Opt-out Collective Court Actions and Connected Litigation Funding

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

I do recognise that, and I know the history of Sir Alan Bates’ involvement in this. Sir Alan Bates has spoken openly about how, without a litigation funding agreement, he and the sub-postmasters would not have had their day in court. We agree with Sir Alan that third-party funding is crucial for enabling ordinary people to access justice. The access to justice point is the centre of why we think this is important, and I know that is what noble Lords feel too. With group and consumer claims, third-party funding under a litigation funding agreement is often the only option people have to bring a claim. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about access to legal aid as well. I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, that we understand the importance of it in relation to the sub-postmasters and to Sir Alan Bates.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister for Justice, Sarah Sackman, said in her Written Statement in December last year that legislation would be an absolute priority, and she quoted Sir Alan Bates earlier in the Statement. It is vital that any regulation ensures that claimants and victims, especially of the Post Office Horizon scandal, are given full information before they make decisions about whether it is worth continuing with the scheme. Can the Minister say whether there will be such help for claimants and victims?

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

That is why we think light-touch regulation is important here. Transparency is important for consumers in these situations. I see the noble Baroness smile. I know the phrase “light touch” receives a hollow laugh—I used to be a financial services regulator myself. The Government do feel that there is a need to get this on to a proper regulatory footing. I can say a lot more about this; I promise not to be boring. I suspect a lot of the questions I am going to be asked are about urgency and getting on with it. As well as what I have said about finding the appropriate legislative vehicle, I will go back to Minister Sackman to have a discussion about this. As the noble Baroness knows, I have had rather a busy week. It is above my pay grade to give a commitment, but I will press the case. If I get anywhere, I will buy the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, a cup of tea, and if he likes the answer, he can buy me a glass of champagne.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, to his new role and thank him for meeting with us last week. I also want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, for all the work she did on the Bill earlier in the summer.

I declare an interest as a director of the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. Police Spies Out of Lives, which is run by victims in the Spycops case, came to the trust some years ago and asked us if we would help it find some support for the beginning of the inquest. “Yes”, we said: “Two years”. We are still funding it 11 years on, and that is an absolute scandal.

I start with a tribute from these Benches to all the victims and families in the Hillsborough tragedy, but also to the many, many others to whom noble Lords have referred during the debate today. I am also grateful to the many organisations which have engaged with us and sent us briefings.

Regardless of where the briefings have come from—whether charities working with victims of appalling injustice at the hands of the state, or legal and health bodies with formal roles in delivering transparent and accountable services—there is one clear message for this Government, which I think they should be encouraged by. We need this Bill, but it does need strengthening—we have heard that from most sides of the House today—or perhaps it will not work quite as Ministers want.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said that we need a duty of candour because the Hillsborough police admitted that they lied. I was very taken with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, who spoke about how trust had been lost as a result of the many shocking cases. We have to make this Bill work, but, importantly, officials—police, in the Hillsborough case that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned—not lying in the first place must be the fundamental starting point.

As we have heard, the origins of this Bill—often called the Hillsborough law—are the disaster in 1989 and the decades-long campaign by the families and survivors, including the work of our new Prime Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, spoke on the impressive but tragic effectiveness of families and survivors. One of the things that impressed me most with my portfolio, covering most of the inquiries and compensation schemes, is how the survivors of one issue get in touch and work with their colleagues on others. That has been one of the few really positive things I have seen over the last few years. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was right that the lies told that day are an absolute stain on the police, but as we now know, this has been the case in other tragedies as well.

We on these Benches have consistently supported the principle of a duty of candour. We will scrutinise the Bill to ensure that it delivers genuine accountability and works in practice. Our specific concerns remain on implementation, legal aid, whistleblowing enforcement and senior responsibility. That sounds like an awful lot of things, but they are all woven into each other.

Many of our concerns are based on experiences we have heard from those who have been victims. I have worked closely in the last few years with the infected blood survivors and victims. There is still a very unsatisfactory response after 50 years. I met some of the students who were at Lord Mayor Treloar School 51 years ago. The boys who had haemophilia—who I did a theatre workshop with, and they helped me with cooking for my theatre group—are dead, all of them. They were infected by a doctor who did not tell either them or their parents that they were guinea pigs for a new type of blood that had come from America. The noble Baroness, Lady May, said that the Hillsborough lies started on that day, but the same was not true for these children. There was a lie of omission. Those children were absolutely deserted. No one has been held to account for that and, although some cases are being looked at by the police, many of the doctors and officials who did that are now dead, and there is no paperwork whatsoever from that long ago.

But it is not just about the past. For the infected blood community, even last month, one of the previous compensation schemes, the English Infected Blood Compensation Scheme, wrote to a number of the widows in the scheme saying that they had erroneously been given money and it must be repaid immediately. They would be allowed a year, but in some cases that is up to £1,000 a month and they are widows on pensions. This group of victims has not even been able to start to apply for what they are entitled to under the new scheme that was set up two years ago because they are affected, not infected, victims. Helpfully, both IBCA and the Government have stopped that. We do not know how many are affected, but it is not in the past—that was just a couple of months ago. Why did a scheme think it was appropriate to do that?

The Post Office Horizon scandal, which has been championed by the noble Lords, Lord Arbuthnot and Lord Beamish, and others, has not resolved matters either. Not only do postmasters not have just settlements but many are still waiting for justice and for their wrong criminal convictions to be overturned. It is also about the new scheme for Capture, which a number of us asked questions about two years ago. I believe what Ministers said at the Dispatch Box: that they believed what they had been told, which was that there was no risk at all from Capture because it was completely different. Two years on, we are discovering that is not the case.

It is about the Grenfell disaster where, 10 years on, justice has still not been delivered to the families of those who died and those who were injured. It is about the Windrush scandal, outlined by my noble friend Lady Benjamin, where people were actually threatened with deportation because papers had been lost. Those were the people who were invited to come to the UK to help us develop our life after the Second World War. It is about the atomic bomb veterans from 60 years ago who are still waiting to get on to the first steps. It is about the victims of childhood sexual abuse, both historic and more recent. The IICSA inquiry report and recent court cases have demonstrated that our children are still not safe without proper mandatory reporting and a duty of candour. It is about the continuing scandal of disabling use of vaginal mesh, as well as sodium valproate being given to young women with epilepsy who became pregnant: 20,000 of their children have developmental and other physical disabilities. Some of that is still happening. This is a real scandal.

In Committee and on Report we will be testing the efficacy of the details of this Bill and whether those scandals and tragedies will be prevented and managed in the future. My noble friend Lady Ludford set out the importance of the ECHR in underpinning the moral framework: that real truth is spoken to power and justice is not denied by the state.

The noble Lord, Lord Howard, explained how public officials and Ministers can unwittingly not tell the truth when it has been hidden from them. I think we have seen that from Ministers from every party in two or three of these scandals: the postmasters and the Horizon scheme saw it, as well as infected blood.

We note and are particularly interested in the Long Title to the Bill. It applies to the conduct of public authorities and public officials at all times and is not confined to post-failure consideration and investigation. We also note the purpose of the Bill defined in Clause 1(2)(b), which imposes a requirement on public authorities to act at all times

“to maintain ethical conduct, candour, transparency and frankness”

and is similarly unconfined.

As others have said, we are particularly concerned in this day and age about that golden thread where public services may commission things but not actually deliver them, and in the relationship of some of the subcontractors and whether they will be caught by this. I know that some people think they will all be; I am not convinced.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, we would like to see the enforcement mechanisms in Chapter 2 of Part 2 strengthened on the level applicable by Part 1 to inquiries and investigations: a very clear duty, breach of which gives rise to criminal sanction in the terms of Clause 5, or at least at a comparable level.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, examined the principles of misconduct in public office and how far it will extend beyond the most senior people or to subcontractors. As I have just said, that is an area we want to look at.

My noble friends Lady Kramer, Lady Hamwee and Lord Rennard on our Benches raised the vital issue of protection of those trying to whistleblow. We do not believe that the Employment Rights Act 1966 and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998—which amends the previous Bill—both of which set out how whistleblowing is protected, work in practice. The legislation has patently failed, and this Bill will also fail if whistleblowing is not strengthened too. As my noble friend Lady Kramer said, we will bring forward some amendments, as far as we can within scope, to make sure that whistleblowing can start to work, and not just for employees.

In Committee, we will also seek clarification on a number of issues around the applicability of the Bill to subcontractors and their suppliers. The supply chain in the Grenfell Tower tragedy was a particular problem, as some noble Lords outlined.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee rightly asked for clarity on the role and resources of the Independent Public Advocate, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady May, and others. We must not create an important body to set it up to fail.

This Bill will not work without legal aid provision and I will not repeat what many of the people who spoke about it said, except to say that the briefings from the Bar Council and Inquest absolutely said the same thing. There has to be a level playing field for families and survivors. Please let that happen.

The NHS duty of candour is not working, as others have already outlined. In 2013, the Francis report set out the failings in the Mid Staffs Hospital Trust. I will quote just half a paragraph:

“This was primarily caused by a serious failure on the part of a provider Trust Board. It did not listen … to its patients and staff or ensure the correction of deficiencies brought to the Trust’s attention. Above all, it failed to tackle an insidious negative culture involving a tolerance of poor standards and a disengagement from managerial and leadership responsibilities”.


That sounds very familiar because it is almost what Donna Ockenden said in her report earlier this year about the many maternity scandals. We have the evidence that the system in the NHS is not working.

I want to move, as I close, to two things that I think we can hope for in the future. Many noble Lords will know that I am passionate about mandatory reporting for child sex abuse, as outlined in the independent inquiry. We have had a case this last week and I just want to ask the Minister a question. Sally-Anne Bowen was convicted a couple of days ago and, from what has been reported during the trial, we have concerns that the law would not have required the concerns or allegations to be brought to the attention of the statutory authorities at the time. That is why prescribed mandatory reporting is so important. Can the Minister write to me to let me know whether that would be the case?

In summation, we really need prevention—excuse me, a lot of people have coughs today—of the need for compensation. What is a working system? My positive notes are two. France, during the early years of the infected blood scandal, was very different from the UK and Canada. They have a different judicial system from ours and in the late 1980s, the judiciary became really concerned and started to investigate. They brought two cases: one started in 1988 and finished in 1990, another one later in the 1990s. The result was that about six people were brought to trial. One senior health official was found guilty and sent to prison. One very senior Minister was found guilty and not sent to prison—I do not quite know what else happened—but the others were not found guilty, because they were not part of that golden thread of knowledge and the duty of candour therefore could not have applied to them. For the many people who have been concerned, the French have learned how to do this right. The loss of trust in the public as these cases came to light was changed radically by those court cases.

My final very brief example is from Australia, which has introduced mandatory reporting in child sex abuse and has a full duty of candour. But it is not just about the law; there is a no-blame culture throughout the system, whether that is in schools, hospitals or children’s social care. That has taken some time to get right but, as a result, there are now more possible cases being reported, which is actually what we want to see and hear, and staff are not scared that they will lose their job, because they will not. I hope that this is what we will get to at the end of this Bill. We may need to review it after it comes into force, but let us get on with it.

Victims and Courts Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am going to intervene very briefly to say that it is good that an agreement has been reached on the difficult issue of the processes and arrangements relating to private prosecutions. As with many of the other issues we have discussed during the passage of this Bill, private prosecutions are a complex issue, and not one that can be resolved swiftly or even with a clause or two on the face of the Bill.

I thank the Minister for meeting my noble friend Lord Marks and me on a number of occasions during the Bill to discuss how we can set in place mechanisms to ensure that the Government’s changes will not have surprising or unintended consequences. My noble friend Lord Marks will talk about the details of those changes, which he proposed to the Conservatives at the previous stage of ping-pong; their amendment then reflected his proposal, for which we thank them.

I welcome the government proposals in Motion A. Amendment 4D includes the two key elements of any effective organisation: that there is data to inform decisions—in this form, an impact assessment that would be published—and that the Lord Chancellor must consult the Law Society, the General Council of the Bar and others considered appropriate. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will not use these methods just once. My noble friend Lord Marks has identified core action that will work elsewhere in the court system, where reform may well be needed.

As we come to the end of this Bill, I also want to put on record the support and help of Elizabeth Plummer in our Whips’ Office, and the many individuals and organisations who have worked with us, especially the offices of the London Victims’ Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman. We would not be where we are today without them, and I thank them.

Finally, I want to return to the discussions with the Minister. During the passage of the whole of the Bill, her officials have been enormously helpful and her personal willingness to discuss, both publicly at the Dispatch Box and privately in meetings, speaks volumes about her approach. I thank her for that and look forward to working with her again.

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

My Lords, I repeat and echo all the thanks that my noble friend Lady Brinton has just made to the Minister, her officials and all the others who have helped with this Bill. I was going to say this at the end, but I shall say it now—I am also enormously grateful to and in awe of the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, during the course of this Bill. Her dedication and thoroughness on issues that have concerned her and on which she has worked for many years has been awe-inspiring. Principally, I echo her thanks to the Minister for meeting us and, in particular, for meeting me after the first round of ping-pong last week to discuss our concerns. Notable has been the way in which she has recognised the risk of deterring private prosecutions by introducing inappropriate regulation of costs, and the way she and her officials have framed government Amendment 4D to Clause 12, laid in the Commons, which government Motion A today addresses.

Last Wednesday, we sought consultation on the regulations proposed by Clause 12 and an impact assessment and, as the noble Baroness rightly points out, a response to that impact assessment was also sought. On consideration, and after the discussions we have had, we are completely content that the consultations proposed involving the Law Society, the Bar Council and anyone else the Lord Chancellor believes should be consulted, meet the need for consultation on the regulations proposed.

Importantly, the Government have agreed to publish an impact assessment, and I accept the assurances that that will be thorough and worked-through. The fact that we originally sought a response to an impact assessment may have reflected a procedural misunderstanding. I take the Minister’s point, however, that the response will be apparent when the regulations, such as they are proposed, are in fact made and the response to the impact assessment will be reflected by the Government’s laying of the regulations.

