House of Lords

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Thursday 20 March 2025

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of London.

Oaths and Affirmations

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

11:05

Lord Botham took the oath, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Public Sector: Working From Home

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

11:07

Asked by

[Lord Londesborough]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to assess the impact of working from home on the productivity of the public sector.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

Noble Lords will, like me, want to thank the public sector for its continued dedication and for what it does day in, day out. As my noble friend Lord Livermore informed your Lordships’ House in a similar OQ last year, the Government inherited a situation in which public sector productivity remains at 6.4% below pre-pandemic levels. This is clearly unacceptable. Our focus is on fundamental reform of our public services to drive greater efficiency and productivity. Further details will be set out in next week’s Spring Statement and the forthcoming spending review.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her response but I am rather perplexed. If economic growth is the Government’s top priority, why are they failing to conduct a full and proper assessment of the impact of working from home across the public sector—not least because the 7% fall in public sector productivity since the pandemic has coincided with a surge in remote working? There are key questions to answer, whether it is by sector or job function, for both management and employees, especially the young. It is not a one-size-fits-all issue, as the private sector is rapidly discovering. Why do the Government remain so resistant to learning?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am sorry but I do not agree with the sentiment behind it. In the Budget last year, the Chancellor announced a £100 million public sector reform and innovation fund, which has established a “trust and learn” approach to how we can deliver public service reform. We should be very clear that, according to the CIPD, the overwhelming majority of private sector organisations also now operate hybrid working at 60%, which is the same level as in the public sector and the Civil Service.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

Clearly, if we are going to raise public service productivity, we must tackle training and skills. I deeply regret that the coalition Government sold off the National School of Government. Over the last 15 years, much of the training for our public services has been outsourced, often to management consultancies. What are the Government doing to bring training back in-house and to ensure that there is upskilling for the whole of the public sector, done on a fully professional basis?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government are absolutely committed to the re-prioritisation of our workforce in delivering front-line services, which will require ongoing upskilling and training. On bringing it in-house, I look forward to ongoing conversations with the Minister sitting to my right, my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern, about how we will collectively work across government to achieve it.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, is not the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, of why the Government are not tackling this problem the same as for why their policy on schools has been changed and their whole approach to employment policy is being changed? It is because this Government are run by the trade unions.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that many general secretaries of trade unions would wish that to be the case. As a former trade union officer, I am very proud that this Government are embedded in and wedded to Labour and trade union values. We are working with our trade unions to deliver a plan for change regarding flexible working and our new normal. Noble Lords will appreciate that we are now five years on from the pandemic, when we had 80% of the workforce working from home. We now have a new normal. We look to what people’s expectations are and how we can deliver on those and on the delivery of our core mission of economic growth, working with all partners, trade unions and employers, to deliver it.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, flexible working can give great benefits to both employees and employers, in the public sector in particular, but will my noble friend consider the importance of making sure that there are times when people do attend work in person where they can, not least to build teamwork and camaraderie, particularly for younger workers who at the beginning of their careers need to benefit from personal, up-close experience with their more senior colleagues?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an important point. I think most of us in your Lordships’ House benefited from being in workplaces so that we could be mentored and learn from people who are more experienced—I definitely do every day in your Lordships’ House. In terms of making sure that people are working in the office, the easiest example for me to give is the Civil Service. Civil servants are now required, as the previous Government established, to work 60% of their time in office environments to ensure that institutional knowledge is passed on from new starters to those more experienced but also for those more experienced to learn from new approaches to the world in which we live.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

We heard what the Minister said about working with the unions. Last month the FDA Civil Service union published its findings that almost two-thirds of the staff it surveyed felt that having to work in the office three days a week decreased their productivity. Will the Minister confirm whether the FDA’s findings tally with the Government’s own official analysis of the impact of the three-day in-office rule?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My right honourable friend in the other place Pat McFadden has been clear that we want to ensure that people are working in the office. We genuinely believe that there is social capital developed from having office-based approaches, and we are committed to retaining 60% of staff in the office during their contracts. We should also reflect on the fact that one of the opportunities that this has given the state is that we have been able to consolidate the estate, one example of which is 1 Victoria Street, which was recently sold, leading to annual savings of £30 million. This gives us an opportunity in terms of hybrid working but also to ensure that we are getting value for money for the public purse.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the noble Baroness agree that her impact in the Division Lobby would be much decreased if she was online? Does she also agree that in important meetings the impact of everyone being in the same room is much better than when part of the meeting is online? Does she further agree that we should apply that standard to Select Committee meetings in this House?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not brave enough to answer the final point. As for my performance in the Division Lobby, I think most noble Lords have now experienced that. I can either apologise or be grateful for it. In terms of online working and how we use technology, personally, I benefit from sitting in the same room during meetings; I definitely absorb more. But noble Lords will be aware that I also do a great deal of work with the Northern Ireland Office and all our meetings have to be hybrid because of where people are. That is the case for most of us who are operating in government. Our officials are spread, so to make sure that we hear voices from our nations and regions, it is important that we operate a variety of different technologies.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, returning to the earlier question about skills and training, will my noble friend talk to her noble friend on the Front Bench and to Pat McFadden and Georgia Gould in the Commons about re-establishing a new form of civil service college, which could be done with a confederation of universities at a fraction of the price that was going to be charged by EY until this Government stopped it back in July?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My noble friend knows how inordinately fond of him I am, and I am aware that it is always a bad idea to disagree with him. On that basis, I will have all those conversations.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that there is a big difference between those civil servants who are working as researchers or analysts and those who are public facing; for example, in HMRC, the Passport Office and the DVLA? She will be aware that HMRC has underperformed in terms of answering telephones and dealing with the public. Can she tell the House how it is getting on at the moment?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. He is right to raise it. In 2023-24 HMRC answered only 66.4% of phone calls when customers wanted to speak to an adviser. I can update the House that, according to the most recent figures we have, in quarter 3 of last year handling was 85%, so we are making significant advances. One of the things that has been most effective is that we are now giving the majority of people an answer on their first call and 80% of customer correspondence is now being issued within 15 days.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, the Select Committee on Home-Based Working, of which I am a member, is receiving evidence from private sector employers that they are looking at innovative ways to measure productivity, but more importantly, to see what happens in the kind of telephone call the Minister has just referred to, because accurate information is not always given. What plans do the Government have to measure productivity in a more sophisticated way for public sector workers working from home?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises an important point. The Government are currently reflecting on how we should do it. The House of Lords Select Committee on Home-Based Working has a call for evidence which closes on 25 April, and we look forward to seeing its report in November to reflect on its recommendations.

Schools: Special Educational Needs

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

11:17

Asked by

[Lord Addington]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to give schools the capacity to make assessments of commonly occurring special educational needs.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I remind the House of my declared interest with the British Dyslexia Association and Microlink PC.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, we are improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream settings to ensure that all children and young people receive the support they need to thrive. To do this, we are funding the universal SEND services programme, which has supported professionals to access over 20,000 SEND-specific training modules, the PINS programme to support around 1,600 primary schools to better meet the needs of neurodiverse children, and the NELI programme which has helped staff screen an estimated 640,000 children to identify those with language development difficulties.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will she expand on what has been done to disseminate knowledge throughout the teaching staff once this assessment has been made? Where anyone has problems, it is usually a case of working smarter, not harder, so more help from the mainstream types of support can often be counterproductive.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right: we believe that every teacher is a teacher of special educational needs and disability. Where we find good practice, we need to make sure that it is disseminated to all teachers because the best teaching produces the best results for all children, including those with special educational needs and disability. From this September, the initial teacher training scope will include improved measures and information about what works well for children with special educational needs and disabilities.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, dyscalculia is the learning disability that most people have never heard of, yet its prevalence is the same as dyslexia, and indeed its impact on educational, employment and health outcomes are very similar. The prevalence rate means that one child in every classroom has dyscalculia, yet the Minister will know that the DfE has no official definition of dyscalculia, nor is there any guidance at all for parents, carers and educators on the website. When will the Government address the incredibly low awareness of this high-impact condition by including reference to it in initial teacher training so that young people get the diagnosis, early identification and support that they need and deserve?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I know that the noble Baroness has not only raised the issue of dyscalculia with me but, in doing so, drawn attention to it more broadly. The approach that is taken in initial teacher training is not to specifically identify particular conditions because, as I suggested to the noble Lord, the best-quality training for mainstream teachers is in the type and quality of teaching that will enable them to identify needs and to enable children to make the best progress. Where really specific support is needed, that should be commissioned by the special educational needs co-ordinator, within the school or externally. I feel reasonably confident that SENCOs understand the sort of issues that the noble Baroness is raising, but ensuring that information and best practice are available is clearly an important part of the work that we are doing.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, when there is not early identification, increasingly parents have been feeling that they have to withdraw their children from mainstream education and home-school them. Could the Minister confirm that we are collecting data on those who are home-educated? Those parents do not think it was an elective home education, and it is important that we know how assessment is failing and why those parents have withdrawn their children and are home-educating them.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that it is an enormous failure of the system if parents feel they have to withdraw their children from school, not voluntarily but because they do not believe that schools are providing for them. That is why it is so important that this Government’s plans to develop a more inclusive and expert mainstream education, alongside specialist schools where there are particularly complex needs and they are needed, is so important. In the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will be coming to this House reasonably soon, we will be taking additional measures around both the consent needed and the understanding of those students who are being home-schooled. On that particular issue, however, I will write to the noble Baroness about the extent of the information that we currently collect.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is an intermediate position between removing children from mainstream schooling and leaving them there, which is that some children with special educational needs should be able to access support alongside their mainstream schooling? Once a condition has been identified, parents who can do so will often look to access that in the private sector because it is difficult to get it due to the availability of the right resources. To what extent is the Minister confident that, where there is an identified need for additional special support outside the classroom, there are sufficient specialists available to deliver that support?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Some of the best practice that we are seeing in mainstream schools occurs where they are able to develop in-school resource centres with particular specialisms. That is why the Government have provided an additional £740 million-worth of capital to improve the capability for specialist centres like that and specialist places within mainstream schools, and in special schools where necessary. So my noble friend makes an important point. Last week, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State launched a call for evidence on best practice in inclusive practice which is nevertheless maintaining the specialist support that children need. I hope we will find more examples through looking at the good work that is already happening, which, through the increased investment and the reform that we are making in the special educational needs and disability system, we can ensure is spread more widely across our schools.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the adoption and special guardianship support fund may run out of funds entirely by the end of this month? What action are the Government thinking of taking to avoid that extremely damaging situation?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Due to the enormously difficult fiscal position that we inherited from the last Government—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, it was bad. We are having to make some enormously difficult decisions. Having said that, we are in the process of business planning, as well as planning for the next spending review, and we hope to be in a position to announce the future of schemes like that as soon as possible.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that recent reports have highlighted the very variable quality of education, health and care plans, and have identified a number where interventions were recommended that are proven not to work. In parallel with that, there have been suggestions that there should be the equivalent of NICE for special educational needs. Given how complex this area is and how long it will take to make the big structural reforms that I know the Government want to do, is this not something that the Government could press on with quickly to improve the lives of children within the system?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a fair point about us being as clear as possible about which interventions are most effective for children, as well as the broader reform that is going to be necessary. That is why, to be fair to the noble Baroness, some of the work that was started under the change programme is identifying where there is good practice in relation to EHCPs. That is why, in the engagement that this Government have started, led by Christine Lenehan as the strategic adviser for special educational needs and disability, we are looking at what is working effectively and what we need to change. I take the noble Baroness’s point about how we more quickly identify what high-quality interventions are and how to spread that as quickly as possible across the system.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, we are in a situation where we need to get early assessment for those who need it, but, as the Minister will know from recent discussions on welfare and on the number of very young people particularly on sickness, how does she think we should deal with the problems of overdiagnosis and of pathologising and medicalising young people who are having difficult times but are actually keen, or their parents are keen, to get a label when it is not appropriate? It seems to me that that is skewing the figures and damaging the system.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness identifies the crucial role of identifying early where there are difficulties or particular needs that children have. That needs to start really early, which is why the Government have improved both the training and the advice available to early years practitioners to be able to identify that. In the range of measures that I outlined in my initial Answer, there is more scope to identify and to start to take action early to prevent the early signs of some of those conditions, which can then become more serious, from escalating in the way in which the noble Baroness said. In relation to welfare reform, ensuring that we are preparing all children, particularly those with special educational needs and disabilities, for their future working lives—as I was able to see in a recent visit to New College Worcester for visually impaired young people, for example—is also incredibly important so that people can start their life able to work and achieve the best outcomes that they can throughout their lives.

HIV/AIDS: US Withdrawal from WHO

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

11:30

Asked by

[Lord Fowler]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the United States of America’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization on the global treatment of HIV/AIDS.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for the work that he has done on this agenda over very many decades. The UK will continue to work with the World Health Organization, member states and other partners to support the WHO’s ongoing transformation and to strengthen its efficiency, transparency and responsiveness. We are proud of our long-standing support for global health organisations at the core of the response to HIV/AIDS and we continue to support efforts to end AIDS as a public health threat by 2030.

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. There have been, to date, 40 million deaths from AIDS across the world. Because of the success of efforts over the last years, official predictions were that AIDS could be eliminated as a public health disease by 2030, as the Minister has just said, but that was before the abrupt and recent changes of policy by the American Administration, which have caused havoc across the world. Is it really the Government’s view that the 2030 target is achievable in the new conditions? Do they share the view of most medical experts that the American policies are leading the world backwards, to defeat, in a vital area of public health?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not think it has made it any easier, but we stand by our commitment to do this by 2030. There are some things in our favour around medical advances and new treatments, and a willingness of some Governments now to play a part that perhaps they have not been able to in the past. There is no doubt that the situation is now more challenging, but we will work as firmly and with as much energy as we ever have towards this goal, because it is important that we do.

[Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)]

My Lords, tuberculosis is the single biggest cause of death for people with HIV/AIDS, killing 1.25 million people a year. It is the most deadly infectious disease of all. Given the reduction of funding and the dismantling of USAID, and the withdrawal of funding from the WHO, does the Minister share my concern that our ability to conduct ongoing surveillance of this airborne transmissible disease is at risk? Will the Government maintain their programmes to ensure that this disease too can be beaten by 2030?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are concerned about HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases. The theme of these exchanges today is going to be one of heightened concern about our ability to make the progress that we have an ambition and a responsibility to make. There is no doubt that it has now been made more difficult. The noble Lord asked about the decisions we are making here in the UK. We are not responsible for the decisions that other countries make, but we are responsible for the choices that we take. Although those decisions are currently being made, I find it difficult to envisage a situation where the United Kingdom does not play a leading role in the fight against these diseases.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, with regard to our approach, this week marks the 10th anniversary of the 0.7% legislation passing this House. I mourn that, because I was naive; I felt that subsequent Governments would honour it. However, we now have the position where the Government will be paying more to private sector landlords in the UK than the entirety of all our support for children with malaria or those born with AIDS. In two years’ time, we will be spending the same level on official development assistance as Viktor Orbán’s Hungary. With all great seriousness, given how far away we will be from that legislation—and the more incredulous government statements saying that when fiscal circumstances arise we will get to it—as the people now in charge of that legislation, will the Government now do the decent thing and repeal it?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Absolutely not. Why would we do that? It is our ambition to regain the 0.7% spend on official development assistance. We have been very clear about that. Why would we repeal that legislation? I find it very difficult that we are spending so much money on housing asylum seekers and migrants in the UK out of our ODA budget. I do not think that is what we should be doing. The previous Government completely lost control of the borders of this country and we have inherited this situation. The Home Office is working hard to get the numbers down and to reduce the spend so that money can be spent where it is needed most. We did make the decision—and it was a difficult one for this Government—to prioritise spending on defence. I do not think I need to explain to noble Lords why we did that. It is a decision I support, and I will be working incredibly hard, with allies and partners, to make sure that the money that we do have is spent wisely, and that we get the best value for money for British taxpayers and the most impact that we can for our partners overseas.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, last week, I co-hosted on behalf of the parliamentary Science and Technology Committee a meeting of STOPAIDS in this House. We heard from people from Africa whose ability to access drugs had, in one case, enabled a woman to live to become a grandmother. We heard about the devastating effect, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, of the cuts in USAID, for which we are not responsible. I hope my noble friend the Minister will understand that, to the extent that Britain can continue to play its part in trying to reach the 2030 target, it must use the resources, scarce though they are, to enable this work to continue. We cannot allow the world to go backwards. This needs to be tackled now.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I completely agree. There are encouraging things happening around some of the medical devices and the drugs that can be used now to provide protection against HIV, including devices for which women are in control of their use, because we are seeing an increase in prevalence among women and young girls. There are encouraging things happening, but it would be incredible to stand here and say that the situation that we now find ourselves in is not far more challenging than it has been more recently.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, taking into account the withdrawal of the United States from the WHO, can the Minister inform the House how we are working with other international partners to fill that void?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is vital that we do that, and we are doing that. I met the executive director of the WHO earlier this week, and that is something we spoke about in some depth. The noble Earl is absolutely right to encourage the Government to take that approach, and we will be doing so.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, alongside the withdrawal from the World Health Organization, the Trump Administration are cutting billions of dollars from US universities and research institutes. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on the UK’s research partnerships, and, crucially, in relation to this question, the impact on our shared global health challenges?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

There is no doubt that research and development is critical to making progress on this and many other agendas in development. We are working through the impact, as the noble Baroness suggests we should. Clearly, we cannot fill the void, but we can work smarter and more collaboratively, and certainly with our university and research partners it is important that we do so.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister seems to suggest that devices and medication are expanding. The problem is that people need to get tested. The impact of the US pulling out is that there are 228,000 fewer tests a day and the supply of things such as condoms and PrEP has ceased in certain programmes. If the Minister wishes the UK to take a lead, as she said at the Dispatch Box, what extra support and resources will be made available if this temporary suspension becomes permanent?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are working through the impact of the United States’ decision and looking at how we reprioritise our own spending. The noble Lord is absolutely right. Encouragingly, in 2023, approximately 86% of people living with HIV worldwide knew their HIV status. What we do not want to see is that incredible achievement going in the wrong direction. He is right to remind the House of that.

