Victims and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Baroness Brinton

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.

Victims and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Baroness Brinton

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Restoration and Renewal: Annual Progress Report

Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Baroness Brinton

Thursday 16th January 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, the phrase I used when I began about sharing frustration has been articulated in one way or another by all noble Lords. At the root of this is responsibility but also our profound concern about a building that symbolises so much of which we should be so proud in our country. I underline that I acknowledge the force of your Lordships’ contributions. It underscores the significance of what we are all about in seeking to preserve, restore and renew this iconic symbol of our democracy.

I was reminded of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the dilemmas of Powderham when I got the stats about the size and complexity of the Palace: 34 acres, 1,100 rooms, 65 different floor levels, 100-plus staircases and the whole building sharing the same water, power, heating and sewage systems, many of which are more than 50 years old and have, as we know from experience, reached the end of their lifespan.

The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, referred to the pipes. We have hundreds of miles of pipes and cables needing replacement and interconnecting voids and ventilation shafts adding to the complexity of removing services and managing asbestos. I was intrigued that we have not referred to this as much as we should. I am very mindful that, particularly following the bomb in the House of Commons, in the House of Commons area of the Palace there is a far greater preponderance of asbestos because it was part of the building material of the time. Therefore, different parts of the Palace will have different complexities.

The other thing that we have all acknowledged is with all the options that I have articulated and that noble Lords have rightly expressed, as I say to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that it is inevitable that everyone already has their own preference. A lot of it is rooted in us having been round this before. However, if we use this year for good will, all the options will represent a multi-billion-pound, multi-year investment. We know that these options will amount to significant costs. I hope that those monitoring our dialogue today will note that I did like a concept from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I have often thought about the discussion that we have to have with the nation regarding the cost of this work. I like the concept of annualising the expenditure. These are eye-watering sums, but if we annualised them over that period, we could contrast them better with some of the investments that we undertake on behalf of the nation.

I should also say that my understanding is that in the polling that has been undertaken the vast majority of people in this country wish to see this building restored and renewed. One of the words used by the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, was “courage”. I also agree with “tenacity”, “action” and “decision-making”, but we should have the courage as the responsible people of our generation to make the right decision.

From the outset, I acknowledge the work that has been done. We have noble Lords who, on our behalf, have been in these meetings over the years. They are assembled on the front row: the noble Lords, Lord Best, Lord Vaux and Lord Morse, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. All have made a profound difference in their analysis of doing things better.

I was very struck by the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Mr Barry’s War must be a compulsory read. For anyone who has not read it, this comes alive. People went mad at that time, so let us not get into that territory, but it shows how we should be cautious of parliamentarians in how we embark upon our dialogue on what is a major building work.

A number of points were raised about surveys. I am not aware of any survey being duplicatory but I understand that we now have had 880 locations surveyed to date, including 353 House of Lords internal spaces and 80 House of Lords external spaces. I also thought, particularly with regard to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, about the survey information now being mapped out digitally to create a 3-D digital model. That now replaces thousands of individual drawings and files. That picks up on how we use the changing technology.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, mentioned air quality. Looking at my notes, one of the surveys and the emerging findings include analysis of air quality to understand levels and concentrations of air pollutants for different areas of the Palace to inform future ventilation designs.

I also was struck by some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, raised about, in effect, benchmarking and the London Olympics. In fact, the programme has benchmarked programme costs across other major UK construction projects such as the London Olympics, Manchester Town Hall, the King’s Cross regeneration, Crossrail et cetera. Delivery costs when looked at per square metre are broadly comparable, for instance, to the redevelopment of the Canadian Parliament.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Bottomley and Lady Deech, raised the question of the Holocaust Memorial Bill. It is not my place or in my ability to express an opinion on the Bill itself today, but I can acknowledge that all three R&R delivery options require use of part of Victoria Tower Gardens. The precise use differs slightly over the three options. Parliamentary authorities are in contact with government, given the proximity to the Parliamentary Estate of the Holocaust memorial, on how this can be managed. However, I am very mindful of what many noble Lords have said about the matter.

I turn to the issue of health and safety. Again, this is a very substantial area. I was particularly struck by some of the points made on health and safety and the points on fire raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The Clerk of the Parliaments as corporate officer for the House of Lords is responsible for the safety of those within the House. The corporate officer must be assured that the Palace is safe to ensure the obligations and duty of safety to staff and visitors are met. I know that the Clerk takes his responsibilities very seriously and works closely with colleagues across Parliament with the Clerk of the House of Commons, who also has that responsibility to review and monitor health and safety. Their view is that the House is safe. The Clerks issued a joint safety pledge in May last year, and Parliament published a new health and safety strategy in December.

The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, raised safety concerns about EMI. Both Houses and corporate officers are committed to ensuring the absolute safety of all, whatever the option. When we come to look at these decisions, with the partiality that I understand we all will have, so far as this year’s work goes, we need to have a thorough, detailed analysis of the three options. For whatever reason they have been decided on, we have to go back in a bit of history, which I do not think is valuable today. The rigour with which these three options will have to be considered by the Houses is obviously supremely important, including things such as accessibility during construction, how that might ever be performed, and how we can be safely accommodated in that option. All those are going to have to be, and will be, considered.

