Lords Chamber

Tuesday 10th March 2026

(began 2 hours, 30 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:38
14:39
None Portrait Oral questions: Implementation of section 106 of the Equality Act 2010.
-

>> I beg leave to ask the question. Standing in my name on the Order Paper. >> My Lords, the government is
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:49
None Portrait Oral questions: Raising awareness of dyscalculia among educators, including Special Educational Needs Coordinators, and ensuring dyscalculic pupils have specialist support
-

Second, Oral Question Baroness Bull. Bull. >> Beg leave to ask the question, standing in my name on the Order Paper. My Lords, we know some children face real challenges in maths, particularly those with
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:23
15:23
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos (Labour)
-
-
can I just say that we now Report stage on this bill and it's a relatively short bill, but there are some important topics for discussion. So I thought it might be helpful if I just drew your Lordships attention to section 8.151 in The Companion, which says arguments fully deployed in Committee of the whole House or in Grand Committee should not be repeated at length on report. In clause three, amendment one Baroness Brinton.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I want to thank the Minister and her officials for her helpful meetings between committee helpful meetings between committee and Report stage and correspondence as well. I have relayed my as well. I have relayed my amendment at committee, which places restrictions to parental responsibility in amendment one, as responsibility in amendment one, as well as signing Lord Meston amendments two and three, which I support. I listened very carefully to the noble Lady, the Minister, and was grateful to be able to discuss the matter with her.

And we do thank the government for recognising that there must be a clear position on when convicted offenders of child sex abuse abuse lose their parental rights. Because, my Lords, it has been iniquitous that parental rights have trumped the safeguarding of children, even when the person with parental rights has been convicted of child sexual abuse. However, we aren't convinced that this is strong enough, and amendment one includes all convicted child sexual abusers. And my Lords, this is not about the punishment of the offender.

This is about protecting all children. The organisation we stand told us that research from Centre of Expertise for Child Sex Abuse shows that natural parents are the highest offending group of intrafamilial child sex abuse, which accounts for two thirds of offences and as a result, children of convicted child sex offenders are at the most risk. Any non abusing or protective parent has a legal duty to protect their child from any child sex offender, and at any level of offending.

Too many have to fight the Family Court assumption about the rights of a parent, even one who is a convicted child sex abuse offender. Everything is stacked against the protective parent, little or no legal aid to fight to protect their children, no right to know where the offender is, which also means court papers cannot be served to them. They have no right to the rehabilitation or risk assessments of the offender. And that is also extraordinary. How can they comment on them or ask for assessments to be made? So contrast that with the offender, who has the right to make multiple applications to vary or overturn protective orders, and to make repeated requests for contact with the children.

And this is especially problematic in households where there has also been coercive control and domestic abuse. As repeated requests continue the abuse. But too often the family courts have seen it only through the eyes of the offending parent, trying to assert their rights. Judges and other authorities, such as social services and cafcass, are forced into a legislative anomaly. They must balance potential harm to a child from a convicted sex abuser parent, with legislation stating that both parents involvement in the child's life further welfare further supports the welfare of that child.

This leads to inconsistent outcomes even if the presumption is repealed. This fundamental belief is still enshrined in the Introduction and Guidance to the Children Act 1989. Key principles. Children of a child sexual abusing parent are often at greater risk than other children, who are automatically protected by criminal restrictions, such as sexual harm prevention orders and registration requirements. And my Lords, on a technical point, the serious sexual offences listed in schedule FCA, one of the Victims and Courts Bill include both indecent imagery offences and contact offences.

Imagery offences have a minimum sentence of a community order, and this means that we could well argue that section three serious offences could be triggered at any sentencing threshold. However, the majority of sentences for indecent imagery tend to fall between three months and a year, and sentencing guidelines for contact offences started a minimum of one year. Those convicted of these offences would be excluded from the government's proposal in clause three. So my Lord, surely for safeguarding reasons, now is the time to change the legal responsibility for the offending parent having to prove why they are safe, to exercise parental responsibility through rehabilitation courses and, of course, assessment by professionals.

But the position of the court must surely start with the assumption of the protection of the child, not the rights of the offender parent. I beg to move. I beg to move.
15:28
15:29
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
offences against a child. The bill is currently drafted requires the Crown Court to prohibit convicted offenders from exercising parental responsibility, and it does so by requiring that the court makes an requiring that the court makes an order. When the court sentences the offender. However, this would not offender. However, this would not and does not cover children convicted offenders who are born after the sentencing hearing. As the current law stands, a convicted child sex offender could still acquire parental responsibility automatically for a child after sentencing, even one day after sentencing, leaving the mother and child unprotected from controlling or obstructive interference by the convicted father.

