Baroness Levitt
Main Page: Baroness Levitt (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Baroness Levitt's debates with the Ministry of Justice
(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Welsh legislative consent sought.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, at the heart of this Bill are measures aimed at ensuring that victims are treated with dignity, compassion and respect throughout the justice process. This legislation represents a significant step forward in strengthening the rights of victims and improving the efficiency and fairness of our courts in a fair and proportionate way.
A number of noble Lords have spoken to me about some of the provisions in the Bill, and I am grateful to them for their measured and constructive approach. I had hoped to be able to answer some of their questions in advance of this debate; in the end, time constraints meant that this did not prove possible, but I shall do my best to address some of them during this short speech. That said, as ever with issues about the justice system, I and the Government welcome the opportunity to work with Members of your Lordships’ House, from all parties and none, to ensure that we get these provisions right.
I begin by addressing the issue of defendants who refuse to leave their cell in order to attend their sentencing hearing. This happens too often and causes great distress to victims and their families, many of whom have sat through a difficult trial. The sentencing hearing provides an important opportunity to tell the defendant exactly how the crime has affected them, usually done through a victim personal statement. For many, it is important to be able to look the defendant in the eye as the sentence is passed, so when the defendant chooses not to attend court, that can feel like the final insult. The Government agree with victims and their families that defendants should not have that choice.
Judges have always had the power to order defendants to attend their sentencing hearing but, if the defendant refused, the judge was very restricted as to what she or he was able to do. The Bill will change that by putting the power on a statutory footing. I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the families of Jan Mustafa, Henriett Szucs, Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Sabina Nessa and Zara Aleena. Their courage and tireless campaigning have brought about this change, and for that we thank them.
On the specific provisions, first, the Bill makes clear that reasonable force may be used to get the defendant to court, but that has to be balanced against the risk to prison and security staff so there are three issues that the judge will take into account: necessity, reasonableness and proportionality. Secondly, in addition to the use of reasonable force, judges will have the power to impose up to two years’ imprisonment in addition to the sentence for the offence and/or an unlimited fine. Thirdly, concerns were raised that, because many of these defendants will be receiving very long sentences, an additional period of imprisonment might not have much effect. To meet that concern, Crown Court judges will also be given the power to impose meaningful sanctions that will have an impact on how the defendant serves their time in prison. If defendants attend court but are disruptive or disrespectful, and as a result have to be removed from the hearing, the judge will be able to impose the same penalties. This Government are clear: victims’ and their families’ voices matter, and defendants should be sentenced with those voices ringing in their ears. The Bill will help to ensure that happens.
I turn to the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility. Protecting children is an absolute priority for this Government, and these provisions are part of a wider exercise to ensure that the interests of children remain paramount in all proceedings. Having children is a privilege but also a responsibility, and the justice system must always ensure that these children are right at the centre of what we do. As part of that, the Bill provides that where a parent has been convicted of a serious offence involving child sexual abuse and has been sentenced to four or more years’ imprisonment, there will be an automatic restriction preventing them exercising parental responsibility for their own children. This measure will protect the children of child sex offenders, whose convictions will provide clear evidence that they pose a risk to children, including their own.
The Bill will also restrict the exercise of parental responsibility for children of rapists where their crimes have led to the conception and birth of the child in question. There will be two routes. First, where the Crown Court is satisfied to the criminal standard that the child was conceived as a result of the rape, this mandatory restriction must be imposed at the time the defendant is sentenced.
Secondly, where rape has occurred as part of wider domestic abuse, and the court is satisfied that the child may have been conceived as a result of that rape, but cannot be sure, the court must refer the case to the family court via the local authority. This sends a clear message that we will protect all children conceived and born as a result of rape, no matter the circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked me when we met about the number of offenders this will capture. Our belief is that up to 20 offenders will be affected by this measure each year.
