the original decision. CPS authorised two counts of disclosing threatening to disclose private sexual images with intent to cause distress, and in December 2023, the perpetrator was convicted on both counts and sentenced in Crown Court.

In March 2024, the CPS formally apologised for the distress caused by the initial wrongful decision. Darius said without the right to review, my case would have ended in silence. CPS originally decided not to prosecute despite everything I had reported and the evidence I provided, and it was only through the VRR process that my voice was finally heard and justice was served. The man who targeted and humiliated me online was ultimately convicted. Survivors deserve this second chance. The right to review gave me mine, and Victoria was groomed and sexually abused from the age of 14 when she reported the crime.

Years later, the CPS initially decided on no further action, wrongly de-aging her as 16 and dismissing the evidence she had been below the age of consent. Victoria requested a VRR. The first review upheld the decision, but she escalated it further in 2021. After a second interview, the CPS overturned their decision and charged her abuser with seven counts of indecent assault, and a further charge was added at trial. Her abuser was unanimously convicted on all eight counts and sentenced to 23 years in prison.

He was also placed on the sex offenders register indefinitely. Despite this, Victoria had endured nearly six years of delays before her trial, which left her with PTSD, agoraphobia and severe anxiety. She said after CPS refused to charge my abuser, I requested a VRR and this led them to overturn that decision and my abuser was later convicted. He would not have faced justice without the VRR process, and my case highlights the need for VRS to be permanently accessible to complainants so mistakes can be addressed.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I think I can be brief. I speak in support of amendment 63, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord in the name of the noble Lord, Lord in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. In and I. I should say that we've already spoken about the need for consistency across our justice consistency across our justice system. That includes extending the powers to compel offenders to attend their sentencing in both the Crown courts.

Sorry, have I? Yes. This amendment would also bring the periods in which a case can be discontinued into alignment. Indeed, I'm interested to see what justification exists for the difference between the two. We've heard a compelling speech also from Baroness Brinton a particular example. I know that individual examples can always be. One should be wary of them, but it's a compelling example and we should listen to it very carefully. Apart from making the system more consistent in its procedures, this amendment would allow prosecutors in the Crown Court to discontinue a case at a late stage, preventing unnecessary, costly, and time
19:00
19:01
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
that would allow victims to challenge a decision not to prosecute without them having to prosecute without them having to bring judicial review proceedings. As the noble and learned Lord may remember, I was the prosecutor who remember, I was the prosecutor who made the decision to charge in that case, and as a result of that case, case, and as a result of that case, the Crown Prosecution Service, under a certain Director of Public Prosecutions who may be known to Prosecutions who may be known to one or other of you in a different in another context at the moment, and me working as his principal legal adviser, devised the Victim Right review scheme.

And I wrote much of the legal guidance. So the noble Lord, Lord Russell, is correct when he says, I do know quite a lot about it and I am a huge fan of the victim right of review scheme, because although the Crown Prosecution Service is in many ways a completely wonderful organisation, everybody is human and sometimes people get get things wrong, and when we get it wrong, we want to put it right. But obviously a right is not a right unless it's got a remedy attached to it.

And that is a real problem in some of these cases. And the noble Lord, Lord Russell knows because I discussed this with him when we met, that certainly my practice was always when I was then dealing with reviews of cases. If the if I took the decision to offer no evidence to right to the victim and say, in 14 days, I'm proposing to do this, unless you want to make representations to me as to why I shouldn't or seek judicial review proceedings.

So I completely get the issue here. The only note of caution that I am going to sound is this. It would be a substantial change, with wide ranging ranging implications for both victims and defendants. And for that reason, it does need to be considered carefully, because discontinuing a case is not simply putting a pause into proceedings. Restitution requires fresh proceedings starting back in the magistrates court, which risks delay and uncertainty for both victims and defendants. It doesn't go straight back into the Crown Court as a restart, and that's why we're making these decisions.

Robust safeguards and controls are essential, which aren't actually in this amendment. For example, in the Magistrates court procedure, which this amendment seeks to replicate, the defence can refuse to accept a discontinuance and insist on no evidence being offered or insisting the Crown Prosecution Service makes a decision as to what it's going to do. What we are anxious to do is to ensure that discontinuance is not, for example, used in the Crown Court as a way of getting an adjournment that they're not going to get under other circumstances.

So saying we don't have enough evidence here, we need another three months again. So we're going to discontinue and then restart again. That can create awful uncertainty both for victims and defendants as to what is going on. And there are, for example, cases where somebody who is a youth at the time they are charged, if the case is then discontinued, may then be tried as an adult later on. So I'm not saying I don't understand the problem or that this may not be part of a solution, but it does need to be considered carefully.

What we plan to do is to consider this proposal further in the context of the wider court reforms, and Sir Brian Leveson's most recent report in his recommendations for improving efficiency. I also welcome the expansion of the CPS pilot, strengthening victims voices before final decisions to offer no evidence are made. The outcome of that pilot will also inform our thinking. For the time being, I invite the noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister very much for her response. I also thank the noble Lady Baroness Brinton for noble Lady Baroness Brinton for adding her name and for the examples that she put forward. As I examples that she put forward. As I surmised, the lady the Minister does indeed what she's talking about a 24 hour a day, seven day a about a 24 hour a day, seven day a week basis, I would say from from what we've heard. And she's looking what we've heard.

And she's looking remarkably well on it. I thank you very much for the broadly positive way in which he has responded. I mean, I think she has acknowledged we have all acknowledged there is an issue here. There is an inconsistency. And but putting it right is not a matter of just snapping one's fingers and changing one thing because it has knock on
19:06
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Lemos (Labour)
-

effects. So what I'm hoping the noble Lady will agree to is to have some follow up discussions between now and report, to try and see what it will be possible to either do by report, or what changes one can start instituting or committing to start instituting or committing to look at very carefully, which can then be enacted later. But on that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then be enacted later. But on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. The amendment is by leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawal. My Lords, I don't want to jump the gun, but I've just spoken to my the gun, but I've just spoken to my my fellow whips, and I think our plan is to try and get to target before the dinner break. So I before the dinner break. So I thought it'd be just useful to let everybody know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Specifically includes 13 amendment 64 Lord Sandhurst.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

OK. Just gathering my breath. My Lords, this group of amendment concerns the terms, the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which we consider to have two narrow window consider to have two narrow window to effectively allow for victims to reflect upon and review the sentences given to their offenders. sentences given to their offenders. Amendment 64, 65 and 66 aim to increase the existing 28 day window increase the existing 28 day window for applying to the unduly lenient sentence scheme to one of 56 days.