Now, my Lords, one accepts that many of the convicted fathers in such cases might not automatically acquire parental responsibility because they are not married to the mother. And it's very unlikely that the mother would then agree that the father's inclusion should actually be put onto the birth certificate. However, if the father and mother were married and were still married to each other at the time of the child's birth, the father would automatically acquire parental responsibility. And to change that, under current law, the mother would have to apply to the Family court on notice to the father.

This amendment would ensure that children born after conviction have the same level of protection that, as the Bill intends to provide to children born before the the offender is sentenced and this amendment would remove the offenders eligibility for parental responsibility at birth, but would preserve his ability to apply later to the family court where the child's best interests remain. The test. The important point is this would not leave it to the mother to have to apply to the family court herself, as would currently be the case, and it is relevant to both clause three and clause four of the bill.

As a child may be conceived out of rape, but may not be born until after the offender has been sentenced. The duty to notify the local authority under the proposed new section ten in clause four, under the current wording of the bill, does not apply to a child who has not yet been born. I now move to amendment three. Current bail arrangements allow police and courts to impose conditions to prevent re-offending or interference with victims and witnesses, but children are rarely included, raising concerns that fathers accused of rape and serious sexual offences can manipulate, intimidate or coercively control their children or their children's mothers.

This amendment would add an automatic condition that bail granted to a person accused of Rousseau would prohibit direct or indirect contact with any of the accused children. Current bail arrangements under the act 1976 allow police and courts to impose conditions to prevent re-offending or interference with victims and witnesses, and although children affected by domestic abuse are recognised as victims under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, they are rarely included in bail conditions, even when their parent is accused of rape or other rape and serious sexual offences.

The proposed. These are related and growing concerns that fathers accused of these sorts of offences retain direct or indirect contact with their children, potentially enabling witness intimidation, manipulation or coercive control of the mother. The proposed amendment would require that whenever bail is granted to a person accused of one of these offences, an automatic condition must be imposed prohibiting direct or indirect contact with any of the accused children. This would help guarantee the children's protection from witness tampering and the children's parent from intimidation and coercion.

I beg to move.
15:33
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her amendment number one. This addresses the issue of thresholds proposed in this bill. As she knows, we on this benches have similarly expressed concern about the current threshold proposed in the Bill. This restricts the effect of clause three to those offenders sentenced to four years or more. Given the evident consensus against the current threshold, we on this side look forward to the Minister's response. Turning next to amendments two and three, now moved by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, these are of Liverpool.

These amendments raise interesting and entirely reasonable points, revealing potential gaps in the present legislation. So I look forward again to what the Minister will have to say. This brings me to amendment four in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Keen of Ealing. This seeks to extend the safeguarding framework in clause three, so it applies to those convicted of the most serious child cruelty. And I emphasise the word cruelty offences, not just sexual offences. It should be noted that in respect of the Crime and Policing Bill, we understand that the government have tabled a new schedule.

This lists child cruelty offences, taking the step to treat sex offenders and child cruelty offenders. Analogously, our amendment uses the very same definition of child cruelty, so it is wholly consistent with the government's thinking. My Lords, our amendment only seeks. The government only asks the government to take the same stance in this bill to ensure that the parental responsibility of offenders is restricted where serious child cruelty has been committed. If the government is not inclined to support this, we ask why.

I ask the House again regarding parental responsibility. Why should our approach to a child who has suffered cruelty differ to cases where a child has been sexually assaulted? I look forward to the noble Baroness. The Minister's response? Thank you.
15:35
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. The government >> My Lords. The government appreciates that this group of amendments is driven by a desire to safeguard the children, who are, safeguard the children, who are, quite rightly, at the centre of these difficult and sensitive cases. As I said at Committee stage, this As I said at Committee stage, this aim is one I share. My Lords, I want to begin with amendment two in the names of the noble Lords Lord Meston and Lord Russell, and the noble Lady Baroness Brinton.

This seeks to apply our proposed parental responsibility measures to as yet unborn children. There are complexities to this because there are three distinct groups of as yet unborn children who would be caught by this measure. These are as follows. First, a child who has been conceived as the result of the rape of the victim by the defendant, but who is as yet unborn at the date of sentence. Secondly, a child who's been conceived but is as yet unborn when their father is sentenced to a sentence of four years or more imprisonment for a child sex offence.

And thirdly, a child will be conceived at some point in the future, but has not yet been conceived, and different considerations apply in relation to each. We thank the noble Lords and the noble Lady for their amendment, because in the course of our consideration of it, we have realised that an unborn child who has been conceived as a result of rape is not covered by clause four as currently drafted, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Russell, referred as my hon. Friend, Minister David Jones, said in the other place, there are safeguards in place through the Family Court which could restrict parental responsibility in these cases, but I think it is a serious gap in clause four, and I've asked my officials to look further at this and consider how we can best protect this group of children.

