Lords Chamber

Wednesday 15th April 2026

(began 2 hours, 10 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
None Portrait Oral questions: Changes to Zimbabwean constitution: third presidential terms
-

Second Oral Question Baroness Hoey.
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:20
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
None Portrait Oral questions: NHS adult gender identity clinics: patients under the age of 25
-

My Lords, for 20 2324 5624
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:50
None Portrait Business of the House
-

>> My Lords, we now come to an instrument previously debated in grand committee conservation of grand committee conservation of habitats and species. (Offshore Wind) (Amendment etc.) Regulations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

2026. Baroness Hayman of Ullock. My Lords, I beg leave to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Order Paper. The question is that this amendment, this motion be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, As many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Third Reading of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Baroness Taylor of Stevenage. My Lords, I have it in command

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King, to acquaint the house that his Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, has consented to place his interests so far as there are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament. For the purposes of the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be. Now read a third time. The question is that this bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be. Now read a third time, if any of that content of the contrary, not content. the contents have it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not content. the contents have it in clause 110, amendment one. Baroness Scott of Bybrook my.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords. I have. Amendments one, two, four.
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:53
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Almost. My Lords, to be really clear, amendment five removes a clear, amendment five removes a reference to a clause in a schedule which will remove from the bill at Report stage on Monday. It is a consequential amendment which I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move formally. Informally. The question is that amendment five be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, many of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Amendment six Baroness Scott of Bybrook move Baroness Scott of Bybrook move formally. The question is that amendment six be agreed to as many of that content, not content. The contents have it. Amendment seven contents have it. Amendment seven Lord Freyberg move formally, the question is that amendment seven be agreed to as only that opinion will say content, not content.

The contents have it. It may be with the convenience of the House of amendments, 8 to 11 are moved formally. En bloc Baroness Scott of Bybrook. The question is that amendments 8 to 11 be agreed to. En bloc, as many of them have been, will say, content should not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. The contents have it. Apologies. Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. My Lords, I beg to move that this bill do now pass. I'd like to thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and thoughtful contributions and engagement during the passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill through Community Empowerment Bill through this House. I am particularly grateful to the opposition frontbench, the noble Baroness Scott of Bybrook, the noble Lord Jamieson and the noble Lord Moylan for their constructive challenge
15:55
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
throughout the debate. I'm very aware of the challenges of opposition frontbench and can I say how much I appreciate the approach how much I appreciate the approach of clarity about points of difference, concise, clear and consistent speeches in debate, and consistent speeches in debate, and of all the work that goes on behind the scenes with myself and officials, as well as with officials, as well as with opposition peers. My noble friend Baroness Boycott deserves much credit for from the House for her credit for from the House for her approach.

Can I also thank the noble Lord Shipley, the noble Baroness Pinnock and noble Baroness Thornhill and pigeon for all their work, and particularly to the noble Lord Shipley, who stepped in admirably to fill the shoes of Baroness Pinnock when she couldn't get her own shoes on because she'd fractured, she had a fracture. I'd like to thank him very much for his sort of last minute work on the bill, but his contribution was highly valued. Can I also thank my noble friends, Lord Wilson and Lord Leong, who have supported me on the whips in the whip's role throughout the bill, and the noble Lord Hendy, whose very considerable expertise and knowledge on taxes and licensing have made this bill a lot easier for me to deal with.

Many laws from across the House have shared their very valuable expertise in local government, local growth and community empowerment during the scrutiny of this bill, and I'm particularly thankful to the noble Lord Bichard Lord Bassam and Lord Wallace. Their insights and engagement have allowed us to bring about critical improvements to the bill, including establishing local scrutiny committees as a first step towards proper public sector accountability at local level. And can I thank the noble Lord Banner for his work to help resolve the legal lacuna from the D v Shropshire case? I'd like to extend my thanks to the noble Lord Borwick Lord Blunkett foster, the Earl of Clancarty and the noble Baroness Royall and Lady Prashar, and many more for their championing of issues such as culture, taxi safety and addressing gambling harms.

We may disagree at times on how devolution and community empowerment are best delivered, but I believe we are in broad agreement that a change is overdue. Local leaders and communities should have a greater say in shaping their areas so they can deliver growth and improve the local public services that people want to see. This bill is a fundamental step towards achieving this ambition. And finally, I would like to place on my on record my thanks to all the officials who have worked on this bill.