Similarly, amendment 69, in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Brinton, seeks to allow the 28 day time limit to be extended in exceptional circumstances. We thank
19:07
19:07
19:07
None Portrait Amendment:64 Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-

It's a safeguard that recognises that victims may, for one reason or another, not always be able to act within the current time frame. Currently, there exists an asymmetry between offenders and victims. Offenders might be able to seek extensions or to have certain deadlines adjusted, whereas victims are rigidly bound by the 28 day window. This amendment helps to address that imbalance. My Lords, the process of applying for a view of sentence is not one that can be readily undertaken, always within four weeks.

It requires a knowledge of the law that often requires the instruction and subsequent direction of a lawyer, which in and of itself is a process that can often take up to, if not beyond, the 28 day window that victims are given in which to appeal. Crucial to this process is the availability of the sentencing remarks problem, which we have partially solved in the Sentencing Act by requiring their release within 14 days. But that occupies nonetheless half the time that the government currently offers to appeal a lenient sentence.

Perhaps the most effective case for change is a human one. Victims must face and relive the most traumatic events of their lives in court. They have to re-encounter their offender or in some cases, not due to the current drafting of clause one, I accept. And in those cases we are concerned with, they have to deal with what they believe to be an unjust sentence. My Lords, 56 days is not a drastic increase. It simply increases the window to two months, and it allows slightly more time for the process to be completed.

We on these benches are also open to the idea of a longer window to apply specifically for victims and where they are murdered, their next of kin. In cases of extremely serious crimes. That may be for another day. My Lords, I turn now to amendment 72, which seeks to place a clear statutory duty upon the Crown Prosecution Service to notify victims or, in the case of a deceased victim, their next of kin of their right to request a review under the Unduly lenient sentence scheme.

At present, whether a victim is informed of the scheme can depend upon practice rather than principle. In some cases, of course, victims are advised promptly and clearly. In others, awareness depends rather upon chance, whether it's mentioned to them by their legal advocate or some other time during the court process, or whether they independently discover its existence. My Lords, that is not a satisfactory basis on which to safeguard a right of such importance, and particularly one that's time limited within a strict statutory window right to which expires after 28 days, or indeed 56 if our earlier amendments are accepted, is only meaningful if the person entitled to exercise it, is made aware of it in good time.

Before time starts to run without notification. The right is illusory at best. Amendment 72 therefore proposes a straightforward and practical safeguard. Namely, the CPS must write to the victim or their next of kin within ten working days of sentence being delivered, informing them of their ability to seek a review. This is not burdensome. The CPS is already engaged with victims throughout the prosecution process. Contact details are held. Communication channels should exist. The amendment simply makes notification consistent and mandatory.

As for amendment 75, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, this very much has the same aim as our amendment, albeit with a marginally different mechanism. I hope we can work together to achieve this reform. My Lords, if we are to maintain a short and strict time limit for challenging unduly lenient sentences, then the least we can do is ensure that victims are properly informed of that right. Without such a duty access, the scheme may depend less on justice and more on happenstance.

My Lords, we trust our judges, but we know that even they are not infallible. Some will be more sparing with their sentences, some will be more certain in their own judgement and not feel the need to alert victims to the scheme. Others will simply forget on occasions. This should not be the case. The government is very well equipped to create a system in which a letter is sent out within ten days, alerting victims the right to apply for the review of sentencing. They do it endlessly in other departments.

It should be a seamlessly transferable process. All are equal before the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

law. Thank you. Sorry, I have to. Are you moving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry, I have to. Are you moving for a minute? Thank you very much. Lord Sandhurst amendment proposed Lord Sandhurst amendment proposed clause 13, page 16, line 36 at end.
19:13
19:13
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
improve the access victims have to challenge what they believe is an unduly lenient sentence. And I had amendments in the Victims and Prisoners Bill in 2023 for to try to achieve this, and I think it's to achieve this, and I think it's worth just pausing to review what's happened since 1988, when US first started, when victims were given the right to ask the attorney general to reconsider the sentence general to reconsider the sentence of their offender, Lord Sandhurst was concerned. One of his amendments concerns guaranteeing that victims are informed.

So currently the Victims Code places responsibility for informing victims about the ULS scheme on witnessed care units and for bereaved families entitled to the Crown Prosecution Service Bereaved Families Scheme. The CPS, where possible through the prosecutor and the trial advocate, should meet the family at court following sentencing if they attend the hearing and inform them about the ULS scheme where appropriate. However, my Lords, evidence from victims and bereaved families shows this often doesn't happen, with many only learning about the scheme when it is too late to apply.

By contrast, the offender and their legal representatives are present at sentencing and able to start planning any appeal against the sentence. Also, under extenuating circumstances, the offender can be given more than 28 days to launch their appeal, and the offender also has post-sentence meetings with their legal representatives. It was clear then, and it remains so now, that the offender had and has more rights and support than the victim. My Lords, this is not a level playing field.

Calls to extend this deadline for victims have previously been met with the government, emphasising the importance of finality in the censoring of offenders. Yet for victims, there is currently no such finality. Offenders often have considerable flexibility to appeal a sentence, with cases shared with Victims Commissioner in which an appeal has been lodged more than 180 days after sentencing, creating a structural imbalance and a clear disparity between the rights of victims and offenders. Tracy Hanson, who campaigns on improving the right to challenge an unduly lenient sentence, is an extraordinary woman.

She's a bereaved mother who had been let down by the justice system. Her son, Josh Hanson, was tragically murdered in 2015. The offender absconded, resulting in an international manhunt. Following three years on the run, the offender was finally caught and sentenced in 2019 to prison for a minimum of 26 years. Tracy was left angry at a sentence that she felt did not reflect the loss of her life. The harm and distress caused to her and her family, and the resources wasted in tracking the offender.

Despite making clear her frustration with the sentence, not one agency made Tracy aware that she had the right to refer the case under the ULS scheme, and it was only when Claire Waxman spoke with her on the 28th day following that sentence, that Tracy was even made aware of the scheme, and unfortunately, this was the last day she was able to lodge a complaint. Tracy immediately submitted her application to the Attorney General's office on the 28th day, took it round by hand.