Thirdly, non-disclosure agreements—NDAs—should not be used to silence victims or cover up crimes. The Bill will make sure that they cannot be used in this way. It makes it clear that NDAs will not be legally enforceable to the extent that they seek to prevent victims —or those who reasonably believe they are victims—from disclosing information about relevant criminal behaviour. In addition, we want to make sure that victims can provide the full context and circumstances when speaking about crimes. The Bill will also ensure that such a victim will be able to speak about how the other party reacted both to the criminal conduct itself and the victim speaking out about it.
Of course, we recognise there may be situations where both parties genuinely wish to have the closure offered by an NDA. To accommodate that, the measure includes two powers. The first will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations to set out the criteria for an excepted NDA. Such NDAs would not be voided under the measure. The second power allows the Secretary of State to specify that speaking about the crime to some people, for specific purposes or in certain situations, will always be allowed, even if an excepted NDA exists. For example, a victim who wanted to speak to a victim support service in order to get support may be able to do so, despite being party to an excepted NDA.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, asked me about some of the exceptions set out in the clause. I am sorry that I was not able to answer their questions in advance of Second Reading, but I will do my best to do so now. The measure will not apply to a narrow cohort of specified agreements. This is in the interests of national security. Unlike with excepted NDAs, victims of crime who sign such agreements will not always be able to make the disclosures specified by the Secretary of State in regulations made under the second power because the relevant bodies have their own appropriate arrangements for ensuring that victims and direct witnesses of crime can speak up and seek support.
During the development of the clause, extensive engagement was undertaken with relevant government departments about which bodies an exemption should apply to. An exemption for agreements entered into by the National Crime Agency in the interests of national security was not considered necessary. Legislation that binds the Crown does not ordinarily apply to the sovereign unless there is a specific policy justification for it to do so. For the purposes of this measure, the Government do not consider that there is a specific policy justification for the measure to apply to agreements entered into by the sovereign personally.
Fourthly, we will be strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. I start by paying tribute to the late Baroness Newlove, who will be greatly missed in your Lordships’ House. All of us have a great deal for which to thank her. The Bill will enable the Victims’ Commissioner to hold the system to account more effectively, which we hope and expect will boost the confidence of victims. The Victims’ Commissioner will have a number of new tools, which we intend should be used to achieve systemic change.
First, for the first time, the commissioner will be able to exercise their functions in relation to individual cases where such a case raises public policy issues that go beyond that particular case and are likely to be of relevance to other victims and witnesses.
Secondly, local authorities and social housing providers will have a duty to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner in relation to anti-social behaviour. As a result, the commissioner will be able to get the information they need to identify systemic issues, make informed recommendations and examine how the system responds to anti-social behaviour.
Thirdly, the Bill will place a new duty on the Victims’ Commissioner to produce an independent assessment as to how public agencies are meeting their duties under the victims’ code. The report will be provided to Ministers, who will then be required to consider it as part of preparing their own report on code compliance under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.
Some of your Lordships have raised with me at meetings whether the commissioner will have sufficient resources to take on this additional work. We have worked closely with the Victims’ Commissioner’s office to understand the impact of the measures, and we have identified a small additional resource requirement amounting to £150,000 a year. That is outlined in our impact assessment. This will be accounted for as the measure is commenced and implemented.
The victim contact scheme plays a critical role in communicating information about the release of offenders to be given to those who need it most, but the legislation governing it is more than 20 years old. This Bill will simplify and update the current system. It will bring victims currently served by different operational schemes into the single victim contact scheme. As we implement this measure, we will make sure that the updated scheme works for the victims it is designed to serve. The Bill will also provide all victims with one clear route to request information about an offender.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, asked about interactions with clinicians’ obligations. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, raised issues about when an offender is detained under the Mental Health (Discrimination) Act 2013. We will consider how best to support victim liaison officers and hospital managers to provide this information to victims where it is appropriate to do so. This requirement reflects current practice, where the release of information must comply with data protection legislation and the convention rights. We also would not provide information that would put either the offender or the victim at risk for any reason. Where information is not disclosed, victims can seek a review through existing independent HMPPS complaints processes or make a complaint to the relevant NHS service provider. If they are unhappy with the outcome, victims can escalate their complaint directly to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
For mentally disordered offenders, this includes information about discharge, leave and any other information as appropriate. Furthermore, the Bill will allow victims to request information about an offender, which will be delivered via a new dedicated helpline. This means that eligible victims of mentally disordered offenders will receive information on request. Our intention is to ensure that those who are eligible receive the right information about offenders at the right time. In addition, but outwith this Bill, we will consult on a new victims’ code in due course.