The bill manager, Hannah, Cara, Gina, Marie, Guy, Simon, Alice, John, Wendy and Rachel. And to Nadia, Bethan, Anna in my private office. And finally pay tribute to the many parliamentary staff who support the work of this House. That's the clerks, doorkeepers, security, Hansard, public Bill office and our excellent whip's team. We haven't had so many late nights on this bill as we did on the planning bill, but I know we were all very grateful when we were here till 1:00 in the morning that we had our whole team supporting us as we did.

So, my Lords, I'm very pleased to have been part of some very productive and constructive discussions in this House, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. The question is that this bill do now pass.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now pass. My Lords, may I begin by thanking all noble Lords for their thoughtful and constructive engagement with this complex bill of both committee and report stages. Whilst there have been a wide range Whilst there have been a wide range of concerns and differing proposed solutions, I do think there has been a shared sense that this bill been a shared sense that this bill falls short of its title in several of its measures. Instead of local devolution, we're seeing regional centralisation and instead of community empowerment, we're seeing yet more direction from central government.

To many, it's still not clear why the government have decided to pursue this course of action, or what the underlying vision is behind the bill. It goes without saying that all of this comes at a cost, and we're seeing with local government reorganisation up and down the country. We said this from the start and I believe we're beginning to see it now. That said, we on these benches do believe that the Bill has amended, as amended at report, leaves this House with better legislation than when it came into your Lordships.

I'm pleased that this House has agreed to prioritise brownfield land when it comes to development, to integrate new development with existing businesses and facilities, to promote parish governance for unparished areas, and to amend schedule one to safeguard local consent. When it comes to local governance changes. In addition, in light of the government's amendments to increase the number of commissioners and mayors can appoint, I'm glad that our amendment to ensure they are appointed through a fair and transparent selection process was agreed.

I would also like to thank the noble Lords on the benches to my left for their work, and shared concern about the provisions for rural affairs in this bill, about protecting local authorities right to choose their own governance models and making Greater London Authority more democratic in its voting requirements. But I am disappointed that we couldn't rely on the cross-party support for our amendment to ensure that the government complete its long awaited review on open spaces, before proceeding to remove statutory trusts for recreation.

Of course, there were several other areas where we would have appreciated better assurances from government. It would be in no one's interest if local people end up having to pay higher council taxes. If local service delivery becomes less efficient and the role of local councillors is increasingly sidelined by mayors as a result of this bill, my Lords, I'd like to pay tribute to the work undertaken by my noble friends. Lord Moylan Baroness O'Neill of Bexley Lord Lansley, Lord Borwick, Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Coffey.

Also Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Lucas and I urge the government to give due consideration to their concerns. I'd also like to say a big thank you to my noble friend Lord Jamieson, who has sat beside me through the whole lot and taken over at least half, if not more of the work. And a special big thanks to Molly, Richard and Henry in our office for all their invaluable support throughout the whole bill. Finally, I'd like to say thank you to the noble Baroness, the Minister for the time she has committed outside of this chamber, and for responding constructively on very on a number of matters.

From experience, I know that how demanding the process can be, and we're very grateful to her for to her, for her engagement throughout this bill and the way she has conducted it through the House. Whilst we do agree with the government's direction, we are committed to engaging further to improve the system of local government in the interests of the well.
16:02
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lord, can I extend the thanks of these benches to the Minister of these benches to the Minister and to all of her staff and to the bill office? And she was right, I think, to point to the amount of work that's gone into getting the bill to Third Reading, reading. And I want to thank the Minister for her engagement with the bill. It is of major constitutional importance, and for that reason, it really has got to be as good as we can make it.

And I'm personally very grateful for all the Minister did to improve the clauses on scrutiny and on audit, which I think are going to make a big difference. But could I to extend my thanks to the Liberal Democrat Bill team, a number of people who've done a lot of detailed work? And can I pay tribute to in our whip's office to Adam Bull for the excellence in his support to the bill team over many months. My Lord, I see this bill as work in progress.

I think I said at the outset that it gave a sense of direction and we want it to succeed. So everything that we have said at each stage of the passage of this bill has been about trying to get it better, because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, said, the Bill is entitled devolution, but actually it's about decentralisation and it doesn't say very much at all about community empowerment. But my Lords, we are, you know, a glass half full group on these benches and we really do want the government to succeed.