This is complex. I cannot address it today, here and now, but I will write to you, Lordships, with an update on this as soon as I can. The second group, to which I've already referred in outline, consists of women who are pregnant by a man. To who? By a man who at the time he is sentenced to four or more years imprisonment for a child sex offence. I appreciate, too, that these children are likely to be at the same risk as the living children for whom he already holds parental responsibility, and so, again, in relation to this category, I've asked my officials to consider what approach may be possible in these cases.

It is the third group that calls us causes us difficulties. The third group is any or all future children of someone who has received a four year sentence for a child sex offence in perpetuity. This would cover a child conceived, say, 50 years after that sentence had been imposed and served. And it's this last cohort that is the reason the government cannot accept this amendment. We cannot know the circumstances of each of what the circumstances of each case will be for future children, particularly when decades may have passed between the sentence and their birth.

And we cannot therefore be sure that we are acting in the best interests of a child who may not be conceived for many decades. Hence, by automatically preventing the offender from acquiring parental responsibility. My Lords, it's important that I restate what has already been said by the noble Lady Baroness Brinton. These measures are not an additional punishment for the offender. The point of them is to offer rapid protection to the offenders existing children, who are deemed to be at immediate risk, right there and right then in the Crown Court.

And that is why, under the government's proposals, the restrictions can and should have an automatically at the point of sentence. But a child conceived many years later is a much more complicated and challenging proposition. In general terms, the proper decision to proper place to make decisions about the welfare of future children is in the family court, and so in most cases, it is in the Family Court where these application should be determined. My Lords, as I have said before, criminal court judges do not have the training, the experience or frankly, the time to consider in each individual case whether the restriction of parental responsibility is in the best interests of that particular child.

That kind of consideration should be made by the expert and experienced judges of the family court judges, like the much respected noble Lord Lord Meston, who will have the benefit of reports from, for example, expert social workers. Forgive me. It is self-evident that this kind of determination just can't be made in advance of the child's birth, possibly many decades in advance. Finally, as the noble Lord Lord Meston and probably other noble Lords are aware, parental responsibility can be acquired in multiple ways.

And whilst it may be the noble Lords intention that this amendment should only apply to parents who automatically acquire parental responsibility, it would not prevent an unmarried father from obtaining parental responsibility for future children by being named on the birth certificate, if the mother wished to do so. My Lords, it is a fact that not all mothers accept the guilt of their partners, even post conviction and sentence. So this would create a situation in which some offenders would never acquire parental responsibility for a future child without a separate order being made, whilst others could.

And that would be a significant inconsistency in the law, which we cannot accept. So for these reasons, my Lords, we cannot accept this amendment. But again, I do thank your Lordships for bringing to my attention the cases where the mother is pregnant at the time of sentencing. Those as yet unborn children require protection and we will look at how best to do so. My Lords, I now turn to amendment three, also in the name of the noble Lord Lord Meston, but spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Russell.

This amendment seeks to create mandatory bail conditions preventing defendants from contacting children for whom they hold parental responsibility whilst they are under investigation or awaiting trial on bail. My Lords, we all want to ensure children are protected when a parent has been accused of a serious sexual offence, but the government cannot accept this amendment. The existing legislation already provides the police and courts with the powers to emboss robust, impose robust bail conditions. These can include requirements not to have any unsupervised access to children, and not to live and sleep at an address with children living there.

And it is absolutely standard for there to be a condition not to contact prosecution witnesses, which would of course include children in a case where those children are giving evidence against them. And if there's a real danger to witnesses or to children, then it's very likely that bail will be refused. But in the real world, there will be some cases in which there plainly is no risk to the suspects children. So to remove the judge's discretion would probably be incompatible with article eight.

My Lords, as the law stands at present, there are no mandatory bail conditions for any of any kind, for any type of offence. So to start introducing them would restrict the discretion of the police and courts to apply conditions on a case by case basis to address real risks. It would also interfere with the presumption of innocence and the presumption of entitlement to bail, both of which underpin our criminal justice system. This amendment also seeks to impose a condition which would require the accused to disclose the nature of any bail conditions imposed whilst they are under investigation, whilst on trial to the Family Courts, if they are existing children.

Proceedings. But the Joint Protocol on the Disclosure of Information between Family and Criminal Justice Agencies and Jurisdictions already provides a clear framework for sharing of information, so there is no need for such a statutory provision. For these reasons, I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I now turn to amendment one in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton. I've had a number of very useful conversations with the noble Lady, whom I greatly admire, and I understand the aim of this amendment, I think, and I hope that she understands, that I share her wish to protect as many children as possible.