However, this was rejected as being out of court hours. At the time, there was nowhere in any of the paperwork that mentioned court hours within the victim's code or the government website. And I wonder, my Lords, are victims expected to know this? Frankly, my Lords, it was shocking. Tracy has since campaigned for reform on the ULS scheme, pushing for the 28 day time limit to be extended in exceptional circumstances, such as when the victim is not informed and pushing the victims to be notified of their right to apply to the scheme.

And so that's what amendment 69 and 75 in this group seek to achieve. And they want a statutory duty on a government department nominated by the Secretary of State to inform victims and bereaved families of their right to appeal under the ULS team before or at the time of sentencing, mirroring the notification given to offenders and an extension of the 28 day time frame in exceptional circumstances, so that victims who were not informed of the scheme can still access it.

And I'm afraid we cannot support Lord Keen proposals of the extension time moving from 28 days to 56, because it's irrelevant when there is no statutory duty on reporting the sentence to a victim properly, and especially if there is no extension of the period in extenuating circumstances. So I do hope that the Minister will be able to look favourably on amendment 69 and 75, and would very much welcome the meeting between committee and Report stage.
19:18
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
A degree of caution. Of course, >> A degree of caution. Of course, I entirely understand the motives behind the amendments moved by my behind the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, and that move by the noble Lady, Lady Brinton. But should we just begin by trying to remember what an unduly lenient sentence is? It's one that falls outside the range of sentences that a judge, taking into consideration all relevant factors and having regard to the sentencing guidance, could reasonably consider appropriate.

In other words, the sentence must not just be lenient, but must be unduly lenient. And one of the things that the Court of Appeal has to consider when it is looking at an application to review and sentence, is that the offender has been put through the sentencing process, or will be put through the sentencing process for a second time, and that it will not intervene unless the sentence is significantly below that the judge should one that the judge should have passed.

So. One often, and I say this with some experience, admittedly over 2010 to 2012, that I was a law officer. And in England and Wales, it's the law officers which have the ability to make these applications to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal. But one often received applications for us to apply on the basis that the person complaining about the sentence just thought it was not adequately severe. Well, that's not that's not really the test. And one therefore needs to not encourage an expectation.

And this is what I think may follow from Lady Brinton's amendment, that by getting a government department or the Crown Prosecution Service to write to a disappointed victim or a family member, that it must follow that the that the CPS or whichever government department it is that they wish to require to do this, agrees or will lead to a successful appeal before the the Court of Appeal, as I seem to remember, all sorts of people used to read newspaper articles about a particular sentence.

The newspaper article very often bore very little resemblance to the the sentencing remarks or the details of the case, and sometimes in some newspapers you'd get editorial saying it's a disgrace. This lenient judge has done this, that or the other. Something must be done. So all sorts of people would write in to the law officers department demanding something, that something should be done. Well, very often that the sentence was passed in relation to an offence which didn't come under the scheme, or if if it did on proper examination, it didn't fall within the definition or the ambit of what the Court of Appeal was likely to disturb.

So all sorts of expectations would, I suspect or could, I suspect, be built into the public mind, which could only lead to disappointment. Secondly, I think there is something to be said about finality, although of course one doesn't always have a sympathy. Any sympathy for a defendant, a criminal defendant, they are entitled to justice and they are entitled to finality. And having been sentenced and having sentenced people, I can assure noble Lords that certainly for a judge who is dealing with the.

And I don't mean this in a in a silly way, but shall we say, the less serious types of criminal offence which nonetheless come within this scheme. Sentencing, I always found, was the most difficult part of, of of the judicial function. Now, if you're a High Court judge dealing with criminal cases, the chances are you're probably only having to decide the tariff on life sentences. That's a generalisation. But if you're sitting in the Crown Court as a recorder or as a circuit judge, you may very well have to deal with all sorts of quite complicated considerations when working out.

What is the just sentence for that particular defendant for based on the facts of that particular. Offence? So it's not always easy, but by and large. And it was my experience when having to seek the advice of Treasury counsel and making up my own mind about whether an application should go to the Court of Appeal. By and large, I found that the overwhelming majority of judges produced or passed the correct. Or when I say correct, it's not. It's not a binary exercise, but passed a just sentence which was entirely defensible and is not the sort of thing that the Court of Appeal would have disturbed.

And to encourage people to make applications would, I think, be a mistake when it's only going to lead, as I say, to disappointment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So not to encourage the CPS or whoever the notifying body is, to encourage the victim to appeal, encourage the victim to appeal, they are merely notifying them of the right. Does he accept that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the right. Does he accept that? Well, the printed words say. But of course, the effect could very well be that if the Crown well be that if the Crown Prosecution Service were to write to the victim, saying, you do to the victim, saying, you do realise there is a you have a you can apply to the, the law officers to have this sentence reviewed by the Court of Appeal. It gives a sort of imprimatur. It gives a sort of indication.

That's the implication. And I think it's an implication which we should should resist. I don't want to go on too long, but the only other thing I would say is that. Anybody can can write to the law officers to say, would you review this sentence? It doesn't have to be a victim. It doesn't have to be the. Family or next of kin of a of a deceased victim. Anybody can do it. So it seems to me that there are there are plenty of avenues available to the public and to victims if they wish to explore this.

But I do come back to the first point I made that we need to, I think, exercise a degree of caution before opening up

**** Possible New Speaker ****

disappointment. Very briefly, in support of Baroness Brinton, I added my name Baroness Brinton, I added my name to her amendment. Well, I listened carefully to what the noble and carefully to what the noble and learned Lord has said. This is not an attempt to encourage lots of challenges for unduly lenient challenges for unduly lenient sentences. It is, above all, an attempt to achieve a degree of attempt to achieve a degree of parity between the way offenders are treated and the way defendants are treated.

And if one looks at the intent of the the amendment, which suggests that a government department nominated by the Secretary of State should do the informing, it would be perfectly possible. It would need to be a body that was viewed as as genuinely neutral. It would be perfectly possible, in informing the victim of their right, making it quite clear the if you like the orbit within which a an appeal against an unduly lenient sentence
19:26
19:27
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, may I deal first of all with the existing time limit? all with the existing time limit? We're listening not just to the I'm making a we're listening speech. We're listening not just to the We're listening not just to the strength of views in this House and in the other place. On the time limit for the unduly lenient scheme, but also to victims themselves. We're consistently hearing that the time limit is simply not long enough when victims are processing the outcome of the case, and I'm extremely sympathetic to their representations, as a ticking clock is really the last thing they need at a difficult time.

