Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

8: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Compensation for victims of fraud and other economic crimes(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, report to Parliament the findings and recommendations of a review of victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences.(2) The purpose of the report under subsection (1) is to inform Parliament how the Secretary of State will provide for victims of such economic crimes to be compensated without such victims needing to pursue civil action.(3) The Secretary of State must conduct a public consultation on the review, the terms of which must be published no later than 1 June 2026, and which must open on that date and close on 1 September 2026.(4) In this section “victims of economic crime” includes United Kingdom and overseas victims of complex corruption cases where the harm caused by the offending is not easily quantifiable.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires a review to explore how domestic and overseas victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences could be better compensated without the need for civil proceedings to recover their losses or compensation and for the Secretary of State to report his conclusions to Parliament without undue delay.

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

My Lords, noble Lords will remember an amendment in these terms from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, who moved it in Committee. He is the lead tabler of this amendment on Report but cannot be here today, so he has asked me and its other co-signatory, the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, to present the case for it.

The amendment seeks a review of the issue of compensation for victims of economic crimes such as fraud, bribery and money laundering without the need for civil proceedings. Noble Lords will no doubt remember the frustration that the noble and learned Lord expressed in Committee that, after all his years campaigning on this issue and for all the warm words of support he has received from successive Governments, he has not made progress in getting acceptable provisions enacted. The arguments in favour of this amendment are extensive and were extensively canvassed in Committee, so I hope that I will be forgiven for setting them out in reasonably staccato form, without the academic support they received in Committee.

First, the present arrangements for the victims of economic crime are unsatisfactory, and in the vast majority of cases of serious fraud, bribery, money-laundering and other economic crime, very few victims receive compensation. This is particularly true of overseas victims.

Secondly, resort to civil proceedings is difficult and expensive; the costs are often prohibitive. Potential claimants inevitably have difficulties in finding and calling evidence on economic crimes, for a host of reasons—again, which is particularly true of overseas claimants. Successful claimants, even after winning cases, face serious difficulties with enforcement of judgments against fraudsters and other economic criminals—again, particularly overseas victims. Then, fines which are levied as a result of prosecutions in the UK go to government, and a derisorily small amount is awarded to victims in the form of compensation. That is also true in the case of deferred prosecution agreements and arrangements made pursuant to them, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, was active in introducing when he was Solicitor-General.

It was agreed around the Committee—this is the reason for the form of this amendment, both then and now—that it is not yet clear what the best arrangements for providing adequate compensation for criminal cases involving economic crime might be. That is the reason why a review is essential and why the amendment calls for a review. Then, it may be that a new scheme to enable compensation to be awarded in cases involving overseas victims might just involve arrangements to award compensation not only to the direct losers who might qualify as claimants in civil proceedings, but also, or alternatively, to some Governments abroad, some NGOs, or some other organisations which may not be claimants in civil proceedings or even entitled to be so, but may well nevertheless be substantial actual and identifiable losers and victims of such crimes.

It is certainly the case that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, successive Governments have reacted to the call for sensible and fair compensation arrangements for victims of economic crime with warm words but no action at all. So, the need for a review of what should be done to fill this gap is urgent. This is why the amendment has a tight timetable for public consultation, for undertaking the review itself and for a report to Parliament.

Finally, a set of sensible and respected arrangements for providing such compensation would enhance the reputation of this country as a financial centre. We are already leaders in many fields: in insurance, in legal services—including arbitration—the quality of our courts and judiciary, and banking, to name to just a few. Arrangements for proper compensation for economic crime could raise our international standing even further.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to say that I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Marks—not something I perhaps say terribly frequently in this Chamber.

There is one material distinction between the proposed new clause the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, brought forward in Committee and the proposed new clause before the House today. That is in proposed new subsection (3), which requires that

“The Secretary of State must conduct a public consultation on the review, … which must be published no later than 1 June 2026, and which must open on that date and close on 1 September 2026”.


Members of the House might ask why that is so specific. The reason is a simple one: I know that the noble and learned Lord met the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, to discuss this issue, and was told a review was going to be conducted, but that it would not report until 2028.

Given that this campaign has been going on for some time, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, had a justifiable point in trying to bring forward that date through this amendment. As he rightly said in his Second Reading speech and in Committee, it is important that the United Kingdom Government make it possible for victims of fraud, bribery and money-laundering offences, both here and overseas, to recover compensation from the offending person or company, rather than the fines simply going into the system here in the UK.

There is one final point from the noble and learned Lord’s Second Reading speech that warrants repetition here:

“The African Union estimated in 2015 that 25% of the continent’s gross domestic product was lost to corruption. Every company convicted of overseas corruption in this jurisdiction should be ordered to compensate the communities it has harmed”.—[Official Report, 16/12/25; col. 689.]