But, my Lords, clause three is not a marker for when parental responsibility should be restricted. It is about when such a restriction should happen automatically at the point of sentence. That is to say, without the usual consideration by the Family Court. Forgive me any individual who poses a serious risk to children should not be able to exercise parental responsibility, but to restrict it automatically. We must be absolutely certain that that restriction is in that child's best interests. The seriousness of the offences in the scope of our measure, marked by a sentence of four years or more, ensures that we can be confident in those cases that that is the case.

That's not to say that an offender who has committed sexual offences against children, but has received a lower sentence, one of less than four years imprisonment, cannot or should not have their parental responsibility restricted. In some cases, that's exactly what should happen. But then an application to restrict parental responsibility can be made to the family courts in exactly the same way as it can now, which will consider all the circumstances of the case and make a decision in the child's best interests.

I turn now to amendment four in the names of the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst, which seeks to introduce an automatic restriction on the exercise of parental responsibility for offenders convicted of child cruelty and sentenced to four years or more imprisonment. My Lords, the government believes that the aim of this amendment is a sound and principled one. One child cruelty offences are heinous, and we all wish to protect as many children as possible. And so we of course understand why the noble and learned Lord seeks to extend the government's measures.

But, my Lords, these new provisions in this bill are novel and untested, and we do need to understand how the current measures we are proposing will work in practice before we consider expanding them any further. We do not know, for example, how many offenders will apply to the family courts to seek to vary or discharge the prohibited steps order that is made automatically at the Crown Court, and therefore we do not know the impact this will have on the Family courts.

We cannot take the risk of overwhelming the family courts with an influx of cases arising from the new automatic restriction, the Family Courts are involved in difficult cases every day, and it's important that any changes we make don't delay those cases and thereby put other vulnerable children who are already in the system at risk. We are going to monitor how these provisions operate. Once they are implemented, officials are going to develop a system which allows us to understand the impact they are having, how they work in practice, and how they can be improved.

But my Lords, we should be cautious and not expand these measures further. Without this insight and understanding. There are already existing routes for child cruelty cases to apply for the restriction of parental responsibility. For these reasons, I urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment. Finally, and not on the subject of these amendments, but on a related subject, I would like to take this opportunity to update your Lordships House about the implementation of section 18 of the Victims and Prisoners Act, 2024, commonly known as Jade's Law.

I am pleased to restate the government's firm commitment to bringing these important measures into force, and I am glad to be able to announce now when Jade's law will commence. Can I just add a caveat? The reason it's complicated is because delivering this legislation requires a substantial and carefully coordinated programme of work. It will require secondary legislation, which in all probability will include amendments to both the Criminal Procedure Rules and the Family Procedure Rules, updates to judicial guidance, and significant significant procedural and training changes across the police, the legal profession, local authorities, CPS, HMCTS, Cafcass, Kafka's and the Prison Service.

This body of work takes time. So the officials gave me the date of 6th of April 2027 for the implementation. Due to the scale of the task and the steps that will need to occur between laying the commencement, Statutory Instrument and commencement. But I was concerned that that was too far away. And so I have good news. I'm very grateful to officials in the Ministry of Justice who have made a huge effort, and as a result, I am delighted to say that the implementation date has been brought forward and is planned for the end of December 2026.
15:48
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I want to thank everyone who has spoken during this everyone who has spoken during this fairly short debate, but I think we have managed to get the essence of the issues that were remaining from Committee stage. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lady, the grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, in her explanation about the children born by rape and conceived Pre-sentencing, and I really welcome her comments on that. And I think from across the House, we want to thank the noble Lady, the Minister and the government for delivering on Jade's law, and we're not quite there yet.

At the end of the year, given there is a considerable amount of work to do. I think everyone across the house accepts that's the case. More important to get it right when it actually starts on my amendment, amendment one, I understand exactly the points that the noble Lady makes, and this goes to the heart of this set of amendments. I spoke about the difficulty still between the criminal court system and the family court system, and why children are falling between the gaps.

I accept, and I will not I will not call a division on my amendment, and I accept these issues. But I'm really hoping that the government will be able to bring forward a bill where we can discuss both the family courts and the criminal courts and actually get some understanding and change on these very sensitive and difficult issues of safeguarding children. I beg to withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment two. Lord Russell did not move. Amendment three Lord Russell move. Amendment three Lord Russell not moved. Amendment four Lord Sandhurst not moved. Amendment five Baroness Brinton.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Brinton. My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, for her helpful meeting between her helpful meeting between committee and Report stage, and as a result of her concerns about the practicalities of summing up for victims, I've amended my amendment five following discussion with others outside your Lordships House from these benches, I want to say again that both the previous government and the present government undertook the pilot scheme to provide victims with judge's sentencing remarks, and that is encouraging that this pilot scheme will now be rolled out across England and Wales.