The government's been persuaded by arguments that something needs to be done, but we do want to make sure that we get this right. At the moment, we've been given a number of conflicting views about the best way of going about this, and I would like to meet all noble Lords who've tabled the amendments and indeed any other interested members of your Lordships House, to discuss the best way forward. Turning to the question of Notification Lords, it kind of goes without saying how important it is that victims are made aware of the ULS scheme.

It's another subject that comes up over and over again. It's not much of a right if you don't know you've got it. And I'm afraid I'm not persuaded by the noble and learned Lord Garnier who basically says we shouldn't tell them that they've got it just in case they want to use it. That wasn't what he meant to say. Then I apologise to him, but if I withdraw that, if that was not what he meant to say, the way, my Lords, that this is supposed to work is that under the victims code, police are on witness care.

Units are required to inform victims about the unduly lenient scheme within five working days. But what we're hearing is it's not happening, so we need to ensure that it does. Question is again how best to go about it. At present, I am not persuaded that putting the obligation into primary legislation is the best way. First reason is that usually if you create an obligation, you're going to have to create a penalty for the breach. The second is that if you want to change it, then you're going to have to amend primary legislation in order to do so.

The Victims Code is a statutory code of practice. And last week we launched the consultation to ensure we get it right that the code is fit for purpose. Again, we would welcome your Lordships engagement with that consultation before it closes on 30th of April, and any other ideas before we reach our final conclusion. But for now, I'd invite

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble to withdraw their amendments. And although I'm grateful to all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And although I'm grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions, I'm delighted that the noble Lady, the Minister, is in listening mode the Minister, is in listening mode might win one at last. Dealing with my noble friend Lord Garnier's points. I think the point is simply this we certainly don't want to encourage victims down hopeless applications, which actually make things worse for them and make them more disappointed. Extending the time limit of itself doesn't do that.

That is simply extending the time limit. Informing them properly doesn't do that, and the CPS could, I'm quite sure, design a standard form letter which says the time limit for doing this is this. But dot dot dot the parameters and it wouldn't use that word. Obviously you use plain English, but the parameters for an application are limited and don't raise your hopes. So that would be the way forward. I would be very happy to meet the Minister after the recess to discuss this.

I think there is merit in the idea of guidance or guidelines that seems attractive. So we seem to be moving in the right direction that there might be
19:31
19:32
19:33
None Portrait Amendment:68 Baroness Sater (Conservative)
-

through delaying proceedings entirely outside their control, are first brought before the court only after their 18th birthday. Under the current system, they will be sentenced as adults losing access to youth specific disposals, including referral orders, youth rehabilitation orders and the support of the Youth Justice services. Even though their offending behaviour occurred during childhood. As I previously said, it can only be described as a postcode lottery in sentencing outcomes. If two people if two young people commit the same offence at the exact same age in similar circumstances, and one happens to live in an area where their case reaches court before their 18th birthday and the other does not, the first will get all the support from the youth court process, the second defendant not because of the serious, nor that their maturity will end up in adult court.

The consequences of not being part of the youth justice process and the subsequent treatment of criminal record disclosures can affect a young person well into adulthood, including their future employment prospects. The victims Bill provides an opportunity to look at this issue, correct an unfair anomaly, and ensure consistency in sentencing. As I've said previously, the youth justice system exists for a reason. Those of us who have worked in youth justice, in youth justice know how. The Youth court has specifically trained magistrates who emphasis on welfare, education and rehabilitation and can turn young lives around and reduce reoffending.

Without this support, their future could be bleak. In the sentencing bill, my noble friends Lord Ponsonby and Lord Garnier spoke in support of addressing this anomaly and I am grateful once again for their support today. I was encouraged by the support of the noble Lord, the Minister. While he stated that youth sentencing lay largely largely outside the scope of the sentencing bill, he made clear that the government had a great deal of sympathy with this issue. The Minister also indicated that there may be merit in looking at this issue further, while understandably pointing to the need to consider the wider implications across the justice system, I took that as a constructive response, and it is that same spirit that I bring this back, this matter back before the House today.

This amendment simply seeks to ensure that where offending behaviour took place during childhood, it is assessed and addressed through that correct lens, one that reflects age, maturity, culpability at the time of the offence, rather than being determined by administrative delay entirely outside their control. My Lords, I return to this issue today because I feel so strongly that we must address this clear anomaly. I hope that the government will be willing to take a second look at this, and consider how it might be resolved.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. After clause 14, insert the following new clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

14, insert the following new clause dealing with offenders for crimes committed as children, as printed on the martial list. My Lords, I am delighted to be
19:36
19:36
19:37
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
Lords, this is a sensitive issue. Illegal immigration has long been a Illegal immigration has long been a core political issue for voters and has become even more salient in recent years. There continues to be widespread misinformation and unfounded assertions, both in unfounded assertions, both in person and online. That's because empirical evidence concerning immigration has not always been immigration has not always been readily available. People perceive changes occurring as a result of the policy, but offer it, but often operate under the assumption the government is shielding itself from transparency.

That, of course, is not the case, but it must be dealt with. Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident than with crime rates. The public feel less safe. They see the demographic change, they link the two. This is problematic. It can lead to misguided opinions about certain parts of society. There is no available data to inform opinions of what the true position is. Non-Governmental studies and disjointed data releases have repeatedly justified this connection, but the lack of clarification from the government still leaves room for the general public to be decried as fear mongering or bigoted.

It's not just policy. People deserve to know the impact that government policies are having on their everyday lives, especially when they can have immediate impacts on their safety. My Lords, we say that there is a clear case to publish crime data by Immigration Data's accurate and comprehensive data allows for informed debate and evidence based policy present. The information is scarce, it is fragmented, and it leaves the public and indeed policymakers reliant on conjecture. If transparency and open justice are priorities to release offender data by foreign national status in immigration history would provide clarity, support public confidence and allow all sides to address the facts without speculation.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be aware of the time we've previously spent on topics on the topics of amendment 71 and 74. Amendment 71 would exempt sex offenders and domestic abusers from being eligible for early release at the third point of their sentence, whilst amendment 74 would reaffirm the government's policy of favouring suspended sentences, but once again seek to exclude sexual offences and domestic abuse from that from the presumption, my Lords, custodial sentences should, of course, be judged by the extent to which they deter re-offending.