I also take the point—as do the Government—made last Wednesday by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that there may be some urgency to the introduction of such regulations, and that insisting on a government response to an impact assessment beyond publication of the proposed regulations may delay them. So we are quite content with the steps taken, or to be taken, by the Government. Crucially, however, no regulations will be made before the consultation and the impact assessment are complete. That is the most important point. This is going to be a meaningful exercise in consideration of what needs to be done.

Granted, the Government have not conceded the affirmative resolution but, following a favourable consultation and a positive impact assessment, I accept that that is a secondary consideration. I also accept the points made by the Minister on proportionality. We are content that the Government have met our concerns and we will support Motion A.

Having mentioned my thanks to my noble friend Lady Brinton, I also extend my thanks to others in this Chamber, including those on the Conservative Front Bench, who have been helpful in achieving what is now a much better Bill than the Bill that came to this House.

Victims and Courts Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister, her ministerial colleagues in the justice department, officials and staff, who have been available for conversations both during the passage of the Bill, especially since Report, and the helpful discussions reflected in the Government’s 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 the Bill, because I listened carefully to the Minister, both in the Chamber and in our meetings. I have accordingly removed the element about enshrining the rights of bereaved families—of course, they are also victims, because their loved one was murdered—in the victims’ code. I still believe that it is possible to draft something that reflects that, but time is not on our side.

I pay tribute to the Government in that the new code of practice—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 is 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. My amendments 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 victims’ code applies to victims … who are close family members of a British National resident in England and Wales”

who is 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 note what she has said at the Dispatch 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, to be published next year. It is especially welcome that the Government will work with the Victims’ Commissioner and, I hope, with victims’ organisations that help these families too.

The Minister knows that from these Benches we will continue to talk to victims’ groups and that if concerns remain in the future, we will raise questions and, as appropriate, amendments in future legislation, but until then we look forward to seeing the Government’s review next year. I will not take my Motion any further today.

I now turn to Motion A on court transcripts. Over the years, we have tabled amendments about the ability of victims to access parts of court transcripts. It has been too easy to gloss over why too many victims feel excluded from the court process, whether by accident or worse. This can be through poor advice. For example, victims are told—far too frequently, I am afraid—that if they sit in the court after they have given evidence, it is a bad look and it might harm the views of the jury, because victims are seen as ghoulish or, worse, vindictive.

Also, too many victims are not aware of what they are entitled to. Here, I pay my respects to the Minister for her outrage at the Dispatch Box during an earlier stage of the Bill when she outlined her fury about when arrangements for victims are not followed properly in court. In theory, this should not happen, but it does. For those who also do not have the support of professionals to guide them through what is happening in a court case, there is bemusement and often a lack of knowledge. It really affects whether they feel that the process has been as fair to them as it has been to the defendant.

The amendments on court transcripts are invisibly but inextricably linked to the amendments on reforms to 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. I will talk about this more on the next group, but that link is there, so getting both matters right is vital.

I am very grateful to the Minister for her helpful discussions on the practicality of making court transcripts available to victims, and for the announcement yesterday, which she has 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 more cheaply than the vastly expensive current arrangements. From these Benches, we understand the pressure on the court system from imposing the current expensive system further.

We will watch for the outcomes of this study and any consequential actions. As the Minister knows, we will hold the Government to account from our Benches in both this House and the Commons. This includes an amendment that my honourable colleagues have already tabled to the Courts and Tribunals Bill, but I am very grateful for the progress we have made. That is why I did not retable my original amendment today.

Motion C1 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is for sentencing remarks to be published online within 14 days of a request being received by anyone. On Report, we were very concerned that this particular action would lead to victims and witnesses being much more vulnerable than they would under the proposals we have 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 would take 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. I am afraid that is why we cannot support it today.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, Motion C1 in my name would insist on my amendment from Report regarding the publication of court transcripts. It would require sentencing remarks by the Crown Court to be freely published online, while also informing applicants of their right to request anonymity if they wish it.

Open justice is a fundamental principle of 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 regarding grooming gangs and the formal inquiry that the Government launched just this week. It would help to facilitate the transparency required to hold the guilty accountable.

As faith and confidence in public institutions continue to dwindle, many believe that 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 that 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 she was confused about why the Minister was not accepting Lords Amendments 1 and 3 at that point. The Minister said in reply that the Government

“are willing to go further, and we will look to see what more we can do in the Lords”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/26; col. 326.]

Yet the Government have taken no action on this issue other than to reject my amendment in its entirety. I therefore feel compelled to move Motion C1.

I thank the Liberal Democrats for their consistent support of this amendment and the principle that it upholds. It was the combined effort of 160 Conservative and 55 Liberal Democrat Peers that saw this amendment’s 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:

“I urge all colleagues to vote for all these excellent Lords amendments, which are incredibly important to victims and their families”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/26; col. 337.]


There may have been a little wobble since—I am not clear why—but I hope that our efforts in the voting Lobby today will compel the Government to act.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to make a virtual contribution.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Marks for his comments on private prosecutions, and for the discussions we have had with the Minister, and separately with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, over the course of the Bill.

I echo the two important points from our Benches made by my noble friend Lord Marks. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has helpfully reflected in his Motion, an impact assessment on these specific regulations is vital. It would assess how workable they are, especially for the charitable and voluntary sectors, as well as for access to justice. My noble friend’s second point was equally important, and one that we on these Benches often talk about: the risk of giving Ministers the power to use regulations—in this case, to recover costs—without any transparency or reference back to Parliament. The Government need to think hard before they bring that into force.

I now turn to Motion E on unduly lenient sentences. I repeat my thanks to the Minister and her officials, as well as to the late Helen Newlove, the current Victims’ Commissioner, the new Victims’ Commissioner for London, and all their staff over the many years that I and others have been laying amendments to improve the arrangements for victims to be able to submit a claim to the Attorney-General to review an unduly lenient sentence.

I want to pick up where I left off in the previous group, when I outlined how the criminal justice process can seriously let down victims, including on the occasions when they are left distraught by a sentence that really does not meet the level needed for the horrendous experience that they were put through. I am very grateful to the Minister for her comments about the extraordinary work that Tracey Hanson has done to ensure that, after her family’s experience, changes should be made. Her experience was an appalling failure of public service to victims like her and her family. Over 10 years ago, her 21 year-old son, Josh, was the victim of an unprovoked knife attack. In Josh’s case, it took four years for a conviction and sentencing to be reached. She said:

“At no stage during the trial or at the point of sentencing was I informed of the ULS scheme. I only learned of its existence from another bereaved parent, by which time I had just hours left to act within the strict 28-day limit. With no clear guidance available, I submitted an appeal late in the evening on the 28th day, only to be told it was ‘out of time’ because it arrived outside office hours. That decision was final. I had no right to appeal”.


I have heard a little of the energy that the indomitable Tracey Hanson, Claire Waxman and others found on that single day to try to get an appeal in, after being told of it by another bereaved parent, which was, as been mentioned, on deadline day. That formal notice did not give a notice of an hour by which an appeal had to be submitted. Frankly, it was appalling that the Attorney-General’s Office chose to reject it because its idea of the end of the day was Friday hours—namely, 4 pm—even though it was posted by hand through its doors after that deadline but on the Friday.

That is why, during the passage of this Bill, our amendments have consistently asked for special arrangements. First, there must be a duty on an official body to notify a victim as soon as possible after sentencing, and in the event that a victim has not been informed in that time, special arrangements should be made. That is why I am so grateful to the Minister for the government amendments in Motions E and F. Yes, the Minister and I have had extensive discussions and, yes, we have agreed on some things and disagreed on others, but I want to thank Ministers in the MoJ for the round-table meeting with a number of victims last month, when four Ministers were able to hear at first hand from victims about their experience. I hope that, too, played a part in the decision to change things.

Motions E and F are very helpful steps forward to resolve problems and change an intransigent process that has blocked access to justice for victims. We hope that this will now signify a real change to their experience.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by touching briefly on the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Once again, I am grateful to your Lordships for the care and consideration brought to this debate, not only today but throughout the passage of this Bill. These measures matter; they will make a meaningful difference to those who have already endured so much.

I turn to the question of private prosecutions and reiterate that I recognise the concerns raised in relation to Clause 12. I want to make it clear again, as I have said before, that the vast majority of private prosecutions do not result in claims on central funds and will remain entirely unaffected by this measure. It is absolutely right that a number of respected charities make use of the private prosecution route to protect the public and prevent and pursue wrongdoing, but those cases account for only 10% to 15% of claims made on central funds. I make it absolutely crystal clear that we have no issue with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. This enabling power does not restrict who may bring a private prosecution, nor does it narrow the types of cases that may be pursued, and nothing in the clause alters the long-standing statutory right to bring a private prosecution.

It has been suggested that the Government must first consult in order to understand the landscape, but the need has already been established. The Justice Select Committee’s 2020 report published 42 accounts of written evidence and expressly recommended that the Government take a closer look at the private prosecution landscape, particularly when public money is involved. Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts also heard evidence of private prosecutions being misused and imposing significant burdens on the courts. Clause 12 responds to these findings, and I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his support.

Having said all that, we will engage thoroughly with stakeholders and we will hold a public consultation before any secondary legislation setting the rates is brought forward. As part of that process, we will undertake and publish an impact assessment.

I have stressed the importance of prescribing rates which address disproportionate costs without chilling the private prosecutions market. I bear in mind that, in recent years, your Lordships’ House has expressed concern about the quality of impact assessments, so we will work hard to develop an impact assessment which allows the Government to make good, evidence-based decisions. We believe that that is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is referring to when he seeks to compel the Government to respond to an impact assessment in paragraph (b) of Amendment 4B. I would be grateful if he could let me know whether he means something else. Had he accepted my invitation to a meeting, we might have been able to resolve that in advance.

I urge noble Lords to support the Government’s amendments on the ULS scheme and to support Motions D, E, F and G.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

Victims and Courts Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 17th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The Bill represents a significant step forward in strengthening both the rights of victims and the way in which our courts operate. At its heart, it seeks to ensure that victims are treated with dignity, compassion and respect throughout the justice process, while ensuring that our courts are able to deliver justice more swiftly and effectively.

I thank all Members of your Lordships’ House who contributed during the debates; the officials for all their support during its passage; and all noble Lords who have given their time and expertise to scrutinising the Bill during its passage through your Lordships’ House and, through their engagement, have strengthened the Bill in the process.

I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their support for and engagement on the key measures in the Bill. I look forward to continuing to work with them on the recent amendments regarding the unduly lenient sentencing scheme, court transcripts and support for victims of homicide abroad.

I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for their informed, thoughtful interventions and the constructive challenges that they have put forward. I look forward to discussing further their recent amendments regarding court transcripts and private prosecutions.

I am grateful for the broad support for this Bill across the House, and I look forward to working on its implementation. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, I am very grateful that the Conservatives have already expressed their thanks for the Bill. We echo that thanks. I welcome the very constructive engagement from all sides of the House. I particularly thank my noble friends Lord Marks and Lord Russell, with whom I have worked closely on victims’ issues for many years. I also thank the House more generally. The timely passage of this Bill is unusual, and I am very pleased that we were able to conduct our business in the time allocated and still come to the end of the Bill and feel that real progress has been made.

This is where I thank the Minister and all her officials because, despite the fact that a number of votes were won on Report—we look forward to continuing to work with her—many of the items we discussed in private between Committee and Report have been resolved to some extent or another. On behalf of all the groups and the individual victims who got in touch, not only now but in the run-up to the Bill, we are grateful for the progress that has been made. That does not mean, however, that everything is done; I and many others will continue to work on those particular issues. From our side, as has already been mentioned, we particularly want to see some movement on court transcripts, homicide abroad and unduly lenient sentences. We are very grateful for the discussions that are already beginning between now and ping-pong.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, in speaking on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, I readily start with praise and thanks for my noble friend the Minister for her entire conduct on the Bill throughout its passage in the House. I particularly thank my noble friend for her willingness to hold meetings with us on a number of occasions, despite her very heavy and busy diary.

The Bill does well in strengthening the position of victims in our judicial processes and in strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. However, there is unfinished business relating to the victims of trafficking of women and girls, particularly related to the provision of sexual services. As I told your Lordships in Committee, the numbers are large. They are not in the hundreds but in the thousands.

As this is Third Reading, I do not seek to repeat arguments made in Committee or on Report. It suffices to say that these women and girls, who are often illegally brought into this country, are in a fraught and difficult position. For example, they are terrified, when they are drawn to the attention of the authorities, that they will be deported. They need our help. Help, I have to say, is not being provided to them either in this Bill or in the Crime and Policing Bill.

The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner produced an excellent report, which I strongly commend to your Lordships. I strongly urge those responsible in the Home Office to read it as obligatory reading. As she rightly says in her foreword:

“Tackling modern slavery is everyone’s business”.


Indeed it is. I recognise, when speaking to your Lordships and to my noble friend the Minister, that modern slavery is in the remit of the Home Office and not the Ministry of Justice, but I ask my noble friend to speak strongly in government of the need to give the victims of modern slavery the support that they are not currently receiving and which they need.

Victims and Courts Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

1: Clause 3, page 5, line 40, leave out from “offender”)” to end of line 1 on page 6 and insert “for any sexual offence in relation to children, including online offences,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment lowers the threshold at which the restrictions in Clause 3 can apply.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and her officials for the helpful meetings between Committee and Report and for the correspondence. I have retabled my amendment from Committee, which would place restrictions on parental responsibility, as Amendment 1, and signed Amendments 2 and 3 from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, which I support. I listened very carefully to the Minister and was grateful to be able to discuss the matter with her. We thank the Government for recognising that there must be a clear position on when those convicted of child sex abuse lose their parental rights. It has been iniquitous that parental rights have trumped the safeguarding of children, even when the person with parental rights has been convicted of child sexual abuse.

However, we are not convinced that this is strong enough and Amendment 1 includes all convicted of child sexual abuse. This is not about the punishment of the offender; it is about protecting all children. The organisation We Stand told us that research from the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse shows that natural parents are the highest offending group in intra-familial child sex abuse, which accounts for two-thirds of offences. 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’s assumption about the rights of a parent, even one who is a convicted child sex abuse offender. Everything is stacked against the protective parent, with little or no legal aid to fight to protect their children and 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. That is also extraordinary: how can they comment on them or ask for assessments to be made?