It is certainly better than nothing at all. At Committee stage, I argued that there are a number of reasons why sentencing remarks alone might not, well not provide the help that a victim needs. Whether this is information to explain what's happened, when they may not have been present, or to give them an understanding that it might help them to lead to closure after whatever the incident was, or it might help them to decide whether or not to challenge the sentence as an unduly lenient one.

The subject of the last group on this Report stage later today. So yesterday I submitted a revised amendment which deletes the summings up and replaces them with the route to verdict. Those I discussed it with said that this has to be done anyway, and it should be cost free, as it will be produced as part of the court process for others, and should provide victims with an extra understanding of what has happened and why. And that cost free is very important because of course, at committee we heard of the extraordinary amounts of money that some victims have been asked to pay when they've asked for transcripts of courts, court hearings.

And that could in one case, I think it was quoted at £7,000. My Lords, that is too much. So I'm grateful that the Minister says the Ministry of Justice will look at how technology can be harnessed in the future to ensure that victims are not charged thousands of pounds. If they need to see a full transcript or even a partial one. And I will hold the noble Lady to that in the future. Amendment five also says that the victim should be informed about bail conditions, and this is important, especially if there is a restriction placed on the defendant from not approaching the victim.

Too often, victims are not told of bail conditions. We know they should be, but they are not, which can cause chaos, especially when changed at short notice and without the knowledge of the victim. Amendment 16, laid by Lord keen, sets a framework and timescale for the publication online of sentencing remarks, and we would hope that if this is accepted, the government would also undertake to ensure that the victim is told as soon as they go up online. The amendment also says that the victim must be aware that they have the right to request anonymity.

Now, I believe that this is already covered in the rights of victims set out in the victims code for the entirety of the process, and not just at the end, but it's helpful. It is clearly stated here. I beg to move. Amendment five.
15:52
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed. After clause seven, the following new clause is printed on the Marshalled List. My printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords, amendment five in the name of the noble Lady. Baroness Brinton does, of course, reflect a commitment to ensuring victims are entitled to free transcripts on the route to verdict and bail decisions and conditions that are relevant to their case. And at committee, we supported the broader amendment, which included sentencing remarks as well are on the amendment now before us, which includes transcripts of the route to verdict.

Our position has not changed. If anything were even more supportive. And I am grateful to the noble Lady, the Baroness, for bringing this matter to report, my Lord. Similarly, amendment 16, in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, is also designed to enhance access to important transcripts without charge, at this time focusing on sentencing remarks. I will not rehearse the arguments and evidence for this, as I think we've all heard. The benefits of this are and how it would help the interests of victims, and indeed underlines our open justice system.

We have listened carefully and after further thought, have revised the amendment we brought forward at Committee stage. Whilst we have not changed our position on this amendment, focusing on sentencing remarks, the amendment now gives the relevant victims the right to anonymity rather than non-publication. And in addition, it still requires the court to make victims aware of this right before sentencing remarks are published. With this crucial and indeed pragmatic safeguard in place, we hope that the House finds this to be a well-considered and indeed reasonable amendment which focuses on how this will work in practice, and not only on the principle of transparency, on which I believe we are all agreed.

In these circumstances, I would intend to test the opinion of the House with test the opinion of the House with respect to amendment 16.
15:55
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lady Baroness Brinton and the noble Lady Baroness Brinton and the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst for their constructive engagement. About the subject of court transcripts over recent weeks, as the noble Lord noble and learned Lord Low Lord Keen has said, there is nothing between us as far as the principle of increased transparency of criminal court proceedings is concerned. As your Lordships will know, the government recently announced that we are going to be providing free transcripts of sentencing remarks for victims whose cases are heard in the Crown Court.

It's one of the provisions of the Sentencing Act. Delivering this new entitlement is a significant operational undertaking. It's essential that we get it right so that victims can receive the information they need in a timely way. But these new proposals in the amendments tabled in this group, taken either individually or together, would put that commitment under strain. I begin with amendment five in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, who wants to include an entitlement to transcripts of bail decisions and the route to verdict.

My Lords, the first. There are two difficulties with this. As far as the transcripts of bail conditions, bail decisions are concerned. This would involve extra resource. Transcripts are not free and producing even those from short hearings, if extended across England and Wales, would be expensive. The second is that it would not provide significant benefits over and above the systems already in place. My Lords, as far as bail conditions are concerned, transcripts are rarely informative for victims. They usually just set out the decision whether judge either says bail granted and lifts the conditions or bail refused, with rarely any kind of reasoned judgement.