I turn to prosecutors. I declare not so much an interest as experience in this area, as I worked for the Crown Prosecution Service for five years. I am sure that all will agree it is essential that we ensure that the CPS can recruit and retain sufficient qualified Crown prosecutors. Having inadequate numbers means that important decisions about, for example, who to charge with offences, choice of charge and evidence requests to be made from the police cannot take place in a timely way.
In England and Wales, there are the members of the two well-known branches of the legal profession, namely solicitors and barristers. What is less widely known is that there are other routes by which a person may qualify as a lawyer. The biggest of these is CILEX, the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives. At present, as the law currently stands, it is difficult for the CPS to appoint lawyers other than solicitors or barristers to work as Crown prosecutors. This Bill will remove those barriers, by enabling further suitably qualified and experienced legal professionals to be appointed to these important roles.
A number of noble Lords have raised with me whether this will involve lowering standards, and I am happy to reassure your Lordships that it will not. At present, the law requires Crown prosecutors to have what is known as the general qualification. The general qualification requires the lawyer in question to have very wide rights of audience, namely in all proceedings in the senior courts, in the county courts or magistrates’ courts. In practice, not all these rights are necessary for their role as a Crown prosecutor, so the Bill will remove that requirement. What will remain is that Crown prosecutors from whichever professional background must have the necessary rights of audience and authorisation under the Legal Services Act 2007 to appear in the courts relevant to their role, and they will have to meet the necessary CPS competency standards to conduct prosecutions at the appropriate level. The CPS will retain full discretion over whom to appoint.
This will widen the pool of eligible prosecutors, and support greater flexibility in staffing. The hope is that, in the longer term, this will shorten waiting times for prosecutorial decisions to be made. The measure supports, in a proportionate way, the intention underlying the manifesto commitment. Rather than giving more powers to associate prosecutors, these measures will increase the pool of prospective Crown prosecutors.
On private prosecutions, once again I declare that I have experience in this area, having been a partner in a firm of solicitors and head of a department that brought a number of private prosecutions. I was also one of the founding members of the Private Prosecutors’ Association and was heavily involved in the drafting of the code of practice and conduct for private prosecutors. The Government are committed to reforming the private prosecution system, so that it is fairer and has the necessary safeguards in place. While that will require more extensive and long-term change, the Bill is taking the first step as part of that plan for reform.
A number of your Lordships raised the question of whether this reform would have a chilling effect on private prosecutions. That is not the intention underlying these measures; the Government agree that private prosecutions play an important role in our justice system.
When a private prosecutor applies to the court for their costs to be paid by the public purse, there are no fixed rates. This is not satisfactory for two reasons: first, costs determinations can be protracted, taking up valuable court time; and, secondly, there is a lack of certainty for those who would like to consider bringing a private prosecution as to the amount that they may be able to recover. That is why the Bill will give the Lord Chancellor the power to make regulations which set the rates at which private prosecutors can recover their costs from central funds. This will save court time when it is required to determine cost orders, reduce the number of appeals and give private prosecutors a better degree of certainty. We believe that it will ensure the best use of public funds.
