Noted that Lords amendments 4 and 7 engage the Commons’ financial privilege, stating she will cause a customary entry waiving this in the Journal if those amendments are agreed to. No indication of support or opposition towards the amendment.

Welcomes the Bill but questions why Lords amendments 1 and 3 are not accepted given their importance for processing sentencing remarks in a physical format.

Asks the Minister to provide clarity on next steps regarding making transcripts available to victims within a reasonable timeframe.

Expresses concern about the pace of implementing new measures and questions the necessity of further consultations before proceeding with legislative changes, suggesting that current processes are insufficient for victims' needs.

Challenges the approach of consulting after bringing legislation rather than before, implying this is an inefficient process that fails to meet victim's immediate needs.

Praises the Minister for focusing on victims' rights and supporting amendments aimed at restricting parental responsibility of child sex offenders, highlighting the importance of such measures for protecting children.

Argues that the amendments would make the criminal justice system more transparent, giving victims stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences. He criticises the government for failing to trust the public and allowing injustice in cases such as rape gangs and serious criminals getting away with minimal prison time.

Intervened to clarify that the proposal did not stop data sharing with Courtsdesk and was merely a commercial sensitivity proposal to take the archive offline temporarily while new contracts were determined.

Intervened to highlight that the Government have been consistent in saying that these amendments go further than is currently operationally feasible, suggesting they undermine rather than build trust.

Supports the measures in the Bill that strengthen victims' rights to receive information but expresses concern that these amendments go further than is operationally feasible, potentially undermining trust if such promises cannot be delivered.

Proposes free court transcripts for victims, extending the appeal window for unduly lenient sentences in exceptional circumstances, and ensuring families of victims outside the UK are treated equally under the victims code. Argues that these amendments would significantly improve victims' access to justice.

Supports the Government's wider reforms of the justice system but opposes Lords amendment 4, which seeks to remove the Lord Chancellor’s power to prescribe rates at which private prosecutors can recover expenses from central funds. Argues that this power is necessary for equity in the justice system.

Critiques the Government’s inconsistent stance on supporting victims' rights while opposing amendments aimed at enhancing these rights. Emphasises public support for the amendments and highlights the practical constraints faced by victims due to lack of timely access to court transcripts.

Welcomes progress on the Bill but highlights significant issues with victims' families having only 28 days to appeal sentences. Emphasises the case of Sasha Marsden, whose family struggled to understand their rights and navigate complex legal processes within a very limited timeframe. Urges the Government to extend the period for appeals and to listen to campaigners like Katie Brett and victim support charities.

Supports Lord’s Amendment 2, which requires the Secretary of State to issue an appendix to the victims code setting out how the code applies to families of British nationals murdered abroad. Highlights cases where families struggle with foreign legal procedures and lack support from their own Government. Argues for equal treatment and statutory guidance for these families.

Thanked Members for their contributions. Emphasised the Government's commitment to supporting victims of homicide or manslaughter abroad through a new draft victims code open until 30 April. Acknowledged the campaigning efforts of Lorraine Beavers on behalf of Katie Brett and thanked her for providing direct input on legislative changes at a meeting. Rejected sentiment that current legislation was workable, stating that amendments need to be legally sound and effective. Urged support for the Bill and rejection of Lords amendments.

[INTERVENTION]: Highlighted contradictions in Minister’s remarks, pointing out inconsistencies between commitments to go further and limitations due to technical impediments.