We accept the government's belief that short custodial sentences often do not serve this end. But re-offending cannot be the sole metric by which the nature of a punishment is decided. The prison system at least prevents individuals from offending while they are incarcerated for sexual offences and domestic abuse. These considerations are not abstract, certainly for the victims, victims lives, safety, a sense of security and indeed the opportunity perhaps to reorganise their lives and perhaps move or otherwise change their their way of living are directly affected by whether an offender is at liberty or in custody.

In 2019, the first year for which comparable data is available, there were 214,000 arrests for domestic abuse, 60,000 convictions, a conviction proportion of 28% in 2025. Six years later, under this government, there were 360,000 arrests for domestic abuse, but only 41,000 convictions, a drop from 60,000, a conviction rate of just 11%. Something must be done. The government themselves have highlighted the scale and seriousness of sexual offences and domestic abuse. The government has described violent violence against women and girls as a national emergency.

It is committed to strategies, including specialist investigative teams and enhanced training for officers. It has demonstrated recognition that these crimes demand careful handling. It would be inconsistent to promote such measures, while making it easier for offenders of these crimes to avoid immediate custody. My Lords, this principle also extends to early release. It becomes a moral question rather than a purely empirical one. When an offender has drastically ordered the altered the life of a victim by means of their crime, I do not think it reflects who we are as a society.

If we say those who commit an invasive and exploitative a crime as sexual assault or domestic abuse should not serve the full extent of their sentences. My Lords, may I end by saying, I do hope the Liberal Democrats support these amendments. They've made it a point of principle, as have we, that victims of domestic violence deserve targeted measures to prevent them suffering further harm their justice. Spokesman in the other place, Josh Barberini, tabled a bill last year to prevent domestic abusers from being released early under the government's SDS 40 scheme.

They now have a chance to put that principle into practice, as amendment 71 would have exactly the same effect. I hope they will be able to offer their support to.
19:43
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. I start with amendment 68. In the name of the noble Lady 68. In the name of the noble Lady Baroness Sater. I want to start by paying tribute to the noble Lady. She spoke passionately about this issue during the passage of the Sentencing Act, and I pay tribute to her wealth of experience on this topic. As a former youth magistrate and as a member of the Youth Justice Board, I've got a lot of sympathy for the issues raised, but this amendment would radically change the youth justice landscape.

Sentencing guidelines, as the noble Lady knows already, make it clear that when a an individual is dealt with as an adult for crimes that were committed when they were youth, they're to be sentenced as though they were being sentenced at the time that they committed the offence, and not at the time that they appear before the court. And they also state that the courts have got to consider not just the chronological age of the offenders, but their maturity and other relevant factors.

That reminds the court they're not just mini adults. They need to be treated differently. So our position is that we remain concerned about the operational and legal complexity associated with a proposal like this, and we are worried that we may not be able to achieve this during the passage of this bill. But I would like to speak to the noble Lady if she's willing to meet with me, and let's see what we can do. I now turn to amendment 70, in the names of the Noble and learned, Lord Keen and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst, aiming to place statutory duties on the Crown Court, HMCTS and the Secretary of State in relation to collecting and publishing data on sentencing.

My Lords, this government remains committed to developing the data we publish on foreign national offenders. The Ministry of Justice has already taken action to increase transparency on the data published, and notably in July, for the first time, the offender management statistics included a breakdown of foreign national offenders in prison by sex and offence group. We are also working closely with colleagues in the Home Office to enable earlier identification of foreign national offenders being able to verify their nationality ahead of sentencing will facilitate more timely removals, but also may provide an opportunity for enhanced data collection.

We're going to keep this under consideration in line with our ongoing work to improve the data collection and publication system that we inherited from the previous government. Implementation of these measures may necessitate the identification or development of a new mechanism. To verify the information provided, it must be cost effective, it must prevent, and it must make. We must make sure that we do not place additional pressure on operational staff, because otherwise it will take court staff away from other duties, resulting in further delays.

And I think you all know what I'm going to say next. Criminal courts can't have any further delays added into the system. The government's measured approach will continue to support the return of more foreign national offenders, whilst ensuring maximum transparency for the public. I now turn to amendments 7174, in the names of the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst. I must say I'm feeling a slight sense of deja vu. We have debated many of these principles at length during the passage of the sentencing bill, but I'm now going to repeat much of what was said then.

Many offenders convicted of the most serious sexual and domestic abuse offences already received life sentences, extended determinate sentences or sentences for offenders of particular concern. Such cases would not, in any event, fall within the scope of the one third release provision or the presumption to suspend short sentences, which only applies to sentences of 12 months or less. Beyond this, excluding certain offences from the Sentencing Act, changes would make the new system more operationally complex and increase the risk of inaccuracies in release calculations through the implementation of the Sentencing Act.

This government is putting the prison population on a sustainable footing, ending the cycle of repeated crises. Any amendment to this legislation risks this pathway to stability. Put bluntly, my Lords, as the prisons collapse, we cannot protect anyone. I hope it will reassure my Lords that once released, offenders will be subject to a period of intensive supervision with a presumption that they will be electronically tagged, subject to probation, assessment of risk and suitability. The highest risk offenders will continue to be actively supervised until the end of their sentence, and all offenders will remain on licence, with the possibility of recall to custody if they breach the terms of that licence.

We have discussed the presumption on suspending short sentences and voted on a very similar amendment recently. In the passage of the Sentencing Act, the government has been clear we are not abolishing short sentences. Public protection is our main priority, and we will make sure that the most dangerous offenders are put where they belong behind bars. Judges completely understand this. I do recognise, of course, that prison sentences, even if short, can be critical to safeguarding victims of domestic abuse or other forms of violence against women and girls.

And that is why, as we have explained from this Dispatch Box, on many occasions, courts will still have full discretion to impose immediate custody in any case involving significant risk of physical or psychological harm to an individual, for example, to protect an at risk domestic abuse victim where an offender has committed an offence involving or closely connected to breach of a court order, including violence against women and girls, related protective orders or in exceptional circumstances. During the passage of the Sentencing Act, we tabled government amendments to strengthen the wording in the act even further, so that there can be no doubt that where offenders breach court orders, including vawg related protective orders, they can receive an immediate custodial sentence.