And as I've said, it would come with cost implications. And under the victims code, victims already have the right to be informed of bail outcomes and and release conditions. We recognise that when information is not provided in a timely and consistent way, this can cause distress and anxiety for victims and add to what is already a difficult experience. And the experience is spoken to at Committee stage by the noble Lady are clearly not what we expect or wish, and nor are they, as I am pleased to say, the norm.

And we are currently exploring how responsibilities under the Victims Code are being met by the relevant service providers and how better to support them in the delivery of the code. We are also going to seek victims views on access to forgive me to bail information, and whether the current processes are working correctly through the ongoing Victims Code consultation. To strengthen this further, the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 will introduce a compliance framework requiring criminal justice bodies to keep their delivery of the code under review, so the legislation needed to drive improvement in notifying victims of bail conditions is already in place.

Because this amendment arrived a relatively short while ago yesterday, I've not had an opportunity to discuss the question of routes to verdict with the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, but I think it's possible she may have been misinformed about what a route to verdict is and what it consists of, because it's our view that a route to verdict is also unlikely to add significant, or indeed any value for victims. It's usually a very short document. In most trials, it typically is about ten lines long.

Very rarely would a route to verdict be longer than two pages. It sets out a few questions that the jury should ask themselves in private, when they're applying the law to the facts of the case. But the jury never gives its answers to those questions, because we don't have reasoned judgements in criminal trials. So the victim is not going to be any wiser as to what the answers were. They will simply know the questions that were asked. These routes to verdict are almost always unless the print is broken, provided to the jury in hard copy.

So transcript isn't needed and would add nothing. The noble Lady also raised concerns at Committee stage about victims being asked to leave the courtroom after giving evidence. And this, I agree with her, is a real issue. I agree this should not happen and I want to give the noble Lady my assurance that I will work with the appropriate officials to ensure that victims understand that they are generally entitled to remain in court if they wish to do so, and that arrangements such as the use of screens or remote observations, that they can't be seen and they don't have to see the person that they accuse, can be made in some, if not all, circumstances.

My Lords, this is a practical and immediate step that we hope will make a real difference to victims experience without requiring further legislation. I turn now to amendment 16, in the name of the noble and learned Lord Lord Keen and the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst, requiring the Crown Court to publish transcripts of sentencing remarks within 14 days of a request for such remarks being made. My Lords publishing sentencing remarks online is significantly more resource intensive than simply providing them to the victim.

Public release demands a higher standard of anonymisation to remove both direct and indirect identifiers of victims and witnesses. What is known as jigsaw identification, where a number of apparently innocuous pieces of information when put together, particularly by people who have, for example, some knowledge of the local area, can in fact identify the victim. Even the location where a shop is something like that. If there are people around who could tell them who the victim is doing, that kind of anonymization is detailed and skilled work.

Current AI based tools cannot reliably carry out anonymization for the complex and sensitive material heard in the criminal courts, and the cost of getting it wrong is profound. It requires trained staff manually to review each transcript, and research suggests it takes around 45 minutes of staff time to review. Every hour of a transcript before publication is possible. That means that even a modest increase in publication volumes would create disproportionate pressures on in operational capacity in the Crown courts that cannot take any further pressure.

Furthermore, requiring the court to make the victim aware of their right to request anonymity to make the appropriate redactions, and then publish the transcript online within 14 days of any request is just not viable. My Lords, our priority must be delivering sentencing remarks for victims as set out in the Sentencing Act properly and at pace, before taking on any further changes that could undermine or delay that work. Finally, I would like to reassure your Lordships that we have listened to what we said at Committee stage and work is already underway to improve the transcripts application process to make the system more accessible for all users.

Again, thank you Lordships for raising these important issues. We all agree about the principle of transparency. The only issue between us is the best way to deliver it. We believe these issues can be and are being addressed through non-legislative means. And I ask all noble Lords if they're content to withdraw their amendments. Thank you.
16:02
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Very grateful to Lord King and the noble Lady, the Minister, for their contributions. And I thank Lord Keen. >> For her.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Support of our amendment five. And we on our benches absolutely agree that his amendment does help agree that his amendment does help the interests of victims right to anonymity. And we're very grateful for that. And as he said, it's practical. And I think I want to preface my reply to the Minister by saying what we are seeking through these amendments is ensuring that the problems that victims have at the moment are resolved, and the difficulty that we have is being told it's all too expensive and it's all too difficult and it's all too complicated.