This measure is purely an enabling power. I am aware that reservations have been expressed about the effect of setting the rates too low. I have been assured that there will be extensive engagement with stakeholders, and a full consultation will be held before any regulations are introduced. The defendant’s costs order will not be the starting point, and I will be monitoring closely the progress of the consultation. This engagement will help us determine the most appropriate rates, including whether higher rates should be preserved for some more complex private prosecutions. In doing so, we will retain the central aim of this measure, which is to safeguard the right of an individual to bring private prosecutions, while making the best use of public funds.
I now turn to the measures on the unduly lenient sentence scheme. As many will know, when the Attorney General believes that the original sentence does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence, the scheme provides a power for the case to be referred to the Court of Appeal. There is a strict 28-day statutory time limit, which mirrors the time limit defendants have in which to appeal their sentence. In a not insubstantial number of cases, they are not brought to the attention of the Attorney-General until the end of the period, sometimes on the 28th day. This has proved problematic for the Attorney-General, because it makes it difficult to be able to give the case proper consideration in the time remaining. The 28-day period will remain unaltered, but the Bill will give the Attorney-General 14 days to consider any request that has been made within the second half of the window. We believe that this is a proportionate response, respecting the need for fairness to all victims and balancing that with the need for certainty and sentencing.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, asked me about the unduly lenient sentence scheme and engagement and the shorter window for victims. Many noble Lords may be aware of the commitment made in the other place by my honourable friend the Victims Minister. She has committed to looking at the length of the time limit as this Bill progresses, and I, too, am happy to make that commitment in your Lordships’ House—namely, to listen to and consider any thoughts that noble Lords may have as to the length of the time limit for the ULS scheme. In doing so, I remind your Lordships that the unduly lenient sentence scheme is not a mechanism to provide an appeal for victims or members of the public; rather, it is a legal safeguard that exists to correct sentences that fall outside the reasonable parameters for the sentence in question.
Finally, the Bill introduces a modest but important amendment to magistrates’ court sentencing powers in respect of six specific offences. As your Lordships will know, this Government have increased magistrates’ sentencing powers from six to 12 months’ imprisonment for all offences that are triable either way, other than these six. For technical reasons, all these six require primary legislation to make the magistrates’ court sentencing powers consistent with those of all other either-way offences; doing this will reduce the risk of confusion or error in sentencing.
This Bill is about ensuring trust and confidence in our justice system—one that is fair, efficient and takes the needs of victims into account—and it reflects our commitment to ensuring that courts meet the demands both of today and of tomorrow.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the helpful and constructive approach taken to the Bill—and I really mean it when I say that. Many of those who have spoken this evening have enormous expertise in this area and the contributions are very welcome. Many of the points made have given us food for thought and we will reflect on them. I hope to answer most of the matters raised but, if I do not, I will write to the noble Lord in question.
I hope that I shall be forgiven if I single out one of your Lordships for the matters he raised—the noble Lord, Lord Bailey. He spoke very movingly in reminding us about the disproportionate effect of criminal offences on poorer communities. It is good to be reminded of that, and also of how important it is that there is clarity for citizens. I am often acutely aware that sometimes when I am trying to explain one of the provisions in a piece of legislation, even to those in this House with the enormous expertise they have, I do not explain it very well. It was a very well-made point and one that I shall take away.
I will deal first with non-attendance at sentencing hearings, which was spoken to by many of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. My noble friend Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, who I thank for her kind words, asked whether the power to add additional custodial sentences would have an impact on the issue of prison capacity. We envisage that any impact would not be immediate, because any additional time in custody would be served at the end of the offender’s existing sentence. We estimate that the measure would result in five additional prison places, at a steady state around 12 years after implementation.