Pharmacy Opening Hours

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Question

11:39

Asked by

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the potential reduction in pharmacy opening hours.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government recognise that pharmacies are an integral part of our communities. There are processes in place to monitor opening hours and their impact, and core hours of either 40 or 72 hours would not be affected by the proposed action by one trade body. Options are available to patients to access alternative pharmacies or distance-selling pharmacies. We will make an announcement shortly on a funding settlement for the years 2024-25 and 2025-26.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

I thank the Minister for her response. Will His Majesty’s Government publish the independent economic analysis of the pharmacy funding crisis? Also, last summer we nursed my brother-in-law as he died. We had to access medicines, often at short notice. That was very difficult, even in a built-up urban area with many pharmacies around. In rural areas, it is far more difficult. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of any limitation of opening hours on health outcomes in rural areas?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I will of course discuss the right reverend Prelate’s request for publication of information with Minister Stephen Kinnock, who has been working very hard with the sector in resolving matters on funding.

On opening hours, as I have said, there are core hours, but there are also additional supplementary voluntary hours that community pharmacies can choose to do. There is also a whole range of ways in which people can access pharmacy services—notwithstanding the point the right reverend Prelate made about his personal experience—including being able to contact distance pharmacies, which can provide things through online contact, by telephone call or by other means.

Pharmacies are key to making healthcare fit for the future, but we want to make sure that they are completely accessible. We will work with them to make sure that they, as largely private businesses, do so.

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interest as chairman of King’s Health Partners. Just to build on the point made by the right reverend Prelate, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the impact on population health outcomes of the intersection between limited access to primary care services and diminishing availability of pharmacy services?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I know the noble Lord talked about primary care more generally, but the assessment on pharmacies is that there is quite a good coverage. Some 80% of the population live within a mile of a pharmacy and, as I say, there are other online and not-in-person ways of contacting pharmacies. The Pharmacy Access Scheme provides financial support to pharmacies in areas where there are fewer pharmacies. Local authorities, along with ICBs, continue to monitor changes, look at provision and have the ability to intervene where necessary. On all these counts, in respect of primary care provided through pharmacy, which is so important, we continue to monitor the impact across ICBs. With regard to a particular assessment, I will gladly write with more details to the noble Lord.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has rightly talked about some of the alternatives, particularly when hours are limited. Can I ask her about some of the long-term thinking in the department on the future of pharmacy services? We know that some chains, for example, have in-store pharmacies. What thought has been given to more of these partnerships—and also, perhaps, pharmacies as part of future primary healthcare centres? While many people may want a bricks and mortar pharmacy, those who use the NHS app, for example, may be happy to order repeat prescriptions and have them delivered or pick them up from a local location.

Patients are also more open to ideas of online consultation. We have seen Royal Mail trialling delivery by drones in remote areas. There is a whole host of things happening in other sectors that the pharmacy sector and other parts of our health and care sector can learn from. What is the department learning from this innovation in other parts of the economy?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes some very constructive points and illustrates further the point that there are many ways to deliver pharmaceutical services. I can assure him that we are exploring how pharmacy can best be positioned—and indeed levered—to fit our ambition for a neighbourhood health service within the NHS 10-year plan. More will be heard about that soon.

The noble Lord will also be aware that one of the challenges that community pharmacies raised with us is about funding, which was cut or held flat between 2015-16 and 2023-24, representing a cut of some 28%. That is why we have concluded the consultation about funding; we will shortly announce the outcome, looking at how these private businesses can operate in the market. We are keen to ensure that they play their part and continue to work very constructively with them.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, the financial year ends in two weeks, and the ongoing delay in this year’s financial settlement for pharmacists has created a cash-flow problem and exacerbated the financial issues, which means that on average eight community pharmacies a week are closing. In December the chief executive of Community Pharmacy England wrote to Ministers asking for a remedial injection of cash to help cash flow and keep pharmacies open. I gently ask the Minister why Ministers have so far ignored that request.

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I feel that the most constructive response I can give to the noble Lord is the response of the Secretary of State, who has made it quite clear in Parliament that discussions will conclude shortly and an announcement will be made in the normal way. That will be via an open letter to contractors, which will be published on GOV.UK. I hope the noble Lord will understand that I cannot say more until our engagement with Community Pharmacy England, the representative body, comes to a conclusion. I can add for the benefit of noble Lords that NHS England commissioned an independent economic analysis of the cost of providing pharmaceutical services. It has informed the consultation with the sector and will be published in due course.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister concerned that GPs’ tendency very easily and readily to sign repeat prescriptions increases the demand on pharmaceutical services? Does she agree that there should be a much more rigorous review of repeat prescriptions on a regular basis?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I appreciate the noble Baroness’s views. Indeed, community pharmacies in England are dispensing around 1.1 billion NHS medicines with a value of over £10 billion each year. Prescribing is of course a clinical decision. We are nevertheless keeping an eye on the situation, of course. What matters is that people seek help, and I am very glad to say that pharmacies are playing an increasing role in the availability of assistance, so people do not always have to go to GPs, particularly for some of the more common conditions.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that community pharmacies play a vital role in addressing NHS waiting lists through the administration of the vaccination programme—whether it is influenza or the Covid-19 vaccine—and thereby contribute to the reduction in the waiting lists that are faced by many hospitals throughout the UK? Will all efforts be made by government to ensure that the challenges faced by community pharmacies at present will be resolved in the near future?

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

I certainly agree with my noble friend’s point. I hope that she has noticed my enthusiasm for the role that pharmacies play. The introduction of Pharmacy First was a tremendous contribution to some common-sense approaches so that people who have common conditions can more immediately access services. Many of us will have experienced that. As I have said, we will conclude matters shortly and look forward to making the decision about future funding known ASAP.

Victory in Europe and Japan: 80th Anniversaries

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Thursday 13 March.

“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a Statement about the Government’s plans to mark the 80th anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day.

This year, 2025, marks 80 years since the end of the Second World War—80 years since victory in Europe on 8 May 1945 and victory over Japan on 15 August.

‘In all our long history we have never seen a greater day than this’

were the words of Winston Churchill when he marked the end of fighting in Europe on VE Day. Huge crowds gathered outside to celebrate, with thousands flocking to Buckingham Palace and spontaneous street parties erupting across the nation. Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Princess Elizabeth at the time, joined in the celebrations, tiptoeing out of the palace with her sister Princess Margaret to join the celebrations on the streets of London.

‘All of us were swept along by tides of happiness and relief’,

she said.

The sacrifices made over the war were great. Without the combined efforts of the allied forces from Britain, the Commonwealth and beyond, the way of life we enjoy today and the values we hold dear would not have been possible. The total number of allied deaths, injuries and captures exceeds millions, and thousands of civilians lost their lives here at home. We are proud to remember the lasting legacy of peace they fought so hard to secure.

Each of us, in every community, has a direct connection to those who served in the Second World War. Those service personnel who were called up and asked to risk their lives for our freedoms are not strangers: they are our parents, grandparents and the ancestors of our neighbours. I have always been very proud of my grandad, who served in the RAF, and I know the country feels equally proud of every veteran who risked, and often tragically paid, the ultimate sacrifice as part of that terrible conflict. It is the ancestors of our neighbourhoods and communities who led the effort on the home front: children who were evacuated, women who stepped into essential roles, and of course the Bevin boys, many from Barnsley, who worked down the pit to power the war effort.

As time passes and we approach 80 years between life today and the end of the Second World War, the living memory of those who experienced the war fades further into history. This year’s commemorations of VE Day may well be the last where veterans who served their country during the Second World War can be in attendance, and my generation will be among the last to have the experience of speaking directly to family members who fought for their country or contributed to the effort at home. It is up to all of us, here today and across the country, to keep their stories alive.

Just as people took to the streets in 1945, it is with great pride that I can announce the measures this Government will take to mark the anniversary in 2025. All of us have memories of how national moments of celebration can bring us together, from the Olympic opening ceremony in London 2012 to the Queen’s jubilee celebrations. These events unite us in our history, our story, and our common values. This year’s anniversary will be no exception. Clement Attlee said in 1943:

‘Here in this country, although our political divisions were deep, in time of need we were able to transcend them in the interests of the whole community’.

The events this year will be a timely opportunity to remember those communal values: pulling together, a fighting spirit in the face of adversity, and compassion for our neighbours.

I am delighted to confirm that the Government have announced a programme of activities up and down the UK. Celebrations will start on the early May bank holiday, Monday 5 May, with the Cenotaph draped in flags overnight, followed by a military procession and flypast. Street parties will be held across the country, echoing the celebrations of 80 years ago. As part of this, we all know the power of food to bring people together, and we will be working with partners including the Big Lunch to make sure as many parts of the UK as possible can celebrate. We are launching our new initiative, Tip Top Towns, a call to action for community and volunteering groups to come together to get their town or village ready for the day, whether through bunting, litter picking or crocheting bonnets for postboxes.

The next day, iconic buildings will light up in commemoration, and 25,000 ceramic poppies will cascade from the Tower of London, recreating the beautiful installation from 2014. On 7 May there will be a special performance from the Parliament Choir, with tickets available to the general public. On VE Day itself, Thursday 8 May, there will be a service in Westminster Abbey, where we will come together to reflect on the values the Second World War generation fought to protect. Celebrations will conclude with a VE Day concert delivered by the BBC, mirroring the spontaneous celebrations that took place in 1945 and featuring a mix of music, poetry and spoken word. On VJ Day, Friday 15 August, the Royal British Legion will lead the nation in honouring those who fought and died during the war in the Far East, with a service at the National Memorial Arboretum.

Veterans will rightly be at the heart of our commemorations and the Government are honoured to be working with the Royal British Legion and other partners to bring this to life. Indeed, to prepare for these events we are launching our Letters to Loved Ones initiative to encourage schoolchildren and family members to explore their family histories, looking for old letters and artefacts to help them learn about life during wartime and share them on our website. This will come together at a joint event at the Imperial War Museum North with the National Theatre. To inspire young people to learn about what life was like during wartime Britain, we are announcing Our Shared Story, bringing together a range of educational resources, including materials for schools from the Royal British Legion, called I’ll Remember. “The Next Morning” will be a brand new National Theatre production written by award-winning screenwriter and playwright James Graham, which will focus on the hopes, dreams and ambitions of young people after the Second World War. An immersive augmented reality experience will bring moments from VE Day to life.

We want the whole UK to feel included and involved in VE and VJ Day celebrations, wherever they live and whoever they are. I know that events and services are happening across the devolved nations, including community initiatives in support of VE/VJ Day activity. In Wales, a VE Day event will take place at the Senedd on 8 May, and the Scotland’s Salute concert, organised by Royal British Legion Scotland and Poppyscotland at Usher Hall in Edinburgh, will take place on 6 May. In Northern Ireland, grants have been made available by a number of councils to fund community initiatives in support of VE/VJ Day activity. Special exhibitions, talks and lectures will take place in museums across VE week in all parts of the UK.

I thank my counterparts in the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments for their support and engagement, which will ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom will mark this 80th anniversary. We will be working with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission on the “For Evermore Tour”, which will focus on the stories and experiences of Commonwealth soldiers, many of whom continued to fight in the Pacific after the war on the European front had come to an end.

Together, we will make sure that the legacies of those who gave their lives will continue to be told for generations to come. I am sure the House will join me in looking forward to these commemorations as an opportunity to come together as a nation, as Britain did 80 years ago, to honour veterans and reflect on the freedom and values that The Second World War generation fought so hard to protect. I commend this Statement to the House”.

11:51

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches warmly welcome this Statement. It is clear that the Second World War continues to cast a long shadow. Names of the fallen are etched in stone in every parish of this country. The conflict transformed our society, not just in the families scarred by the conflict but by accelerating the role of women in the workforce or in military service, through the migration of our fellow subjects from across the Empire to help rebuild these war-torn islands, just as they had helped to defend them, and in the technological advances made in the face of adversity. In the secrecy of Bletchley Park, this country quietly invented the computer, helping to break codes and ciphers, foreshortening the war by some two years. In the desert of New Mexico, scientists from around the world invented a weapon so terrible it brought an end to the conflict in the east and still forms the linchpin of our defence today.

That past is not so distant. Here in your Lordships’ House sit the grandsons of our wartime premier and his deputy, the descendants of many others who rendered distinguished wartime service, and a young boy who came here, like thousands of others, as a refugee on the Kindertransport. Later today, in Grand Committee, we will continue to discuss plans for a memorial to the victims of the Holocaust, one of the greatest crimes against humanity. This afternoon in this Chamber, we will discuss the European Convention on Human Rights, part of the international determination that the atrocities and violations of the 1930s and 1940s must never happen again.

But that recent past begins to slip from living memory. The Holocaust Educational Trust is doing brilliant work capturing the testimony of the last survivors, using modern technology to digitise them, so that future generations can interact with them as though they were still among us. Just this week, we lost 105 year-old Group Captain John Hemingway, the last of the few to whom we owe so much for defending these islands in the Battle of Britain. The Prince of Wales and the Prime Minister led the tributes from the nation, which remains humbled by their service. At the commemorations this summer, there will be fewer and frailer veterans. Can the Minister say what plans there are to put them at the heart of the proceedings, so that we can renew our thanks to them and hear their stories while we are still able to?

The Minister and I were both born closer to the end of the Second World War than to today; that gap grows ever wider for us all. But, for children born today, even the events of this summer will not form part of their consciousness. I am pleased to see mentioned in the Statement the work being done by the National Theatre, the Imperial War Museum, the National Lottery, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and many more. What else are the Government and their arm’s-length bodies doing to ensure that the lessons of the Second World War are passed on to future generations?

It is sadly clear that those lessons are as relevant today as they ever have been. The scourge of antisemitism continues to poison minds in this country and others. Extremism and intolerance are once more on the march. Only yesterday, Hungary, a member state of the European Union, banned Pride marches taking place in its country. The Statement which follows this one is about the return of conflict to the European continent, and of the siren song of isolationism. It is clear that we need to remind ourselves and our friends of the lessons of the last century.

Just a few steps from the Minister’s office in her department is the room from which Winston Churchill addressed the crowds on VE day, 8 May 1945. He told a war-weary but jubilant nation

“this is your hour. This is not victory of a party or of any class. It’s a victory of the great British nation as a whole”.

He asked them:

“When shall the reputation and faith of this generation of English men and women fail?”


This summer, let us make sure that we uphold that reputation, renew that faith, and give thanks to all those who fought for the freedom that we cherish today.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome this Statement. I encourage the Government to make as much as possible of this, as an opportunity to explain to our younger generation and educate them on the implications of what we were fighting for in the last war.

Like others, I have taken my grandchildren to the Imperial War Museum, and I was happily surprised to see pictures of my parents-in-law in uniform in the display on Bletchley. I will be taking them to the Western Front at Easter, where we will walk over the areas where in 1918 my father, as an 18 year-old in the Highland Division, fought. It is ancient history for our grandchildren, but it is highly relevant to them.

I hope the Government will make this very much a commemoration of an allied effort. In our commemoration of World War I, I felt that the then-Government tried too much to make this Britain versus Germany. We had Polish squadrons in the RAF. We had Belgian squadrons in the Bomber Command. We recruited Caribbean people who served as ground crew. We had Polish divisions. I have had many conversations in Saltaire with elderly Poles who fought in the Eighth Army, who then came to Britain after the war. We had French divisions on British soil. We had a Czech brigade. We had people who went back to work in the resistance in Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and elsewhere. We had Poles and Ukrainians who came here in large numbers as displaced persons and refugees after the war, whose grandchildren have almost forgotten about that. We also had 2.5 million people in the Indian army. We underplayed that in our commemoration of World War I. Many of their descendants now live in this country and are British citizens, as indeed are many of those who volunteered with the RAF from the Caribbean during the war. All that needs to be explained to the younger generation, in all its diversity.

I hope the Minister has already got her tickets for the Parliament Choir concert. I hope that all other Members of the House—those who will not be singing—will be there on 7 May for an excellent concert, for which we are already rehearsing.

We also need to educate our younger generation on the parallels between where we are now and where we were then. The Russian attack on Ukraine is motivated partly by a claim to be able to defend Russian minorities in other countries. That is what the Germans were doing in Czechoslovakia in 1938. We might even wish to remind the public that steps towards European integration after the war, in which Ernest Bevin and Winston Churchill played a large part, were absolutely part of preventing war again in western Europe. We need a sober recollection of the dangerous world we live in, the changing threats we face, and the values which we and our democratic neighbours must defend.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is really positive that we can have a united voice on what will be hugely significant anniversaries, not least because, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, outlined, very sadly, this will be one of the last significant anniversaries where we have veterans who fought for our freedom still alive. [Interruption.]

