Lords Strengthen Victims' Rights, Accept End to Hereditary Seats

High-Level Summary

The House of Lords took four oral questions on candidate diversity data, dyscalculia support, foreign direct investment and reform of the student loan system, with Ministers outlining consultations and ongoing work but announcing no new timetables. Peers then undertook a substantial Report Stage on the Victims and Courts Bill, agreeing free access for victims to some court transcripts, mandating online publication of sentencing remarks with anonymity safeguards, creating a victims’ code appendix for families of homicide victims abroad, and modifying unduly‑lenient‑sentence arrangements. The House also removed a clause enabling caps on private‑prosecution costs and heard that procedural reforms will be pursued on digital evidence and CPS guidance on artistic expression. Later, the House agreed Commons reasons on the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, accepting the end of the hereditary right to sit and noting arrangements to retain expertise and ensure all Lords Ministers are paid. A Business motion was agreed to take all remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill on one day.

Detailed Summary

Arrangement of Business

Opening remarks noted a technical fault and how timings would be managed: “the clocks are broken. Thankfully, the Lord Speaker will call the next Question after 10 minutes”. A light‑hearted interjection followed: “My Lords, fortunately, I can count to 10.”. No decisions were required.

Equality Act 2010 Section 106 (candidate diversity data) – Oral Question

Lord Collins of Highbury said the Government is committed to commencing Section 106, requiring registered political parties to publish anonymised diversity data, and that officials are assessing implementation and any phasing: “Officials are currently exploring when and how to commence the provision.” He confirmed stakeholder consultation and transparency aims, including on which characteristics to include: “One of the things that is still to be determined is precisely what protected characteristics will be included under Section 106.” On barriers to participation, he cited action against intimidation, tougher sentences and address protections for candidates: “empowering courts to hand out tougher sentences to people who abuse those who uphold our democratic traditions, and removing the requirements for candidates’ home addresses to be published.” A commencement timetable was not stated in the transcript.

Special Educational Needs: Dyscalculia – Oral Question

Baroness Blake of Leeds set out a whole‑school approach via maths hubs, training frameworks and National Professional Qualifications, adding that “access should not be dependent on a diagnosis” and support should be evidence‑based. She said there were “not … immediate plans” to create a national definition, acknowledged funding trade‑offs affecting hubs, and highlighted training across early years to secondary: “there is training right across the different phases”. No new funding or definitional change was announced (not stated in the transcript).

Foreign Direct Investment – Oral Question

Lord Stockwood reaffirmed policy to keep the UK a leading FDI destination through stability, planning reform and sector strengths: “this Government are firmly committed to ensuring that the UK remains a leading destination for foreign direct investment”. He argued recent employment law changes raise total costs by less than 0.1% of annual employment costs, stressed that “renewed engagement with our closest trading partner … is critical to our long-term success” while adding “I would not go as far as the noble Lord suggests” on a customs union, and emphasised energy sovereignty and net‑zero commitments: “security and the commitment we have made to low-cost renewable energy for the long term is where this Government will stay the course”. He affirmed the US remains a key partner: “The US is clearly a key partner”. No policy changes or decisions were taken.

Student Loan System – Oral Question

Baroness Blake of Leeds said the Government is seeking a fairer, fiscally responsible system and will introduce maintenance grants of up to £1,000 a year. She noted the complexity of options and that “no decision in this area is simple and straightforward” due to knock‑on effects. She also reminded the House that “any remaining balance after 30 years is cancelled” and does not pass to family. No specific reform package or timetable was announced (not stated in the transcript).

Business of the House – Standing Orders Motion

The House agreed to dispense with Standing Order 44 on 17 March to take remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill in one day: “Motion agreed.”

Victims and Courts Bill (Report) – Parental responsibility restrictions and Jade’s law

Baroness Brinton’s Amendment 1 to lower the threshold for automatic restriction of parental responsibility to cover all child sexual offences was debated. Baroness Levitt said automatic restriction is tied to sentences of four years or more to ensure child best interests without family‑court assessment. On unborn children conceived by rape, she acknowledged a gap in Clause 4 and said, “I have asked my officials to look further at this and consider how we can best protect this group of children”. She rejected mandatory bail‑condition proposals as removing judicial discretion and risking Article 8 incompatibility. She also announced the commencement timetable for Section 18 of the Victims and Prisoners Act (Jade’s law), now “planned for the end of December 2026”. Outcome: Amendment 1 withdrawn; Amendments 2–4 not moved.