And I have been sitting in your Lordships House for probably at least six years getting that sort of response. Victims are very grateful for the pilot that's gone through on on the sentencing notes. But the issue is that there are other things that victims need to here. We appreciate there are significant issues that need to be evolved, but it was only through pressure from your Lordships House during the Victims and Prisoners Bill that we got the pilot that is now being rolled out.

So I'm really hoping that we can convince the government that they should be doing another pilot to look at at least some of the issues that either my amendment or Lord Keen amendment tackles, because we believe that to be important. However, my Lords, in the meantime, because we think that this is just too far in the future, I would like to test the opinion of the House EA.
16:03
None Portrait Division
-

Question is that amendment five be agreed to? As many as of that be agreed to? As many as of that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The question will be decided by a division. I will be decided by a division. I will alert the House when voting is will alert the House when voting is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, the My Lords, the question My Lords, the question is My Lords, the question is that amendment five be agreed to. As amendment five be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Content the contrary, not content, not content contents not content, not content contents will go to the right by the throne,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To To find To find out To find out what To find out what it To find out what it is.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, the My Lords, the question, My Lords, the question, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the question, the question is that amendment five be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because. Because. Accomplished.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted contents 273, not contents 180. So My My Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment six Lord Hacking. I stand.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand. To move amendment six in my name, and I'm very happy also to disclose and I'm very happy also to disclose that I am being supported by Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, who's been kind enough also to sign who's been kind enough also to sign my amendment. My note I think it would be helpful if I began by would be helpful if I began by telling your Lordships the major features of modern slavery. It affects principally, my Lords,
16:15
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
those in the agricultural industry, domestic employment, and in the domestic employment, and in the provision of sexual services. It impacts mainly on immigrant labour. Immigrants are brought to this Immigrants are brought to this country by their exploiters. In the case of sexual offences, it will be case of sexual offences, it will be by their pimp, and when here they continue to be controlled by their continue to be controlled by their explorer, having to give, for example, a portion of their earnings to the exploiter.

I think it is also be helpful if I explained what the role of the victim navigator their role, my Lord, is to protect the victim, particularly in the prosecution process. There are often former police officers who understand the processes to which the victim is subject in gaining the confidence of the victim, they gain most valuable information which leads to, or can lead to the prosecution of the exploiter in sexual. In the provision of sexual services, this will be the prosecution of the pimp relating, for example, to sexual services.

We must understand the scale of the problem and the current increase in sexual exploitations. My Lords, the figures are difficult to obtain, but it has been estimated for the years 2020 to 2025. That has been an increase in sexual exploitation of women by 86%. That's from 114 victims to 2076. My Lords, there also has been it has been estimated there's been a 61% increase in the exploitation of girls. And I understand that to be those women who were under the age of 18 years, my Lords, sex is provides and this is very alarming, a very big market in the internet for those assessing the, the, the adult as w as as they are called, they can be currently found, they can can they can currently be found 63,000 listings for women.

And these sites attract. And this is another awful figure. These sites are. Visited by no less than 41.7 million visitors. My Lords that are in committee Baroness Goldie and I don't see her present an amendment in the House that move this amendment. I wasn't in committee. I wasn't able to be there. My Lord, it's important, I think, to remind your Lordships of the major points that that Baroness Carberry made. She referred to the House of Lords modern slavery report, which I hold in my hand, which was so ably chaired by my noble men friend Baroness O'Grady, and she I don't see her either in the chamber, and she cited paragraph 46 on page 77, which was the conclusion of our Modern Slavery Committee report, which reads, victim navigators should be rolled out nationally.

The objective must be there, available in all cases. So that's the conclusion, my Lords, that we've reached in our Modern Slavery Committee report. She also drew attention to the benefit, that economic benefit of which is provided by the use of victim navigators. And it was estimated that the gain, the financial gain for each single victim who benefited from it. From this process, the process of victim navigators present. She also cited My Lords, the chief executive of the Gangsters and Labour Abuse Authority, who stated as follows that means there are better able and that's in reference to the to the victims.

That means that they're better able to help. And it also helps us when we are taking people into court because they understand the process better, they understand how to engage and they feel supported. It has made a big difference to us. The other compliment came from a defective, a defective, not a defective. A detective sergeant in the Metropolitan Police who commented as follows I'm in no doubt that a dangerous predator would not have deceived a 31 year jail sentence without the support of justice and care.

I made the police investigation into the case and think that the victim navigators work was nothing short of exceptional. My Lords, that I think it's important that that, and I certainly am citing Baroness Gohir. I think it's a very important that we understand my knowledge I should. Turn now to the government response. And I just read it to your Lordships. So no, I haven't made it to your Lordships. I'm just about to do so.