[The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)]

My Lords, the House will adjourn until this chaos calms down.

12:00

Sitting suspended.

12:04

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I had started going through some points around unity within your Lordships’ House, which I think has continued despite the interruption. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have announced exciting plans to mark the 80th anniversaries of VE and VJ Day with a series of events and celebrations, which I am delighted to discuss with your Lordships’ House.

The noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Parkinson, outlined a number of points around our shared commitment to ensuring that we mark these anniversaries with the right amount of respect, while mindful of the fact that our veterans are, very sadly, coming towards the end of their lives in many cases.

As noble Lords will be well aware, Victory in Europe Day—VE Day—takes place on Thursday 8 May later this year and marks the Allied victory in Europe. The news resulted in millions celebrating the end of the war with street parties, dancing and singing across the country. The war in the Far East did not end until 15 August 1945 with victory over Japan, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, outlined, we are all very mindful of the events that led to that victory over Japan.

In preparation for today, and very much in line with the theme of letters to loved ones, remembering and people having conversations with family members, I spoke to my mum this morning. She is 85, so she was five at the end of the war. At the time she was in Kirkwall in Orkney and remembered both that the cinema burned down—a slightly random five year-old’s fact to remember—and that there was a parade of armed forces not just from the UK but mainly from the United States, and she and her fellow five year-olds went up to the American soldiers and asked them for chewing gum. That was her main memory. She said it was the first time she had had chewing gum—she is still not a fan.

Eighty years on, very few veterans remain alive. That is very poignant, because very many of those first-hand accounts, like that from my mother, are becoming less common. I am sure all noble Lords will join me in taking this opportunity to pay tribute to Group Captain John “Paddy” Hemingway, who sadly died earlier this week. He was the last surviving pilot of the Battle of Britain. For his bravery, selflessness and resilience during one of the darkest times in our history, I think we are all truly grateful. He was a true hero whose service leaves a lasting legacy that will continue to inspire generations to come, and our thoughts are with his family at this time.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned parallels to the current day, including the need for alliances, and that the Second World War was not just a binary conflict but one that brought together people from across the world in our attempt to win it. My personal recollection is of the very many Polish friends my parents had when I was growing up, including someone who went on to become a journalist in this country, having come over as a young man and been a pilot in the RAF. It will be recognised that it was a collective effort, and that is particularly appropriate today. Those who fought from across the Commonwealth will also have their place; we will remember them, as we do others, during the celebrations and commemorations.

Five years ago, the 75th anniversaries of VE and VJ Day were profoundly poignant occasions, overshadowed by the Covid-19 pandemic. As the world faced an unprecedented global crisis with social distancing and lockdowns in place, the commemorations became a moment of reflection about the crisis we faced as well as one of gratitude to the Second World War generation. I think the late Queen spoke for the nation, and that we had a moment of unity across our country. This year, while the focus remains on remembrance, we have the opportunity to come together, gather in our communities and honour the legacy of those who fought so hard and gave up so much to protect the freedom we cherish today.

A truly inclusive national engagement programme will complement the series of events for VE and VJ Day 80. There are many ways that everyone from across your Lordships’ House, and members of the public, can get involved. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, I have not yet got my tickets for the choir event that he mentioned, but I will do so.

The Government are introducing a general call to action for people from across the country, called Tip Top Towns, where the public are encouraged to get their towns, villages or cities ready for VE Day. Whether this be through putting up bunting, litter picking or crocheting bonnets for postboxes, everyone is invited to get in the spirit of the commemorations. We are encouraging street parties up and down the country on 5 May, mirroring the celebrations that took place in 1945. The Big Lunch has developed street party packs to support these, and the National Lottery is making its Awards for All fund available to support celebrations across the UK.

We are working with brilliant creative organisations to deliver a wide-reaching programme of activity. This includes Arts Council England, which will provide funding to arts centres, libraries and museums across the UK to celebrate and reflect on the 80th anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day. The National Theatre is creating a brand new short film, “The Next Morning”, which will focus on the hopes, dreams and ambitions of young people. The Imperial War Museum has launched a national call-out, Letters to Loved Ones, for schoolchildren and their families to look for letters from the Second World War. The public will be invited to explore the important history of the Second World War, and to share their personal stories, as part of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s For Evermore tour, which will have the torch of peace at its heart—the torch is currently in Portcullis House.

The value of these commemorations lies in their ability to connect generations. It is vital that our young people understand the impact of the Second World War, and that they have the opportunity to hear first hand the stories of our living Second World War veterans and others who lived through the war years, before it is too late. The Government, in partnership with the Royal British Legion, the Imperial War Museum, the National Theatre, Atlantic Productions and the Together Coalition, are developing a school resource to enable young people to engage with veteran testimony. Our shared story will provide schools with learning resources for each key stage, focused on the end of the Second World War and what this means for us today.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, asked about engagement with veterans. As was noted, this year will be one of our last opportunities to thank our veterans and to hear their stories first hand, so it is important that we not only thank them for their service but ensure that their legacy lives on to inform future generations. We are working with the Royal British Legion, which has done a recent call-out to veterans, to ensure that veterans who are able to take part in the commemorations can do so as much or as little as they would like. The welfare of veterans will be central to all VE Day and VJ Day commemorations. Every young person will have the opportunity to engage with the stories and testimonies of the Second World War generation.

The Government hope that the programme will bring the whole country together in remembrance and celebration. We must ensure that the stories of those who lived through this war, or who made the ultimate sacrifice, live on, not just in books or on paper but in the hearts and minds of future generations. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is right that, when we see intolerance and antisemitism on the rise, this feels particularly important this year.

12:13

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement, but one of my regrets about the commemoration of the centenary of the First World War was the lack of focus on the immediate post-war period and the political and diplomatic failures that set the conditions for the later, even more damaging, conflict. This is in direct contrast to what happened in 1945, when it was recognised that enduring peace is not a natural or spontaneous phenomenon but requires sustained international commitment, co-operation and effort. That message is surely as relevant today as it has ever been, so can the Minister reflect on how that particular theme might be woven into this year’s commemorations, particularly with regard to education?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord makes a really important point. The first part of that discussion will be on the point that only by learning about our past and seeing how it relates to our present will we genuinely pay tribute to those who died and made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. The schoolwork will play a particular role in that. All of us are mindful of the very fragile place the world is in—it is even more fragile than a year ago—so that very present understanding of how we need to work together across national borders to secure peace, and the recognition that we cannot take it for granted, have to run through our commemoration of these events.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on not just her excellent Statement but her calmness during the interruption. Like me, she has lots of connections all around the United Kingdom, and she knows that men and women in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force from all parts of the United Kingdom protected this country during the war. Therefore, it is very important that all the celebrations take place in every part of the United Kingdom. She elaborated on some of them so far, but can she extend that and tell us what more is being done, particularly in co-operation with the devolved Administrations in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Discussions are taking place with the military around the country, with devolved Governments and with local government; close official engagement has taken place, and they are fully aware of our plans for VE Day and VJ Day. In Wales, a VE Day event will take place at the Senedd on 8 May, and the Scotland’s Salute concert at Usher Hall will take place on 6 May. There is one project that I am most enthusiastic about—it is important that it will be not just in London but in communities, and the Imperial War Museum North will play a central part. On 7 May, in the Imperial War Museum North, some letters submitted by the public will become part of a public performance coproduced by the National Theatre. So if noble Lords take one thing away from this it should be that, if they know people who have letters or remarkable stories that their families would want to share, they have a chance for their stories to be included if they share letters through the Government’s website before 14 April.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I know that we may be a little uneasy about the current American leadership, but the American nation is quite a different thing. It played a vast part in the victory at the time, as, indeed, did the Russians. Would it not have been wise to have put that in this Statement? There is no mention of America at all. Is it not important to get the message over to the younger generation that when the great powers serve the rest of the nations, rather than pursuing their own internal interests, we make far greater progress, and will in the future?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We are clearly talking to all our allied partners in this respect. Although this perhaps was not mentioned explicitly in Stephanie Peacock’s Statement, I note that I specifically mention American forces. It would be remarkable if they were not also part of the commemorations—I make it clear that they are commemorations—and government departments are working to make sure that that happens.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, can the Minister say a little more about VJ Day? Outside St Albans Cathedral is the peace obelisk given by the people of Japan because of the courageous witness of the then dean, Dean Thicknesse. Each year, on 6 August, we have an ecumenical act of witness and prayers there. What is being done specifically to educate people about the dreadful carnage caused by atomic bombs and how we can build today a world that does not need to use them in the future?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Our country contributes to nuclear non-proliferation. The type of ecumenical reflection the right reverend Prelate mentioned is clearly appropriate to commemorate the devastating way in which we reached VJ Day. We will make sure that both the VE and VJ Day anniversaries are appropriately commemorated. The specific commemorative event for VJ Day will be a service at the National Memorial Arboretum. Further details of our VJ Day plans will be shared more widely as the year progresses.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, popular thinking about VE Day is of parties and celebration. As the noble Baroness said, this will be the last opportunity we have to thank the veterans. But there were many who did not grow old as those who were left grew old. Particularly given the parallels at the moment, during these VE celebrations it is important that we ensure that we do not forget the cost and the sacrifices that were made. How are we going to ensure this? When I asked my father for his memories of VE Day, he said that the family did not really celebrate it because his 19 year-old brother had been killed on 26 April 1945. The family had just received the telegram—which was the second, because his elder brother was killed in the Arctic convoys in 1944. Can we ensure that our younger generation—who may be asked to make the ultimate sacrifice one day—understand the ultimate sacrifices that were made by those people?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. I am clear that when we talk about people making the ultimate sacrifice, we need to make sure that children and young people understand what that means. I sincerely hope that we never get to the stage where our young people today have to make the same sacrifice. I am also clear, from talking to a number of people about their own families’ memories of that time, that there was not unadulterated joy. As well as relief that the war was over, there was significant sorrow as well.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

We will have a Cross-Bencher first.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it was ideology in the form of fascism that posed the danger then, and it is ideology in the form of neo-imperialism in both Russia and China that poses the danger to us now? I welcome the Statement but, while we rightly cover all the angles that noble Lords have mentioned, I hope that consideration will also be given to educating the overall public—not just younger people—about the threat we will face due to events in Indochina, and to celebrating the role of our allies there, as well as warning of what is to come through China’s ambitions in its neighbourhood.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

As a Government, we are clear that we want to tackle ideologies that undermine our democracy and freedom wherever they are. I believe that the public are fully aware of the fragility of our world order at the moment. I would find it very odd if that did not come through in a lot of the commemoration of those events.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, many of the people who fought on after VE Day used the phrase “the forgotten army”, so can we make sure that we emphasise the sacrifice and real hardship that many of the prisoners of war experienced from Japan? If I might just gently say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, the brutal truth is that, had the Americans not been involved and not used their nuclear weapons, hundreds of thousands of people would have died needlessly. It was a horrible thing to do, but that nuclear deterrent played an important part in giving us the freedom which those people who interrupted our proceedings today enjoy.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We value our relationships with the Americans now, as then. The noble Lord makes a powerful point. It is vital that we do not simply focus on VE Day but look at VJ Day as well. The commemorations around VE Day will have a different tone, and there will be more community-engaged street events, and so on. We are clear that the sacrifices made by those who served across Asia and the Pacific will be at the heart of the commemorations.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome everything that the Minister has said. However, a few noble Lords have mentioned that the events of World War II and the Holocaust are slipping from memory into history. It strikes me that that gives impetus to revisionist historians and Holocaust deniers to peddle their poison and chip away at its integrity. Does not this mean that these celebrations have to be more striking than in previous years in order that the memory is collectively imprinted on younger generations?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I reassure my noble friend that we are determined that that will happen. He noted the rise of antisemitism; it is a deplorable form of hate crime which the Government are committed to tackling, as well as to ensuring that everyone is able to worship and protest freely, to wear religious clothing and go about their lives in safety and security, irrespective of their background, faith or other characteristics.

[Lord Hussain (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

If we conduct our business appropriately, we will still have time for other Members to come in. We have not heard from the Liberal Democrats.

[Lord Hussain (LD)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister will agree that the role of the British colonies and the British Empire needs to be recognised. Our younger generation needs to be reminded of the role played by people from the British colonies, particularly the Indian subcontinent. I speak as somebody whose family member—my father’s elder brother—went to serve in the British Army. He left my father, aged 15, to look after the family and never came back. That is the kind of example from among those of us from those colonies who have settled in Britain. The new generation needs to be reminded of that.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

Absolutely; the noble Lord’s point is well made. All our activities and events will focus on both the UK and Commonwealth experiences at the end of the war, ensuring that these commemorations resonate across the whole of the Commonwealth. We are engaging with the Commonwealth Secretariat to ensure that Commonwealth experiences are represented. We are actively engaging with embassies throughout the Commonwealth and collaborating closely with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission on a global tour to honour and share the stories of those who fought in the Second World War. Colleagues in the FCDO and MoD are working closely with us on these plans. This will also be an important aspect of how this is addressed in schools and with young people so that all our pupils and young people recognise their own shared history, wherever their families were during the war.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

We will hear from the Cross Benches, please.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I agree with the need to involve allies. I would like to say a word about the need to involve former enemies as well. My uncle was shell-shocked and injured at Kohima. My father was one of the first Army doctors to go into Bergen-Belsen; I think he was the first. They would have said that it is very important that commemoration should also be mingled with reconciliation. It is important that, on VE Day, the Germans are fully involved, as the Japanese should be on VJ Day.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

We are trying to involve all nations appropriately. One of the clearest indications of how we work with those countries that were previously our enemies is shown in the steadfast allyship particularly of Germany in relation to conflict in Europe.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the Minister that many people from other countries came to help in Britain. My father came from Ireland to serve and help to defeat Hitler, and there were many people from Poland, of course, and from all over the place, including the huge contribution from the Indian army and the African armies, not to mention Canada, which joined us from the start. Not wishing to be sour about it, I think it is worth remembering that the United States did not declare war on Germany; Germany declared war on the United States. Roosevelt declared war only on Japan.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

It is really important when we have these commemorations not to drag over some of the old issues and enmities but to move forward. In previous answers, I have completely recognised the role of Commonwealth soldiers across the military, as well as those from other nations, and we will make sure that all nations are involved appropriately.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the forgotten parts of the last two world wars was the role played by the railways in supplying logistics to the front. We spent a long time bombing them when we were attacking, but of course the Germans tried to bomb us as well. My father was in the Royal Engineers and spent a lot of time repairing the railways in France and Belgium. There is only one book produced about that—it was written by Christian Wolmar—but my main point in speaking today is that this is still the case in Ukraine. I commend Network Rail and my noble friend Lord Hendy, who was in his place, for giving so many spare parts and other help to Ukraine to keep the railways there working. It is just as important now as it was in the previous war.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that point, and wholeheartedly agree. I have mentioned my family, and my great-uncle was also in the Royal Engineers and would have carried out similar roles during the war—so I shall look out for that book with interest.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

It is the turn of the Cross Benches.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, as one of probably quite few Members of today’s House who was a teenager during the Second World War, I add my commendation to Group Captain Hemingway. He was born in Dublin, as was I, and very many Irishmen served in the Second World War with great distinction, who should not be forgotten.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the noble and gallant Lord for that point. I hope that, from the short debate that we have had today, noble Lords have understood how much we want to involve and recognise the role of all nations, including not least our Irish neighbours. We shall have an opportunity in your Lordships’ House to debate this—I am not sure whether the date of the debate has been put forward in the diary, but I know that there are plans for us to have a debate in the context of VE Day, and I look forward to having a discussion with noble Lords again then.

G7

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 17 March.

“With permission, I shall make a Statement about last week’s meeting of G7 Foreign Ministers. We met at a pivotal moment. Some Members of this House may have doubted that we could find common ground, and some of our global competitors may have hoped that we would fail, but after 36 hours of talks, we were united. Britain united with our allies to make our citizens more secure. National security is a foundation of this Government’s plan for change, and we are leading from the front.

The overriding priority was, of course, Ukraine. Last week in Jeddah, the United States and Ukraine reached a common position. A ceasefire offer is now on the table, and American weapons and intelligence are flowing once again. This demonstrated what this House has always known to be true: under President Zelensky’s leadership, Ukraine is serious about peace, sincere in its efforts to pursue a just and lasting end to this appalling war, and unrelenting in its determination to ensure that it remains democratic, free, strong and prosperous.

At the G7, the UK and our allies were united in our unwavering support for Ukraine’s defence of its freedoms, united in support for Ukraine’s pursuit for peace, and united on what is required to make that happen. Now it is Putin who stands in the spotlight, Putin who must answer, and Putin who must choose. Are you serious, Mr Putin, about peace? Will you stop the fighting, or will you drag your feet and play games, and pay lip service to a ceasefire while still pummelling Ukraine? My warning to Mr Putin is this: if you are serious, prove it, with a full and unconditional ceasefire now.

On whether Putin will deliver, I must tell the House that I see no sign yet that he will. The G7 meeting helped us ready the tools to get Russia to negotiate seriously. We are not waiting for the Kremlin. If it rejects a ceasefire, we have more cards that we can play. We can all see the impact that the G7’s unprecedented sanctions have had on Russia’s faltering economy: social spending is down, and inflation and interest rates are sky high. There can be no let-up in our efforts. In Canada, we discussed where we can go further to target Russia’s energy and defence sectors, further squeeze its oil revenues and use frozen Russian assets.