Also, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby spoke about balance and proportionality in requiring defendants to attend their sentencing hearing. We agree with that because, although we are doing our best to compel defendants to attend, if they do attend, we cannot compel them either to behave properly or, indeed, to experience or express contrition for what they have done. For some victims, a defendant who turns up and laughs or is disrespectful or shouts discourteous things can add to a victim’s problems. So, we need to make sure that we strike the balance between forcing them to attend and ensuring that there is no bad behaviour that will simply make things worse for victims.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, among others, raised the question of risk to those who are dealing with the question of reasonable force. Let me make it clear that it is not police officers. It will be prison staff and PECS —Prison Escort and Custody Services—staff. They already have training and experience in dealing with the question of reasonable force when it comes to getting offenders to court. It will be their assessment that counts. It will not be the judge who decides what kind of force will be used, or whether it will be used: it will be down to the assessment of the staff as to what the risk is. We have made it absolutely clear that we do not expect any additional risk to staff. That is not the purpose of the exercise. This is why it has to be proportionate. We are certainly not binding and gagging defendants to bring them to court. That would not be appropriate and we are not turning this into some kind of sideshow, which was the expression that somebody used.
Turning to the automatic restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility mentioned by numerous noble Lords, I make the point in response to my noble friend Lord Hacking that parental responsibility is not the same as parental involvement. The removal of parental responsibility does not mean that those parents will never see those children again. That would be a matter for the family courts to decide. What it does mean is that, for example, a defendant who is serving a very long sentence of imprisonment cannot simply interfere with questions such as which school the child will go to, and so on and so forth.
I thank noble Lords for the broad welcome given to these provisions. A number of points were made, including by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about the Explanatory Notes. I am sorry about that. We will check that we have got them right by Report.
On the question of four years, a number of noble Lords made the observation about a line having to be drawn somewhere. These are new and radical provisions, and we want to balance the seriousness of an automatic restriction with the seriousness of the crime and the impact it will have on the child. We made the assessment that, as this was not a decision to be taken lightly, it should be done only in tightly restricted circumstances, and four years seems to us to strike the correct balance regarding the seriousness of the offence. The other issue is that we want to make sure that the system is not overwhelmed by the number of cases. However, these are certainly matters upon which we can reflect.
A number of noble Lords raised interim orders. My immediate response is that they would pose difficulties for the Crown Court. First, what is the evidence upon which it would act? Secondly, they would drag the Crown Court into decisions that are properly those of the family court. However, we can certainly reflect on this matter, and we will be happy to discuss it with as many noble Lords as wish to do so.
I am grateful to those who broadly welcomed the non-disclosure agreements. I was asked where these differ from those brought in under Section 17 of the Victims and Prisoners Act, which came into force on 1 October. The new measures go further. Basically, they mean that those subject to a non-disclosure agreement can speak to anyone, not simply to categories of individuals. The most important thing is that this aligns with and complements the legislation in the Employment Rights Bill. That is the purpose of it.
On strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti asked whether the commissioner would be able to intervene in individual cases. That is not anticipated at present because really that is the function of the Crown Prosecution Service; if there are points of law to be made on behalf of victims, that is part of the function of the CPS. Again, though, we can reflect on this question, and if she would like to meet me to discuss this, she would be welcome to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, spoke about never expecting to be a victim. As the noble Baroness was saying that, I reflected that of course that was the experience of the late Baroness Newlove; she never expected to be a victim but the events of one evening meant that she was propelled into a situation that she had never envisaged at all. However, when it comes to the idea that victims do not get a lot of attention, there are a number of Bills going through both Houses of Parliament that deal with law and order, so I suggest that this Government are giving a lot of attention to the question of victims.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that victims used to be seen simply as a special category of witness. In fact, he and I are both probably old enough to remember a time when prosecuting advocates were not even allowed to go and introduce themselves to the victim of a crime, far less explain anything about what was going on. I am happy to say that that is not the situation any longer. Successive Governments, and I pay tribute to all those involved, have sought to put this right, and I pay tribute to the party opposite for the part it has played in ensuring that victims have been brought more centrally into the system.
As far as Operation Soteria is concerned, which the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, mentioned, many of its provisions are being taken further. We announced recently that we are going to firm up the rules of evidence about what victims can be asked regarding their previous sexual experience and so forth.