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. This is especially problematic in households where there has also been coercive control and domestic abuse, as repeated requests continue the abuse, but the family courts have too often 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 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’s 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.

On a technical point, the serious sexual offences listed in new Schedule ZA1 to the Children Act 1989 include both indecent imagery offences and contact offences. Imagery offences have a minimum sentence of a community order; this means we could well argue that serious offences under Clause 3 could be triggered at any sentencing threshold. However, the majority of sentences for indecent imagery tend to fall between three months and a year, while sentencing guidelines for contact offences start at a minimum of one year. Those convicted of these offences would be excluded from the Government’s proposal in Clause 3.

Surely, for safeguarding reasons, now is the time to change the legal responsibility, with the offending parent having to prove why they are safe to exercise parental responsibility, through rehabilitation courses and, of course, assessment by professionals. 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.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 2 and 3, which were laid by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who apologises for being unable to be in the House today. Rather courageously and dangerously, he has asked me to present the two amendments in his name. I shall do my amateur best.

Amendment 2 would restrict the acquisition of parental responsibility by those convicted of serious sexual offences against a child. The Bill as drafted requires the Crown Court to prohibit convicted offenders from exercising parental responsibility and does so by requiring that the court makes an order when sentencing the offender. However, this would not and does not cover children of 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.

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 is very unlikely that the mother would then agree that the father should be included on the birth certificate. However, if the father and mother were still married to each other at the time of the child’s birth, the father would automatically acquire parental responsibility. To change that, under current law the mother would have to apply to the family court on notice to the father.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this fairly short debate. I think we have managed to get to the essence of the issues remaining from Committee. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for her explanation about children born by rape and conceived pre sentencing. I really welcome her comments on that. I think from across the House we also want to thank her and the Government for delivering on Jade’s law. We are not quite there yet but, as I think everyone across the House accepts, there is a considerable amount of work to do and it is more important to get it right when it starts at the end of the year.

I understand the points the Minister made on my Amendment 1. This goes to the heart of this set of amendments. I spoke about the difficulties between the criminal court system and the family court system and why children are falling between the gaps. I accept these issues and will not call a Division on my amendment, but I really hope the Government can bring forward a Bill where we can discuss both the family courts and the criminal courts and get some understanding and change on these sensitive and difficult issues of safe- guarding children. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

5: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Access to free court transcripts for victims(1) Victims of criminal offences shall be entitled to receive, without charge, court transcripts of—(a) the Route to Verdict, and(b) bail decisions and conditions,which are relevant to their case.(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that such transcripts are provided within 14 days of a request.(3) The entitlement under subsection (1) shall apply irrespective of whether the victim gave evidence in the case.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would give victims a right to receive, free of charge, court transcripts of the Route to Verdict and bail decisions relevant to their case. It requires that transcripts be provided within 14 days of a request and clarifies that this right applies whether or not the victim gave evidence in the case.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her helpful meeting between Committee and Report. As a result of her concerns about the practicalities of summing up for victims, I have amended my Amendment 5 following discussion with others outside your Lordships’ House.

From these Benches, I say again that both the previous and present Government undertook the pilot scheme to provide victims with judges’ sentencing remarks. It is encouraging that this pilot scheme will now be rolled out across England and Wales—it is certainly better than nothing at all.

In Committee, I argued that there are a number of reasons why sentencing remarks alone might well not provide the help a victim needs, whether this is information to explain what has happened when they may not have been present or to give them an understanding that it might help lead them to closure after whatever the incident was, or information that might help them to decide whether to challenge the sentence as unduly lenient—the subject of the last group in this Report stage later today.

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. That being cost-free is very important, because in Committee we heard of the extraordinary amounts of money that some victims have been asked to pay when they have asked for transcripts of court hearings. In one case, this was quoted at £7,000—that is too much. I am therefore grateful that the Minister says the Ministry of Justice will look at how technology can be harnessed in the future to ensure 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 Minister to that in the future.

Amendment 5 also says that the victims should be informed about bail conditions. This is important especially if there is a restriction placed on the defendant from 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, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, sets a framework and timescale for the publication online of sentencing remarks. We hope that if this is accepted, the Government would also undertake to ensure the victim is told as soon as they are published online. The amendment also says the victim must be aware they have the right to request anonymity. 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 is helpful that it is clearly stated here. I beg to move.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, reflects 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. In Committee, we supported the broader amendment, which included sentencing remarks as well. On the amendment now before us, which includes transcripts of the route to verdict, our position has not changed; if anything, we are even more supportive, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this matter to Report.

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, this time focusing on sentencing remarks. I will not rehearse the arguments and evidence for this, as we have all heard the benefits and how it would help the interests of victims and underlines our open justice system.

We have listened carefully and, after further thought, have revised the amendment that we brought forward in Committee. While 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. In addition, it still requires the court to make victims aware of this right before sentencing remarks are published. With this crucial and pragmatic safeguard in place, we hope that the House finds this to be a well-considered and reasonable amendment that 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 intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 16.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for their constructive engagement on the subject of court transcripts over recent weeks.

As the noble and learned Lord said, there is nothing between us on the principle of increased transparency for criminal court proceedings. As your Lordships will know, the Government recently announced that we will provide free transcripts of sentencing remarks for victims whose cases are heard in the Crown Court; it is one of the provisions of the Sentencing Act. Delivering this new entitlement is a significant operational undertaking. It is essential that we get it right, so that victims can receive the information they need in a timely way. However, the new proposals in the amendments in this group, taken either individually or together, would put that commitment under strain.

Through her Amendment 5, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, wants to include an entitlement to transcripts of bail decisions and the route to verdict. There are two difficulties with that. First, providing transcripts of bail decisions would involve extra resource. Transcripts are not free and producing even those for short hearings, if extended across England and Wales, would be expensive. Secondly, it would not provide significant benefits over and above the systems already in place. Transcripts on bail decisions are rarely informative for victims; they usually just set out the decision—where the judge says either that bail is granted and lists the conditions, or that bail is refused, with rarely any kind of reasoned judgment—and, as I said, they would come with cost implications. Under the victims’ code, victims already have the right to be informed of bail outcomes and release conditions.

We recognise that, when information is not provided in a timely or consistent way, this can cause distress and anxiety for victims and add to what is already a difficult experience. The experiences spoken to in Committee by the noble Baroness is clearly not what we expect or wish—nor are they, I am pleased to say, the norm. 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 will also seek victims’ views on access to bail information and whether current processes are working correctly, through the ongoing victims’ code consultation. To strengthen that 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. Therefore, legislation needed to drive improvement in notifying victims of bail conditions is already in place.

Because this amendment arrived only yesterday, I have not had an opportunity to discuss the question of routes to verdict with the noble Baroness, but I think it is possible that she may have been misinformed about what a route to verdict is and what it consists of. It is our view that a route to verdict is unlikely to add significant, or indeed any, value for victims. It is usually a very short document; in most trials, it is typically about 10 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 are applying the law to the facts of the case. However, the jury never gives its answers to those questions because we do not have reasoned judgments in criminal trials. Therefore, the victim will not be any wiser as to what the answers were; they would simply know the questions that were asked. These routes to verdict are almost always—unless the printer is broken—provided to the jury in hard copy, so a transcript is not needed and would add nothing.

The noble Baroness also raised concerns in Committee about victims being asked to leave the courtroom after giving evidence. I agree that this is a real issue and should not happen. I give the noble Baroness 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 observation, so that they cannot be seen and do not have to see the person they accuse—can be made in some, if not all, circumstances. This is a practical and immediate step that we hope will make a real difference to victims’ experience without requiring further legislation.

Amendment 16 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would require the Crown Court to publish transcripts of sentencing remarks within 14 days of a request for such remarks being made. 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. Jigsaw identification is where a number of apparently innocuous pieces of information, when put together, particularly by people who have some knowledge of the local area, for example, can in fact lead to the identification of the victim. Even something such as the location of a shop, if there are people around who know it, could tell them who the victim is.

That kind of anonymisation is detailed and skilled work. Current AI-based tools cannot reliably carry out anonymisation for the complex and sensitive material heard in the criminal courts. The cost of getting it wrong is profound. It requires trained staff manually to review each transcript, and research suggests that 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 in operational capacity in the Crown Courts, which 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 to publish the transcript online within 14 days of any request is just not viable. Our priority must be delivering the 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 was said in Committee, and work is already under way to improve the transcripts application process to make the system more accessible for all users. I thank your 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 the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, if content, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the Minister for their contributions. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his support of our Amendment 5. We on our Benches absolutely agree that his amendment helps the interests of victims’ right to anonymity, and we are very grateful for that. As he said, it is practical.

I preface my reply to the Minister by saying that through these amendments we are seeking to ensure that the problems that victims have at the moment are resolved. The difficulty we have is that we are being told it is all too expensive, difficult and complicated. I have been sitting in your Lordships’ House for at least six years getting that sort of response. Victims are very grateful for the pilot that has gone through on the sentencing notes, but the issue is that there are other things that victims need to hear.

We appreciate that there are significant issues that need to be resolved, but it was only through pressure from your Lordships’ House during the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act that we got the pilot that is now being rolled out. I really hope we can convince the Government that they should do another pilot to at least look at some of the issues that either my amendment or the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, tackles, because we believe that to be important. However, 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.

--- Later in debate ---

What connects police, health services and local authorities? One thing is budget, or lack thereof. I thought the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer—a “whole-society approach”—was very apt. I declare that I chaired the domestic violence charity Refuge for many years, although it was in a rather different place, certainly in my early years, from where it is now. We must continue to pursue support for people who have been abused, exploited and victimised—that is coming from right round the House.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, this group is titled simply “victim support”, but in the debate so far we have heard strikingly different issues in victim support, none of which can really be put together. But what they say generally—I hope to reflect this when I speak to my three amendments in this group—is that, although there is progress in victim support, some of it can be patchy, not well embedded and inconsistent. I know that this Government, at their heart, particularly through their VAWG strategy, are determined to do something about that. I think the Minister is finding that there is pressure from all around the House, saying, “Could you speed that up a bit, please?”

I have three amendments in this group: Amendment 11, on the provision of support for parents and carers of victims of sexual or violent offences, and Amendments 12 and 13 on restorative justice, which I will speak to in a minute.

I have raised the problems that face the parents and carers of some victims of sexual or violent offences on a number of occasions. The problem is that there is a fault line in the current victims framework, which does not understand the role of a parent—it is usually a parent—or carer of a victim of sexual or violent offences who has been traumatised by what has happened to their child. Too often, the distraught victim returns to the family and, not infrequently, family members provide essential support. Sometimes, the trauma is so great that at least one parent has to give up work to look after their adult child. These family members provide an essential safeguarding and recovery role. Research has shown that many carers experience significant psychological, practical and financial difficulties, with no support or redress at all for themselves.

The victims’ code allows parents, guardians or carers to receive rights where the victim is a child, and it provides more limited recognition in cases involving vulnerable adults. In practice, these rights are framed primarily around acting on behalf of the victim, but the code does not establish a clear stand-alone entitlement to support for the parent’s or carer’s own trauma, well- being or capacity to sustain safeguarding. Unfortunately, delivery can be discretionary and inconsistent.

Therefore, this amendment recognises that some parents or carers of adult victims may require some proportionate support as a consequence of the offence and the justice process, and it would require relevant authorities to commission and make that support available, while distinguishing caregiving support from evidential witness support. It does not create new victim categories for sentencing or compensation; nor does it dilute the primacy of the effect on the victim or expand the ISVA role. I am grateful for the conversation I had with the Minister, and I hope she will agree to meet Restitute, the small self-help group trying to help parents and carers navigate a world in which their child has been severely traumatised. The loophole in the law about not qualifying because they are witnesses is very real to them.

Amendment 12 sets out the rights for a victim of an offence to make a referral to restorative justice services. Note that it is only the victim, not the offender—the Minister and I had a debate about that. The amendment is very clear: this would not put the victim at risk of being approached by the offender.

Amendment 13 would give the Secretary of State a duty to report on the use of restorative justice services and to lay the report before Parliament. In Committee, I set out the experience of my honourable friend Paul Kohler MP, who was brutally attacked in his own home, witnessed by his wife and daughters. Somewhat reluctantly, they all went through a restorative justice process, which they actually found helped them all. These amendments are not general, which is why it is important that offenders would not be able to request restorative justice under them. But we know that this helps a number of offenders. There is evidence to show that, when offenders engage in good faith, it can be transformative for them too and can reduce the rate of recidivism.

The final benefit is to society as a whole. Restorative justice works. Not only can it reduce reoffending by up to 27% but it can save society money in future, in reduced costs for the police, courts, prisons and probation services. We Liberal Democrats have championed restorative justice for many years; it has been in our manifesto for as many elections as I can remember, and we support the work of Why Me and the Common Ground Justice Project. We recognise that the criminal justice system is under considerable pressure at the moment, which is why we will not test the opinion of the House on any of these three amendments, but I hope that the Ministry of Justice might look at running a restorative justice pilot to assess the benefit to society, as well as to victims and offenders.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the important amendments in this group address real issues for victims and victim support. Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, seeks to introduce independent victim navigators on a national basis to act as a liaison between the police and victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. The principle behind this amendment has force. Victims of these offences often face complex barriers to accessing support. To navigate the criminal justice system can be daunting for those who have experienced exploitation or coercion. This specific service is needed. The amendment reflects recommendations made by your Lordships’ Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee. We on these Benches therefore hope that the Government will give careful consideration to the proposal, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Amendment 7 in the name of my noble friend Lord Polak, introduced so eloquently by him and echoed by my noble friend Lord Farmer and others, likewise focuses on strengthening the framework of support available to victims. It places a duty on relevant authorities to commission sufficient and specific services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and child criminal exploitation. The principle that victims should have access to appropriate and specialised services is widely shared across this House. To ensure that support provision responds to the varied needs of victims, including children and those with particular vulnerabilities, is an important objective. My noble friend’s Amendment 7 also draws on the recommendations made by the Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee. It seeks to translate those recommendations into a more structured system of support. These are serious matters that deserve careful reflection. We hope that the Government will consider the intent behind this amendment with that in mind.