At the same time, we will keep up our support to Ukraine; Europeans clearly need to shoulder our share of this responsibility. We in the UK are stepping up on drones, munitions and training, sending more than 400 different capabilities to Ukraine and training more than 50,000 recruits. We have also announced the biggest increase in UK defence spending since the end of the Cold War. We are urging our allies to do the same so that Ukraine is in the strongest possible position now and in any peace that follows. Tomorrow, I will be hosting EU High Representative Kallas—the first such visit since we left the European Union. In this moment, Ukraine’s friends should be working hand in glove, and that requires a new era in UK-EU security co-operation.

Finally, we are taking steps to ensure that Russia does not come back for more. We know the history—Budapest, Minsk and paper promises betrayed by Putin. Together with France, we are establishing a coalition willing to deter Russia from invading again. To be credible, it will need US support, but Britain and our allies recognise that we need to step up, and this Government are leading the effort on multiple fronts. In the past week, my right honourable and learned friend the Prime Minister convened the biggest gathering yet of those willing to play their part in ensuring Ukraine’s future security. That followed my visit to Canada and the trip of the Secretary of State for Defence, my right honourable friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), to Paris. This week, military planners from the allies will gather for further discussions in the UK, which will be co-chaired with France.

Ukraine was our top priority, but our unity extended beyond Ukraine. The G7 united in support for the fragile ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all hostages and unhindered humanitarian aid into Gaza. Let me be clear to this House about what I said to the G7: Hamas must release the hostages. For Israel to be secure, these terrorists can have no role in Gaza’s future, but the complete blocking of aid in Gaza is appalling and unacceptable. Humanitarian aid should never be used as a political tool, and we urge the Israeli Government to change course. The G7 also discussed the Arab reconstruction plan for Gaza—an important signal on which we should build.

The G7 also united behind an inclusive political transition in Syria. Stability in Syria bolsters UK security at home and abroad. We condemned the recent violence in Syria’s coastal regions and called for those responsible to be held accountable, and we were united in increasing the pressure on Iran. Tehran is producing highly enriched uranium at a rate that makes a mockery of the limits set in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Iran can never be allowed to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon. President Trump has written to the Supreme Leader, and this weekend the United States has responded strongly to the Houthi resumption of unacceptable attacks on international shipping. Iran must now change course, de-escalate and choose diplomacy.

The G7 also kept the spotlight on the conflicts in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We denounced the atrocities in Sudan. The warring parties must protect civilians, cease hostilities and ensure unhindered humanitarian access. There was strong support for the conference on Sudan that I will host next month, which is an important opportunity to get a political process moving. We also condemned the Rwanda-backed offensive in the eastern DRC, which is a flagrant breach of the DRC’s territorial integrity. The M23 and Rwandan Defence Force must withdraw. All parties should support African-led mediation processes.

The G7 also reiterated our call for the restoration of Venezuelan democracy and reaffirmed our strong support for Guyana’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. As the G7 met, Armenia and Azerbaijan concluded negotiations on an historic peace agreement. We warmly welcome that achievement and encourage both sides to move to signature as soon as possible.

It was a pleasure to be back in Canada. It is a proud, sovereign nation, in which I have family whom I have visited since childhood, and with which we share a long history and a Royal Family. Its new leader, Prime Minister Carney, is in London today, and I am sure that the whole House will congratulate him on his appointment. My fellow G7 Ministers and I received a warm welcome to Quebec, home of my good friend Minister Mélanie Joly. We united behind a new Canadian-led initiative on maritime security—an example of Canada’s strong leadership. With growing threats from the Red Sea to the South China Sea—trade routes on which growth and all our economies rely—a strong collective response from the G7 matters to us all.

Fifty years ago, a small group of western leaders met just outside Paris—the origins of the G7. They did not agree on everything; they were from different political sides, with three from the left and three from the right. It was a time of upheaval, with war in the Middle East, an oil crisis, a recession, and the Bretton Woods system falling away. Many, then as now, were pessimistic about the ability of democracies to navigate the turbulence, but that generation rose to the challenge. With the G7, they tried something different—its format allowed leaders to be honest with each other, and so find common ground. Today, we must rise to these new challenges. In that same spirit of honesty and common purpose, Britain and our partners are stronger when we stand together. We are standing together right now. I commend this Statement to the House”.

12:34

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, the turbulence of the global situation that we face was reflected in the breadth of the subjects covered in the joint statement of the G7 Foreign Ministers’ meeting: Ukraine, Gaza, China, Sudan, the DRC, Latin America and Iran were all covered. We are faced with a world of growing uncertainty and instability, and we welcome the commitment shown at the G7 to face those global challenges together.

The importance of co-operation and alliance with those countries that share our values in facing these threats is, in my view, crucial. Over the weekend, and in the other place this week, we have heard that the proposed peacekeeping initiative for Ukraine is now moving into an operational phase, which we welcome. However, the Foreign Secretary did not expand on what that means in practical terms, or what our European and Atlantic allies have committed to in supporting it. Can the Minister provide the House with an update on these issues?

Across both Houses of Parliament, there is overwhelming support, I am delighted to say, for our Ukrainian allies, and we on these Benches continue to support Ukraine in its fight to defend its freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The Government have taken admirable steps to co-ordinate our allies, which we welcome, although the House would welcome an update on what this means for us and our country in practice. What are the effects of this initiative on our Armed Forces? What planning is currently under way as part of this operational shift? Which allies in the so-called coalition of the willing have expressed interest in this initiative, and what are they willing to offer? What discussions have the Government held with the United States to advance clarity on this plan? Facing Putin and ensuring the security and sovereignty of Ukraine can be achieved only alongside our allies, and I think that the House would welcome further clarity from the Government to explain what they are doing to shift this coalition of the willing to a coalition of the committed.

The G7’s joint statement also made clear the growing and very serious concerns among allies about China’s activities aimed at

“undermining the security and safety of our communities and the integrity of our democratic institutions”.

This comes alongside many other concerns raised at the G7, including China’s non-market policies and practices that are leading to harmful overcapacity and market distortions; China’s military build-up, and the continued, rapid increase in China’s nuclear weapons arsenal; and increasing efforts to restrict freedom of navigation and overflight through militarisation and coercion in countries bordering the South China Sea, in clear violation of international law.

Given these clear and blatant risks to our domestic security, and the threat that China poses to the rule of international law, will the Government now take steps to place China on the enhanced tiers list of the foreign influence registration scheme? In my view, this would further strengthen the resilience of the UK political system against covert influence and provide greater assurance around the activities of China that are deemed a national security risk.

Proceeding from the concerns expressed at the G7, the country now needs to see further concrete responses from the Government to address the threat posed by China. I therefore close by asking the Minister: what other measures are being considered by the Government to compel China to engage in strategic risk reduction discussions, and what steps are the Government taking to deter China’s non-market policies and practices?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the seriousness of the issues addressed by the G7 are such that, from the welcome Statement that the House of Commons received on Monday, events have changed between then and when it has come to this Chamber with regards to the likely slow movement of President Putin in his talks with President Trump over a ceasefire for Ukraine, the increased concern with regard to the Red Sea, and the strikes from the United States and the repercussions of that—I remind the House that, on Sunday, President Trump’s national security adviser called the previous attacks, which very brave RAF personnel took part in, as “feckless”. The war has restarted in Gaza with more humanitarian concern and more violence on the West Bank, just within three days of that Statement coming to this Chamber.

We are now close to the second round of tariffs from the principal economy within the G7, as part of what the Wall Street Journal—not a liberal newspaper—in America has described as the

“dumbest trade war in history”.

Regardless of its dumbness, there will be effects across the whole of the G7, including the UK. From these Benches, we reiterate our desire to have ever-closer relations with the European Union and Canada in particular, so that there is a co-ordinated response. It is regrettable that there should need be that within the G7, but this is the world which we have to address.

On the Statement itself, I welcome the Foreign Secretary stating that they discussed using frozen Russian assets. The Minister will know that these Benches have asked for accelerated work on the seizure of the assets. Can the Minister update us on that, and tell us what the prospect of an announcement is from the G7 Heads of Government meetings? At the very least, we think there is a justified case for draft UK legislation to be released, so that we can understand what we would be required to do to move fast on that. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline where we are on the seizing of assets.

The Minister knows that we have supported the increase in defence expenditure across the UK, as the Foreign Secretary referred to in the Statement. Can the Minister give a bit more clarity as to what proportion of the increased defence expenditure is likely to be spent within the UK and what proportion is likely to be spent within the US? What is the Government’s position on the reports that we have seen about the UK’s difficulty in taking a full role within the common defence procurement approach in the European Union? Are we seeking to move quickly on a defence and security treaty which should facilitate this? There are a number of Members in this House who called for that under the last Government and continue to do so. It is now urgent, and I hope the Minister can update us on it.

The Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that we disagree with the method of the increased funds. We believe that the companies that avoid paying tax in the UK—tech companies—and are operating on underpaid taxes for their profits should contribute more. That is under the Basel 3.1 mechanism. There is agreement within the EU and, as I understand it, the G7. Only one country has argued against it and pulled out of it: the United States. A second G7 country has delayed our implementation because of that first country. We do not believe that that is appropriate; we should move quickly on using the resource from an increase from 2% to 10% on undertaxed profits. That is a better way of funding increased defence expenditure, rather than cutting the ODA budget.

Earlier, the Minister reiterated the Government’s position, which is an ambition to honour the 0.7% legislation. I remind the House that the legislation does not require the Government to have an ambition to meet 0.7%; it requires them to meet it. It is not a “We would like to do it” Act; it is a “We must do it” Act. If the Government are not committed to this then they should state it clearly, with regards to the means by which they would meet the legislative target.

On the fiscal circumstances of meeting the legislative requirement, it seems that the Government’s policy choice is to cut ODA to fund defence expenditure—that is a policy choice, not a fiscal one. What are the fiscal rules now when it comes to the policy choice of funding in an alternative way? There is no mechanism under the 0.7% legislation for alternative policy choices to be used, other than fiscal circumstances, so what is the status?

Finally, I reflected on the Government’s Statement 10 years ago, when we passed this legislation, on the 2015 G7. Granted, that was not a meeting of Foreign Ministers but of Prime Ministers, and the Prime Minister said this to the House of Commons:

“For the first time in a number of G7s and G8s, we actually got the 0.7% commitment back into the text, so it is clear and there for all to see. I would argue that it is not just right for Britain from a moral standpoint, but that it actually increases our standing in the world that we can point out that we have kept our promises and were able to use that money to enhance not only the economic standing of those countries, but our own security as well.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/6/15; col.1203.]


I agree with the then Prime Minister.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, made an important point in his opening remarks, about co-operation and unity being vital when we face so many challenging situations around the world. I thank him for saying that and I agree with him wholeheartedly.

The noble Lord asked about the Prime Minister’s comments on us being prepared to support security guarantees for Ukraine, which includes boots on the ground, should that be needed. It is too early to be able to say anything detailed in response to his question. I understand why he would like more information, and, if I had it, I would share it with him, but we are at an early stage and I do not have anything to share today.

As the noble Lord rightly said we should be, we are working closely with the US and other allies. As noble Lords will know, on Saturday, the Prime Minister hosted a leaders call to discuss next steps in developing the coalition of the willing, to which the noble Lord referred. Leaders agreed that we will accelerate our military support, tighten our sanctions on Russia’s revenues and continue to explore all lawful routes to ensure that Russia pays for the damage that it has done to Ukraine. Military planners will meet in London this week to progress practical plans. The Foreign Secretary met G7 counterparts last week, and G7 Foreign Ministers endorsed the US-Ukraine ceasefire agreement and discussed imposing further costs on Russia if a ceasefire is not agreed. The Defence Secretary met E5 Defence Ministers last Wednesday, and they committed to stepping up support for peace, working towards the establishment of security guarantees.

On China, noble Lords know that our approach is to co-operate and compete, and challenge where we need to. That is done through dialogue with our Chinese counterparts.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, suggested that we work closely with Canada and our EU partners when we face challenges on certain trade and other issues, and he is right to do so. He asked me to update him on the issue of frozen Russian assets. All I can say is that we are working as hard as we can on this; we have redoubled our efforts and will keep going. It is vital that Russia pays for what it has done in Ukraine.

The noble Lord and I will have to agree to differ on the issue of official development assistance. It was the right decision; we needed to get the money into the defence budget quickly. There is a development pay-off in doing that, because it enhances our ability to provide security, and that supports many developing nations—they have said as much.

On the issue of the 0.7%, I strongly urge noble Lords not to fetishise legislation that has not had the effect that those who proposed it wanted. Our desire to reach 0.7% is not to do with legislation; it is a desire to have an impact on developing nations because that is the right thing to do. That is what will drive us to meet that figure when the economic situation allows. It is a policy choice—I am not pretending it is not; of course it is. We have decided to put more money into defence. However, we do not sit here, in a crouched position, wondering how on earth we are going to fulfil our obligations to the global South over the next few years. We are going to be active, prioritising certain countries and streams of work. We will be engaging closely with our partner countries and the aid sector, and will be working multilaterally. We will be more active because we have to be.

It is not just about the money; it is about investment, our approach, working together and the technical assistance we can provide. I encourage noble Lords to think about our responsibility to the global South not just in terms of ODA. It is far bigger than that. There is not a limit on our ambition just because we have had to make these difficult financial decisions. They were the right decisions, but over the next few years we will have a more active and energised approach than we have ever had, because that is what is needed and what this Government want to do.

12:50

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests. In common with many Members of your Lordships’ House, I am an ambassador for the Halo Trust. Most of the Statement delivered by my right honourable friend in the other place was, quite appropriately, about our unwavering support for Ukraine’s people and territorial integrity.

Ukraine—where, along with allies, we are now considering boots on the ground—is the most heavily mined country in the world, with over 23% of its land contaminated or at risk of contamination with landmines and unexploded ordnance. At the fifth review conference of the Ottawa treaty in December, we reaffirmed our commitment to continuing the UK’s mine action commitments. We are home to two of the largest mine action organisations in the world: Mines Advisory Group and the Halo Trust are responsible for almost 70% of global mine clearance. I urge my noble friend to ensure that the FCDO’s mine action programme is protected as our budget is reduced. It costs only £12 million per year and raises twice that from other sources, including philanthropy. GMAP is cheap, it is genuinely world leading, and it is indispensable and irreplaceable.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I hear what my noble friend says about demining, and he is right. He urges me to commit to protecting that programme, and I will take his very wise counsel seriously. I get a lot of people coming to tell me what must be protected. No one has ever come to tell me that there is this programme that is not very good, but the case he makes is incredibly strong and I will keep that in mind.

[Lord Hussain (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement mentions Sudan very briefly. I happen to have visited that country on a couple of occasions, albeit a few years ago. I have two very brief questions. First, the Minister said that funding for Sudan will be prioritised, but can we have an assurance that all development support for the broad civilian front will be protected? Secondly, will the Minister agree with me that for the peace, prosperity and security of the African region and, more importantly, for the people of Sudan, the best option will be to keep Sudan as one sovereign country? If so, what are the British Government’s efforts to achieve that?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that we have committed to protecting our support for Sudan, because so many thousands of people find themselves in such a horrific situation in that region. We are about to hold a conference here in London for international partners to come and talk. I think the prospect of an imminent resolution is limited. However, the right way to approach this is to use our convening power and to encourage dialogue in the hope that it can in time unlock this situation, because it is desperate. We are undertaking a great deal of humanitarian assistance in the region, which is right, but ultimately we need to see peace in Sudan.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister struck a global approach when she was answering the questions earlier, which is quite right. Will she remind all those involved around her that it is not just Commonwealth countries? It is Japan this time as well. It is on our side and anxious to make a contribution, and keeps on asking at what point it should be brought in and so on. It is not just a European issue.

Secondly, have we picked up on the rather interesting emergence of a discussion about energy vulnerability? The Russians have been exploiting this, of course, but say that for the moment they will not hit energy and power stations. It reminds us that this is a world and a situation in which civilian, non-front-line utilities can be reached by rockets in a way they never could in earlier combat. They must be defended, and the cost of that defence is part of our defence expenditure. It is not just MoD tanks and rockets; we will have to spend defence money on defending vital utilities and civilian populations, because this is a war against civilians.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to mention Japan, an incredibly close friend and ally of the United Kingdom. We do work with it, so I take his point; he is completely right to remind noble Lords about that.

