Victims and Courts Bill: Consideration of Lords Amendments

25/03/2026
Posted by: Valerie Vaz MP
Category: News

The Bill was considered in the Commons on 25 March 2026 and will introduce mandatory attendance at sentencing, automatic restriction of parental responsibility over the child victim for child sex offenders sentenced to 4 or more years, clearer access to offender‑release information, strengthened powers for the Victims’ Commissioner, expanded eligibility for Crown Prosecutors, regulation of private prosecution costs, extended time for Unduly Lenient Sentence (ULS) reviews and increased magistrates’ sentencing powers.

The 7 amendments were rejected and 6 were put to the vote. I voted to support the motions to disagree with the Lords amendments as set out below:

Lords Amendments 1 and 3 these Amendments would impose undue pressure on the resources of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the judicial Office.

Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1 Ayes 291, Noes 158

Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 3 Ayes 286, Noes 163

Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment the Commons consider that the obligations to which Lords Amendment 2 would give rise are unworkable.

Ayes 295, Noes 162

Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 4 Ayes 300, Noes 149

Lords Amendment 7 was disagreed with without debate.

Lords Amendments 4 and 7 the Lords Amendment 4 would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and Lords Amendment 7 is consequential on that Amendment, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 5 this Amendment gives rise to legal uncertainty. Ayes 292, Noes 162

Motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6 the Victims’ Code already stipulates that victims will be informed of the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Ayes 290, Noes 163