And this includes ensuring that the presumption will not apply when an offender commits an offence in circumstances closely connected to the breach of a court order, even where the breach is not in itself a criminal offence, so that what that means is that if someone breaches a domestic violence protection order, which is a civil breach rather than a criminal offence and, say, assaults their partner, the presumption would not apply and judges would retain full discretion to impose a short, immediate prison sentence.

We are also introducing a new judicial finding of domestic abuse at sentencing, so that it will provide a flag on the system so that these offenders are better identified and monitored through the system. So for all these reasons, I invite my noble friends of the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
19:50
Baroness Sater Portrait Baroness Sater (Conservative)
-
-
Can I just thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her Baroness, the Minister, for her very, very positive response? And I really welcome and appreciate your really welcome and appreciate your offer to meet. I know it's difficult, it's complex, but I do appreciate to have a further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conversation with you. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. I beg leave to withdraw my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 69 Baroness Brinton not Amendment 69 Baroness Brinton not moved. Amendment 70 Lord Sandhurst and 71 not moved and amendment 72 and 71 not moved and amendment 72 not moved. And amendment 73 already debated, not moved, and amendment 74 not moved. Amendment 75 Baroness Brinton not moved. The question is that clauses 15 and 18 stand part of the bill.

En bloc as many as are of that opinion will say content that the contrary not content the contents have it. The question is that this be the title of the bill. As many as are of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. That concludes the committee's proceedings on the bill. The House will now resume. My Lords, the Committee of the whole House, to which the Victims and Courts Bill was committed, has gone through the same and has directed me to report it to your Lordships without amendment.

I'll now take a short pause whilst those noble Lords who may wish to do so leave the chamber possible.
19:51
Baroness Morris of Bolton Portrait Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)
-
-
Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Questions Questions on Questions on a
19:52
Lord Moynihan Portrait Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
-
Questions on a statement the Local Power Plan. >> And my Lords, I thank the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And my Lords, I thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for repeating yesterday's statement in another place. And although I have no outside interests which impact outside interests which impact directly on solar farms and onshore wind, I declare my interest in having worked in the wider field of energy transition since my time as Minister for energy. I start by reflecting that we all want clean energy. We all want full engagement with local communities, and we all want to work towards an energy policy based on energy security, sourced from trusted supply chains and above all, delivering affordable energy.

My Lords, this announcement should be tested against these criteria for we support community energy enthusiasm. While it makes economic sense, and does the Minister agree that reducing energy bills, which only comes through by increasing reliable generation and decreasing costs? Yet the Local Power Plan does not come with a generation target, nor does it come with an analysis on the extent to which it will contribute to reducing bills. And my Lords, if these are not central factors within the policy, I am afraid that it will for sure be time and money misspent.

So I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, in the government's own press release. They rely on internal analysis, and I quote, to claim that additional cellular and onshore wind procured through R7 could lower bills in the early 2030s. But that analysis, my Lords, has not been published. It looks only at a narrow scenario. It seems to exclude wider system costs and does not give a full picture of future bill levels. Does it include the load in grid costs to get the power to market? Given that so many of the wind projects that are being considered are in Scotland? And my Lords, how does it impact on Labour's promises to cut energy bills by £300, not least given the fact that they have risen by £190 since Labour came to power? How does this initiative change that now, my Lords, I had a good look at the map of all the proposed projects in the CFD allocation.

Round seven. There were only two small wind projects in England, some in South Wales and other wind projects, the vast majority of them in Scotland. And given that there were only two wind projects in England, can the Minister comment on whether this will lead to further increases in the already staggering bill for curtailment paying wind farms not to produce because of the grid constraint? From Scotland to the south, the B6 boundary and the cost of de-bottlenecking bottlenecking that which is estimated north of £50 billion.

And I ask the Minister, could he comment on whether this initiative is good for employment? There's been real concern recently, and the Minister will be aware of this, that the UK talked a lot about his policies and the redundancies in the offshore sector, and fears that the industrial contagion will spread to onshore supply chain and manufacturing communities. To put this in context, on average, 1000 direct and indirect jobs are being lost each month from the oil and gas sector, and without intervention, this rate of job losses will continue to 2030.

Now, renewables UK have said that this initiative or these initiatives that are being proposed now for renewables may create 4000 more jobs from now to 2030 as against the 50,000 losses of jobs in oil and gas. And how does that help employment in the UK? Does he agree with the GMB unions? Scotland Secretary Louise Gilmour, who gave the same warning and I quote there is a human cost to these decisions that goes beyond the bottom line of this year's budget and impacts workers, families and communities in Scotland and across Britain.

The economic case for easing the financial pressures on our offshore industries is clear and compelling. But so too, is the moral argument for slowing the rushed and needless abandonment of workers and their communities. Close quote. Now, my Lords, I turn to an exceptionally important point. This announcement is principally about solar energy and solar imports come from China, and the Minister of State, the noble Baroness Chapman of Darlington, stated in a debate which was initiated in this House recently. And I quote, My Lords, human rights are a non-negotiable part of the government's approach to China.

Well, my Lords, when it comes to this initiative, this is an initiative to import Chinese goods. Well over 80% of PV modules used in the UK have significant Chinese content, and the true figure is very likely above 90% when you include panels made by Chinese headquartered manufacturers, for example. Jinko, Trina, Longi, J.A. solar, Canadian Solar, all Chinese in origin, and the non-Chinese brands whose wafers, cells or polysilicon are sourced from China. 80 to 85% of the global polysilicon that is needed comes from China, and the UK imports almost all its PV hardware installers and trade bodies routinely report that Chinese supply chains dominate the UK market because of price and scale.

And if you look at the map for R7, we're talking about a widespread historic major increase in solar imports from China. So this local plan, this local power plan depends on Chinese goods. And I simply ask the Minister whether he tonight can guarantee that no imported polysilicon and no panels being installed in our schools at the moment under the GB first initiative, and no solar content on any of the panels that is foreseen by this particular measure will come from the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region for a very large share of the world's solar grade.

Polysilicon has recently come from China, and a significant part of that comes from the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. It's a simple question, and I hope the Minister can answer it, that there is absolutely no polysilicon that comes from that autonomous region. And if he can't answer it, then I think it would have been wise and sensible to consider that question first. And then when comfortable that the government can answer it in the affirmative, then come to the Palace of Westminster and bring forward this initiative for a historic increase in the import of solar panels.