Attacks on energy and other civilian infrastructure are abhorrent, and we work closely with our allies and partners to try to make sure that we do what we need to protect them and, where necessary, that we are fully engaged in reconstruction that, sadly, will need to happen.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Statement and particularly the strong words, on which I think we are united in this House, about standing by Ukraine. On that matter, I particularly noted her comments about the discussion around Russia paying for the damage it has wreaked across Ukraine. Of course, the damage is not just a cost in pounds alone. Does she agree that there can be no peace worthy of that name while there are tens of thousands of Ukrainian children taken from their parents, scattered across the country and, according to some reports, even being brainwashed against their mother country? There can be no peace worthy of that name while those children remain in Russia. Does she share my concern of recent reports that Yale University’s humanitarian lab has been defunded by Elon Musk’s DOGE while it was in the midst of trying to track many of those abducted children? Has the G7 discussed the fate of those poor, abducted children? Their safe return really must be an absolute non-negotiable in any peace deal.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. Many things keep me awake at night, but the fate of those children is one that frequently comes to mind. We do discuss those children and the necessity of their safe and immediate return to their families. What has happened is unimaginable. He is completely right, and I can assure him that we take every opportunity to discuss that.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

I co-chair the taskforce for the return of the children who have been taken into Russia. The evidence is really shocking and quite scandalous. It is interesting that no one from the Government has ever asked me to come and speak to them about the evidence. I draw that to the attention of the Front Bench; perhaps it will find its way down to the other end of this House. I suspect that no one in this House knows more about it than I do, and yet I have never been asked.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I would like the noble Baroness to consider herself invited. I would be very keen to hear what she has to say, to consider the evidence she has and to discuss ways in which she may be able to assist in efforts to have those children returned.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests on organisations working for conflict resolution, particularly chairing the ICO advisory panel in this regard. I associate myself closely with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Katz. We are all as one on this, and we must look at alternative sources.

My question is on the one glimmer of hope in the Statement. I commend the Government on continuing to draw attention to the resolution of the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as the previous Government did. That is a positive within the Statement. In the same way, were there any discussions about the territorial gains that Russia has made in Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and, of course, the Donbass? What would be the resolution there? At the moment, the way discussions are going, it seems that Russia gets to keep lands that it has occupied.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not have anything specific to say on the content of those negotiations. It would be strange to disclose things such as that—were I aware of them, which I am not—while those negotiations are ongoing. What matters is that the agreement that is finally reached is one that the people of Ukraine are satisfied with. What matters is that we get peace, but it needs to be a just peace and it needs to be agreed with Ukraine at the very centre of it.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Statement refers, rightly, to Israel’s complete blocking of aid to Gaza as being “appalling and unacceptable”. Since the Statement was made, Israel has resumed attacks on Gaza; 400 people have died, including many children, and there is great concern for the remaining Israeli hostages in this situation. Sir Keir Starmer said that he was “deeply concerned” about the Israelis resuming military action, and, in the other place, he refused to rule out the suspension of further arms sales. Surely we are now at the point where we have to suspend all arms sales to Israel.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We have been very clear that we think that Israel ought to allow aid into Gaza, and that it is wrong to disrupt that flow and to cut off the electricity supply. What matters is that we can protect that population, feed those children and get the medical supplies where they need to be. On arms and restrictions, as noble Lords know, we take an approach that is based on the law, and we apply the law. We made decisions last year to impose restrictions; we will do so again should we need to in future. The situation today is the same as it was yesterday, and we have made no new decisions on that.

[Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)]

Following the ongoing work and conclusions of the G7, will the Minister have a further word with the Ministry of Defence about the extreme inadvisability of dispatching a carrier group to the Far East at this time, taking with it a very large amount of the depleted serviceable aircraft and ships of the Royal Navy currently available for operations? The carrier’s place now is in the north Atlantic with its escorts, and it should not go to the Far East.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I have a very good relationship with my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, and I am happy to discuss any issue with them, but operational decisions such as that one probably would not fall within my remit. I am sure they will note what the noble Lord has said. They are free to make the choices that they have made, and they have more information on which to base those choices than we do here today.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the United States Secretary of State raised either the G7 becoming the G8, by the addition of Russia, or the G6, by the subtraction of Canada? If her answer to that question is “No” or “I don’t know”, can we stop being distracted from the mass of important matters that the G7 must address in the months ahead?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am not aware of any such discussions. I believe that the G7 has been focused on, as the noble Lord said, the vital issues that it faces.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

The Statement said that the G7 was

“united behind an inclusive political transition in Syria”.

I am not quite sure how we can help to bring that about until we again have an embassy in Syria. I apologise for coming around like a cracked record on this. The last time we spoke about it, Ministers seemed to be showing a bit of leg; there was a hint of movement. Is there any chance of that leg moving into action?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not need to explain to the noble Lord that it is not straightforward to reopen the embassy in Damascus after such a period of time, but I take on board his desire to see that happen. I understand why he said that; there are very good reasons to take that view. I will consider that alongside Minister Hamish Falconer, who I am sure will respect, as he should, the views of the noble Lord.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Statement refers to the G7 condemning

“the Rwanda-backed offensive in the eastern DRC, which is a flagrant breach of the DRC’s territorial integrity”.

Shortly after the Statement was made, the EU sanctioned nine additional individuals and one entity in association with Rwanda’s backing of the M23. I know that if I ask about Magnitsky-style sanctions, the Minister will answer saying, “We don’t talk about what we are going to do in the future”. Instead, I seek from her a reassurance that the Government are maintaining a focus on this crucial issue of the highest humanitarian damage and disaster, particularly because of violence against women and girls but also more generally. Can she reassure me that the Government are keeping a focus here?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for raising that point, and particularly for mentioning women and girls—she is right to do so. On sanctions, obviously we do not talk about designations ahead of time, but it is important. It is too easy, sometimes, to forget about the DRC—and, indeed, Sudan—when we have Ukraine and Gaza so prominent in our minds, so I am grateful to her for raising that.

European Convention on Human Rights: 75th Anniversary

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

13:05

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To move that this House takes note of the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, as we mark the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights, I thank my noble friends on the Cross Benches for selecting the Motion and express my gratitude to the many distinguished Members from all parts of your Lordships’ House who are participating in this debate. I also thank the Library and the many organisations which have sent briefing material, from the Law Society to the International Bar Association to Policy Exchange.

The Danish philosopher and theologian Søren Kierkegaard said:

“Life must be understood backwards; but … it must be lived forwards”.


Following Kierkegaard’s advice, I will begin by looking back and recalling the convention’s genesis and achievements, and then I will say something about its future.

In 2013, I opened another Cross-Bench debate marking the 65th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, recalling that it grew out of the egregious disregard and contempt for human rights that had resulted in barbarous acts and outraged the conscience of mankind. Eleanor Roosevelt, a key figure in crafting the 1948 universal declaration, described it as a “Magna Carta for all” people. It helped to inspire the European convention; both are foundation stones intended to be for all people and not available for selective enforcement according to culture, tradition or convenience. They should be seen as much as a declaration of human dignity as a declaration of human rights.

In the aftermath of the two world wars, which both began in Europe and which claimed the lives of some 77 million people—and in the same continent where another war rages today—a formidable array of political leaders showed extraordinary zeal and exemplary commitment in creating architecture to uphold the rule of law. Intrinsic to that were international covenants, many of which focused on human rights. In 1946, those barbarous acts which had outraged the conscience of the world prompted Winston Churchill to set out the case for a new international order based on the rule of law and human rights. Outraged consciences led to practical actions.

Lawyers such as Raphael Lemkin, 49 of whose relatives were murdered in the Holocaust, bequeathed the 1948 genocide convention, while Sir Hersch Lauterpacht developed the legal concept of crimes against humanity. At Nuremberg, Lauterpacht helped draft the speech of the British prosecutor Hartley Shawcross—the Labour Member of Parliament for St Helens and later Lord Shawcross—who in turn collaborated with Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Liverpool West Derby and later the first Earl of Kilmuir—in the prosecution of Nazi war crimes after World War II. He played a significant role too in drafting the European Convention on Human Rights.

The agenda had been set in Missouri, by Winston Churchill in March 1946, where, flanked by President Truman, he famously remarked that an iron curtain had descended across Europe. He insisted:

“We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man”.


Two years later, speaking in The Hague, he presided at a grand congress of 800 delegates and said:

“In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law”.


The congress issued a message to Europeans calling for a charter of human rights and

“a Court of Justice with adequate sanctions for the implementation of this Charter”,

leading, in 1950, to 15 European nations signing the convention, with Britain the first to ratify it in 1951.

The text was crafted largely by a team of Oxford and Cambridge professors headed by Maxwell Fyfe. Other British politicians involved in the drafting of the ECHR included Harold Macmillan, Samuel Hoare and Ernest Bevin. The signatories described their convention as a mechanism for

“enforcement of certain of the rights stated in the Universal Declaration”.

Churchill wanted

“moral concepts … able to win the respect and recognition of mankind”,

urging lawmakers:

“Let there be justice, mercy, and freedom”.


Churchill envisaged a Strasbourg court before which violations

“in our own body of … nations might be brought to the judgment of the civilised world”.

In a ringing endorsement, the Daily Telegraph said the convention was

“the turning point when the free peoples of Europe rejected enslavement in the communist system and defeated all attempts to poison and destroy their democratic traditions from within”.

The Times described it as

“a crucial step towards safeguarding fundamental freedoms and promoting a common European heritage of justice and the rule of law”.

The convention has created a common legal space for over 700 million citizens, prohibiting, among other things, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, slavery and forced labour, and arbitrary or unlawful detention. Its 14 articles protect basic rights, from the right to life to the rights to privacy, conscience and religion, freedom of expression, a fair trial, family life, and more.

The UK subsequently ratified protocols to the convention on the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, and three additional rights: the right to free enjoyment of property, the right to education and the right to free and fair elections. Parties to the convention undertake to secure convention rights and freedoms to everyone within their jurisdiction, underpinned by the creation of the European Court of Human Rights, which deals with individual and interstate relations.

During the years following its creation, the convention commanded widespread cross-party support. Lord Chancellors such as Viscount Hailsham described it as part of the

“armoury of weapons against elective dictatorship”.

Another Member of your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, said that pulling out of the convention was “xenophobic and legal nonsense”. On the Liberal SDP benches, notably Lords Wade, Grimond and Jenkins of Hillhead, and Baroness Williams of Crosby were lifelong supporters of the ECHR.

Margaret Thatcher declared that the UK was

“committed to, and supported, the principles of human rights”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/7/1989; col. 252.]

in the ECHR. Sir John Major reiterated this commitment, and in 1998, Tony Blair incorporated the rights and liberties enshrined in the convention in the Human Rights Act. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, told this House that the Act

“does not create new human rights or take any existing human rights away. It provides better and easier access to rights which already exist”.—[Official Report, 5/2/1998; col. 755.]

The 1998 Act was described simply as “bringing rights home”. Beyond our home, the ECHR provides reassurance to everyone living and travelling in the Council of Europe area, that we share similar, enforceable human rights standards.

Notwithstanding recent calls to leave the ECHR, last November, this Government said they remained “fully committed” to the ECHR and to

“the important role that multilateral organisations like the Council of Europe play in upholding it”.

Of course, the Council of Europe pre-dates the European Union and has no connection to it. Some 19 member states of the Council of Europe, including the United Kingdom, are not members of the European Union; Russia was expelled because of its illegal invasion of Ukraine.

The ECHR and the Council of Europe are inextricably bound together. Leaving the convention clearly means leaving the Council of Europe. Sir Jonathan Jones KC, a former Treasury solicitor and Permanent Secretary of the Government Legal Department, says that ECHR withdrawal would

“involve leaving the Council of Europe, which is responsible for the convention”.

A resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe states that

“accession to the Council of Europe must go together with becoming a party to the European Convention on Human Rights”,

while the European Court of Human Rights insists:

“Today more than ever the Convention is the cornerstone of the Council of Europe, and any State wishing to become a member of the organisation must sign and ratify it”.


Last month, Theodoros Rousopoulos, the current president of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, gave a Lord Speaker’s Lecture. We heard him pay tribute to the commitment and high-level contribution of the United Kingdom parliamentary delegation led by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. To those who today will demand that we leave the ECHR, and therefore the Council of Europe, I would simply ask them to tell us which rights in the convention they object to. Do we really want to join Belarus and Russia as the only countries not part of any pan-European body?

In 2001, Parliament created the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I have the honour to chair—although today, I speak for myself and not the committee. The committee has a remit to examine matters relating to human rights in the UK and it has functioned historically as a champion for convention rights.

The JCHR pays close attention to the cases before the European court, the judges of which are elected by the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly. We have noted the role of the convention and the court; for example, in ending the ban on gay people in the military, and homosexual criminalisation in Northern Ireland; in prohibiting the retention for life of DNA samples of innocent people; on indiscriminate phone tapping; on the plight of the Sunday Times, which was prohibited from publishing information about thalidomide; on the protection of vulnerable victims of domestic violence; on the combating of racism; and on the degrading punishment of a teenager in the Isle of Man.

Among our current JCHR inquiries, we are examining the failure to prosecute UK nationals who took part in the genocide in Iraq, and transnational repression and forced labour in supply chains. Previous inquiries have included reform of the Human Rights Act and the right to family life. Last week, we held a round table on the Mental Health Bill, where we heard stories of detention and incarceration. Earlier this week, I met Volker Türk, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, to discuss what we actually mean by human rights and how deeply they are connected to the laws we proclaim, the conventions we have signed, and the traditions of liberty and freedom represented by this place. The European Convention on Human Rights is an essential part of that tradition. Malcolm Bishop KC, writing in the New Law Journal, says that

“the Convention is now firmly embedded in the common law and an impressive corpus of jurisprudence has emerged, which, in my opinion, has made this country a better place”.

I agree.

To its detractors, and for the record, in 2024 the court gave just two judgments on the merits of cases involving the United Kingdom. A violation was found in one case and no violation was found in the other. In a commentary earlier this week, Joshua Rozenberg forensically addressed the caricatures and misattributions which are often wrongly laid at the door of the ECHR. By population, the UK has the lowest number of applications of all member states: three per million people, while for all states combined it was 47.4 per million. Of course, the reason there are so few UK cases is that we broadly obey the ECHR.

Those who want to reduce UK legal standards—some even want to tear up the Human Rights Act—would vandalise our constitutional settlement. This and leaving the convention in a fit of pique, rather than engaging with and reforming it, is not worthy of this country or those who entrusted this extraordinary legacy to us.

At the outset, I recalled Kierkegaard’s thought that life can only be understood backwards but it must be lived forwards. Institutions and conventions are not set in stone. There is always scope for political debate and greater definition of the respective roles of parliaments and judges around controversial issues such as border control, which the JCHR will examine. However, to throw away all the gains would make no sense and merely play into the hands of dictators and enemies of democracy. We are experiencing war in Europe, along with contempt and disregard for international law and institutions, including despicable attacks on the International Criminal Court. We see the rise of autocracies with global reach, even with reach into the UK through transnational repression by hostile states. Rights and freedoms are under assault from within and without.

In this context, we are therefore right to recall the spirit which, 75 years ago, animated remarkable leaders. We are entitled to have pride in the significant British contribution to creating both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights and genuine pride in the development of human rights, international law and the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. To defend this legacy, we must become far more robust in the public domain—in our schools and universities—in setting out the patriotic case for these shared fundamental values.

In this 75th anniversary year of the European Convention on Human Rights, we are entitled to look back on what was achieved in the ruins of Europe and out of the ashes of Auschwitz. We must insist that those concerns remain vitally relevant to this day and that they are crucial to our future. I beg to move.

13:21

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare interests as the author of the Penguin Allen Lane book Human Rights: The Case for the Defence, as a new member of our delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and as a lifelong human rights lawyer and campaigner. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on his well-deserved appointment as chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and on that outstanding opening of his debate marking the 75th Anniversary of the convention which protects the civil rights of around 700 million people in 46 states.

I have been working with the convention on an almost daily basis for around 30 of those years, both for and against UK Governments domestically and in the Strasbourg court that has rendered it perhaps the most effective international human rights mechanism in the world. Most formatively, I was a government lawyer in the late 1990s during the passage and implementation of our Human Rights Act and at Liberty, the National Council for Civil Liberties, from 2001 until 2016.

We have been eloquently reminded of the history of why Conservative politician, jurist and Nuremberg prosecutor David Maxwell Fyfe was deputed to lead the convention drafting process after the Council of Europe was founded by the Treaty of London in 1949. If there was ever any doubt about the direct relationship between justice and peace, the 1930s had ended it. This was especially so in Europe, where two, too proximate world wars had begun. It could be no surprise that those seeking to rebuild the lands of Milton, Molière, Mozart and Michelangelo should have made co-operating around human rights enforcement a priority. If we have sometimes been a little complacent in the intervening years, surely that is over now, as war and far-rightism once more stalk Europe, and respect for the rule of law is far from secure, even in that great old constitutional democracy across the Atlantic.

In any event, I can report, first hand, the many ways in which the convention has come to the aid of people in the United Kingdom where both their common law and legislators had previously failed them. Before Strasbourg’s intervention, victims of rape were subjected to days of degrading cross-examination in person by their alleged assailants, contrary to Article 3. Similarly, abusive parents who beat their children to a pulp could be acquitted of the grave offence of causing grievous bodily harm by deploying the defence of reasonable chastisement of a child. Indeed, I would go as far as suggesting that victims of crime may be among those who have most benefited from the convention’s effect upon our domestic law, before and since the Human Rights Act 1998 brought rights home to be directly enforceable here.

There are numerous examples too of the UK’s privacy, free speech, non-discrimination and other vital rights and freedoms being ensured and enhanced by the convention. It would be far from liberal or progressive, and certainly deeply unconservative, not to treasure it.

13:25

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for whom I have an enormously high regard, on securing this debate and his introduction to it. It is a paradox that defenders of the supranational European Court of Human Rights invariably begin with an appeal to British chauvinism laced with deference to Conservative icons by invoking the creation myth. That goes as follows: “The ECHR was a British invention, inspired by Churchill, drafted by Maxwell Fyfe, which codified historic British rights. Since we were the first country to ratify it, it must have been eagerly endorsed by us”.