Amendments 11 to 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, address different but no less important aspects of victim support. They include support for caregivers of victims, access to restorative justice services, and the assessment of their use. Each of these raises serious issues about how the criminal justice system supports victims and those adversely affected by crime. It is important to do something in this direction. They highlight questions around the availability of services, the role of restorative justice and the broader framework through which victims are to be assisted. They all deserve serious consideration. Again, I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, within this group are amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, regarding the victims’ code, and from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, with regard to incidental matters thereto.

Perhaps I may begin with the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell. These address the important question of how hospital managers exercise their discretion when responding to requests for information about offenders detained under the mental health legislation. Amendment 17 seeks to ensure that when hospital managers consider whether it is appropriate to disclose information, they explicitly take into account the risk of further physical or psychological harm to victims if that information is withheld. The purpose of providing information to victims is in large part to enable them to feel safer and to plan appropriately for an offender’s discharge. We support the principle underlying this amendment.

Amendment 18 would require hospital managers to provide written reasons when information is not disclosed. Greater transparency in decision-making can help build confidence in the system and ensure that victims and probation services understand how such determinations have been reached.

Amendment 19 would create a clearer route of appeal where information requests are refused. This amendment raises the question of whether a more structured and independent route of appeal might provide additional clarity and reassurance to victims.

Amendment 10 would require the Secretary of State to create an appendix to the victims’ code outlining how the code applies to victims whose close relative was the victim of murder, manslaughter or infanticide outside the United Kingdom. This is a proposal with which we are at least sympathetic.

Amendment 15 in my name would extend the victim contact scheme to include victims whose offenders are sentenced to less than 12 months for violent and sexual offences—as well as bereaved families in manslaughter or death by dangerous driving cases where the offender is sentenced to less than 12 months. Much has been said about the Sentencing Act in this Chamber. In light of that legislation, it is undeniable that many victims captured by those provisions will have to face the reality of their offenders living in their communities. It is therefore only appropriate that victims of violent and sexual offences should be eligible for the scheme. For stalking, the Government are happy to extend the victim contact scheme with no limitation on sentence length. There should similarly be no such limits for the narrowly drawn list of serious offences in this amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 10 in this group, on bereaved victims of murder abroad. I have also signed the three amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on victims of mentally disordered offenders.

To speak briefly to those amendments, which we are happy to support from these Benches, it is very important that hospital managers and senior clinicians take a balanced approach regarding victims of offenders who are detained under the Mental Health Act. Unfortunately, hospital managers and clinicians often withhold data that could be released which would assist victims—and worse, not even tell them that they are withholding it. The amendments set out a balanced approach for hospitals and would require written reasons to be given to the victim for any decision to withhold some or all of the information requested. The third amendment would create an independent route for victims to appeal where a hospital manager has decided not to share information.

I turn to my Amendment 10, which seeks a pathway for bereaved victims of murder abroad. We had an extensive debate on this in Committee, and I am grateful to the Minister for the very helpful and informative meeting with Home Office and FCDO staff who specialise in this area, including those who liaise with the coroners service and support victims whose family members have been murdered abroad.

With around 80 British nationals being murdered abroad each year, the numbers may appear low, but families are not just navigating the horror of a murder, which is bad enough at home in the UK, but doing so in a country where legal systems will differ. There are also likely to be language barriers. Even worse is managing the complex logistical issues of repatriation of the body—which, speaking from personal family experience, is hard even with a natural death—as well as coping with limited police updates from afar.

The problem is that these people are not recognised as formal victims of crime because the murder occurred outside the United Kingdom, nor do they receive any of the relevant protections and entitlements given to their UK equivalents. These Benches thank the Government for their recently updated family information guide on murder and manslaughter abroad, and on how the differing parts of the Government will work. We believe this is a good start and we understand that these new arrangements will take time to bed in.

The Minister mentioned in Committee that the homicide service, which is currently run by Victim Support, is being retendered at the moment. Is there any news yet as to whether the budget for that service is being absolutely sustained? I realise that times are hard, but we cannot have a service that cannot function and support these families because it does not have the resources that it needs. It is clear from the guide that the homicide service is the key that keeps on top of all the different moving parts and keeps the victims informed.

However, it is early days, and I know from talking to Murdered Abroad that there are still real concerns about how this will work effectively. Too often, despite the best intentions of the very willing staff across the board, families still struggle for information, support or translation services. That is why we have retabled our amendment, which sets out the application of the victims’ code in respect to victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad. We do not seek for these families to be treated exactly the same as UK victims. Rather, the amendment seeks an appendix to the victims’ code that sets out which services they can access, and only those.

I hope that the Minister feels that this is a supportive mechanism which would give core strength to the excellent but invisible work of those in the Home Office, the FCDO and our embassies, and the coroners service, as well as of Murdered Abroad. Above all, it would support the bereaved families at the worst time of their lives. At present, I am minded to test the opinion of the House, but I really hope for a more positive response from the Minister on the recognition of the status of these victims.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I thank the Minister for the very helpful meeting that we had with the FCDO and the officials charged with this responsibility. The person in charge of it, who is very impressive, has the slightly alarming job title of director, consular and crisis, which I do not think I would particularly like to have on my business card, but she and her team were very reassuring and forthcoming.

For those of us who have been pushing repeatedly in different pieces of legislation to acknowledge that the families of those who are murdered abroad have slightly been left out in the cold—it has been rather Russian roulette as to whether they have been fortunate enough to have interacted with a consular team who have been on the ball, helpful and proactive—one of the effects of that pushing is that the message appears to have taken root. We were reassured, on questioning that team in quite a lot of detail about the training they do and the support they are able to give, so I am extremely grateful for that.

However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. To have a more holistic, clearer, and more efficient process to allow the victims, who are, usually, living in this country to access help, support and advice quickly, to have some processes in place similar to what UK victims of other crimes receive under the victims’ code, and to have a more proximate approach for those families of those people who are murdered abroad is a justified cause. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify slightly more than she was able to in Committee.

I turn briefly to Amendments 17, 18 and 19, which are about the response that victims of mentally disordered offenders get—or do not get, because there are various systemic problems within the NHS, which has its own rules about the type of information it can give. That means a slight lack of clarity for people in terms of understanding exactly what they can and cannot do. The Minister said very helpfully in Committee that her officials are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to consider routes by which this could be improved. I hope that she will be able to update the House on the progress they are making and whether there will be any positive outcomes from that.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

10: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Application of the victims’ code in respect of victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide abroad(1) The Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 is amended as follows.(2) After section 4, insert—“4A Application of the victims’ code in respect of victims of murder, manslaughter or infanticide of a close family member abroad(1) This section relates to victims as defined under section 1(2)(c) who are close family members of a British National resident in England and Wales who was the victim of— (a) murder,(b) manslaughter, or(c) infanticide,committed outside the United Kingdom.(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations issue an appendix to the victims’ code, setting out how the code applies to victims in the circumstances set out in subsection (1).(3) The appendix must set out the services to be provided to victims as defined under subsection (1) by those persons based in England and Wales appearing to the Secretary of State to have functions of a public nature relating to—(a) victims, or(b) any aspect of the criminal justice system.(4) The appendix must make provision for services based in England and Wales which reflect the principles that victims require—(a) information to help them understand the criminal justice process,(b) access to services within England and Wales which provide them with emotional and practical support (including, where appropriate, specialist services),(c) in circumstances where the criminal justice process is engaged in England and Wales, the opportunity to make their views heard in the criminal justice process, and(d) the ability to challenge decisions which have a direct impact on them.(5) In setting out the services to be provided to victims under this section, the Secretary of State must specify the following—(a) how such services will be provided with accessible information;(b) how they access emotional and practical support.””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to create an appendix to the Victims’ Code which outlines how the code applies to victims whose close relative was the victim of murder, manslaughter or infanticide outside the UK.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. The difficulty we face is that a lot of the responses from the Government talk about raising victims’ expectations. We are trying to balance raising victims’ expectations with the crisis that they are facing when they do not to get the service they are entitled to or—as in this particular case, of murder victims abroad—because at the moment they are lacking in formal terms.

Even if the Government wish to create a separate document, which I would entirely endorse, I suspect that it would have to be signposted in the victims’ code, because a lot of people would look there first. On that basis, and perhaps to encourage the Government to move a little faster on this, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I have relaid the amendment on the victim’s right to review in the event of discontinuance of proceedings. Amendment 23 would extend the period that a case can be discontinued in the Crown Court to bring it in line with the magistrates’ courts. This would mean that the CPS could discontinue a case at the Crown Court, with the option to reopen it following a successful victim right to review application, if it concludes that it made an error in stopping the prosecution.

I was grateful for the Minister’s response in Committee, when she explained that this amendment would mean wide-ranging implications for both victims and defendants. I have relaid it because I hope that she will be able to clarify the timescale for the Government’s response to Sir Brian Leveson’s important report on wider court reforms and improving efficiency. Perhaps even more importantly, will this issue of a victim’s right to review be, at the very least, included in discussions in the MoJ in the context of Sir Brian’s report and the wider court reforms? While appreciating that all of this may take time, there is a pressing and unequal arrangement at the moment. We will, I suspect, continue to lay amendments on this and to question Ministers in the future.

My noble friend Lord Marks has supported Amendment 20 on private prosecutions, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. As he said, we will support the Conservatives if they should choose to divide on it.

Amendment 29, laid by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, would create exemptions to the early release scheme for sex offenders and domestic abusers. In Committee, the Minister referred to enhanced supervision when offenders of sexual crimes are released—that is, the use of tags and bail conditions that can impose wide restrictions on an offender visiting or travelling in areas that pose risk for the victims. That is as it should be. However, the proposers of this amendment say that it has not been working well in recent years—I have to say that includes when they were in power. If that is the case, can the Minister tell me how we can then protect victims from their offenders?

I want to ask whether those convicted of stalking and coercive control would be included in the category in Amendment 29, given that they are now included in the appendix of relevant serious crimes covered in the victims’ code and are exempt from automatic release after recall, such as breach of a protective order.

Having asked these questions, we are minded to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, if he should decide to test the opinion of the House in due course.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin with Clause 12. There are two points that I want to make at the outset: the Government’s motivation for introducing this provision is not to save money, and we do not wish there to be a chilling effect on private prosecutions. Indeed, we are supportive of the long-standing right to bring a private prosecution and we recognise the important part such prosecutions play in the criminal justice landscape.

Expenditure on private prosecutions is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has already said, a very small proportion of overall Ministry of Justice spending. But what matters, regardless of the scale of expenditure, is clarity, consistency, proportionality and value for money. The Justice Select Committee, in its 2020 report Private Prosecutions: Safeguards, invited the Government to take a closer look at the private prosecution landscape, particularly where public funds are engaged. An enabling power as in Clause 12 allows us to do precisely that, in a careful and evidence-led way. The Justice Committee highlighted three key principles which should underpin reform. These are: first, addressing the disparity between defence resources and those of private prosecutors; secondly, safeguarding the right of individuals to bring a private prosecution; and, thirdly, ensuring the proportionate and responsible use of public funds. We agree with the Justice Committee about these principles.

At present, there are no prescribed rates for private prosecutors recovering costs from central funds, which is public money. This results in significant uncertainty, with the courts and the Legal Aid Agency required to assess claims case by case, often by reference to civil guideline rates and leading to disputes, appeals and judicial reviews, adding to costs and delay in the courts. The courts play a vital role in overseeing private prosecutions and have made a number of important changes, but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said during debate in Committee, this is a matter with which the Government have to grapple. The question of the amount of costs recoverable in principle is a matter of public policy and it is appropriate that such policy decisions are made by a democratically accountable officeholder, rather than developed incrementally through case law. The enabling power in Clause 12 ensures that any framework adopted has a clear statutory basis and is subject to parliamentary oversight.

The majority of private prosecutions do not result in any claim on central funds and will be entirely unaffected by this measure. Moreover, most private prosecutors are assiduous in applying the full code test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and in their overall conduct of the case. But there is some evidence that, at the margins, the near certainty of substantial costs recovery may cause private prosecutions to be pursued which are either disproportionate or an unsuitable remedy, when the issue in dispute is essentially one which requires a civil law adjudication.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, in Committee, we welcomed the Government’s recognition that there are practical issues in ensuring that victims are told of the sentencing within the 28-day limit, and under the present rules they cannot ask the Attorney-General to review the sentence as unduly lenient. My Amendments 26 and 27 would specifically allow for the 28-day timeframe to be extended in exceptional circumstances, which may include, but is not limited to, delays in being told. It also strengthens the route for victims to be told with a duty to inform victims.

In Committee, we had an extensive probing debate about increasing 26 days to 56 days, and Amendment 25 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, relays that in Amendment 24. However, my amendment tries to focus entirely on giving victims the right, if something has gone wrong and only in the most exceptional circumstances, to ask the AG to extend the period for a submission. We genuinely think that this safety net is the best way to do that. If the Government accept the formal route to notifying victims set out in Amendment 27, the most common reason for not being notified should almost completely stop. Other exceptional circumstances—including, perhaps, a victim being in hospital during the period—might be permitted.

The Minister was concerned that too many expectations would be raised, but we have not pressed on detail. It would be down to the AG’s office to provide a guidance note for victims that would notify them of their rights, as well as the type of extraordinary circumstance. Currently, victims do not have access to this, and because of other problems about who should inform them, their right to ask for consideration of an unduly lenient sentence falls. This should be remedied and, subject to the Minister’s response, I may wish to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. I put my name to both amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which we first laid in Committee. In essence, what the Minister said when she wound up this group in Committee was “We are listening and I am making a listening speech”. I hope that, even though she has been on her feet for much of today, she is still in listening mode. I do appreciate, as I think we all do, the way she has approached both Committee and Report; it is a refreshing change from some experiences one has had in recent years. I look forward to what I hope will be a positive “listening” response.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

26: After Clause 14, insert the following new Clause—
“Unduly lenient sentences: time limitIn paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988, at end insert“, subject to sub-paragraph (2).(2) The time limit of 28 days shall be extended in exceptional circumstances, which may include but not be limited to a failure of the relevant body to inform the victim and families of their rights under section 36 (reviews of sentencing).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow for the 28-day timeframe to be extended in exceptional circumstances, and prompt criminal justice agencies to meet their obligation to inform of their rights and the tight time limit.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I will be brief, given the hour and the fact that there is some other business to come. I am very grateful for the Minister’s response. I am somewhat disappointed by it—I do not think she will be surprised by that. It is my understanding that if Amendment 26 is carried, the Government will not oppose Amendment 27. In that case, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 26.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

27: After Clause 14, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to inform victims and families of the unduly lenient sentencing schemeAfter section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, insert—“36A Duty to inform victims and families of the unduly lenient sentencing scheme(1) The Secretary of State must nominate a government department to inform victims and their families of their rights set out in section 36 (reviews of sentencing).(2) The information provided under subsection (1) must include the type of sentence and the time limit for application, and advise that applications must be made to the Attorney General.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that victims are aware of the Unduly Lenient Sentencing scheme which presently has a strict 28-day timeframe in which to apply, there being no power to extend the time.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I beg to move.