My Lords, in conclusion, can the Minister also say in this context, why the Secretary of State, who is fast becoming a night manager, who goes to China a year ago, signs an MOU and locks it in his safe marked secret to be hidden from the public, not to be scrutinised. And I asked the Minister why does the government not publish it? They published all the other MoU that the Secretary of State has signed, but not the one he negotiated with China a year ago.

Why is it secret? Is there a reference to solar supplies from Xinjiang? Is there no reference to human rights? Surely by locking it away out of sight, he is doing exactly the opposite of what the Prime Minister calls for when he's recently been talking about open government and honesty with the public, and here, above all, with the local communities who are going to benefit from these solar initiatives. What is there, my Lords, to hide?
20:00
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords on these benches? We >> My Lords on these benches? We very much welcome the publication of the Local Power Plan. This is a of the Local Power Plan. This is a landmark moment. Up to 1 billion of funding from Great British Energy for local community energy, this is the largest public investment to date. Our community stand ready to generate their own power, cut bills and keep wealth circulating locally. They have been waiting for government to back them with serious funding and a level playing field.

We and many others across the House campaign to secure community energy on the face of the Great British Energy Act of 2025. So we are pleased to see the commitment transformed into this concrete plan. Our communities should rightly be able to partner in and directly benefit from the renewable revolution. The vision is one we support. Great British Energy aims to support an initial 1000 local and community projects by 2030. I would like to see these plans going beyond programmes that the private sector can deliver itself.

However, I would like, for example, a programme of community wind energy for our coastal communities. I would also like to see a broader range of technologies used and greater integration with the Warm Homes Plan. The four pillars Direct funding, expert advice, market innovation and regulatory reform are what community groups have asked for. Delivery in this plan is where it will stand or fall. While the plan is launched this month, the first grant schemes will not open until the spring and the new Great British Energy Local products will only be piloted over the summer.

There are hundreds of shovel ready projects, my Lords, just waiting for capital finance. Will the Minister commit to an early fast track for four schemes that can demonstrate they are ready to build this year? We welcome the commitment of up to 1 billion, but there is a clear gap between this figure and the 3.3 billion that had been previously promised for community energy. So can I ask the Minister, has the ambition been scaled back? How much of this fund is expected to go to actual deployment, and how much will go on fertility advice and central programme costs? We recognise the importance of help with these processes, but want reassurance that this does not become a scheme where too much is swallowed by planning and too little reaches the projects themselves.

Government themselves acknowledge that a lack of fair routes to market has held back community energy for too long. Without a genuine right to local supply, underpinned by statute, community groups will remain disadvantaged. The Local Power Plan refers to developing new local energy supply models and a local energy platform, including smart community energy and virtual PPAs. When will the government bring forward the regulatory changes needed to make them a reality? Can the Minister also confirm that legislation to create a clear right to local supply remains part of the government's programme? Government is right to recognise that delays and costs in connections to the grid are one of the main principal reasons why community schemes have failed.

The plan speaks of obligatory response times from knows and of working groups with network companies. But what concrete powers will Ministers use to ensure that these things actually happen in practice, what matters, especially when technical, technical and regulatory thresholds are already stacked against smaller schemes? We strongly welcome the intention to introduce a mandatory shared ownership offer for larger renewable developments, and the indication that shared ownership templates and guidance will be published this spring. This could enable fairness into the next generation of large scale infrastructure.

What minimum stake will communities be granted guaranteed, and how will government ensure that the offer is genuinely attractive, attractive rather than nominal? When will government published a full community benefits framework so that communities are not left at the mercy of voluntary schemes, and whatever crumbs are left over from the big companies? Will the framework include clear criteria on what counts as meaningful benefit, and will it be underpinned by statutory guidance? One of the most promising elements of the plan is a commitment to build up local community capacity through expert teams and the Community Energy in a box toolkit, providing standards, standardised documents and advice.

Our most undeserving underserved areas have previously the least spare capacity communities facing high deprivation or with small and overstretched councils lack the volunteers and technical skills needed even to begin. So I asked, what criteria will great British energy use to define those underserved areas, and will they benefit from higher grant to loan ratios and more proactive outreach so that they do not miss out? To conclude, my Lords, in June 2025, spending review 2.5 billion for small modular reactors was allocated from Great British Energy's existing budget of 8.3 billion, almost a third the.

That decision pre-dates the finalisation of the Local Power Plan and GB Energy's Strategic Plan for local energy. So I ask, does the Minister accept that the raiding of the great British energy budget by the Treasury has constrained what could otherwise have been a more ambitious and better resourced programme for local power? And it may have delayed the scaling up of exactly these projects that the Minister is bringing forward. Now. The Local Power Plan has the potential to be transformative. Local community ownership, local community owned energy is one of the most powerful ways to cut bills, rebuild trust and take people with us on the journey to net zero.

To realise that promise, we must move swiftly from plan to practice getting money out of the door, quickly cutting through grid and regulatory barriers and ensuring that every community has a fair chance to generate, own and, crucially, sell its own energy locally.
20:07
Lord Whitehead Portrait Lord Whitehead, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I think the noble Lords for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the noble Lords for their very thorough constructive response to this constructive response to this argument concerning the the Local Energy Plan and for their, I would say, general support. Particularly for the Local Power plan itself. And I also thank noble Earl Earl Russell for his forensic analysis of the detail of the report and the various questions he brought forward on that report. Over and above the question of what I took to be his very strong support for what the Local Power Plan is trying to do, namely, to substantially enhance the ability of communities to own their own energy, run their own energy arrangements, and distribute the benefits of those local energy arrangements back to those local communities themselves.

And that is something I know. Noble Earl has been looking into and opining on for a very long time, and it is something which I have also had something of a of a track record in. So I understand why it's necessary to get the detail of this right. And I hope this evening I will be able to say 1 or 2 things about how that detail is going to be got right. But if there are things I've missed, then I certainly will be happy to write to the noble Earl, putting some of those things exactly into the place they should be.

But I think I can give him an assurance that we have thought about most of the things that he has raised this evening, and indeed see those as an essential part of the move forward with the Local Power Plan so that the communities can, for example, start to trade in local energy, that they can have security and resilience in their local plans that they do have with through Great British Energy, a substantial, you might say, hand holding operation designed into Great British Energy's approach to the thousand projects that it is hoped that we are going to be able to get away in this Parliament and that those will be as robust as they can be with the sort of support that great British energy will give to them, not just as a question of throwing a little bit of money at a local community project and hoping it works.