That is almost entirely false. Attlee’s Government ratified the convention with great reluctance and only on condition that the future European court would have no jurisdiction in the UK since British people would not be allowed to take cases to the court. They also treated the convention as non-binding, deliberately not altering laws known to be incompatible with it. Moreover, when Churchill returned to No. 10 a few months later with Maxwell Fyfe, then Lord Kilmuir, as his Lord Chancellor, despite some ambiguous enthusiasm for it when in opposition, he adopted exactly the same position as Attlee, as did subsequent Conservative Prime Ministers—not allowing the court jurisdiction in the UK.

The second myth about the ECHR was that it simply codified British rights which had evolved over centuries. If that was all it did, British membership would confer little benefit and leaving would be no loss. This myth implies that few British laws would be incompatible with the convention. If only. Judgments have been made in 567 cases and the UK found to be in violation in one or more respects in no fewer than 329 of them by the Strasbourg court. In addition, the court has decided over 25,000 British cases by rejecting them or declaring the vast majority inadmissible, but after enriching the lawyers. That would be no surprise to those advising Attlee’s Government, who warned that allowing recourse to Strasbourg would provide

“a small paradise for some lawyers”—

now among its most enthusiastic supporters. In the immigration and asylum tribunals alone, human rights cases were 40% of the 350,000 cases received over the last eight years. To say it has no impact within the UK is an absurdity.

The original purpose of the European court was not to fine-tune each country’s statute book but to protect fundamental freedoms, from torture, slavery, arbitrary arrest et cetera. The third myth is that the court has succeeded in this objective. It was always unrealistic to imagine that any regime which was prepared to use torture, slavery or arbitrary arrest would be put off by the prospect of an adverse ruling by a foreign court. In practice, whenever an authoritarian regime has come to power, adherence to the ECHR has not dissuaded it from trampling on human rights. When the Greek colonels faced an ECHR ruling about the use of torture, Greece simply withdrew from the convention. Russia was expelled for the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, not for its rampant domestic human rights violations. Belarus abandoned its observer status rather than implement convention rights. Both Azerbaijan and Turkey have gone pretty far down the road to authoritarian regimes while still remaining in the convention. It is little known, but one reason that France did not even ratify the convention until 1974 was that it was aware of the use of torture and other abuses of human rights during the war in Algeria and had other reasons afterwards for remaining outside. Indeed, it did not allow its citizens to take cases to Strasbourg until 1981 but suffered little opprobrium for that.

The claim that if Britain left it would be joining Belarus and Russia is puerile. We would be joining other common-law countries, including democracies such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, which uphold human rights without relying on a supranational court. Like them, we would make our laws democratically, not hand over the right to make laws to an international court, giving it the power to legislate rather than enforce the law.

13:30

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on his excellent opening to this very important debate.

When Ernest Davies, the Member of Parliament, signed the convention on behalf of the Labour Government in 1950, in Rome, he was not carving a monument in stone; he was putting his name to a dynamic and living convention. There were 15 signatories and now there are 46, excluding only Belarus and Russia in the European context.

The guide to the European court puts it this way:

“By its case-law the Court has extended the rights set out in the Convention so that its provisions apply today to situations that were totally unforeseeable and unimaginable at the time it was first adopted … new technologies, bioethics … the environment. The Convention also applies to societal or sensitive questions relating … to terrorism or migration … abortion, assisted suicide, body searches, domestic slavery, adoption by homosexuals, the wearing of religious symbols … the protection of journalists’ sources, or the retention of DNA data”.


What happens where there is no European convention?

Last week, in the United States, hundreds of Venezuelans were shipped to El Salvador. They were treated in an inhuman and degrading manner that would contravene Article 3 of the European convention. They were shackled, contravening Article 5, without any form of trial, contravening Article 6, and with no ability to complain to a court of the violation of their rights, contravening Article 13. The USA is a country which bows the knee to Magna Carta and the rule of law, but the US federal judge who sought to block this move has been ignored. “Oopsie, too late!”, said the President of El Salvador, pocketing the millions of dollars paid to his country.

Where have we seen this behaviour before? In Nazi Germany, the crimes of which motivated European countries to come together to sign the convention. There is a suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and others that the UK should withdraw and write its own, presumably on the Trumpian model.

There is good news. The Human Rights Act came into force in the year 2000. Since then, there have been 245 judgments against the UK, finding at least one violation of the convention. But the number of cases has steadily declined, from 18 per year at the beginning to just two in 2022. The number of applications, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, against the UK is now the lowest per capita of all European states. We have succeeded in bringing the convention home, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, pointed out, so that our own courts can and do apply its provisions in appropriate cases.

There are three reasons. First, the Human Rights Act creates a legal obligation for all public bodies, including the police, hospitals, care homes and local councils, to protect rights in all their decisions and actions, meaning that people’s rights are less likely to be breached in the first place. Secondly, United Kingdom courts are now the first port of call for any human rights claimant, and United Kingdom judges consider human rights more explicitly and intensively than they could before. Thirdly, the European court is much more likely today, in considering applications from this country, to follow the reasoning and conclusions of our courts and the decisions of our public authorities. It respects our judges and the way in which the Human Rights Act is applied. Ernest Davies, Ernie Bevin and Clement Attlee were right to feel proud of what they had done.

13:34

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I too add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing this debate and for his speech. I am not going to explore the legal implications, but want to make a few theological points, if I may. I want to comment on the origins of the spring from which these ideas first came, how it developed into a stream and then a river, and how still today our understanding of rights and responsibilities is developing.

The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is right. It goes back to those early chapters of Genesis. In fact, you could go back to the Code of Hammurabi, 1,700 years before Christ, but let us go back to the Ten Commandments, where we find the creation narratives where humankind is created in God’s image. It is about the inherent dignity that belongs to each and every person, not dependent on sex, wealth, education or any other differentiation. This is implied in the Ten Commandments and is developed further in passages such as Deuteronomy 10, where God defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow and loves the stranger in the land. It is why the prophet Isaiah urges the people of God to seek justice, correct oppression, defend the fatherless and plead for the widow.

However, as Jonathan Sacks, a former Member of your Lordships’ House, was keen to point out, rights are things we claim and duties are things we perform. In other words, duties, he said, are rights translated from the passive to the active mode. The biblical teaching in the New Testament reaches its fullest expression in this reciprocity in human relating, expressed by Jesus in this way: love the lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind, and love your neighbour as yourself.

Nowhere in the scriptures do we find the phrase human rights—and certainly no reference to the ECHR. Indeed, some theologians, such as the eminent Alasdair MacIntyre, have argued that human rights are actually a fiction; he simply did not agree with them as a concept. Others, including a former Member of this House, Lord Williams of Oystermouth, disagreed, saying that the fundamental theological point

“is not so much that every person has a specific set of positive claims to be enforced, but that persons and minority groups of persons need to be recognized as belonging to the same moral and civic world as the majority, whatever differences or disagreements there may be”.

He went on to argue that

“a proper consideration of human rights has a better chance of sustaining its case if it begins from the recognition of a common dignity or worthiness of respect among members of a community than if it assumes some comprehensive catalogue of claims that might be enforceable”.

All laws and all conventions are ultimately human constructs. There are some who dislike the ECHR and have problems with the wider issue of human rights. There are people who are not happy with the way that the court has interpreted the underlying legal principles which are enshrined in the convention. But the huge benefits that it has brought to so many people, particularly people who have traditionally been marginalised and not given the ability to participate and to engage, surely outweighs the frustrations that people sometimes feel. I, for one, am thankful that we have the ECHR.

13:38

[Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)]

My Lords, as your Lordships will know—I am sure the right reverend Prelate, whom it is a pleasure to follow, will know—in George Orwell’s 1984, the three great regional powers of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia confront each other with constantly shifting alliances. Why those alliances shift is never clear, but it is the people and their human rights who suffer. Today, there is a fourth great power in the world; not only the United States, Europe—in a rather different form from the others—and Russia, but China too, watching and no doubt considering its options for Taiwan. One cannot push analogies too far, but we now live in a world of great power machismo, where international co-operation and international agreements are too often flouted. But it is precisely at times like these that they are so needed, and why it is right to focus now on the European Convention on Human Rights.

Too often, Europe, which we like to think of as civilised, has experienced the abuse of human rights: in Ukraine today, in the aftermath of Russia’s wholly unjustified and unjustifiable invasion; in Bosnia; in Serbia; in Kosovo more than 20 years ago; and in the chaos and anarchy of eastern Europe after the Second World War, brilliantly evoked in the books of Primo Levi. It is a tribute to the ECHR that more than 40 countries, with Russia of course expelled, are now its members and have accepted the international legal obligation to protect human rights, in our case through the implementation of the Human Rights Act.

Of course the ECHR is not perfect. Of course some member states fail to observe all their obligations under it. But Europe and, through Europe’s example, other parts of the world are the better for it. As an original signatory, Britain gained respect and influence. That must remain the case so that Britain, as a constructive and active member, can help to realise the ECHR’s principles. I do not favour withdrawal from the ECHR. I believe in exercising our influence for good within it. I am glad that the Prime Minister has said that the Government are unequivocally committed to the ECHR. I hope that the Minister will repeat that commitment today.

13:41

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare that I am a practitioner at the English Bar and the president of the council of Justice, a leading British law organisation. I am the director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, an honorary Writer to the Signet in Scotland and, as your Lordships heard earlier, I am currently working for President Zelensky, heading up with his chef de cabinet a task force to get the children back from Russia. I have been working on that for a number of years with the Yale observatory and other bodies.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton. We owe him a debt of gratitude in this House for his constant reminders of our common humanity. He is tireless in his work on the abuses that happen around the world, so it is no surprise that he is speaking here in protection of the values of the European Convention on Human Rights. It amazes me that the very same people who fought tooth and nail to take us out of the European Union—a step which has been ruinous for the economy of this country—are still seeking to sever ties with our European neighbours, especially when it is clear that we have to retain our bonds of connection with Europe and European nations in the face of grievous threats from Russia.

Withdrawal from the ECHR would be disastrous. The Human Rights Act has enriched our law enormously, and it has been especially productive for women. I say that as someone who has been very much on the front line in cases concerning the rights of women. You have only to think about the case of Worboys, where it was possible to use the ECHR before the courts to make sure that rape was properly recognised in prosecutions. Vulnerable victims of domestic violence have received better protection because of the Human Rights Act. There is also the ending of the ban of gay people in the Army, the inquiry into the sex abuse of women in the Army, the better protection of children against corporal punishment and sexual abuse, the greater protection of the media, the ending of detention without trial at the beginning of the 21st century, the prevention of torture from other countries being used and evidenced in our courts, and the protection of religious freedom. The list is enormous. It has also been vital in the Northern Ireland peace process.

You cannot pull out of the ECHR without leaving the Council of Europe. This alliance promotes democracy, human rights and the rule of law across 46 states. Since its inception, the Council of Europe has accepted over 200 treaties, conventions and protocols, including the Istanbul convention, to end violence against women and girls and to end domestic violence; the Lanzarote convention, to protect children from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse; and the Council of Europe convention against human trafficking. I hear the muttering on the Benches opposite, but we should remember the work that is done through the Council of Europe to defend local and regional democracy and governance. It observes elections and promotes good governance through the exchange of experience among member states—which I have done. The Council of Europe also helps member states to fight corruption and terrorism, and undertakes necessary judicial reforms. It has a group of constitutional experts, the Venice Commission, which offers legal advice to member states. Are we going to pull out of that?

The Council of Europe is supporting the people of Ukraine in the face of Russia’s ongoing aggression. It has a dedicated Ukraine action plan and a development bank which is aiding Ukraine in its recovery efforts and accommodating Ukrainian refugees. Are we really going to put all this at risk? Are we really going to reduce ourselves to little Englanders? That is what it would mean, because the people of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales do not want to leave the European Convention on Human Rights.

13:46

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, while congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing this debate, I begin by paying tribute, as he and others have done, to one of the ECHR founders and drafters in the 1950s, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe—later Viscount Kilmuir from 1954 to 1962 and Lord Chancellor here under Churchill, Eden and Macmillan—who earlier on at the Nuremberg trials, through his fair-minded skill and clarity as a prosecuting counsel, played an enormous part in enabling the German public to understand and accept the guilt of their leaders for crimes against humanity, his cross-examination of Hermann Göring becoming one of the most noted in history.

I join with your Lordships in giving huge thanks for the ECHR, whose 75th anniversary we now commemorate; for the extent to which it has not only healed wounds but with balanced purpose, as implied by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, reinvigorated the heart, mind and soul of Europe; yet furthermore, for its success in providing soft power, direction and stability well beyond Europe and throughout the world; thus with efficacy accomplishing what was intended of it in the first place, as expressed by Maxwell Fyfe in Strasbourg in August 1949, and I quote:

“We cannot let the matter rest at a declaration of moral principles and pious aspirations, excellent though the latter may be. There must be a binding convention”.


In my remarks today, I will briefly touch on three aspects: the scope for the United Kingdom to achieve results through the Council of Europe; education as a human right; and the practicalities of its delivery.

During the progress of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, your Lordships will recall that this House voted to protect private copyright under Council of Europe standards, yet in which regard we can still proudly reflect that the present copyright protection ECHR conventions are precedented and inspired by the United Kingdom in 1710, three years after the 1707 Act of Union, through the Statute of Anne, which granted publishers of books legal protection.

Particularly so to our advantage here as a revising Chamber, and as emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others, countless examples come to mind of the Council of Europe as a natural ally within which affiliation of 46 states the United Kingdom remains a prominent member, and where I am a recent chairman of its committee on education.

As we are all well aware, the numerous groups of people suffering disadvantage in education range from girls and women, students with disability and special needs, learners living in remote areas, and refugees and asylum seekers to those experiencing discrimination against them from a number of pretexts and prejudices, and not least those living in countries where education systems are insufficiently developed.

During its G7 presidency in 2021, the United Kingdom gave a commitment to promote education in the third world and elsewhere as necessary. What actions have the Government taken since then? Which initiatives are in progress? Can the Minister affirm that such G7 plans are being clearly designed and carried out so that they contribute towards building up the strength of international communities themselves?

What plans do the Government have, along with international partners, including at the Council of Europe, to co-ordinate the delivery of a variety of international education initiatives which are at risk of financial cuts?

As well as students, such interventions clearly stand to benefit communities, cities and regions as well. One example is the current academic partnership of joint research into green energy between the Scottish University of the Highlands and Islands in the United Kingdom and the University of Zadar in Croatia. Having helped to put this together, I declare an interest as current chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Croatia. What steps are the Government now taking to actively encourage similar partnerships, possibly facilitated by Horizon and other schemes?

Following ECHR and education as a human right, enhanced prospects for world peace will also derive from much better education and competitive skills opportunities at grass roots and within all international communities. Given that G7 countries have already embraced that objective, the United Kingdom, in its own interest and that of others, must now help to ensure that this objective is properly carried out.

13:51

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, about 10 years ago, as a Minister, I visited the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I was there to apologise to the Committee of Ministers for the fact that we had not yet given prisoners the vote. While I was there, the president of the court kindly gave me a book about the convention and the court entitled The Conscience of Europe. It was a fascinating account of the establishment of the court and its development for the subsequent 65 years.

But it is important to remember the context in which the convention was born. The noble Earl has given a very vivid account of that. This was a continent devastated by war in which the population had been deprived of all the most basic human rights. But did the architects of the ECHR really envisage that an asylum seeker here would be able to rely on the convention when arguing that his children’s liking for chicken nuggets meant that he should not be returned to his country of origin because to do so would violate his human rights? This and so many other cases have trivialised human rights and are not reflective of the legacy of those responsible for the convention.

I declare an interest as a member of the Commission on a Bill of Rights set up by the coalition Government. Perhaps more important is the fact that, since the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, I have regularly acted for public authorities. Time does not permit me to give a full list of all my failures, but I was recently reminded of one. A group of prisoners sought damages on the basis that their human rights had been violated because they were not given heroin while in prison—a breach of Article 3, apparently. I acted for the police because a number of Nigerian young women living in this country had been kept in domestic servitude by some rather richer Nigerians. The court was asked to find, and did find, that the police were guilty of a violation of human rights for not being sufficiently curious—not the girls’ captors, the police.

I am extremely reluctant to suggest leaving an international institution of any sort. We know they are rarely perfect, but it is surely better that they exist. I am conscious of the importance of remaining on good terms with our European allies, particularly at this moment, and I voted to remain in the European Union, but I have come to the conclusion that at the very least we should repeal the Human Rights Act. The obligation in that legislation to take into account Strasbourg jurisprudence has produced some very unsatisfactory results. The process of taking into account can itself be difficult, given the variable quality of some of the judgments. It has meant that we pay far greater heed to the court’s decisions than any other countries in the Council of Europe—a particular irony, since there are so few decisions against the United Kingdom.

This Government have an almost theological approach to the ECHR and the HRA, but critics of the way in which it has operated in practice are not confined to those on the right, as noble Lords may have observed. My view is that Parliament and the courts are not only capable of but better suited to protecting human rights here. Our current arrangements amount to a significant subcontracting of the task to an international court.