Amendment 28 (to Amendment 27) not moved.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

Finally, I will say a word about the amendment in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Polak. I have added my name, since I do agree with the principle. However, I am concerned about the drafting, which would take a judge several hours to explain to a jury, and then they may still not understand it. I hope that the Government will accept the principle and come back at Third Reading with a simpler, more practical amendment. In the meantime, I look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly to Amendment 262, which is widely supported by the children’s organisations. That change to the Bill should be made.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I have signed my noble friend Lady Walmsley’s Amendments 246A, 248, 248A and 262 in this group. I will not repeat the points that she made in her important contribution, other than to say that it is very disappointing that this Government, and indeed the last Government, refused to implement the mandatory reporting recommendations from IICSA.

It is an unusual step for the board of an inquiry to write to the Home Secretary, as it did last Friday, to urge her to implement specific recommendations, but it did. My noble friend Lady Walmsley explained why this was important and why the Government’s worries are unfounded, given that the amendments from her and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, echo the mandatory reporting rules in other countries, including Australia, where it works. I hope that the Minister will have a change of heart.

I heard some ministerial tutting when my noble friend Lady Walmsley was speaking, but she, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the IICSA board all understand that these amendments cover proposals that are essential pillars to finding and stopping child sexual abuse. Without them, there is a real risk that what the Government are proposing will not work in practice.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing back her amendments, and I thank other noble Lords who have spoken to their amendments in this group. I recall that this topic prompted one of the more robust debates that we had in Committee, and I am grateful for the chance to touch on the key points again.

This group touches on the issue of child sexual exploitation. While the previous groups focused on creating specific offences for crimes against children, these amendments consider the failure to report sexual offences when they occur. As was our position in Committee, we are broadly supportive of the principles behind the noble Baroness’s amendments. I entirely understand her concern that criminal sanctions work as both an impetus for, and as a punishment for not, reporting child sexual abuse, and that the Bill, as currently drafted, does not underpin the duty with an offence.

Similarly, I see the logic in removing Clause 77(6), which removes the duty if the individual in question believes that another person will make a notification, and of Amendment 263, which would remove the “best interests” defence. I accept that this may be used as an excuse to turn a blind eye, which would render the new provision rather meaningless, but I also accept that there needs to be some leeway in reporting duties. Perhaps the Minister can touch on this when he speaks to Amendment 266.

Regrettably, I cannot accept the argument behind Amendments 240 and 242. While I accept that the duty of care lies with the local authority, it is the police forces that are tasked with intervening and arresting those committing child sexual offences. There are undoubtedly cases where it would be necessary to contact police forces first, and I do not think that restricting reporting to simply the local authority is wise.

I am grateful for my noble friend Lord Polak’s amendments, particularly those to Clause 84. Amendment 257 underscores the importance of clear and delineated settings in which these new provisions would be applicable. However, although this is important, I do not think it should be exhaustive. CSA takes place in all walks of life, unfortunately, and confining reporting it to categories risks removing the duty in other places.

My noble friend Lord Polak’s Amendment 264 goes past the current drafting of the Bill, which introduces an offence of preventing or deterring the reporting of child sexual abuse, and would create a new offence of intentionally concealing a child sexual offence. I support the intent behind my noble friend’s amendments and hope the Minister will be sympathetic.

I also support the intention of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. We should be guided by evidence, which the IICSA report provided, and that is why the last Conservative Government accepted its findings—a policy we still champion.

On the Minister’s Amendment 266, guidance is the correct and obvious next step. There are many nuances involved in this new provision, as we have heard throughout this debate, and accompanying it with thorough guidance would allow for requirements to be more clearly outlined. That being said, I hope the Minister will now confirm that the guidance will address the concerns raised today, particularly around exceptions to reporting requirements—that would benefit from further guidance from the Secretary of State.

Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and look forward to the Minister’s remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, as I mentioned at Second Reading, I am very proud that with Clause 87 this Government abolished the time limitations in historical Church child sexual abuse cases. Survivors such as my friend Stephen Bernard, whom my noble friend the Minister referenced, were concerned that the clause, as originally drafted, added a new substantial prejudice, especially for historical cases. This created uncertainty, delays and an extra hurdle for survivors.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for listening to the concerns of survivors such as Stephen, and for tabling Amendment 270. With the removal of lines 31 to 39, the IICSA recommendation has now been adopted in full, thus ensuring better access to justice for the survivors of historical sexual abuse. I am very grateful to my noble friend.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I supported the amendment in Committee, and I echo the thanks given by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, to the Minister for listening. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who tabled the original amendment. This is a really important clarification, which will help victims and prevent injustices happening in the future.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I apologise for being a little late into the Chamber; things moved much more rapidly than I think any of us anticipated. I spoke about this issue at some length, I fear, at Second Reading, in setting out what I thought were the difficulties legally in this area. In Committee, I invited the Government to give their response to my various submissions, which were effectively that the law, as it existed, provided sufficient safeguards so that claimants could bring their claims much later than the three-year limitation period that applies to a personal injuries claim, provided that they satisfied the various criteria set out in Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.

I agree with the Minister that the clause as originally drafted ran the risk of generating further litigation—and I declare my interest in having been involved in a great deal of this kind of litigation over the years. I thought that would be a mistake. I am glad the substantial prejudice provision has been removed from the clause, because it gives some welcome clarity and should minimise the risk of there being further unnecessary litigation in which the precise meaning of the provisions is probed inevitably by one side or another.

This is not quite where I would have liked the law to be, because I think the law is satisfactory as it is. However, I think that I, or anybody else concerned in this area, would differ with the general aim, which is to make sure that those who, for very good reasons, have delayed bringing claims are sufficiently protected by the law and can invite the courts to take into account their delay. The risk that I was concerned about, which was adverted to in the well-known case of A v Hoare, was the real risk that it would be impossible for there to a be a fair trial in certain circumstances because of the lapse of time. Perhaps witnesses have disappeared, documents have gone missing, and then there are all the other factors that can make it impossible for a fair trial to take place.

Although this is not quite the result I would have preferred, I think I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance that the Government’s position will preserve those twin aims: to preserve a claimant’s right to bring claims, albeit late, if there is a good reason, but also to protect a defendant if, because of the lapse of time, it is impossible for there to be fair trial. I hope that she can reassure me that she thinks that this definition will preserve the observations made by the House of Lords in A v Hoare that there comes a time when it is simply too late to have a fair trial. A fair trial, of course, will concern a defendant who probably was not in any way responsible for the perpetration of any sexual abuse and, because of the operation of the doctrine of vicarious liability, was deemed to be responsible—such as a school or other institution—because I do not think anybody has any sympathy for the actual perpetrators, however late a claim may be brought.

It is my observation that it is not a wholly satisfactory situation, but I am grateful to the Government for at least removing some of the ambiguity that was in the original way that the clause was framed.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 2nd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 307 in my name. I spoke to it in Committee and have brought it back because it is an important issue. The amendment would simply ban any convicted sex offender from obtaining a gender recognition certificate. I remind your Lordships that a gender recognition certificate would enable this individual to legally change their gender from male to female. That means they can live legally as a woman and access women’s and single-sex spaces.

When we debated this before, the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, responded to my remarks and I thank him very much for his letter to me. I have tabled a number of Written Questions on this issue. I will make a couple of points about why this amendment is still needed and why I am not satisfied with the Government’s assurances.

In my discussions with the Government, they have rightly highlighted their tightening up of the requirements and safeguards to protect the public when people are changing their name. That may be the case with a gender recognition certificate. If somebody is changing their gender, they may wish to change their name—not necessarily, but it could happen. The Government are tightening up those requirements, putting in enhanced notification requirements, restricting changes to identity documents and bringing in closer requirements for police supervision. All those things are good, but it still requires the sex offender to notify the police of any changes to their personal information. It happens after the event; it is not a blanket ban. The onus is on the criminal to go to the police and say, “I have changed my name”. This is a convicted sex offender, so many would say that it stands to reason that there is a low level of trust in them anyway. To me, it is not a satisfactory answer.

The other objection the Government mentioned when I was bringing this forward and tabling Questions was that the scale of the problem is very small. That may be true, but the numbers are as follows. Almost 10,000 gender recognition certificates have been issued since 2004. Last year alone, 1,169 were granted. Nobody is saying that every single person who has been granted a gender recognition certificate is a sex offender or criminal—not at all—but the issue is that we do not know whether any of them are. There may be individuals within that population who are convicted sex offenders. I say that this is possible because, as the Government have confirmed, a criminal conviction is not disclosed in the process of applying for a gender recognition certificate. Apparently, the panel assesses risk and looks at a number of factors regarding that individual, but a criminal conviction is not part of that process.

I found that very strange, and various members of the public who have written to me have also found it rather strange. The argument that this is a small number of people is not adequate to reassure the public that we would not have somebody who has been convicted of a horrific crime—sex with a child, rape, paedophilia—go on to potentially obtain a gender recognition certificate. What possible reason could that individual have for changing their gender? There would be only one reason: they want to access more vulnerable people and commit horrendous crimes.

To me, it seems a matter of common sense that you could make the process of applying for this certificate something that has a step somebody must go through to say “I am not a convicted sex offender”, or the panel should require that evidence in its deliberations to ensure that somebody who has been convicted of rape or sexual offences of a serious nature should not be permitted to change their gender. The Government say that these issues are judged on case-by-case basis, but they do not keep the information that would really inform those decisions. The questions I have tabled to the Government show that applicants are not required to provide details of criminal convictions, and only 6% of those applications are refused for any reason. So it does look like a reasonably permissive process that people are able to get through quite easily.

If a person has successfully changed their gender and name, the onus is on them to go to the police. This is a system that is full of loopholes. It is not satisfactory to say “Well, it’s only a small number of individuals”, because even one person being able to do that is too many.

I will very briefly come back to the absolutely horrendous case I mentioned before. A perpetrator called Ryan Haley sexually abused a girl who was only 13 years old; she had to go to court and watch him on trial for sexual abuse, where he insisted that everyone call him Natalie Wolf and said he was celebrating his body and his choice. What about the body of the young girl who was abused under horrific circumstances? Why should he get to stand up and be treated as a woman when he committed disgraceful acts on a 13 year-old girl? That is the reason for my amendment, and I look forward to the Government’s response.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, for outlining her reasons behind Amendment 307. However, I approach this from a somewhat different perspective. I do not sit behind the fact that there is a very low number of transgender people who are convicted of sex offences; I turn it around and look through the other end of the telescope. This is why I found the Government’s updated guidance called Crime and Policing Bill: Management of Offenders Factsheet extremely helpful.

First, the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, referred to names. The factsheet very clearly says that sex offenders may not make name changes without the permission of the police; if they do not have permission, they are committing an offence. They also have to notify the police of any contact with children. In the past, that has meant that, whenever they spend 12 hours or more in a household where children are present, they have to notify the police of the address, the date on which they are going to stay and when residence began.

The changes will remove the time threshold and the responsibility not only on the offender but of those involved in monitoring the offender, whether it is the police or probation, meaning that any contact with children in the future will be monitored. Further, if they are away from a previously notified address, that is an offence, as the other items are under the Sexual Offences Act, if they do not notify authorities. The police will be watching for people who are on the sexual offences register to make sure that they comply, and I suspect they and probation would be very concerned if there were gaps in appearances and would chase them.

Is the Minister satisfied that the public would be safe from any sex offender on the register who is caught by the terms of this factsheet—which is a very good practical document for police, probation and others—whether they are transgender or not?

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly. As was the case in Committee, we wholly support the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment. It would serve to prevent those who commit a sexual offence obtaining a gender recognition certificate and is a necessary step that would stop criminals retroactively exploiting gender recognition laws. Our view is that we should not put inmates at risk by placing other criminals of a different sex in prison with them, for instance. I have direct experience of this in Scotland, where a few years ago there was the celebrated case of Isla Bryson, who was a double rapist initially housed in the female prison estate having decided to transition while standing trial, and I would not want to see those mistakes repeated in the rest of the UK. I hope that the Minister can offer his support for this amendment and I look forward to hearing his reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I again draw the noble Baroness’s attention to Clause 98, which says:

“A relevant offender must notify a new name to the police … no less than 7 days before using it”.


Again, criminal or not, if people wish to identify in the way in which they identify, I think they are entitled to be allowed to do so. I give way again.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I apologise for intervening at this time of night. Surely the key point is that, once someone has been convicted of a sex offence, being on the register, either indefinitely or for a particular period, is the trigger for the monitoring of that offender. Whether they have a gender recognition certificate or not is almost irrelevant. It is not irrelevant to the noble Baroness, and I absolutely accept that, but all the monitoring of that individual will happen regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I said this in my opening remarks, but I will repeat myself to enforce what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said: the arrangements in place ensure that offenders are monitored and managed according to the level of risk they present, not according to their gender. That is the key point that I put to the noble Baroness. The gender issue is covered by Clause 98. The management of risk is covered whatever their gender happens to be at any time. People still have the right to change their gender and identify as they feel right, according to their own circumstances.

I say again to the noble Baroness that the vast majority of people who apply for a gender recognition certificate are not going to be sex offenders. They are going to be ordinary people walking round the streets and living in communities and never even thinking of being sex offenders. I do not wish to tarnish those individuals who have a full right to live their life as they choose, so I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, before speaking to Amendment 313A, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward amendments in response to my amendment in Committee. These amendments clarify the evidential threshold for obtaining an SPO, bringing this in line with the domestic abuse protection orders, so ensuring swifter and less onerous access to these protective orders, and it will make a real difference to the protection and safety of victims.