You cannot manage 56 million people in England out of London. And so I see this as being part of a renewal of our democracy. And I wish the government well. And I just hope that when those amendments, which are not many in number, but are considered in the other place, that actually our proposed changes will be taken seriously. There is one about rural issues, which I think should be Commons strategic authority competence. It's the processes which were moved, as I recall, by Baroness Scott of Bybrook on the appointment processes for commissioners.

How are they appointed? I think this needs to be on the face of the bill, not in guidance. I think, thirdly, that it is for local people, as we said on Monday, to decide governance structures that they think are best for them rather than having a single model which is imposed out of out of Whitehall and the government. And I think absolutely crucially, to demonstrate that the government is serious about devolution, there should be a duty to promote parish and neighbourhood governance, because what the government is doing in this bill is creating very large democratic units, which are increasingly remote from people.

So in all that we have said about neighbourhood, parish and town governance, it's all trying to bring decision making closer to people who, after all, are paying the bill for it. So, my Lords, with those comments, we shall see what the Commons does at ping pong. I would say I think these benches are pretty firm on some of these issues. So I just hope the government is going to be flexible in its approach. But with that, I want to say thank you to the Minister for the leadership that she has shown and to her staff, and to say that I think that we have something which is a major improvement on what we have had in recent years, and I wish the process well.
16:07
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I'm very grateful for those >> I'm very grateful for those contributions, and I think they were in the same tone that we've had all through the Bill of had all through the Bill of constructive challenge, where where it's appropriate. I would say, to both of the opposition benches that I think there are some further discussions to take place on the outstanding matters before we get through ping pong, and I hope those discussions will be conducted in the same spirit as we've dealt with the rest of the bill.

I've been in local government now for a very, very long time, and they have over the years been numerous attempts at reorganising, devolving. But still, most of the power sits here in this very small part of London, which should be out there with local people. And I hope that as we go through the final process of this bill, we will end up with a piece of legislation that does exactly what we all want it to do, which is to make sure that there is power and funding and decision making devolved to our local areas out of Whitehall, back to local areas where the people who are taking the decisions actually have skin in the game and are connected at that very local level, to take the right decisions for the people that we all serve.

That's what we all want to do. And I hope as we progress through the final stages of the bill, we'll get to a good place on that. I beg to move.
16:08
16:08
None Portrait Legislation: Victims and Courts Bill – consideration of Commons reasons and / or amendments
-

Commons reasons on the Victims and Courts Bill Baroness Levitt. >> I beg to move that the Commons

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the Commons reasons be now considered. The question is that the Commons reasons be now considered, as many reasons be now considered, as many of them have been also content, not content. The contents have it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

motion a Baroness Levitt. My Lords, I beg to move motion a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion a that this House do not insist on its amendment one to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons. 1AI shall also speak to motions B, b, one, C, and c one. This group concerns amendments made in this House relating to access to court transcripts and homicide abroad, and in relation to each. I shall set out why the government cannot accept these amendments. I will speak first on motions A and C, which relate to amendments one and three, originally tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord Keen and the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, both of which concern access to criminal court transcripts.

I want to start by thanking the noble Lady Baroness Brinton for her extensive engagement on this bill throughout its passage in the Lords, as well as in recent weeks. I'm sorry that she's not in her place today. I know that she has not been well, but I think she may be joining us remotely in due course, and I hope she can hear me when I say that she and I have spent significant time with each other discussing these amendments at length, and I really am grateful to her for her constructive and collaborative approach in addressing the issues which are before your Lordships House today.

That said, I am disappointed and frustrated that I have not been able to get a meeting with the opposition frontbench, despite making numerous attempts through various channels to do so. I hope the noble Lady Baroness Brinton knows that I am sincere when I say that the government agrees that it is extremely important for victims to be able to access information relevant to the Criminal Court proceedings in their case. But as we made it clear at both committee and report stages, these amendments would not achieve the meaningful benefits that victims are seeking.

And in the case of the noble and learned Lord Sewell amendment, the government believes that they could in fact undermine victims experience rather than improve it. And with that, I turn to motion C1 in the name of the noble and learned Lord Low Lord Keen of Elie. We've also. We've already set out in previous debates the operational and financial implications that this amendment would have. Our first reason for not accepting it is that whilst the government is firmly committed to strengthening transparency. This
16:11
16:12
None Portrait Amendment:A Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-

will be traumatised. I just want to start putting what has happened behind them. So what would happen behind them. So what would happen should a victim of a horrifying crime request that their sentencing crime request that their sentencing remarks not be published at all? By denying victims a right to determine whether remarks relevant determine whether remarks relevant to their case, often containing highly personal and sensitive information, are published online. information, are published online. For the world to see, this loss of agency significantly risks being distressing rather than empowering.