Like others, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing this debate to your Lordships’ House. With his passion for the protection of human rights, he would have made a great contribution to the ECHR had he been around at the time. Indeed, he would have been a worthy guardian of the conscience of Europe. It is thus a matter of profound regret that I must express the view that the whole concept of human rights has been brought significantly into disrepute.

13:55

[Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury (CB)]

My Lords, I spent 21 years as a barrister and then five years as a judge, arguing and applying English law while the rights contained in the human rights convention were not part of our law. Then from 2001, shortly after the Human Rights Act came into force, I spent 16 years as a judge applying and developing our law so that it incorporated convention rights.

Across the UK legal system, whether in civil law, public law, criminal law or family law, the Human Rights Act introduced important new rights such as the right to privacy and family life. It reinvigorated many previously stultified rights, such as freedom from detention. It re-emphasised the importance of vital rights, such as freedom of expression, and it increased the rights of all citizens against excesses of the state—a particularly important feature at a time of ever-increasing regulation.

I am no starry-eyed human rights groupie. As a senior judge, I tried to ensure that the new human rights jurisprudence did not cause the common law, of which this country should be so proud, to wither away. Rather, I tried to ensure—and I hope that, together with my colleagues, I succeeded in ensuring—that judges developed the common law so that it incorporated and benefited from the principles of the convention.

Of course, human rights law can occasionally lead to results with which many people will disagree, but the application of established law in any field can result in unpopular decisions, and that is a particular risk with a law that paints on such a broad canvas. Many decisions that are unpopular in this connection are concerned with asylum, but this country’s international duties with regard to asylum seekers are controlled as much by United Nations treaties as they are by the convention. There is a real danger that the public get a warped view of human rights, with the media focusing on cases that can be portrayed as leading to surprising results. Many of those cases are inaccurately or very one-sidedly reported. Although a number are not unfairly or inaccurately reported, they should be contrasted with the many unreported decisions where human rights have enabled or assisted a judge to get a fair answer that otherwise he or she may not or could not have done.

In the number of cases where the result seems rather odd, I am sometimes rather surprised that the Government or the relevant public body have not chosen to appeal. Judges do not always get things right, and appeal courts are there to deal with that, but too often there are no appeals when there should be.

Forty-six countries have signed up to the convention. It is a civilised force in an increasingly unstable world. Because its decisions apply over so many countries, the Strasbourg court judges generally appreciate that they have to tread carefully when laying down the law. They have developed the concept of a margin of appreciation to enable individual countries to make their own rules in some sensitive areas, such as assisted suicide. In my experience and knowledge, the Strasbourg judges have been prepared to reconsider and go back on decisions when a UK court has given judgment explaining why it thinks a particular Strasbourg court decision may be inappropriate for the UK.

This country is almost unique in the world in having no coherent overarching constitutional document. Because of that, the Human Rights Act has a particularly important role in protecting individual freedoms and liberties. It has been cleverly drafted so as to give human rights a special status in our constitution without overriding the supremacy of Parliament. We should be valuing it, not trashing it.

13:59

[Lord Rook (Lab)]

I draw the attention of the House to my registered interests: I am a partner at the Good Faith Partnership, which provides the secretariat for the UK FoRB Forum. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for this debate and, as other noble Lords have noted, for his tireless commitment to human rights. He has long been an inspiration to me and, as a new Member of the House, I hope to become more like him when I grow up.

I wish to draw noble Lords’ attention to the importance of the European Convention on Human Rights for the pursuance of freedom of religion or belief. Born amid the growing realisation of the full and horrific extent of the Holocaust, the issue of freedom of religion is core to the convention. “Everyone,” Article 9 declares,

“has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.

Sadly, the fight for religious freedom is far from won. More than 80% of the world’s population live in states where there are severe or significant restrictions on their freedoms, and that number is rising. Although this continent is home to the convention, there remains work to be done and threats to guard against. A few years ago, I sat in the gallery of the Bundestag, witnessing the understandable anger and outrage of the majority of its members as one party repeatedly refused to condemn the internment of Uyghur Muslims in so-called education camps in China. Watching this scene play out in that place was chilling, to say the least.

I am grateful for the leadership of our Government in this area, for the work of my noble friends Lord Collins of Highbury and Lady Chapman of Darlington, and for the appointment of my honourable friend David Smith MP as the UK’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief. I am certain that they will build on the work of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, and previous envoys to ensure that we as a country remain a leading force for freedom of religion or belief around the world.

Finally, I ask the Minister to take this opportunity to assure the House of this Government’s continued support for the court that upholds the convention. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, the European Court of Human Rights has only once found the UK to be in breach of Article 9. We can certainly be proud of our record. We must continue to hold ourselves to the highest standards and make ourselves accountable for our decisions and actions.

The challenge to reduce persecution around the world is beyond the powers of any one country. At a time when intergovernmental institutions are all too often and all too easily undermined, the court and its convention offer a unique opportunity for nations and institutions to work together to fashion a world where people are truly free.

14:02

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to serve on the Joint Committee on Human Rights under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, whose timely debate this is and whose contribution we heard earlier. As a barrister practising in part in the field of public law and human rights, and as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and like all noble Lords who have spoken, I place the highest value on human rights. However, human rights are not one and the same thing as the European Convention on Human Rights as it is today.

In March 2021, the former professor of law and legal philosophy at the University of Oxford, John Finnis, and I wrote a paper for Policy Exchange entitled Immigration, Strasbourg, and Judicial Overreach. In his foreword to that paper, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, noted that:

“There is only one way to determine the limits of the commitment undertaken by the states which subscribed to European Convention on Human Rights and that is by reading the instrument and construing it against the background which would have been known or assumed by the parties at the time. Indeed, this is the only way to understand the meaning of any utterance whatever. But the European Court of Human Rights have felt free to give the Convention a meaning which could not possibly have been intended by its subscribers on the ground that it is a ‘living instrument’ which it is entitled—indeed, required—to update in accordance with what it considers to be the spirit of the times”.


In the paper, we examine the transformation of the convention in respect of immigration policy, the position in 1951 being that the signatory states

“have no obligation to let in refugees … have no legal or treaty obligation to accept refugees at all … and have no absolute obligation to continue to provide asylum for refugees who are a danger to the community”.

They were matters for the states themselves.

Forty years later, the European Court of Human Rights set out a line of judgments that has circumvented those principles. It has done so along two routes. The first gives the ECHR’s absolute prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment, found at Article 3, a radically expansive interpretation, which is neither morally nor legally warranted. The second circumvention has been via Article 8—the right to a private and family life—which has been expanded to override immigration controls. This is something which those who drafted, signed and ratified the convention would certainly have rejected. These misinterpretations facilitate and incentivise unlawful migration, and hamper European states in justly handling the issue. Elastic, expansive and inauthentic treaty interpretations such as these are contributing substantially to the real risk that the rule of law in European states will be overstrained.

Behind this judicial transformation of refugee and migration law lies the doctrine, judicially invented in 1975, that the ECHR is a living instrument. This doctrine enabled the Strasburg judges to reform social arrangements, even very fundamental ones, either without debate and approval from democratic legislatures or with a retrospective approval, strongly encouraged by the court’s assertions that these reports are already required by law and by international agreements and obligations which this country has long accepted as binding. In either form, this is an unconstitutional purpose. It is unfitting for the ECHR. The convention was intended not to provide an engine to social reform, still less for top-down reforms, but to block regression from the level of respect for rights that was standard in 1950 in the founder states—distinguishing them from the defeated fascist states and communist tyrannies imposed on Europe in the late 1940s.

The calls for withdrawal that we have heard in relation to the convention come about as a result of these issues. I submit that this House will expect to see the European Convention on Human Rights reformed, or face a clamour which may be unavoidable.

14:07

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing this important debate on the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights. I echo the remarks of noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, about the important contribution the noble Lord has made to human rights over many years. I declare my interest as a delegate to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and a member of its Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. I am also the chair of the human rights committee at Liberal International, which is a designated NGO to the UN Human Rights Council.

In following the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, I have to say that I did not agree with his views but I am grateful that he and I are both free to say what we wish to. Millions elsewhere in the world are not, because they do not have the human rights and freedom to do so.

Others have already explained the creation of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the role of the Council of Europe in the establishment of the European Court of Human Rights. PACE appoints the judges and takes evidence on key matters relating to human rights, and it is able to bring states together to address failures, even—or especially—by PACE’s own member states.

PACE meets in two weeks’ time to address the new Georgian Government’s breaches of human rights following elections last year. Every day, many thousands of peaceful protestors come together across Georgia to remind the new Government that their elections were not democratic, and that new laws enabling imprisonment for the most minor offences, and the extrajudicial murder of journalists and imprisonment of civic leaders, including artists, actors, journalists and politicians, continue. As a result, PACE must decide whether to recognise the credentials of Georgian Dream, given these human rights infringements. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, PACE has done this before. Following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, PACE did not recognise the Russian delegation and Russia was expelled.

UN Watch, a Geneva-based NGO whose mission is to monitor the performance of the UN by the yardstick of its own charter, made the case in April 2022 to the UN General Assembly that, following the murder of civilians in Bucha in Ukraine, Russia should be suspended from the Human Rights Council. It is completely wrong to be overseeing the protection of human rights while clearly abusing them, and Russia was suspended by a two-thirds majority. Similarly, following the murder by Iranian police of women’s rights activist Mahsa Amini in 2022, the UN Economic and Social Council suspended Iran from the Commission on the Status of Women until 2026.

These two cases are important. The UN is a body of states that rarely agrees on everything but occasionally, with outrageous breaches of human rights, it is important that action is taken. Those two states, as well as China, are now using extraterritorial action, sadly a growing area of human rights abuses—for example, Putin’s murder of Litvinenko in London, the attempted murders in Salisbury of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, and the murder of Dawn Sturgess, a completely innocent bystander. This is making the UK and its people at risk of human rights infringements by other states on our own territory.

China, like Iran and Russia, follows and monitors exiles abroad and the families of those who have fled. The threat to their safety is real. In July 2023, the police in Southampton charged a Chinese national student with racially motivated assault after he and others assaulted a Hong Kong man on the street. In that same month in Southampton, footage emerged showing pro-Hong Kong demonstrators being violently attacked by a group of Chinese nationals.

Are our front-line police being trained to recognise this extraterritorial action by other countries? Are the individuals at risk being given support and protection? Are we working with other countries and the Council of Europe on how we tackle this particularly egregious threat to human rights?

14:11

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for so powerfully moving this debate with such a comprehensive and passionate opening statement. It gives us the opportunity to note the tremendous positive impact of the convention, not only here in the United Kingdom but elsewhere. I also record my thanks to Professor Paul Johnson of the University of Leeds for his advice and support.

The convention is a vital aspect of life in the United Kingdom. It does not merely enunciate a set of important principles that most of us agree with, such as the ability to speak freely, to hold our own beliefs and to be free from interference in our private lives, as others have said. Rather, it creates a tangible and effective mechanism to allow us all to seek redress if we feel that our human rights and fundamental freedoms have been violated.

The sad fact is that it is this very enforceability of the convention, particularly by the European Court of Human Rights, that has long caused hostility towards it—hostility from those who wrongly claim that the convention and the Strasbourg court are interfering with or even damaging life in the United Kingdom. Such arguments are not new, but I do not agree with them. The very strength of the convention, which is a living instrument, is that it allows individuals who are subject to unjustified interference in their rights and freedoms to hold those in power to account. I support the Strasbourg court and its work to interpret the convention in ways that maximise the rights and freedoms of individuals and that require Governments to address any violation of those rights and freedoms.

I support the rights and freedoms of all individuals, but particularly close to my heart is the issue of protecting the rights and freedoms of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. My life has been changed for the better because of this convention and the judgments from the court. The importance of the convention to LGBT people—indeed, to any minority—cannot be overstated. It has positively transformed lives, particularly those often shunned by the mainstream.

I turn to the judgments of the court. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who sadly cannot be in his place today, has asked me to specifically state that it was precisely because of the judgment ending the ban on gays serving in the military in the United Kingdom that we were able to end centuries of prejudice within the armed services that blighted so many lives. The Etherton review and its recommendations, accepted by the previous Government and this Government, have begun to repair some of the damage. I contend that it is because of brave individuals—in this case supported by Stonewall—who had the courage to go through arduous legal procedures that we have been able to right these wrongs, but we can do more.

Currently, because the UK has not signed up to Protocol 12, people in the United Kingdom have less protection from discrimination under the convention than in many other European nations. This is an unacceptable situation. It would be highly appropriate if, on this important anniversary, the Government would commit to extending the protection of Protocol 12 to all individuals in the United Kingdom.

In conclusion, in these dark times, as we witness unimaginable human rights atrocities on a grand scale in parts of our world, we need more assurances and protections on human rights, not fewer. Complacency is the enemy of much and many, never more so in the field of human rights and civil liberties. Long may the European Convention on Human Rights speak to us, and especially to those, both here in the United Kingdom and across the world, who would diminish the human rights of others.

14:16

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. Like him, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his very powerful opening.

In a long career at the Bar, I have had the privilege of taking 11 cases to the European Court of Human Rights and assisting on two others. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that the word “paradise” is not one that immediately comes to mind when addressing the 17 judges in that court. All the cases I have been involved in have been trade union cases, most of them concerning the right to strike. Your Lordships may wonder how the right to strike could be protected by the European convention. It is simple: the European court found that the right to strike was an inherent aspect of freedom of association and the right to form and to join a trade union for the protection of one’s interests, which is spelt out in Article 11. The court derived it not by a process of a living instrument but simply in accordance with the usual law on the interpretation of treaties—Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

The issue now on the right to strike is no longer whether it exists or is protected by the convention but the legitimacy of national restrictions on it. In the years that have followed its establishment in the European court nearly a quarter of a century ago, many cases have been won and many cases have been lost, but recently there have been some very disturbing decisions by the European court upholding severe restrictions on the right to strike. I mention without discussion Barış v Turkey, Humpert v Germany, Kaya v Turkey and Almaz v Turkey.

Whatever the reasons for this line of authorities over the last couple of years, my instinct today is that, save in the most egregious cases, trade unions should avoid applications to the European court in strike cases. But unlike the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, the fact that I do not like a judgment, or a line of judgments, does not detract by one iota from my wholehearted support for the European convention and the whole vital edifice of international law covering working life and beyond.

As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, this architecture was built on the corpses of tens of millions of people in the Second World War. It begins before the United Nations declaration, with the International Labour Organization Declaration of Philadelphia in 1944 —then the UN declaration in 1948, ILO convention 87 in 1949, convention 98 in 1950, and the European convention, also in 1950. That post-war momentum carried on into the 60s, with the European charter on social rights in 1961 and the two international covenants in 1966.

These instruments are of course autonomous, but the jurisdiction each generates informs that of the others, so that there is a consistency in international human rights standards. Neoliberalism may have ended the post-war consensus, and Hayek is now more influential than Keynes, but litigators, legislators and judges have a duty to uphold, deploy and be guided by these crucial instruments of civilisation and, in particular, the European convention.

14:20

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and to take part in the debate of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who gave a masterful introduction. I served for six years on the Council of Europe, and for two years I was the chair of a small sub-committee for the enforcement of European Court of Human Rights judgments. One of my Trivial Pursuit questions was: which country had failed the most applications to bring it into line? The answer I always got was Russia. I said no, so people said, “Well, it must be Turkey”. Actually, it was Italy. So the court does a valuable job.

I will add to the number of dates that have been mentioned. In 1966, Prime Minister Wilson accepted the jurisdiction of the court. That is also worth putting into the record because for 48 years, we have accepted its jurisdiction, and, in good times and bad, we have managed to survive.

I also had four years on the Venice Commission, which is another bit of international co-operation attached to the Council of Europe. For two years, I was its vice-chairman. I learned a lot about human rights because a lot of the Venice Commission references were concerned with one aspect or another of human rights. So I would also like the Government to reaffirm their commitment. I am sure they will, because that is the way I read the statements that have been made so far.

I will make two other observations. Where on earth is our Attorney-General? We never see him. He is the top law officer. I very much respect the noble Baroness who is here to reply to the debate, but, if ever there were a debate that needed the Government’s top lawyer, it is this one. I just make that point in passing.

I fully agree with a number of noble Lords who have said that the judges in the court, and the Council of Europe itself, have been busy with mission creep ever since it was set up. I recall that, when I went to Strasbourg as an elected MEP in 1979, the late John Silkin said to me, “Why do you want to join an outfit with no power?” I said to him, “John, put 435 politicians in a room and they’ll soon find it”. If you look at the reforms of the European Union—free movement, for instance, and all the rest—they date from that elected assembly.

I have one final point to make. The Government recently said that one of the problems was the

“exploitation of the

European Court of Human Rights

“by the human rights legal industry”.

The Government need to look at the legal industry. We need to find a way to do this because the judgment about chicken nuggets, which is often referred to, is a gross distortion of the work of the court. Maybe the Government could address this to see whether it is possible to issue some tighter guidance.

14:25

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights would have merited a celebration, even if the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that tireless champion of human rights worldwide, had not given us an occasion to do so in this Chamber today. For that, he deserves the utmost thanks.

Three things about the convention must surely not be forgotten. First, while it was the work of the collective responsibility of many European parliamentarians and lawyers, there was a major input by the British contingent, many of them Conservative members, following the lead of Sir Winston Churchill, who played such an important role in the establishment and early years of the Council of Europe. I am saddened to see that this involvement seems now to be more a cause of shame than of pleasure.