I am grateful to the Minister and the Bill team for meeting me, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and to the Victims’ Commissioner and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust for their support.

Amendment 313A is very similar to the one I moved in Committee, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. It would introduce stalking protection notices—SPNs—to provide an immediate safeguard to prevent unwanted contact or communication from a perpetrator until a full SPO is granted, thus mirroring domestic abuse protection notices. In response to the debate on that amendment, my noble friend the Minister suggested that the amendment as drafted would be disproportionate, since it would criminalise the breach of a police-issued notice without court oversight. I have therefore updated the amendment so that a breach of an SPN would not be a criminal offence, ensuring that it reflects the framework for DAPOs.

Why is this amendment necessary? Because, as highlighted in the Suzy Lamplugh Trust super-complaint and its report on experiences of the CPS and the courts, the use of full and interim SPOs is currently inadequate, including lack of applications by the police and the time that it takes to obtain one, given that both the full and interim orders have to be granted by a court. Victims say that when police do apply for SPOs, the judiciary do not recognise the need for an SPO, particularly if other orders are already in place.

In response to the super-complaint, HMICFRS highlighted the arduous application process for the police and their frustrations over their inability to issue orders themselves. It called for the Government to use the DAPN framework as a template to legislate for a new stalking protection notice, which, like the DAPN, would not require an application to the court and could be issued by the police to offer protection in stalking cases.

The length of delays in cases varies from months to years. For victims of stalking, a delay in taking their case to trial means a continuation of the stalking behaviours, especially if no protective orders are put in place. The failure to put in place an interim or full SPO at the earliest opportunity puts victims at risk of further acts of stalking, which increases the potential psychological and physical harm that they are likely to suffer. Data on SPOs is also limited and outdated, making it hard to establish how many are refused by the courts.

It is both right and logical that SPNs should be enabled and put in place following a similar approach to DAPNs. They would offer immediate police-applied protection in stalking cases and set a timeframe for the courts to consider a full order. It cannot be right that, at the moment, a woman who is at risk of violence from a stalker has less protection than a woman at risk of violence at the hands of her domestic abuser, so steps must be taken to bring this into line.

The hour is late, but I will cite one case study from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust relating to delays in SPOs and the harm caused. This case opened in January 2025. The client was subjected to criminal damage, vexatious complaints to her employer and an online campaign aimed at discrediting her. The offender also moved house to be closer to the client. This has had a significant impact on her quality of life. The case has had four different OICs and different teams from the outset, which has caused considerable delay—to the detriment of the client. An SPO has been considered throughout the investigation, but there has been little progress or ownership of responsibility across the police force.

The advocate has pointed this out on numerous occasions. Several complaints have been made to the police and the local MP but, as far as the advocate knows, no response has been received. Legal services within the force had been contacted about an SPO in February 2025. Multiple witness statements had been obtained to support the application. The police stated that the SPO application was submitted in March 2025, but this turned out to be incorrect. The judge, in a separate non-molestation order request hearing, asked why after six months the force had not secured an SPO. At the time of writing, the SPO application was sitting with the force’s legal services awaiting a court date. Due to the time that has elapsed, the perpetrator has now been on bail for so long that it has required a magistrate’s application to secure a bail extension.

This and hundreds of similar cases demonstrate the need for swift action and the introduction of stalking protection notices. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for setting out the details of her amendment, which I signed. I will not repeat any of the things that she said. I completely endorse them. I thank the Government for their amendments. Moving from the criminal level of proof to a civil standard of proof is important. We have been arguing for this for some time, so I am very grateful that the Government have taken this on board.

My Amendment 316 is another attempt to draw parallels between all the protections for victims of domestic abuse and those of stalking. It felt an odd decision that a Secretary of State might be able to report but not have to report on conditions. So I am very grateful that the Minister has signed my amendment. I look forward to seeing the statutory reports in due course.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, as a preliminary point, when we debated this part of the Bill in Committee, my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower made the point that the Government are not taking a strong enough line on sentencing for those convicted of stalking offences. That remains the case. I hope that Ministers will heed that warning. Violence against women and girls is unacceptable. We can all agree that and we must have a zero-tolerance approach. Strengthening stalking protection orders is just one step, but we need to take a tougher approach on sentencing and enforcement.

Amendment 313A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is a reasonable proposal which Ministers should consider. It sets out the structure of the SPN procedure. The noble Baroness also spoke to existing flaws in the current SPO system. I have a couple of questions that I would be grateful if the Minister could consider. Do the Government feel that the existing stalking protection order system is dealing with orders sufficiently quickly? What steps are Ministers taking to speed up the process when issues arise?

Given the hour, I do not intend to detain the House further. We accept the government amendments in this group on the civil standard of proof, which respond to concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. They have the effect of clarifying the position on the standard of proof used when imposing SPOs. Clarity of the law and its application are essential parts of any just legal system and we welcome them.

--- Later in debate ---

We are very conscious of the fact that we want to constantly improve the way we do this, but I am not going to go any further on that. However, I hope on that basis, my noble friend—

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I have just had a look to see whether I can find any data on the number of stalking protection orders issued to those under 18, and the answer is that they are not disaggregated. The Minister is drawing this great distinction about those aged between 10 and 17. We have just had a debate on another matter where we think there is a very small number involved. It would be useful to know if we could have some help from the Minister on the likelihood of numbers.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

It may not entirely surprise the noble Baroness that I do not have that data or the awareness of what we can do with the data to hand, but I am certainly happy to undertake to write to her with as much detail as we can summon.

I hope that my noble friend will be content not to move her Amendment 313A and, with other noble Lords, will support the government amendments in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

316: Clause 111, page 157, line 12, leave out “may” and insert “must”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the issuance of stalking guidance by the Secretary of State, mirroring the provisions for guidance within the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, for signing my amendment, and I am grateful that the Ministers said they would accept my amendment. On that basis, I beg to move.

Amendment 316 agreed.

Victims and Courts Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for outlining the detail of the amendments in this group. I was slightly surprised by what he said, because I understood that it was not about whether a prison term was suspended or not, it was the conviction itself that acted as the trigger for the victim’s rights. I see the Minister is nodding. Just to double-check, I went to the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime. This makes it absolutely clear that the moment there is a possible crime against somebody which falls within something that could be considered by the code, the victim is entitled to support and help. For certain particular crimes, they are entitled to enhanced rights and help. I am sorry: I printed it off the web and it does not have a page number, but it states that victims of the most serious crimes are eligible for enhanced rights under this code. There is no question at all of them being reduced or stopped if a conviction is suspended. Once again, I repeat that this is exactly what happened to me. In my particular case, the offender was given a prison sentence and it was suspended, but the victim support continued in spite of that.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity of setting out the Government’s position. Our approach is carefully considered. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, seeks to make party-political points out of this by using language such as “insult to victims”, particularly when, in relation to the principal part of his argument, he is just plain wrong.

The starting point is that we must prioritise public funds to ensure that they go where they are most needed. We have done this by providing proactive support to those victims where the court has imposed a longer sentence, because a longer sentence reflects the seriousness of the offence. Of course we recognise that all victims of crime will want information about the offender in their case. For that reason, we are introducing a new route for all victims—the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is quite right about this—to request information via a dedicated helpline.

This is why new Schedule 6A is in three parts. Part 1 ensures that the most serious cases, involving victims of violent, sexual, and terrorism offences where the defendant has been sentenced to a custodial sentence of 12 months or more, can receive proactive support through the victim contact scheme.

Part 2 ensures support for victims of stalking and harassment offences, regardless of sentence length. We recognise that, even where there is a short sentence, this cohort of victims needs and will receive proactive support through the victim contact scheme.

I am just trying to ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, can hear the information I am giving him back, because we think that what the noble Lord said is not right, so I thought he might be interested in hearing what I have to say about it.

Part 3 ensures that victims of other sexual and violent offences, and breach offences linked to violence against women and girls, will be able to get information through the helpline should they request it, including for those offences in Part 1 where the sentence for the offence is less than 12 months. We consider that this is the right place to draw the line, but we will keep eligibility under review to make sure that we are reaching the right victims.

The Bill includes regulation-making powers for the Secretary of State to amend the list of offences, and the specified lengths of sentence of such offences, which determine eligibility for either service. The Bill also includes a discretionary power that enables victims of any offence, where the offender is serving a sentence of imprisonment, to be provided with either service, where they request it and probation deem it to be appropriate.

The victim contact scheme and the victim helpline will apply only where there is a custodial sentence. That is not only because of the consideration of public funds but because the information provided via these routes, such as the date of release on licence and conditions of licence, self-evidently does not apply unless there has been a custodial sentence. Where a suspended or community sentence is imposed by the court, under the victims’ code, the police witness care unit will explain the sentence to the victim.

Finally, regarding Amendment 54, I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord that there is already a route for victims to request a senior probation officer review of a decision about what information to provide, so this is already catered for. In the circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, I inform the Committee that if Amendment 59 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment 60 by reason of pre-emption.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for tabling these amendments and to the Government for the expansion of the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers as set out in the Bill.

However, there are some broader issues that it might be helpful to air here, which are not the subject of amendments, for obvious reasons. It is 22 years since the office of the Victims’ Commissioner was created. I wonder whether, given the legislation that is going through to remove police and crime commissioners, that will change the landscape in which the Victims’ Commissioner’s office works. Therefore, it may be worth reviewing exactly what the roles of the Victims’ Commissioner are. I have some sympathy with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in that context.

From these Benches, we have argued that the entirety of the responsibilities of the Victims’ Commissioner should be broader than they were up until the presentation of this Bill. But there is another point that we have raised consistently—not just in legislation but in Questions and at other times—and that is the disparity of resources between the Victims’ Commissioner’s office and the office of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. I have been told that this is partly because the Victims’ Commissioner’s office looks only at policy, but we know the reality in the complex world of victims is that it sees many more things. If the Government would consider a review of the role in light of the change with police and crime commissioners, it might also be a time to look at whether the Victims’ Commissioner’s office has the resources that it needs to deliver the very important job that it does.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I am very doubtful about Amendment 58. It would expand the role of the Victims’ Commissioner very substantially indeed if the Victims’ Commissioner is going to take action to support or protect individuals who act in good faith to assist victims of crime. That would involve a great deal more work for the Victims’ Commissioner. I am very doubtful, with the resources available, that the role of the Victims’ Commissioner should be diverted from the primary responsibility of considering victims of crime.

Of course, one has every sympathy with the bus driver whom the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, mentioned—his behaviour was heroic and his treatment seems to have been very unjust indeed. I understand he does not actually want his job back, but that really is not the point. The point is that to expand the role of the Victims’ Commissioner to other persons who have assisted the victim seems to me to be unjustified and a diversion of resources.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I support the principle behind Amendment 61. The real question is: how quickly can this be done?

I want to give an illustration of a problem that has arisen in civil courts across the world: the ability of artificial intelligence to hallucinate—to create cases and precedents for lawyers to use that do not exist. All civil courts across the world, including those in this country, have realised that this is an immense problem. It is being dealt with by practice direction—in some cases, very quickly indeed—because it is corrosive to the proper conduct of litigation, and it seems to me that there is no reason why, when this comes back on Report, it cannot be dealt with. It is not a difficult problem, and if it has been around for two years, that is 18 months too long.

The other point I want to address, in a slightly different manner, is Amendment 62. This is a much more difficult problem and has arisen because of the way in which drill music, and similar music, has been used in the prosecution of cases. The admissibility of such evidence is quite complicated.

What is very worrying—as can be seen by the attendance here today of one of the counsels involved in these cases—is that the way in which this evidence has been used in some cases has caused a lot of deep misunderstanding and suspicion about the way our criminal justice system operates for certain minorities. The thought that you will be found guilty because of the music you listen to is deeply troubling.

However, it seems to me that what we need to do first is look at the cases where this has been used. I looked at the case of the Manchester 10 and, coincidentally, in that case, the evidence had been admitted by agreement, and the Court of Appeal upheld the way in which it had been used for certain purposes.

It seems to me that this is a more complicated problem, and it would be helpful if the Minister was able, between now and Report, to put before the House a short letter explaining what the problem is. I think it would be easier to look at the amendment in the light of a better understanding. The last thing I want to do is to bore the Committee by explaining the ways in which evidence can and cannot be used legitimately. It is much better that members of the Committee have the benefit of reading that on a piece of paper.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I have two brief points on Amendment 61, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for tabling it. It is really wrong that computers or systems have ever been deemed to be reliable, let alone infallible. My husband is a research and design engineer who has worked in Cambridge Science Park for well over 40 years. He and his friends have a phrase that they use among themselves and about themselves: “Garbage in, garbage out”. When we started hearing about the Post Office Horizon scandal and Fujitsu, the first thing he said to me was, “Garbage in, garbage out”. The problem we have is that too many people, the courts and the court of public opinion believe that computer systems are infallible.

I also want to touch very briefly on AI because we are seeing cases in the courts now. Facial recognition cases are coming up. Big Brother Watch reported on one last June. I notice that not quite weekly, but quite frequently, an individual is arrested as they go into a store and are accused of taking something very small and then evidence is produced of them on a facial recognition watch list. It then transpires some time later that they are not that individual. One particular firm’s name keeps coming up—I will not go into that —but the reaction of the shop is exactly that: it is infallible. I support the amendment, and I urge the Minister and the Government not to pause on this at all. It is needed, not just for the legacy of Post Office Horizon, but for cases in our courts right now.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

I rise in support of Amendment 62, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Perhaps I can help the Minister with some of the intricacies of this. We have heard from Members who have a legal background. I have a youth work background, and I would like to say this: much of the music that is being talked about—drill music, rap music—is horrific. The content of the music is horrific and it is horrible, but, unfortunately, it is also very entertaining. Many young people will listen to it just by association. The music is entertaining, people party and you have no other choice. So for someone to view your output as an individual through your membership of that genre is a very slippery slope. Many years ago, I dealt with a group of young men who made a video that pointed to some serious criminality, and the police dealt with it in the right manner. They used it to understand who they might further investigate. They did not use the evidence, except one part that was quite blatant, as a reason to prosecute individuals.