It's unlikely to feel like an improvement in transparency or experience, and it may in fact compound the harm caused by the offence. My Lords, this government believes that transparency is not served by measures that risk causing further distress to victims or undermining confidence in the justice system. Government does not accept that this amendment strikes the right balance between openness and protection, and believes that it would, in practice, do more harm than good. I have made the point already that we are focussed on delivering the substantial commitment made earlier this year, and by spring 2027 we will provide all victims with Crown Court sentencing remarks relevant to their case, free of charge upon request.

And I do thank all members of your Lordships House from all parties and groups, including the opposition Front Bench, for their constructive engagement during the debates on that amendment during the passage of the Sentencing Act, 2026. The significant expansion will deliver meaningful benefits and represents an important step forward in helping many victims better understand their case. It will, we accept, genuinely enhance transparency in the justice system. That said, we do recognise that there remains a need to consider what more can be done to support victims access to information about court proceedings relevant to their case, particularly in cases that do not result in a conviction.

And that's why I'm pleased to confirm that the government is undertaking a study to explore the use of AI transcription in criminal courts. This is another step towards greater transparency and improving access to court transcripts by examining how artificial intelligence transcription could support the production of court records more quickly and at a lower cost. Because many of these cases involve sensitive personal information, and we must ensure that the use of AI transcription delivers high levels of accuracy, upholds the integrity of court proceedings, and protects information where necessary.

The findings of our study have the potential significantly to reduce fees and improve access to court transcripts, and this will mean that further reform will be evidence based, workable in practice and underpinned by confidence in accuracy and appropriate safeguards. I now turn to motion B and B1, both tabled in the name of the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, and they concern support for victims of homicide abroad. Again, I want to thank the noble Lady for her for her efforts in advocating for others on this issue and for the positive and constructive engagement we have had over recent months.

My Lords, the government fully recognises the challenges faced by families bereaved by homicide abroad, and we remain committed to strengthening the support available to them. The previous Lords amendment sought to create an appendix to the victim's code, setting out how it would apply to these families, and this issue has been discussed at length. The government recognises the underlying intention, which is to improve the experience and the outcomes for families who find themselves in this unimaginably awful situation. But, my Lords, the proposed approach would risk undermining the effectiveness of the code for all victims, and it would place obligations on relevant agencies in England and Wales to provide services that actually it would be impossible to deliver in practice.

But we do agree that more needs to be done. And so under the draft new code, we have included clear signposting to the relevant support and guidance available to these families. Motion B1 proposes a review of the effectiveness of how the code applies to these families, and whilst I understand the intention, the code only applies to those families where the case is capable of prosecution in England and Wales. The motion, as framed, therefore risks limiting the scope of any review to the support available to these families.

So instead, the approach that we're going to take is to build on our existing commitments to improve consistency through reviewing FCDO, consular training and improving access to translated documents. I'm pleased to confirm that the Ministry of Justice will also work jointly with the FCDO and the Home Office to undertake a review of how support is provided to these families, and assess how current arrangements are operating. Importantly, it will also allow us to identify further improvements can be made.

My Lords, we want to get this right. The review will be robust and comprehensive. Its findings are to be published in 2027. Taken together with our commitment to ensure that there is independent oversight by the Victims' Commissioner when particular issues arise. These actions demonstrate the government's clear commitment to strengthening the support available to families as they navigate these awful situations. For these reasons, the government do not consider legislative change to be the best way forward. And so we do not support these amendments.

But I hope that the House can support our intention to address these issues via non-legislative means. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion A be agreed to? My Lords, Baroness Brinton is taking part remotely. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

invite the noble Baroness to speak. My Lords, I want to start by thanking the Minister, her ministerial colleagues in the Justice Department and officials and staff who have been available
16:18
None Portrait Amendment:B1 Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-

and staff who have been available for conversations both during the passage of this bill and especially since reports. Stage and the helpful discussions reflected in the government motions in front of us today. My motion B1 on the horrendous issue of homicide abroad differs from the amendment that I laid at earlier stages of this bill, because I had listened carefully to the noble Lady, the Minister, both in the chamber and in our meetings, and I have accordingly removed the element about enshrining the rights of bereaved families.