I turn to the victim contact scheme in Schedule 2. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, complained how long Schedule 2 was. I was going to say that the reason is that it tidies up a load of other provisions but then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, made that point for me.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised support for victims, and that was echoed by a number of noble Lords, including, in her customary passionate fashion, the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. We will reflect on this point. I issue an invitation to any Members of your Lordships’ House who would like to discuss any proposed amendments with me. I will be happy to do so and see where we can work together to ensure that there is appropriate provision to be made for victims.
On Crown prosecutors, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for raising the point that CILEX members tend to be more diverse than barristers and solicitors. I deliberately did not make that point because that is not the primary objective; it is a happy side effect. I make it absolutely clear that this will not reduce standards. I invite noble Lords to reflect on their comments that suggest that CILEX lawyers are somehow less good than barristers or solicitors. They simply qualify via a different route. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, shaking his head and remind him that people used to say that solicitors were inferior to barristers; I do not think anybody is going to say that any more.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Gove, did not say it now, but in the past that used to be said. We have moved on.
Lord Gove (Con)
There is absolutely no doubt, when it comes to the exercise of the prosecutorial or the defence function in court, that someone who has served at the criminal Bar will provide a higher level of service in the most sensitive and most important cases. A misplaced respect for the role that solicitor advocates can play and have played should not take away from the fact that the criminal Bar is under siege. It is losing members. It needs support and it is vital that we recognise that, without a healthy criminal Bar, not just prosecution and defence but the future of the judiciary are threatened.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I have tried very hard to keep this non-partisan, but I have to say very gently to the noble Lord that it is a bit rich to hear from a member of the party opposite about what has happened to the criminal Bar, when pretty much everybody who was working there at the time—that includes me—knows it was the considerable cuts made to legal aid under the previous Administration that put the criminal Bar into the parlous state it is now in. But I say no more about that contentious subject, because this is not an opportunity for us to fall out. The noble Lord and I can debate the respective merits of barristers, solicitors and CILEX lawyers in due course.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti about the importance of private prosecutions and entirely understand her concerns. I hope she is aware that the Government intend to look at some of the issues, for example, that surround disclosure in private prosecutions. We all know the cases to which I refer. She said she has reservations about corporate private prosecutions. I was about to say something, then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, rather made the point for me that some very important commercial organisations have brought private prosecutions in relation to quite big frauds—sometimes very big frauds indeed. Economic crime is one of the scourges of our society. The investigation and prosecution of those crimes consumes a huge amount of public resource. The Government are certainly of the view that there is a place for private prosecution to help to ensure that economic crime is prosecuted successfully.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, drew my attention to the Explanatory Notes—again—as did the noble Lord, Lord Meston. If we have got them wrong, we will correct them by Report.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I was not suggesting for a moment that the Explanatory Notes are wrong; they just happen to contradict the Minister.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I would, of course, always say that I am right, would I not? In that sense, they are wrong.
The noble and learned Lord made the point about needing to invest in people. I will give another gentle reminder about who was in power for the past 14 years.
Turning to the question of the unduly lenient scheme, I entirely agree with noble Lords that there is no point in having a right that nobody knows they have, and we plainly are not getting this right in terms of information. It needs to be more broadly known about. The question of whether 28 days is the appropriate period is one to which the Government are giving urgent consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, said that it should be made the same as for defendants. It is: they have 28 days. That is where the period came from: there is parity between the two. But that does not necessarily mean it must remain.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
As the noble Baroness knows, the period for appeal is extendable in certain circumstances. That is quite an important provision.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
That is very rare. If you appeal out of time, you have pretty much had it. You need to have a really good reason to do so. I now turn to—
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
It would be my pleasure to hear from both my noble friend and the noble and learned Lord.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My noble friend is very gracious, but I fear there is a new trend which is not the practice of your Lordships’ House: to have an extended back and forth at Second Reading. I know this may be the practice of another place not far from here but, with all due respect to noble Lords and to my noble friend with her good humour and fortitude, I am not sure that that is something that we should innovate this evening.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I was only going to support the Minister. One of the differences between an appeal by a defendant in a criminal matter and the unduly lenient sentencing system is that anybody can write to the law officers to complain that a sentence is unduly lenient. Many of the people that the Minister and I may have dealt with in the past wrote in having read an article in a newspaper saying that a particular defendant had been given what they thought was a lenient sentence. Nobody does that to appeal a criminal sentence as a defendant.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
Turning to what is not in the Bill, I of course recall that the Crime and Policing Bill—the Ministry of Justice has some of the clauses in relation to that—has been extensively criticised for being too long. This Bill is now being criticised for being too short—so there is a slight sense of being criticised whichever way we do it.