When someone tells you that they are an expert in interpreting the music, I am afraid they are wrong. I was born in that community, I come from that community, many members of my family make that music, but because young people make the music and technology allows them to make it so quickly, the words they use, the meanings they use and the characters they build change almost on a daily basis. If you were to say to my son, “the man dem”, he would understand. Would noble Lords? When I grew up, “the man dem” existed as a concept, but the words did not, so he and I can have a conversation about the same thing and not know that we are talking about the same thing.

Very rarely will you hear me stand up, talk about race and accuse the police of being racist, but this cuts very close to that because when a lovely, well-meaning, educated, middle-class man or woman listens to the music, they have no understanding of the cultural background of that music or of the fact that that music might have been produced in the way it was to display a character. Much of the bragging and the boasting is simply that: bragging and boasting about fictitious situations that they hope they will never be in and that we also hope they will never be in. To present that in court as some kind of evidence of their associations and their behaviour is a slippery slope. If you want to destroy the relationship between young people, particularly young Black people, and our system, this would be the way to go.

--- Later in debate ---

I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I signed Amendment 63, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I will not go into any of the detail that he has just given so comprehensively, but I did want to give your Lordships’ Committee the chance to hear two voices of victims who have found that VRR really worked for them.

In September 2021, “Daria”, an anonymous survivor, reported offences of harassment, stalking and image-based abuse to the police. The perpetrator was arrested in November 2021; however, confusion between police forces and errors in case handling resulted in delays and lapses in time limits for some offences. By December 2022, the CPS issued a decision of no further action for the most serious charges of disclosing and threatening to disclose private sexual photographs and films with intent to cause distress. This was despite Daria providing detailed evidence that the intent threshold was met.

Daria immediately requested a review under the victims’ right to review scheme. Over the following months, the CPS kept her updated and requested further statements, and in May 2023, a district Crown prosecutor overturned the original decision. The CPS authorised two counts of disclosing or threatening to disclose private sexual images with intent to cause distress. In December 2023, the perpetrator was convicted on both counts and sentenced in the Crown Court in March 2024. The CPS formally apologised for the distress caused by the initial wrongful decision.

Daria has said:

“Without the Right to Review, my case would have ended in silence. The CPS originally decided not to prosecute—despite everything I’d reported and the evidence I’d provided. It was only through the VRR process that my voice was finally heard, and justice was served. The man who targeted and humiliated me online was ultimately convicted. Survivors deserve this second chance. The right to review gave me mine”.


Victoria was groomed and sexually abused from the age of 14. When she reported the crime years later, the CPS initially decided on no further action, wrongly re-aging her as 16 and dismissing the evidence that she had been below the age of consent. Victoria requested a VRR. The first review upheld the decision, but she escalated it further. In 2021, after a second interview, the CPS overturned its decision and charged her abuser with seven counts of indecent assault. A further charge was added at trial. Her abuser was unanimously convicted on all eight counts and sentenced to 23 years in prison. He was also placed on the sex offenders register indefinitely. Despite this, Victoria had endured nearly six years of delays before her trial, which left her with PTSD, agoraphobia and severe anxiety. She said:

“After the CPS refused to charge my abuser, I requested a VRR. This led them to overturn that decision, and my abuser was later convicted. He would not have faced justice without the VRR process. My case highlights the need for VRRs to be permanently accessible to complainants so mistakes can be addressed”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments concerns the terms of the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which we consider has too narrow a window to effectively allow for victims to reflect upon and review the sentences given to their offenders. Amendments 64, 65 and 66 aim to increase the existing 28-day window for applying to the unduly lenient sentence scheme to one of 56 days.

Similarly, Amendment 69, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks to allow the 28-day time limit to be extended in exceptional circumstances. We thank the noble Baroness for this amendment. We on these Benches are very receptive to the idea of including an “exceptional circumstances” clause in the unduly lenient sentence framework. It is a safeguard that recognises that victims may, for one reason or another, not always be able to act within the current timeframe. Currently, there exists an asymmetry between offenders and victims. Offenders might be able to seek extensions or have certain deadlines adjusted, whereas victims are rigidly bound by the 28-day window. This amendment helps to address that imbalance.

The process of applying for review of a sentence is not one that can always be readily undertaken within four weeks. It requires a knowledge of the law that often requires the instruction and subsequent direction of a lawyer, which in and of itself is a process that can often take up to, if not beyond, the 28-day window that victims are given in which to appeal. Crucial to this process is the availability of the sentencing remarks, a problem which we have partially solved in the Sentencing Act by requiring their release within 14 days, but that occupies, none the less, half the time the Government currently offer to appeal a lenient sentence.

Perhaps the most effective case for change is a human one. Victims must face and relive the most traumatic events of their lives in court. They have to re-encounter their offender in some cases—not due to the current drafting of Clause 1, I accept—and in the cases we are concerned with, they have to deal with what they believe to be an unjust sentence.

An increase to 56 days is not a drastic one; it simply increases the window to two months, and it allows slightly more time for the process to be completed. We on these Benches are also open to the idea of a longer window to apply specifically for victims and, where they are murdered in cases of extremely serious crime, their next of kin. That may be for another day.

I turn to Amendment 72, which seeks to place a clear statutory duty on the Crown Prosecution Service to notify victims or, in the case of a deceased victim, their next of kin, of their right to request a review under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. At present, whether a victim is informed of the scheme can depend upon practice rather than principle. In some cases, of course, victims are advised promptly and clearly. In others, awareness depends rather upon chance, whether it is mentioned to them by their legal advocate or at some other time during the court process, or whether they independently discover its existence. That is not a satisfactory basis on which to safeguard a right of such importance, and particularly one that is time limited within a strict statutory window.

A right that expires after 28 days, or indeed 56 if our earlier amendments are accepted, is meaningful only if the person entitled to exercise it is made aware of it in good time, and before time starts to run. Without notification, the right is illusory at best. Amendment 72 therefore proposes a straightforward and practical safeguard; namely, the CPS must write to the victim, or their next of kin, within 10 working days of a sentence being delivered, informing them of their ability to seek a review. This is not burdensome. The CPS is already engaged with victims throughout the prosecution process. Contact details are held; communication channels should exist. This amendment simply makes notification consistent and mandatory. Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has the same aim as our amendment, albeit with a marginally different mechanism. I hope that we can work together to achieve this reform.

If we are to maintain a short and strict time limit for challenging unduly lenient sentences, the least that we can do is to ensure that victims are properly informed of that right. Without such a duty, access to the scheme may depend less on justice and more on happenstance. We trust our judges, but we know that even they are not infallible. Some will be more sparing with their sentences; some will be more certain in their own judgment and not feel the need to alert victims to the scheme. Others will simply forget on occasions. This should not be the case. The Government are very well equipped to create a system in which a letter is sent out, within 10 days, alerting victims of their right to apply for a review of the sentencing. They do it endlessly in other departments; it should be a seamlessly transferable process. All are equal before the law. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, my two amendments in this group, Amendments 69 and 75, also make proposals for unduly lenient sentences, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has mentioned. From these Benches, we have been keen to improve the access that victims have to challenge what they believe is an unduly lenient sentence. I had amendments to try to achieve this in the Victims and Prisoners Bill in 2023-24.

It is worth pausing to review what has happened since 1988, when the ULS scheme started and victims were given the right to ask the Attorney-General to reconsider the sentence of their offender. One of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, concerns guaranteeing that victims are informed. Currently, the victims’ code places responsibility for informing victims about the ULS scheme on witness care units. For bereaved families entitled to the Crown Prosecution Service bereaved families scheme, the CPS should where possible, through the prosecutor and the trial advocate, meet the family at court following sentencing—if they attend the hearing—and inform them about the ULS scheme where appropriate. However, evidence from victims and bereaved families shows that this often does not happen, with many learning about the scheme only when it is too late to apply. By contrast, the offender and their legal representatives are present at sentencing and able to start planning any appeal against the sentence. In extenuating circumstances, the offender can also be given more than 28 days to launch their appeal. The offender also has post-sentence meetings with their legal representatives. It was clear then, and it remains so now, that the offender had and has more rights and support than the victim. This is not a level playing field.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I rise with a degree of caution. I entirely understand the motives behind the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, and that moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Shall we begin by trying to remember what an unduly lenient sentence is? It is one that falls outside the range of sentences that a judge, taking into consideration all the relevant factors and having regard to the sentencing guidance, could reasonably consider appropriate. In other words, the sentence must be not just lenient, but unduly lenient. One of the things the Court of Appeal must consider when it is looking at an application to review a sentence is that the offender has been put through the sentencing process, or will be put through the sentencing process, for a second time, and that it will not intervene unless the sentence is significantly below the one the judge should have passed.

Law officers often receive applications—I say this with some experience, as I was a law officer from 2010 to 2012, and in England and Wales it is the law officers who have the ability to make these applications to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division—on the basis that the person complaining about the sentence just thinks it is not adequately severe, but that is not the test. One therefore needs to not encourage an expectation—this is what may follow from the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton—that, by getting a government department or the Crown Prosecution Service to write to a disappointed victim or family member, it must follow that the CPS, or whichever government department is required to do this, agrees, or that it will lead to a successful appeal before the Court of Appeal.

I remember that all sorts of people used to read newspaper articles about a particular sentence that often bore very little resemblance to the sentencing remarks or the details of the case. Sometimes, in some newspapers, you would get an editorial saying that it was a disgrace that this lenient judge has done this, that or the other, and that something must be done, and all sorts of people would then write to the law officer’s department demanding that something be done. Very often the sentence was passed in relation to an offence that did not come under the scheme, or, if it did, on proper examination it did not fall within the ambit of what the Court of Appeal was likely to disturb. So I suspect that all sorts of expectations could be built into the public mind, which could lead only to disappointment.

Secondly, there is something to be said about finality. Although one does not always have any sympathy for a criminal defendant, they are entitled to justice and finality. Having sentenced people, I assure noble Lords that sentencing can be difficult, certainly for a judge who is dealing with, shall we say—I do not mean this in a silly way—the less serious types of criminal offence that none the less come within this scheme. I always found sentencing to be the most difficult part of the judicial function. This is a generalisation, but if you are a High Court judge dealing with criminal cases, the chances are that you will probably have to decide the tariff only on life sentences. But if you are sitting in the Crown Court as a recorder or circuit judge, you may very well have to deal with all sorts of quite complicated considerations when working out the just sentence for a particular defendant based on the facts of a particular offence. It is not always easy.

In my experience of having to seek the advice of the Treasury counsel and making up my own mind about whether an application should go to the Court of Appeal, I found that, by and large, the overwhelming majority of judges passed a just and correct sentence—when I say “correct”, it is not a binary exercise—that was entirely defensible and not the sort of thing that the Court of Appeal would have disturbed. To encourage people to make applications would be a mistake when it is going to lead only to disappointment.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

The amendment would not encourage the CPS, or whatever the notifying body is, to encourage the victim to appeal; it would merely be notifying them of the right. Does the noble and learned Lord accept that?

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

I can see what the printed words say, but if the Crown Prosecution Service was to write to the victim saying, “Do you realise that you can apply to the law officers to have this sentence reviewed by the Court of Appeal?”, it would give an imprimatur and an indication. That is the implication, and we should resist it.

I do not want to go on too long. Anybody can write to the law officers to say, “Will you review this sentence?” It does have to be a victim, or the family or next of kin of a deceased victim. There are plenty of avenues available to the public and to victims if they wish to explore this. To come back to my first point, we need to exercise a degree of caution before opening the floodgates to lots of disappointment.

Victims and Courts Bill

Baroness Brinton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 9th February 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Brinton]

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

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

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

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

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

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

We might be slightly at cross-purposes here. The question is whether the Crown Courts have the ability to consider what is in the best interests of the child rather than automatically making the order when the threshold is reached. That is the difference. As I say, the point has been made most powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. The Crown Court is simply not equipped to go that extra mile of starting to look at things like reports from experts as to what is in the best interests of the child.

I turn to Amendments 18, 20, 24, 30, 31 and 32 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. The aim of these is to ensure that a prohibited steps order made under Clauses 3 or 4 would cease to have an effect if the offender was acquitted on appeal. I repeat what I have said. This is not a punishment; it is designed to protect the child. The measures require that, following an acquittal, the relevant local authority must, in very short order, bring an application before the family court to consider whether the prohibited steps order should be upheld, varied or discharged. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, mentioned an innocent parent. This is not about the rights of parents; it is about the rights of children and protecting them. It is not a punishment and therefore it is not something that should be automatically swept away on acquittal.

We recognise the need for a quick resolution in these situations, which is why both clauses state that the application must be made by the local authority within 30 days of the acquittal. This process brings the consideration of the child’s best interests and their potentially very complex family dynamics to the correct forum, which is the family court. It will mean that in every case a judge will undertake a review of all the circumstances, including whether the original prohibited steps order has already been varied by the family court while the appeal was under consideration, or whether other related orders are in place, before deciding what should happen in the best interests of the child. The family court is the right place for this to happen because that puts the interests of the child front and centre, where they should be.

I turn to Amendments 17, 21, 23, 26 and 29 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Murray of Blidworth and Lord Meston. I think we can all agree that it is vital to have clear processes for identifying the offender’s children, notifying other parental responsibility holders of a prohibited steps order, and making the victims of a rape aware when the court has made an automatic order, but the Government’s view is that primary legislation is not the best way of doing this. These matters are better suited to being addressed in guidance, where we can work closely with those responsible for delivering it to ensure that we have a process that works in practice. We do not want a system that ties practitioners to an approach that cannot evolve with their own processes and where every time we want to make a change we have to come back and amend the primary legislation.

By way of example, we are not using primary legislation to prescribe the processes as we are working to implement Jade’s law. Instead, work is taking place across government—I ran through some of the things that we are doing earlier in relation to the previous debate—and with partners to develop a process that is clear and practical and that delivers the spirit of the aims of the amendment. In the case of these provisions, we will ensure that all relevant parties, including all other parental responsibility holders, are kept informed at each stage. We will take lessons from Jade’s law when this is implemented and, where possible, work with our partners to apply the same processes here. This will allow for consistency across all legislation in this space, rather than multiple processes for the same aim, which could lead to confusion and inconsistency in application. I warmly invite your Lordships to work with the Government to make sure that we get this right. I am more than happy to meet any of your Lordships who would like to discuss those matters with me, both in my capacity as Lords Minister and as Minister responsible for family justice policy.