Can any of us disagree with that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I will certainly take that away and write to the noble Lord. A number of things are in issue here. For example, I do not know how many appeals across the board are successful. It may be that it is a greater number for this category of cases; it may be a smaller number. I simply do not know, so I will write to the noble Lord.

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive response on the question of a review. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, was grateful for the meeting. Our continuing frustration is about the timescale. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, and I are very pleased to hear that 2027 is there rather than 2028, but we both know that that is next year and that now is March 2026. We would be even more grateful if there were a commitment to finish the review and produce results this year, because almost undoubtedly for a comprehensive scheme there will require to be legislation. That takes time, as we all know, and therefore the sooner that we can get on with this the better it is. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 29, which has been placed in this group and is in my name, would exempt sex offenders and domestic abusers from being eligible for early release at the one-third point of their sentence under the new sentencing regime. Across the House, we have already discussed the seriousness of sexual offences and domestic abuse and the need to improve the way these crimes are handled. In Committee, noble Lords were told that most offenders would not be eligible for early release at the one-third point; unfortunately, this is not the case. The vast majority of sexual and domestic abuse offenders will not be serving extended determinate sentences and will therefore be eligible for early release under the present scheme. In these circumstances, unless the Minister can provide appropriate and sufficient assurances, I will be minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendments 20 and 29.

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

My Lords, I will express support for Amendment 20 moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen; my noble friend Lady Brinton will address the other amendments in the group. Amendment 20, to remove Clause 12 from the Bill, may be technical but it is important because the regrettable fact is that, as is now well known, the relevant authorities and the police lack the resources to prosecute all crime reported to them. As a result, a significant proportion of reported crime goes insufficiently investigated and, too often, unprosecuted.

That is true across a whole range of offences, from shop theft to some offences of violence and many cases of fraud. There is therefore a practical need for private prosecutions, and that practical need is complementary to the traditional—and we would say justified—view that it is not and should not be solely for the state to prosecute breaches of the criminal law. It is also open to private citizens and organisations to bring private prosecutions, and that is an important aspect of access to justice.

It is certainly true that there are some cases where prosecutions require the consent of the DPP or the Attorney-General, but those tend to be special cases where Parliament has decided that that restriction is appropriate. An important feature of private prosecutions in this jurisdiction, and of their successfully being brought, is that the prosecution is entitled to recover the bulk of the prosecution costs from central funds by payment at a reasonable rate; the noble and learned Lord has stressed the importance of the reasonable rate.

The noble and learned Lord is right to say that a significant proportion of such prosecutions are brought by charities, including Macmillan and Help for Heroes. Those charities are often the victims of fraudulent schemes. Other private prosecutions are, of course, brought by commercial organisations, notably retailers which suffer substantial losses as a result of theft from shops. They may be commercial organisations, and they may have a commercial motivation for the prosecutions, but as a matter of simple and instinctive justice and a matter of principle, it is not and should not be the sole responsibility of the state to initiate prosecutions. Nor should the state fail to assist financially those who bring meritorious prosecutions against those who transgress the criminal law. When I say assist financially, I mean bear the costs of successful prosecutions, in large part.

The fact is that organisations may be deterred from bringing private prosecutions if their costs recovery is capped at a level that makes them unaffordable or uneconomic. Furthermore, if frauds against charities or offences against others, whether not for profit or commercial, cannot be prosecuted, the prevalence of those offences may be increased, to the general detriment of society as a whole. Yet, Clause 12, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said, would introduce a mechanism for capping the amounts payable to prosecutors for their costs and cannot be read in any other way.

My understanding is that the Government say they will consult on this proposal to cap prosecution costs recovery but want to see a reserved power in this Bill first. We think that is the wrong way round. The Government should carry out their consultation and then, in the light of the consultation, abandon, as we would hope, the idea of a cap on costs recovery or introduce any necessary legislation, following and taking into account the results of the consultation. It follows that Clause 12 is an utterly undesirable clause. It is not worth saving and cannot be saved, and we therefore support Amendment 20, which would remove it from this Bill.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on Amendment 29. During the passage of the Sentencing Act, we discussed the concern about early release schemes for those categories of offenders in some detail. As a result, about two weeks ago, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, kindly had a meeting after the passage of the Act. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner and the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, were there to talk to the Minister about our concerns.

The outcome of that—had I thought of it, I would have spoken to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, to inform him—is agreement by the MoJ to form a working party with the offices of both the commissioners and their teams to review the scheme and the training of the Probation Service and start using some of the expertise of the third sector and its knowledge of the perpetrators and experience of the victims. That will be fed into the training of the Probation Service. There is a very positive move going on within the MoJ which I hope and think will directly address the concerns the noble and learned Lord mentioned when he was speaking to Amendment 29.