I will deal with some of the matters that were raised in relation to this. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked whether we intend to bring in the sections in the Victims and Prisoners Act dealing with definitions. I hope that I may write to her in relation to that, because some parts have been implemented and some others are planned to be implemented. I do not want to give her an answer that might turn out not to be entirely accurate.
On the question of homicide abroad, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we are conscious of this being an issue. As I am sure the noble Baroness knows, we are working on a code to give assistance to families abroad. The question of whether the victims’ code is going to apply is difficult, because many of the provisions in the victims’ code deal only with cases that can be prosecuted in this country and therefore would not apply. Again, it is a matter that we are considering and reflecting on and we will be very happy to engage with her and other noble Lords in relation to that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, raised the question of compensation for economic crimes abroad, such as corruption. I entirely agree with him about the importance of not forgetting about the effect of these cases on other countries. In the circumstances, it might be best for me to suggest that we meet to discuss it, because it is an important matter to which I would like to give some serious thought.
Transcripts were raised by many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Transparency is really important to the Government. That is one of the reasons we are now going to make the magistrates’ court a court of record: there will be recordings of all proceedings in order to shine a light on what is happening. If you are recording something, obviously your intention is that at some point it may need to be turned into a transcript. I am old enough to remember the days of the shorthand writer in court. The transcript used to be phenomenally expensive, because you had somebody sitting there typing it out and then it had to be ordered and checked. We are hopeful that artificial intelligence is going to help by bringing down the cost of transcripts: we are all familiar with dictating to our computers these days, so the costs may be in checking rather than actually transcribing.
In the meantime, as far as the victims of rape and serious sexual offences are concerned, the transcripts of those sentencing remarks are free to victims in those cases. We conducted a pilot and, following that, those transcripts will be available free of charge to victims.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, raised the question of victim personal statements, and said that there are anxieties about censorship. This is a tricky one, because as the noble Lord will know, sometimes victims misunderstand the purpose of a victim personal statement and do not quite understand why they cannot include a number of things in it. Again, this is important to us. No victim should feel that their words have been censored. They should be able to say what they want to say—we are going to think about that one.
I turn finally to the issue of backlog and delay. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti raised the question of a rumour about what is to happen to the proposals in the review conducted by Sir Brian Leveson. I think that it could be seen from the expression on my face that it was the first time I had heard of that rumour. Our intention is that proper consideration be given to the important matter of how we deal with the backlog and delay. Speaking for myself, I want to persuade people and take them with us where we can do so. These matters are to be discussed, and I hope that people will listen to each other. Nobody thinks that the status quo is acceptable; the question is how we deal with it. The Government are proposing a package of measures, one aspect of which, as noble Lords know, is the suggestion of slightly moving the line, as other Governments have in the past. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not engage in this and debate it today. I am absolutely confident that there will be other opportunities to do so.
This Bill will help strengthen our justice system. It used to be, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, that victims were treated as mere witnesses and had very little by way of rights. That is no longer the case. This Bill continues the journey of putting them where they should be, at the heart of the justice system. I beg to move.
Baroness Levitt
That the bill be committed to a Grand Committee, and that it be an instruction to the Grand Committee that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 7, Schedule 2, Clauses 8 to 18, Title.