In relation to identifying the children of offenders, this Government have separately committed to developing a mechanism to identify children who are affected by parental imprisonment to make it easier to provide support to them. I can assure your Lordships that the Ministry of Justice is working closely with the Department for Education to determine how we can best identify all children affected and ensure that they get support to enable them to thrive, but to legislate only for children in the scope of this measure risks distracting from the broader work intended to support all children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

I am most grateful for the way this has been introduced by my noble friend Lord Russell. When the family discover that their relative has been murdered abroad, the problem, as has been said, is that they have no idea what has happened. Unless a service from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is rapidly responsive, there is a serious danger that evidence will not be maintained, that it will be destroyed or lost, and therefore that any processes to bring someone to justice will be seriously impaired. As written, the victims’ code seems to differentiate between victims murdered on home soil versus murders that could occur anywhere in the world. The added difficulty is that different countries around the world have different police services and processes, and the language or dialect in different areas may create difficulties.

There are two aspects to this: there is the part that occurs in this country, which is where the family may be contacting the FCDO. I was glad to see that the information on the website had been recently updated. It reads as if everything will happen smoothly but, unfortunately, that is a very rose-tinted view of reality. Some parts have not been updated for a few years. I wonder whether one of the problems lies out there with our own staff in all these different countries. They may never have experienced managing a death before, and suddenly they find they are dealing with an incredibly difficult situation with all kinds of blocks because of the politics of wherever they are.

In terms of linking between here and our staff around the world, it would seem important that there is always one designated person who has responsibility for all aspects of deaths or injuries that could occur in that country, and that this is their designation from day one of their placement in that country. They would know the different dialects, the different police systems, the different ways of maintaining evidence. This would require a fair degree of forensic training; it cannot just be written in guidelines or in a handbook. It means that people need to be prepared ahead of time in order to cope with the situation. It may well be that the families—who are completely devastated and find themselves in a terrifying and unknown situation—are at least talking to somebody with some competencies regarding that country and how its judicial systems work. Sadly, the judicial standards that we expect here are not applicable everywhere around the world. Police services are not always as well organised as ours are. It can be extremely difficult to get the right people in the right place at the right time.

It is also important that whoever has that function holds a certain degree of responsibility to make sure that evidence is not inadvertently lost and destroyed. Until you have learned about evidence that should be kept, you may not realise how important some things are: it is not only aspects of clothing and the body. It might be any of the person’s personal effects; it might involve taking photographs before anything is moved in any way. Our own staff need to be equipped with those skills. I hope from this debate that we might see a link between the Ministry of Justice, which is obviously central to the Bill, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and the ability for them to ensure that staff have training wherever they are, including forensic understanding. This could include junior members of staff, as long as they are fully trained.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I tabled Amendment 42 in this group to ensure that certain parts of the victims’ code apply to victims whose close relative was the victim of murder, manslaughter or infanticide outside the UK. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for supporting the amendment, and for going into some detail. I will endeavour not to repeat what they have said.

I am grateful for the meeting with the Minister last week, during which she mentioned the new guidance that has been recently updated. It is a good document, but it gives the victims no formal rights at all and relies on two different people—the FCDO case manager and the Homicide Service officer, provided by the charity Victim Support—to help them navigate the system. I am sure that this guidance will help improve the service from its previous iteration, but the experience of families who have a loved one killed abroad is that it can be inconsistent. Some victims also receive fragmented, delayed updates about their case, and they often have to chase information themselves, not just with Victim Support or the FCDO but within the country.

Support from the Homicide Service is currently discretionary. This can leave families without dedicated help after the trauma if there are no resources. Having it in the victims’ code will ensure certainty for victims in receiving a service, despite the many differences and difficulties of dealing with the complex arrangements abroad. It is also clear from the guidance that only a certain level of financial help is available to victims from Homicide Service caseworkers. Finally, despite what is written in the guidance, many families have to find and pay for translation services themselves, and there is a risk of inconsistency in service provision. Having it in the victims’ code would ensure that the onus is no longer placed on the victim to get documents translated. This would also give families parity of support with foreign nationals who are victims in the UK, or with UK nationals whose first language is not English.

Turning to the other amendments, we on these Benches support Amendment 37, on the extension of the victim contact scheme, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. This will probably be no surprise to him, given that it was tabled by Jess Brown-Fuller MP, my honourable friend in the House of Commons. I did write to the noble and learned Lord after it was tabled, asking him to withdraw the amendment, as we on these Benches had decided that we wanted to re-table it here in the House of Lords, as per our convention. The PBO told us recently that they received no such request, but that does not diminish our support for it.

I also signed Amendments 47A and 47B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. The first seeks to ensure that victims of persistent anti-social behaviour have access to victim support services provided by local police and crime commissioners. These services are only available to victims as defined by the victims’ code of practice. Persistent anti-social behaviour is not just tiresome and irritating: it can have a traumatising psychological effect on victims. I am particularly reminded of the late Baroness Newlove talking about the local youths who made her and her family’s lives an absolute misery before they brutally murdered her husband. If the police cannot stop it, then surely victims should be able to get support locally. Amendment 47B proposes that each victim have a unique identifier, to be used with all the different agencies involved in their experience. Given the debate we have had today on many of the amendments, this identifier might well solve some of the problems alluded to about different parts of the system and different bodies not understanding or even knowing what was going on.

At the moment, the experience of sharing data between relevant agencies can be woeful, and this number would strengthen the system. It would mean risk assessments can work better, as well as monitoring compliance with the victims’ code and improving communication and collaboration across agencies.

I have also signed Amendments 55, 56 and 57 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which tackle the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, referred to earlier, of how hospitals ensure that they balance the needs of the victim with those of a patient who has murdered a family member of the victim. At the moment, unfortunately, because of the code of ethics that medical practitioners are bound by, the balance is in the patient is their absolute priority, which can mean that victims of the most serious crimes cannot know where the offenders, the patients, are, or if there are any changes in the care that they might need to know about, which might include such things as short-term home release. This is much less than the information that is available when an offender is in prison, and the process for the victim to ask for information involves asking a victim liaison officer at the hospital, who will ask for the information from the clinicians. That is two Chinese walls between the victim and the person providing the information. Because, once behind hospital walls, there is no evidence that the medics balance or give due regard to the safety and well-being of victims, and this is very retraumatising for the victims.

I also wonder sometimes whether medical practitioners do not get to see all the relevant data about the actual act and the consequences for the victim. From these Benches, we support proposals that would ensure that the medical professionals must take a balanced approach when deciding whether to provide information to the victim and must write to the victim to explain when they have decided not to take that balanced view. There should also be an appeal mechanism. These amendments would ensure that right 11 of the victims’ code is delivered for victims, giving them the same right of requesting that information from prisons and from other bodies where a patient might be held.

[Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)]

My Lords, in general I support these amendments, particularly those put forward by my noble friend Lady Finlay. Having been in charge of some of these investigations over a long period of time, take it from me that they are very difficult, indeed nearly impossible, when the victim dies outside the jurisdiction. In a lot of cases, in the old days, talking to the DPP, some of us went out there personally to actually do the investigations. It was difficult in a way that is not necessary, and I think that what has been outlined by my noble friend is absolutely common sense. In the old days, if I might refer to them, things were a bit simpler: we dealt with the police, who were sometimes not quite up to our standards, and we tried to form some relationship. However, things have got more difficult in terms of the technical side of the law, so I make a kind of brief supplication, basically, as a practitioner over a long period of time: I really think that some of these amendments would have a massive effect on securing justice for victims, particularly in those places where we do not have any jurisdiction whatever.

--- Later in debate ---

Alongside this, the FCDO is refreshing and republishing information about the roles and responsibilities of organisations in cases of murder or manslaughter of British nationals abroad. It is important that this happens to ensure that families understand who does what and to help organisations have clarity about each other’s roles. I can assure the noble Baronesses that, as we develop the new victims’ code, we will review what further signposting information can be included in the code to support families bereaved by homicide abroad. We would welcome the opportunity to work together with the noble Baronesses to make sure that we get it right.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for everything she said. Early on, she said that the problem is that the victims’ code is not always applicable abroad. Can she comment on proposed new subsection (2) in the amendment, which talks specifically about the Secretary of State by regulation issuing an appendix to the victims’ code, setting out how the code applies to these victims? It is understood, from our side, that it would be different.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this point. Our current position is that we do not believe that that is necessary, but I am happy to meet her and get her to try to persuade me why I am wrong and she is right—there is my challenge to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Finlay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

Again, the noble Baroness puts it very persuasively and, listening to her now, it all seems to make total sense. If, as a Government, we are committed to supporting victims of crime and putting them front and centre, that does not stop at our borders. However, I do not think that I can give an answer today and it would not be right to do so. I will commit to meeting the noble Baroness and seeing whether I can find out from the FCDO at least what its approach would be to such a suggestion. If she would put it in writing to me I could then pass it on so that we can try to take matters further.

Amendment 47A, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks to add victims of persistent but non-criminal anti-social behaviour to the definition of a victim, as set out in Section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The Government agree that anti-social behaviour is a blight on our communities and its impact should never be underestimated. We have committed to provide better support and information to victims of anti-social behaviour and have taken significant steps to do so. This includes the measures in this Bill that will strengthen the Victims’ Commissioner’s powers to hold the agencies that support anti-social behaviour victims to account.

Where anti-social behaviour amounts to criminal conduct, such as criminal damage, victims will benefit from the rights and entitlements within the victims’ code. However, expanding the definition of a victim to bring those affected by non-criminal anti-social behaviour within the code would, in our view, not be appropriate, as it is not an effective or efficient response to this kind of the behaviour. For example, in our view, it would be neither appropriate nor necessary for a victim of a neighbour who is playing loud music on one occasion to be brought within the scope of the victims’ code. Doing so could create unrealistic expectations and divert attention and resources from those experiencing serious criminal harm, such as victims of child sexual abuse.

In our view, there are better routes available to help these victims, including the anti-social behaviour case review, which gives the victims of persistent behaviour the right to request a multi-agency review to secure a resolution. In the proposals for the new victims’ code, on which we are currently consulting, we have clarified what victims of criminal anti-social behaviour can expect from the code and provided information about the case review process. I would welcome your Lordships’ responses to the consultation to outline in detail what further provision would be required for these victims.

On Amendment 47B, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lord Bach and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I begin by acknowledging the problems brought by our current inability reliably to identify the same victim or witness across the criminal justice system. We accept that this results in duplication of records, slows the flow of information and leads to inconsistent data across the agencies. In addition, this fragmentation places a significant administrative burden on staff, who must reconcile records manually and then chase the missing information. However, perhaps most importantly, it means that victims and witnesses are sometimes provided with conflicting information, which can cause confusion at best and serious distress at worst.

The Government are already working to address these issues through the cross-criminal justice system data improvement programme, jointly led by the Ministry of Justice and Home Office. This programme aims to strengthen data sharing across the criminal justice system and is actively exploring how individuals, including victims, can be more reliably recognised across agencies. We are clear that improvements to data sharing must be underpinned by robust safeguards to ensure personal data is handled lawfully, securely and proportionately, with a strong focus on minimising unnecessary circulation of sensitive information, which I know is a key concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.

The Government are open to considering legislative options to improve data sharing, data quality and the use of unique identifiers where that is shown to be necessary and proportionate. However, introducing a statutory requirement at this stage, ahead of the completion of the work of the programme, could unintentionally constrain future design and implementation choices, before we are confident it would deliver the intended benefits for victims and the wider criminal justice system. For these reasons, the Government do not believe that primary legislation at this stage is the appropriate mechanism.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

For well over a decade, since the passage of the Children and Families Act 2014, we have been discussing as a House a unique identifying number for children who may end up either in the health system or care system as well as schools. It has taken well over a decade—they are just about to use the NHS number as part of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I urge the Minister to have a look at this again; otherwise, we will be here for another 10 years, arguing the same point.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

This Government have not been in power over the whole of the last of the decade, and we are doing our best to look at it. I will certainly look at it and discuss it with her. We are simply saying that, at this stage, we do not think primary legislation is the right way of dealing with it.

Finally, I turn to Amendments 55, 56 and 57, in the names of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who is not in his place, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell. Before I do, let me say that I recently had the privilege of meeting with Emma Webber and with Julian Hendy of Hundred Families. They explained very clearly to me the issues as they see them, and it was a very moving experience. I pay tribute to their strength and honour the memories of those they have lost. Their experiences, along with the experiences of all victims of crime, must continue to guide us.

Part of the rationale for providing information to victims is to help them to feel safe and so they can plan for an offender’s eventual release or discharge. That is why the legislation requires that hospital managers provide victims with specified information where appropriate, regardless of any assessment by a hospital manager of the victim’s safety and well-being, because we acknowledge that the hospital manager’s assessment could well be different from the victim’s own assessment.

Where hospital managers receive a request for information from an eligible victim outwith the specified list within the Bill, they will consider whether it is necessary and proportionate to provid it, and this assessment can of course include considering the risk to the victim. Where there are specific concerns about a victim’s safety, there are other, more appropriate processes to be followed. It is important to note that this is not the primary purpose of the victim contact scheme.

Where a decision is made that it is not appropriate to provide some information, reasons can and should be provided wherever possible. However, these should reflect the victim’s communication preferences, and considerations about this would, in our view, be most appropriately set out in operational guidance, which would also provide the necessary flexibility to adjust requirements as we monitor practice.

We agree that victims should have a route for some recourse where information is not provided. There are existing complaint routes for all cohorts, and the Government consider that a more effective way of going about this would be to make sure hospital managers understand and fulfil their obligations to victims at the outset, rather than introducing additional bureaucracy. My officials are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to consider routes by which to support hospital managers, including whether a joint departmental protocol, or via planned updates to the Mental Health Act code of practice—statutory guidance under the Mental Health Act 1983—might provide an appropriate vehicle.

In relation to all the amendments in this group and many of the others, we are listening and we want to get it right. We will continue to work with your Lordships and with victims’ groups, but for now I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.