However, the absolute priority in any of the options that require a continuance is the safety of those who work and visit here. That is where the House’s administrations continue to focus on improving the safety culture and processes to ensure that all are safe at all times. Because it is timely, I also want to refer to fire, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It is a very important feature. Any noble Lord here who has not undertaken the annual fire training should do so; I must say, the figures are not great in many of the groups. It is our responsibility to organise ourselves to undertake that training.

The fire safety improvement works were a major programme that ran from 2012 to 2021. Interestingly, picking up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the installation of a high-pressure water mist system throughout the basement was part of that. The mist system controls and prevents fire spreading from the basement. Recent upgrades have also improved the life safety aspect. Part of that work has been the compartmentation of the Palace so that we can ensure that we get people out. There is also the installation of a wet riser in the Victoria Tower and a dry riser and sprinklers in the Elizabeth Tower. So the authorities are looking at all aspects of innovation. I will take the point back about the roof and any other areas. As we are undertaking this work, fire safety is of supreme importance. A lot of that work was done prior to R&R, keeping people safe. However, part of R&R is also keeping the building safe, which is where we have continuing challenges.

Accessibility was rightly raised quite strongly in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, outlined some of the situations where we simply must address how we can do things better for people who are part of the parliamentary community and visitors across the Parliamentary Estate. It is very important, not only in the statute but in terms of the work that is going on, to ensure that we have step-free access improved from the current 12% to about 70% across the Palace, with much higher coverage in key and public spaces. This is an area where work is needed both now and in the design of the temporary accommodation because, whatever option is decided on at varying points, temporary accommodation will be needed. I am sending a message to everyone involved in the design and consideration. There have been some one-to-one meetings with Members but, if any noble Lord has not had an opportunity to discuss this matter with officials here, I would warmly welcome such a meeting.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, although I am very grateful for the meeting that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, had, my point was that it came after the design process rather than us being talked to beforehand. Accessibility and disability will not be the only specialist areas. People do not know what they do not know. It is not clear. I make again the point about the political nature of some of our work meaning us operating in different ways. Outsiders just do not understand it.

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

The noble Baroness has outlined where we have been at fault in the past and now. We should be doing far more preliminary consideration before we get to a point where we can start. There have been a number of recent examples where I have expressed my own view, asking: why on earth was this not considered from that accessibility point of view at the very beginning? Rather than saying we have done rather well, we could have done even better. So I understand that and I agree.

The noble Lord, Lord Morse, was very open about costs. Obviously he brings enormous experience to these matters, and how fortunate we are. I was very struck by one of the areas that may, I hope, be more helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain. The National Audit Office examines, certifies and reports on the delivery authority’s annual statement of accounts. The NAO also undertaken two value-for-money audits of the R&R programme, to date feeding into the Public Accounts Committee inquiries. The noble Lord referred to the additional £91 million which has been approved for the delivery authority and the R&R client team. For the sake of completeness, one should also include the £6 million forecast to be spent this financial year by Strategic Estates to develop the EMI option. I thought it was important that there was a complete picture of where we are at with those costs.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, also spoke about EMI. I reiterate that all the options will be measured against the same criteria. Health and safety, and building fabric conservation—which involves the critical work needed to the basement—are areas where there is a complete understanding that both Houses need this with as much of a comparator as possible.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, made an important point. Much of the work of the client team is with the considerable new membership in the other place. This is a major exercise in familiarising Members of Parliament who have come afresh with the challenges of this Palace and how we restore and renew it in the appropriate way.

The noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, referred to commercial expertise—I am somewhat looking at the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, here, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Morse, from before. That is precisely why the four external members of the programme board, with their own experience of major programmes and commercial prowess of making value for money, which is of the top order, are with the parliamentary team. Commercial expertise is much better entrenched now.

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, raised access to and involvement in the QEII design plans. Again, this is an area we need to be looking at. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said we should have a new site or whatever. I am nervous of this—I am going off-script as it were—but I know that a lot of work went into considering a range of sites and locations. After many millions of pounds were spent on consideration of alternative and temporary accommodation, the QEII, for a variety of reasons, was considered to be the optimum site for us to remove ourselves to. However, I take the point, and all of what has been said today will be considered.

The noble Earl referred to the QEII Centre. It is obviously important that, with the delivery authority leading on the design work for QEII, we re-engage on any future design—particularly, from my point of view as Chairman of Committees and Senior Deputy Speaker, on having the best technology that we can for our committee rooms, for instance, and ensuring that accessibility is absolutely entrenched in the design. All of these are areas that I personally think we should look at very strongly.

I will conclude, given the time, by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions. I will look at Hansard because there may be some areas of detail that I can respond to. I have tried to cover some of the guts of what we are all about. All I can say is that this year will be very busy. I hope it will be a productive year because I am prepared to say that, if we do not make the right decision, we will all be responsible.