And they, of course, are also victims because their loved one was murdered. From the victim's code. I do still believe that it is possible to draft something that reflects that. But my Lords, time is not on our side. And to pay tribute to this government. The new code of practice being just brought in for use by the Home Office, the Foreign Office and other government departments and officials such as coroners, is much more comprehensive and should, as it's now being implemented, improve the experience of families found in this horrendous position.

The one area that I do not want us to lose is the ability to review how the new code of practice is actually working. So my amendment today set out a mechanism to ensure that within 18 months of the section on these arrangements coming into force, the Secretary of State must review the effectiveness of how the victim's code applies to victims who are close family members of a British national resident in England and Wales who was murdered or a victim of manslaughter or infanticide, and that the Secretary of State must lay a report of that review before both Houses of Parliament.

However, I am very grateful to the Minister for our discussions and in light of what the Minister has said at the despatch box, that the government will set up a joint review with the FCDO and the Home Office that will focus on access and experience for the families of those murdered abroad, and it will be published next year. And it's especially welcome that the government will work with the Victims' Commissioner and I hope victims organisations that help these families too. The Minister knows that from these benches we will continue to talk to the victims groups and if concerns remain in the future from these benches, we will be raising questions and as appropriate, amendments in future legislation.

But until then, we look forward to seeing the government's review next year, and I will not be taking my motion any further today. I now turn to motion a on court transcripts. My Lords, over the years, we have been laying amendments about the ability for victims to access part of court transcripts. It's been too easy to gloss over why too many victims feel excluded from the court process, whether by accident or worse. And this can be through poor advice, for example.

And I'm afraid far too frequently victims are told that if they sit in the court after they've given evidence, it's a bad look and it might harm the views of the jury. Because victims are seen as ghoulish or worse, vindictive. But also, my Lords, too many victims are not aware of what they are entitled to. And here I want to pay my respects to the Minister for her outrage at an earlier stage of this bill at the despatch box, when she outlined her fury about when arrangements for victims are not followed properly in court.

In theory this shouldn't happen, but, my Lords, it does. And for those who also don't have the support of professionals to guide them through what is happening in a court case, there is bemusement, often a lack of knowledge, and it really affects whether or not they feel that the process has been as fair to them as it has been to the defendant. And by the way, the amendments on court transcripts are invisibly but inextricably linked to the amendments on reforms to the unduly lenient sentences.

But because of parliamentary procedure and the way the bill is laid out, they are separated. However, access to information and support to understand it is at the heart of whether a victim feels the need to submit an appeal to the Attorney General for a sentence to be considered unduly lenient, and I'll talk about this more in the next group. But that link is there. So getting both matters right is vital. I'm very grateful to the noble Lady, the Minister, for her helpful discussions on the practicality of making court transcripts available to victims and for the government announcement yesterday, which she's just outlined in her contribution, that the government will conduct a study to look at how AI transcription can be used accurately, including, importantly, appropriate redactions for the safety of victims and witnesses, and considerably cheaper than the vastly expensive current arrangements.

And from these benches, we understand the pressure on the court system from imposing the current extensive system further. So we will watch for the outcomes of this study and any consequential actions. And as the noble Lady, the Minister knows from our benches in both this House and the Commons, we will be holding the government to account to deliver, including an amendment that my honourable colleagues have already laid in the Courts and Tribunals Bill. But I am very grateful for the progress we have made, and that's why I didn't relay my original amendment today.

Turning very briefly to Lord Keen's motion C1 for sentencing remarks to be published online within 14 days of a request being received by anyone at Report stage, we were very concerned that this particular action would lead to victims and witnesses being much more vulnerable than they would under the proposals that we've been discussing on other amendments, where the transcripts are specifically for the victims and would have to be carefully redacted to keep them safe. This amendment takes us back a complete step, leaving a victim having to receive notification within a short period of time.

We know this fails on other issues, and having to formally request anonymity. This makes victims the afterthought in the process, rather than putting their safety as judged by experts at the heart of publication of any information. And that, I'm afraid, information. And that, I'm afraid,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is why we cannot support it today. My Lords, motion C1 in my name

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, motion C1 in my name would insist in my amendment from Report stage regarding the publication of court transcripts, and it would require sentencing remarks by the Crown Court to be remarks by the Crown Court to be freely published online, whilst also informing applicants of their also informing applicants of their right to request anonymity if they wished it. My Lords, open justice is a fundamental principle both to the institution of democracy and the public confidence in that institution.