But actually being with those local communities right down the line from development first thought to the Valley of Death, where it gets to operation and operation itself. So I hope the the noble Earl can take some assurance from the fact that we have thought that whole process out, not just the first part of the process itself. As far as the ambition of the local energy plan is concerned, then, that the £1 billion is based on what we think can be reasonably accommodated and and invested in and sorted out.

That's the 1000 projects in this particular parliament. So that's not the end of the matter. There's potentially a lot more to come. And also even within that, that £1 billion. There are other sources from the National Wealth Fund and various other things that can come to play to add resource to this particular investment. So the idea that actually a large part of what was supposed to be the original investment has been lost, I'm afraid, is not correct. It's more about how we get through the process of this over the period of time, of making it work constructively as we go forward.

Now. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for the opposition, concentrated much more on the the other part of the of the statement which concerned the results of the second part of R7, which was the solar, the tidal and the onshore wind pots that came within R7. And I think also he was genuinely supportive of the results of that R7 that actually we have secured in R7 a fantastic step forward in terms of the deployment of solar, very substantial initial but very encouraging deployment of tidal encouraging deployment of tidal stream and the beginnings of the.

Establishment or re-establishment of onshore wind, which, as the noble Lord will recall, was banned effectively by the previous administration. So it perhaps is not surprising that we are building up that onshore wind back again in this particular round, when it had been absolutely dormant for a long time previously. But overall, these are really good results, which, by the way, will in their own right, lead to the development of a very large number of additional jobs in this sector.

And indeed, overall, it is thought that the the programs that are underway will lead to perhaps 10,000 direct and indirect jobs over the next period. And of course, in addition to that, what the the government is, is quite earnestly engaged in which the noble Lord will know is underway is what we might call a just transition process of making sure that those people who are working in what you might say are the high carbon industries, which will be replaced largely by these low carbon industries, are able to transfer their skills and their contribution into the development of low carbon industry itself.

And there are indeed there are active retraining and reskilling programs underway. And indeed. Examination of the skills in the high carbon sector and the low carbon sector show that something like 70 to 80% of jobs in high carbon sector are certainly transferable to the low carbon sector, provided you have actually the skills in the right place. So it's not just a question of creating lots of new jobs, it's a question of making sure that the the jobs that are in the high carbon sector, which yes, will go as gas, for example, retreats in front of the new low carbon regime, but that as many as those jobs that can be translated to the low carbon sector will indeed be supported to do so over the period.

Now, the. The noble Lord was also at pains to talk about the issue of. How supply chains can, as it were, avoid. Becoming involved in slave labour and. Abuses of human rights in the production of of those supply chains themselves. And he was quite right to to mention that. And that's something obviously, we are very concerned about on this side as the supply chains for low carbon power established themselves. And that certainly as far as solar is concerned at the moment, as far as world supply of panels are concerned, substantially rests with China.

But of course, actually there are a large number of initiatives around the world to actually diversify that supply chain from China for other solar panel manufacturers, solar panel developments within the UK, which can actually diversify from. That's the first point. But the second point is that GB energy itself has established an ethical supply chain unit to support robust human rights, due diligence and transparency, in line with UK's legislation on modern slavery and international human rights framework, including the UN Guiding Principles and Human Rights and GB energy itself will be exploring alternatives to diversify high risk supply chains and collaborate with partners to improve renewable supply chain transparency and accountability in the UK.

So work is at hand to make sure that we are as robust as we can be in terms of those concerns about modern slavery and exploitation of human labour. Now, the noble Lord will be aware that it's very often very difficult accurately to trace supply chains as to exactly where they're coming from, where they're going through. But I hope he will agree that we are we are doing and we are going to do as much as we can to ensure within that difficulty of supply chains, that those will be proof against those concerns about modern

**** Possible New Speaker ****

slavery and other practices. My Lord.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lord. Yes. This is a most welcome initiative. Energy, poverty and initiative. Energy, poverty and security of supply have been a real concern for years for people in concern for years for people in many parts of our country. I have three short points. I'd like you to. three short points. I'd like you to. My noble friend, the Minister to address. Does this mean that the consumer will get an improved energy security and resilience? Will it save them money on their energy bills once the scheme is up and running? And how does the Local Power Plan balance affordability, reliability and decarbonisation under the worst case scenarios? What trade offs are we prepared to make if if there's a conflict in our goals?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank my noble friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank my noble friend Baroness Gill for her. Carefully Baroness Gill for her. Carefully thought out contributions to this debate. These are questions that we do need to make sure we have got do need to make sure we have got right as far as the Local Plan, Local Power Plan is concerned, and the first thing I can say is, yes, the local power plan will start saving people substantial amounts of money on their bills. Not necessarily absolutely everybody under all circumstances, but certainly provided the local power plan is carried out properly, there will be lots of opportunities for the return of the investment that has been put into those local communities through those schemes, the return to come back in some instances directly off people's energy bills.

And indeed, as I did mention in response to noble Earl Russell, one of the things we are doing is making sure that we've got all the back up material for the local power plan, which does give effect, for example, onto people's ability to trade locally. That may require legislation, but. That will mean in in conjunction, for example, also with code changes that the ability of those local power projects to actually deliver direct benefits not just to the local community in rather more traditional way that's been thought about, i.e.

a developer gives a little bit of money out to help the local village hall or whatever. This is actually talking about real changes in people's not just their energy relationship, but actually the fact that they own the energy themselves and they can get direct benefit from it. Well, I think quite transform the local scene. And by the way. Because that is all local. And if it can be integrated with local power systems generally will actually add quite considerably to the resilience of the country's energy supplies.

It is all based in the UK. It goes around in the UK, the benefit comes out in the UK and it is considerable additions to the energy security of our country. So I hope the noble Baroness can take some assurance that actually we have thought about all these issues and are determined to make sure they are firmly a part of the Local they are firmly a part of the Local

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Power Plan as it as it rolls out. My Lords, I beg to move the House. Now. Adjourn the House.
14:30
None Portrait Oral questions: Ensuring landlords, tenants and local authorities are prepared for each phase of the implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 11 House of Lords - 11 February
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page