The government response to our committee report reads as follows. The government recognises, and this is the Home Office response. The government recognises the importance of supporting victims to engage the criminal justice system and the positive impact and independent support worker working alongside the Lord Faulks can have on securing this engagement and the government goes further. Response goes on as follows. The government is keen to build on this research that's referring to the Victim Navigators research. Working in partnership with NGOs and law enforcements to identify how best support victims engage with the criminal justice system.

So the Home Office, certainly as far as our report is concerned, came out into a positive position. My Lords, the independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner supports this amendment. That's Miss Eleanor Lance and indeed the Minister, my my learned friend, my noble friend, the Minister very kindly met her last week on Thursday. So she's heard directly from no less a person than the anti-slavery Commissioner. Her views on this amendment. I refer to the first annual report that the Commissioner gave.

It was only came out a few days ago, and I hold it in my hand. And I refer to this report because she stated in the foreword to the report that as follows. Modern slavery is still with us. It lurks in the shadows, hidden in industries, supply chains, and even in our neighbourhoods. The victims in rural communities as well as well as big cities continue to suffer in silence. So in short, my Lords, this continues to be a major matter of concern.

My Lords asked me to get back to my notes. And I just have to say of this report, which I am holding in my hand from a very small office, it's quite remarkable. 58 page report identifying the commissioners to Plan of Preventing protection and prosecution. My Lords, that just to summarise the importance of victim navigators, I refer to the most recent survey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I invite the noble Lord to move his amendment, as he's now been speaking for ten minutes. I think I'm allowed 15 minutes,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I'm allowed 15 minutes, my Lords. No. Ten minutes. Oh, I'm sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ten minutes. Oh, I'm sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ten minutes. Oh, I'm sorry. It's 15 minutes. Yes. Right. But

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's 15 minutes. Yes. Right. But the the as I was just saying that that the Commissioner summarised in this excellent report the, the her strategy and it's the protection of victims and 724 have been supported. It's the as a result of the activities of the victim navigators, 420 police investigations have taken place. 74 convictions resulted in a total period of imprisonment. Of all those convicted of 522 years. Now, I do recognise that modern slavery is under the remit of the Home Office and not the Department of Justice, and this inevitably restricts my noble friend, the Minister, and what help she can provide.

So if the Minister cannot accept this amendment, could she kindly convey to her colleagues in the Home Office the strong views which I have expressed and I hope others will express in this short debate? The Home Office did very well, my Lords, in, in, in, in introducing in 2015 the Modern Slavery Act, which put us in the forefront internationally of anti anti-slavery legislation. But they did slip up and slip up rather badly.

And this was I that identified in the, in the independent I think in January 24th, which had a headline Commissioner Modern slavery no longer home Office priority. My Lords there was also a very serious failure by the Home Office in leaving the post of the Commissioner for Anti-Slavery vacant, for, in the words of Miss Lyons, a staggering 20 months. This point was taken up with as a point of criticism in our select committee report. So could the Minister, if nothing else, get go to the Home Office.

That and sorry, I more than get the Home Office to start paying attention to the modern slavery and its problems. I beg to move.
16:28
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
Amendment proposed after clause seven. Insert the new clause printed on the Marshalled List. It's a pleasure to support the noble Lord Lord Hacking, especially when he's so right on an issue. This is an interesting group, actually, and clearly the government is going to have a choice of routes to actually increase human rights for victims, because we need a justice system that puts victims first. And we have to understand that many, particularly in the cases we're talking about, are frightened, they're traumatised and very much deserving of care because for many survivors, the moment they come to the attention of the authorities isn't a moment of relief.

It's actually a moment of fear and confusion. They may have been controlled, threatened, abused for months or years. They may not trust the police. Many of us don't. They may not speak English and may be terrified of what will happen next. And in those moments, survivors are asked to engage with an intimidating criminal justice system and to relive traumatic experiences, often without truly understanding what is happening or why. Too many fall away from investigations not because they're unwilling to help, but because the process feels overwhelming, frightening, and isolating.

Victim navigators exist to meet people at that point of fear and vulnerability. They provide a trusted person who stays with the victim, explains what is happening, listens to their concerns, and helps them feel safe enough to continue. What makes victim navigators so special is their unique position. They're situated within police forces, which means they can be present when victims are first found, including during raids on sites of exploitation. Survivors can receive clear, accurate information and at the same time, victim navigators are also independent of the police.

That independence matters enormously to survivors who may have been harmed by authority figures in the past, or who feel fear. Retaliation. Navigators are trusted because their loyalty is to the person in front of them. This amendment reflects what survivors themselves have told us. Works the victim navigate a programme from Justice and Care has helped people stay engaged with investigations, feel less alone and begin to recover their sense of dignity. And of course, it also frees up police time and reduces costs.

So I, I would like to urge the Minister to,
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page