Victims and Courts Bill – Free court transcripts and online sentencing remarks

Amendment 5 (Baroness Brinton) to give victims free transcripts of the route to verdict and bail decisions passed, despite ministerial concerns that routes to verdict are short and add little value: “a route to verdict is unlikely to add significant … value for victims”. Division result: Ayes 273, Noes 180. Separately, Amendment 16 (Lord Keen) requiring Crown Courts to publish sentencing remarks online within 14 days with victim anonymity safeguards also passed (Ayes 252, Noes 171). The Minister warned publication requires skilled anonymisation and resources, noting manual review time per transcript, and said work is underway to improve the transcripts application process.

Victims and Courts Bill – Victim navigators, specialist services and restorative justice

Amendment 6 (Lord Hacking) to require an independent victim navigator in every force, acting between police and modern‑slavery victims, was withdrawn after the Government argued it would duplicate existing services and should be locally funded: “the Government cannot accept this amendment because it would duplicate existing services”. The Minister highlighted wider funding: “the Ministry of Justice will invest £550 million in victim support services over the next three years” and confirmed expansion of child houses under the VAWG strategy. On restorative justice, she said victims “must be informed” under the code and consultation is ongoing, but a statutory referral duty is not appropriate. No divisions; Amendments 6 and 7 were withdrawn/not moved.

Victims and Courts Bill – Economic‑crime compensation review and CICS (online abuse)

Amendment 8 (Lord Marks for Lord Garnier) to require a review of compensation for victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering was withdrawn after the Minister confirmed a review is already in train, due in 2027: “There is a review … and I have happy news … it is not 2028 but 2027”. Amendment 14 (Lord Russell) sought to clarify that coercive online child sexual abuse can qualify as a “crime of violence” for compensation; the Minister said online abuse is already treated as such where there is actual or immediate threat of physical violence, and warned that broadening categories would over‑extend the scheme. She undertook to write with further information on appeals. No divisions.

Victims and Courts Bill – Victim Contact Scheme scope and victims of murder abroad

Amendment 9 (Lord Keen) to extend the Victim Contact Scheme to more short‑sentence cases was withdrawn after the Minister pointed to existing eligibility for stalking/coercive control victims and a new helpline for others: “victims of coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking and harassment are already eligible … Victims … where the offender receives a sentence of less than 12 months … will be able to request information through the new dedicated helpline”. Amendment 10 (Baroness Brinton), requiring an appendix to the victims’ code for families bereaved by homicide abroad, was agreed after debate. The Minister accepted current support is “patchy” and “not good enough”, while noting new guidance (January 2026) and roles documents (February 2026). Division result: Ayes 257, Noes 174.

Victims and Courts Bill – Private‑prosecution costs, computer evidence and unduly‑lenient sentences

Peers removed Clause 12, which would have enabled regulations to cap costs recoverable by private prosecutors from central funds. Despite Government assurances the aim was clarity and proportionality, not savings, the House voted to delete the clause (Ayes 216, Noes 170). Amendment 21 (Baroness Chakrabarti) on the reliability of computer evidence was withdrawn after the Minister committed to ask the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee to develop speedy rules to add safeguards and disclosure where computer‑generated evidence is determinative. On artistic expression (rap/drill), the CPS will issue legal guidance and convene a national scrutiny panel. Proposals to double the Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) time limit to 56 days were withdrawn; instead, the House agreed to allow extensions in “exceptional circumstances” (Ayes 189, Noes 157), and placed a duty on a nominated department to inform victims about the ULS scheme. The Minister said victims had told Government that extending the limit without fixing notification would not address the core problem.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill – Commons reasons agreed

The House accepted Commons disagreements to Lords amendments and proceeded on the basis that the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote will end. Baroness Smith reiterated the principle that “no one should sit in our Parliament by way of an inherited title”, and noted arrangements to safeguard experience: “an agreed number of life peerages will be allocated to the Official Opposition—and to the Cross-Benchers”. She also highlighted a separate Bill to ensure all Lords Ministers are paid. Lord True said the Opposition would not divide the House and registered concern about expelling sitting Members but pledged constructive engagement on future reform. Motions A–D were agreed.

Other business

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill was returned from the Commons with reasons and amendments. The House adjourned at 8.59 pm.