This motion would make it easier for victims, journalists and the wider public to understand exactly what is happening in the court system. This is of particular relevance for the grooming gangs and its formal inquiry, which the government launched just this week, and my amendment would help facilitate the transparency required to hold those guilty accountable. My Lords, as faith and
16:25
None Portrait Amendment:C1 Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-

confidence in public institutions continues to dwindle, many believe the state does not operate to serve their best interests. The Sentencing Act now has the effect of an automatic presumption of short sentences, a policy which in practice effectively abolishes custodial sentences of one year or less. It is more important than ever that the public can access the reasoning behind sentencing decisions, so that confidence in the rule of law and the integrity of judicial decision making is preserved in the other place, a Labour MP said, and I quote, I'm confused about why the Minister is not accepting Lords amendments one and three at this point, end quote, the Minister said in reply.

The government are willing to go further and we will look to see what more we can do in the Lords. And yet, my Lords, the government had taken no action on this issue other than to reject my amendment in its entirety, and I therefore feel compelled to move motion C-1. My Lords, I would thank the Liberal Democrats for their consistent support for this amendment and the principle which it upholds. It was the combined effort of 160 conservative and 55 Liberal Democrat peers that saw this amendment successful passage.

I also thank the 56 Liberal Democrat MPs who supported the amendment in the other place. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat justice spokesman said, and again, I quote, I urge all colleagues to vote for all these excellent Lords amendments, which are incredibly important to victims and their families, unquote. There may have been a little wobble, since I'm not clear why, but I would hope that our efforts in the voting lobby today will compel the government to act. And, my Lords, I beg to move.
16:27
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Yes. >> Yes. >> My Lords, I'm grateful to noble Lords for their contributions and indeed the thoughtful way in which they've engaged with this issue, they've engaged with this issue, and I recognise the commitment and valuable contributions all have made during the passage of this bill. Those who spoke powerfully about the need for victims. Better to understand what's happened in court and why the government is absolutely aligned with that objective. And I thank again, the noble Lady Baroness Brinton, for raising that point about victims either being explicitly told or made to feel that they should not attend court to hear the rest of the trial.

It is a powerful point. I've had experience of it personally. I shall take it away and see what I can do to improve the situation. As I've set out, Lord's amendments, one and three would impose statutory duties that risk being unworkable and will create, delay and have effects that would not serve victims well. Our priority must be to ensure that the commitments we make are ones that we can deliver, and that is why the government has focussed on delivery through the Sentencing Act 2026, and why we're now going further through the study in artificial intelligence transcription, about which I spoke a moment or two ago.

Just turning very briefly to support for victims of homicide abroad, I want to repeat my absolute assurance that the government shares the ambition of strengthening the support available to families bereaved by homicide abroad. My Lords, the commitments I outlined today do go further cross departmental work to improve consistency and support through a comprehensive review will put families at the centre so we can ensure that they get the support they need. My Lords, I urge noble Lords to support motions A, B and C

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and I beg to move. Motion A, B agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content of that opinion will say, content contrary, not content. The contents have it. Motion B Baroness Levitt.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it. Motion B Baroness Levitt. Already spoken to motion B that this House do not insist on its amendment two, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons. Too-a. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Too-a. I beg to move. The question is that motion B be agreed to. Motion B one Baroness Brinton not moved. Not moved. The question is that motion B be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content, not content. The contents have it. Motion C Baroness Levitt.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I have already spoken to motion C that this House do not insist on its amendment three, to which the Commons have disagreed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which the Commons have disagreed for their reason. 3AI beg to move. The question is that motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion be agreed to. Motion c1 Lord Keen of Elie. My Lords, I beg to move. Motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

c1. The original question was that motion C be agreed to. Since when motion C be agreed to. Since when motion C1 has been moved as an amendment to motion C leave out from house to end and insert to insist on its amendment three. The question, therefore, is that motion C1 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content. Content contrary, not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. That's a bit much. Very weak.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That's a bit much. Very weak. Lord Sewell. As many of that opinion will say, content. Content

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion will say, content. Content To the contrary, not content. Not content. The question will be decided by division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now
16:31
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page