Secondly, as many noble Lords have said, the convention was drawn up in the dark shadow of some of the worst crimes against humanity, including the Holocaust—crimes perpetrated in our own continent by our own citizens. Its aim was to ensure protection for all our citizens against crimes committed, often by their own Governments.

Thirdly, when, at the end of the 1980s, the Cold War drew to a close, the convention and its court were available to provide the countries of central and eastern Europe— including at the time the Russian Federation and Belarus—the freedoms and legal protection they had never previously enjoyed under Communist Party rule. These are three achievements to be proud of and to treasure, however irritated some may feel at some of its court’s rulings.

I am afraid that I am no lawyer but my father was one, and he taught me that hard cases make bad law. It is lamentable that now, after these 75 years of achievement, some politicians and parties in this country and elsewhere in Europe are sharply critical of the convention and its court. The main bone of contention is the impact on immigration cases, as all our Governments struggle with the challenges of illegal migration and asylum seekers. It is odd, and I find it hard to justify, that these challenges are often quantifiably far greater and more acute in other European countries than in our own, but we seem to be making quite a meal of it.

Many critics here seem to be blissfully unaware of the extent to which the European Convention on Human Rights underpins fundamentally important parts of our constitutional structures and international agreements—most prominently, the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland and some of the most valuable parts of the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU, in particular those dealing with justice and home affairs. These are clearly additional reasons for all, right across the political spectrum, to share the Government’s view that withdrawal cannot be contemplated. It would be good if more voices were raised to that effect.

I have one final point. Our previous Prime Minister, the right honourable Rishi Sunak, got into the habit of calling the Europe Court of Human Rights a “foreign court”. That lamentable, dog-whistle nomenclature is not even accurate, since the court has had many admirable British judges down the years. But in any case, the terminology of speaking of a foreign court is all too typical of populist politicians of many of the main parties. It would be good if it could be taken out and buried on this 75th anniversary.

14:29

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for arranging to have this debate and for all his encouragement to me and many others in this House on human rights. I declare my interest as an ambassador working with the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security on a number of these issues. I thank also those who were kind enough to send me briefings for today.

I am pleased to speak on the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights, a treaty that has safeguarded the dignity and freedom of more than 700 million people since 1950. The United Kingdom was among the first to ratify in 1951, in the aftermath of World War II, when nations were united to ensure that tyranny and injustice never prevailed again. The convention is more than a legal instrument; it is a moral compass. It enshrines fundamental freedoms and the rights to life, liberty, security and justice, and it protects individuals from discrimination, torture and unlawful imprisonment, ensuring equal protection under the law. This is not an abstract document; it has evolved to meet modern challenges while upholding its core mission—defending human dignity.

Its impact is evident particularly in Northern Ireland, where the Good Friday agreement enshrines the convention, ensuring human rights in devolved legislation. This safeguard has reinforced peace and provided independent remedies when state actions have failed. Article 6, guaranteeing a fair trial, has prevented miscarriages of justice. Landmark cases such as the exoneration of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four illustrate how the convention has rectified grave wrongs and strengthened public trust in the judicial system.

Among other cases, in JD and A v the United Kingdom in 2019, a survivor of domestic abuse faced eviction after government housing benefit reforms failed to consider the need for a protected “panic room” under a government-sponsored safety scheme. The European court ruled that this violated Article 14, which protects against discrimination, highlighting the convention’s role in ensuring that policies do not disproportionately harm vulnerable women. In VCL and AN v the United Kingdom in 2021, two Vietnamese children trafficked into forced labour were arrested and imprisoned, despite the authorities knowing they were victims. The European court found that the UK had breached Article 4 on prohibition of slavery and Article 6 on right to a fair trial, emphasising that victims of trafficking should be protected and not prosecuted.

For those reasons, we must remain committed to the convention. Some have questioned whether to withdraw from this treaty. I caution against such thoughts, as doing so would undermine decades of progress and expose vulnerable populations to renewed injustices.

The convention’s influence extends beyond national borders, guiding legislative reforms, human rights education and justice in both post-conflict regions and modern societies. In Northern Ireland, adherence to the convention has reduced sectarian violence and safeguarded minority rights. In our courts, schools and communities, the convention has ensured that human rights are not abstract ideals but real, enforceable protections. When Governments are held to these high standards, society as a whole benefits, through fairer trials, inclusive education and transparent government.

Let us renew our commitment to this vital treaty. The European Convention on Human Rights remains as relevant today as it was 75 years ago. It is a cornerstone of democracy, peace and justice. I urge this House, and all who value fairness and human dignity, to stand united in its defence, ensuring that its protections guide us to a future where every person’s rights are upheld.

14:33

[Baroness Hale of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate and for his terrific speech in introducing it.

Perhaps I should declare an interest. I was privileged to be among Her Majesty’s judges sitting on the Woolsack to hear the Queen’s Speech in 1997, and I well remember the quiver of excitement with which we greeted the announcement that her Government intended to legislate to incorporate the convention into UK law. This was not, or not just, because of the intellectual excitement that a new set of legal toys would be given to us to play with; it was because we were going to be given the tools to protect the fundamental rights of some of the most vulnerable people in the country.

By then, it had become apparent that UK law did not always live up to the convention standards. Others have mentioned the vital part that the UK played in setting up the Council of Europe and the convention, but some have described this as the “export theory of human rights”: foreigners needed them because they did not have them; we did not need them because we already did, so the European convention was seen as embodying all the rights which UK people already enjoyed.

Unfortunately, this was not always the case. The UK was losing an average of 18 cases a year in the European court before the implementation of the Human Rights Act. Turning the convention rights into UK law meant that we judges could speak the same language and use the same concepts. Our law was enormously enriched thereby, and far fewer cases went to Strasbourg as a result and very few succeeded. I should remind your Lordships that it was the UK that invented the principle of constitutional interpretation that constitutional documents are a living tree, capable of development within its natural limits.

As others have reminded us, the convention has done a great deal of good for vulnerable and disadvantaged people such as children, families, people with mental disorders and disabilities, victims of crime, and people who suffer discrimination for no good reason but because of, for example, their sexuality, their ethnicity or the colour of their skin. It was the convention which insisted that children whose parents were not married to each other were entitled to the same family relationships as children whose parents were married. It was the convention which insisted that if the state wished to remove children from their homes to protect them from abuse or neglect, the process had to be fair to everybody involved, both children and their families. It was the convention which insisted that people with mental disorders and disabilities should not be deprived of their liberty without proper safeguards and the opportunity to challenge it. It was the convention which insisted there should be no discrimination in the enjoyment of the convention rights because of a person’s sex, race, colour or other characteristic such as sexuality or disability. The survivor of a same-sex relationship should have the same right to remain in the family home as did the survivor of an opposite-sex relationship.

That is the essential purpose of all human rights instruments, whether contained in international treaties such as the convention or in the written constitutions of almost every developed country in the world: to guard against the infringement of a person’s fundamental rights simply because they belong to a group which the majority does not like. As I ventured to say in a judgment given in this House when it was still the highest court in the land:

“Democracy values everyone equally even if the majority does not”.


To conclude, that is why it was especially shocking when this Parliament legislated to exclude a particular group of unpopular people from the protection of their human rights. Human rights are universal and should belong to everyone.

14:38

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an adviser to DLA Piper on AI policy and regulation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for not only securing this debate but opening it with such an inspirational speech. What a huge pleasure it is to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale. I agree with every word she said.

The new Council of Europe framework convention on artificial intelligence is another living demonstration that the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights are still highly relevant after 75 years. The AI framework convention does not seek to replace the ECHR but rather to extend its protections into the digital age. AI now permeates our daily lives, making decisions that affect our privacy, liberty and dignity. These systems can perpetuate discrimination, erode privacy and challenge fundamental freedoms in a way that demands new protections. Open for signature in September 2024, the AI framework convention is the first legally binding international instrument on AI, setting clear standards for risk assessment and impact management throughout the life cycle of AI systems.

The framework convention’s principles require transparency and oversight, ensuring that AI systems cannot operate as black boxes, making decisions that affect people’s lives without accountability. They require parties to adopt specific measures for identifying, assessing, preventing and mitigating risks posed by AI systems, and a specific human rights impact assessment has been developed. The convention recognises that, in the age of AI, protecting human rights requires more than individual remedies; it demands accessible and effective remedies for human rights violations resulting from AI systems. Rather than merely reacting to harms after they occur, the framework mandates consideration of society-scale effects before AI systems are deployed. I only wish, having heard what its director had to say on Tuesday, that our AI Security Institute had the same approach.

The framework convention was achieved through unprecedented consultation, involving not just the 46 member states of the Council of Europe but observer states, civil society, academia and industry representatives. Beyond European nations, it has attracted signatories including Israel, the United States—albeit under the previous Administration—and, most recently, Japan and Canada, in February this year.

However, a framework is only as good as its implementation, and this brings me to my central question to the Government. What is their plan? The Ministry of Justice’s Report to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Government’s Response to Human Rights Judgments 2023-24 said:

“Once the treaty is ratified and brought into effect in the UK, existing laws and measures to safeguard human rights from the risks of AI will be enhanced”.


How will existing UK law be amended to align with the framework convention? What additional resources and powers will be given to our regulatory bodies? What mechanisms will be put in place to monitor and assess the impact of AI systems on vulnerable groups? The convention offers us tools to prevent such problems, but only if we implement it effectively.

As we mark 75 years of the European Convention on Human Rights, we should remember that its enduring strength lies not just in its principles but in how nations have given those principles practical effect through domestic law and institutions. The UK has long been a leader in both human rights and technological innovation. I urge the Government to present a comprehensive implementation plan for the AI framework convention. Our response to this challenge will determine whether the digital age enhances or erodes our fundamental rights. I do not need to emphasise the immense power of big tech currently. We need to see this as a time when we are rising to meet new challenges with the same vision and commitment that created the European Convention on Human Rights, 75 years ago.

14:42

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, this is a timely debate and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing it. I declare an interest as a member of Justice, and indeed a past member of its council for some years.

The European Convention on Human Rights is a significant document. It embodies important values, but, equally, important and legitimate criticisms can be made of the jurisprudence that the court has generated. What the United Kingdom should do now and in the future has become a legitimate question. The concerns that I will express in this speech go not to the convention itself but to its misapplication by the courts and the implications for our constitution.

The Strasbourg court has the task of defining convention rights in practice. In performing that task, the court has treated the convention as a living instrument. That is, of itself, not a term in the treaty. It has used that to alter the scope of rights to give effect to changes in social attitudes—matters which in the United Kingdom are generally best left to Parliament.

I will give some examples. In Scoppola v Italy (No. 3), the Strasbourg court declared the statute which barred serving prisoners from voting at elections to be incompatible with the convention. It seems startling that the electoral franchise is not a matter on which the representatives of the general body of citizens have any say. Another example is the recent extraordinary climate change decision in KlimaSeniorinnen v Switzerland, which the Swiss Parliament, unsurprisingly, voted to ignore.

Articles 8 and 10 have been used to gag the press. In the case of Al-Skeini, the House of Lords excluded claims against the Army because the victims had not been within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom. Strasbourg overturned that decision, but I suggest that the parties to the convention never intended that it should apply to warlike operations carried out by member states in foreign jurisdictions. Strasbourg has expanded the range of the convention and interpreted it in ways well beyond anything envisaged when it was made.

Issues of public policy involve choices between competing considerations—that is the essence of government and legislation; it is what our Parliament is there to decide. But where do we go? We are on the horns of a dilemma. The constitutional effects of leaving the convention would be serious. The United Kingdom would likely be expelled from the Council of Europe, which I do not endorse. Withdrawal would put the United Kingdom in breach of the Good Friday agreement, written into the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and none of us would want that. The convention is also baked into the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement—the TCA. The United Kingdom denouncing the ECHR would be grounds for the EU to terminate the part of the TCA on law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, which would be a serious problem for us all.

However, something must be done. At a minimum, we must look again at the Human Rights Act. It should be amended to mitigate the constitutional problems to which it gives rise—but that is for another speech.

14:46

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I too extend my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his truly magnificent opening.

I declare an interest: I was a government lawyer for 34 years, and the ECHR often presented legal obstacles for the Government of the day, who I was advising. I understand, therefore, why some would like to withdraw from the ECHR.

One of the reasons often given for withdrawal is around Article 3, which, as interpreted by Strasbourg, prevents the UK sending failed asylum seekers, and others, back to their countries of origin where there are grounds for believing there is a risk that they will be ill-treated, however compelling the public interest reasons for removing them. This is the non-refoulement principle. I do not see how withdrawing from the ECHR would be the answer.

Politically, it would cause difficulties for the Belfast agreement, which assumes continued ECHR membership, and, as we have heard, it would risk ending criminal justice co-operation with the EU. Legally, in addition to many other international treaties that replicate the effect of Article 3, we are bound by customary international law arising from the “constant and uniform practice” of states, including the United Kingdom, complying with the non-refoulement principle, at least where the risk of severe ill-treatment is concerned. Leaving the ECHR to try to get around Article 3 would raise questions about our future compliance with customary international law.

There is no doubt that the Strasbourg court has used the living instrument doctrine in ways with which some contracting states may now disagree. A good example of that is the line of case law beginning with Al-Skeini, which has been referred to, on the extraterritorial effect of the convention. However, the answer to any perceived undesirable effects of the living instrument doctrine is not to leave the convention but to reform it, by bringing together contracting states to instigate reform, as was done recently with Protocol 15 on subsidiarity.

For example, where a specific piece of international law governs an issue, then perhaps the more general ECHR either should not apply or the Strasbourg court should be required to take account of it—which is a recognised principle of international law. This could be the case in respect of the Geneva conventions on armed conflict, the Paris Agreement on climate change and possibly even the refugee convention, where, unlike under Article 3 as interpreted by Strasbourg, narrow exceptions on grounds of security can apply in certain circumstances.

In addition, we must ensure our rich human rights heritage is preserved for future generations by a programme of civic and constitutional education on human rights and the balance to be struck between such rights and individual responsibilities, as recommended by Sir Peter Gross’s independent review of the Human Rights Act in 2021.

In conclusion, as we look at the increasing number of human rights abuses taking place around the world, which are totally blind to the rule of law, the scales are now weighted strongly in favour of continued membership of the ECHR, while seeking any reforms which will bring the convention more in line with what the contracting states may seek now in 2025.

14:50

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and I am glad to begin my remarks by stating that bald fact. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, that, if there were tick boxes for their speeches, I would put a tick in and sit down because I do not want to say any more than that.

There was a debate recently in Strasbourg, entitled, rather quaintly, “Multiperspectivity in the field of journalism”, which was all about how journalists can see the same facts and report two entirely different stories. I want to apply it now to the House of Lords: people see the same facts and draw entirely different narratives from them. I have always felt a bit fragile in your Lordships’ House, since I have no political experience and certainly no legal experience. Consequently, I listen to the debate in order to hear where things stand.

And multiperspectivity has marked this debate. In the political sphere, all I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is that it is such a relief to me that two rows behind him sits the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, whose remarks on the Council of Europe and the convention were so positive. He has served with such distinction in Europe, and he is widely honoured for the contribution he has made to its affairs. So, there is multiperspectivity straight in my eye as I look across the Chamber.

Similarly on the legal arguments, we had all those debates about immigration during the tenure of the last Government. From the government side, the noble Lord, Lord Murray—who is here—was obliged by convention not to disclose what legal advice the Government were receiving, but he did a doughty job at the Dispatch Box. It was always difficult for me as a non-lawyer to hear distinguished lawyers on each side of the argument and then for those of us who stand listening to know how to make the distinctions we needed to make.

I have just joined the Constitution Committee, so the future of Britain is under threat.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

But the rule of law is what we have set ourselves as our first project. Last week, I had breakfast at the Supreme Court. Never have I been surrounded by so many stars in the galaxy as I was then. I made the point that the United Nations charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European convention all have as Article 6 access to a fair trial.

I started my remarks on that occasion by stipulating that the architecture of my entire life has been built on the fact that, when I was five and a half years of age, a letter from my father’s solicitor to my mother indicated that, because she was the guilty party in their relationship, she should leave his client’s—my father’s—house within one week and take her children with her. My mother could not defend herself against that because she did not have two pennies to put together to get the legal counsel or support. In any case, the law was different then.

Out of that little exchange in the Supreme Court has come a magnificent response from one of the justices, who specialises in access to justice and brought out a report in 2016 about how to deal with people not having access to justice and wanting to have its recommendations implemented all these years later.

I look forward to the future—all those voices to listen to and all those cases to weigh up. I have to say that politicians should try a little harder, and the lawyers should try a little harder, to realise that not everybody is one of them.

14:55

[Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I wish to say a few words about the relationship between judicial protection of human rights and the rule of law and, in particular, about the way in which Parliament should respond to declarations of incompatibility in cases of constitutional importance.

In his classic work on The Rule of Law, Lord Bingham identified important distinctions between what one might call the primary articles, which confer an unqualified right to a defined outcome—not to be tortured and a right to a fair trial—and articles such as Article 8. Article 8 guarantees not a defined outcome but a respect for private and family life. It is subject to an important qualification, which Lord Bingham calls

“a community exception, a recognition that the rights of the individual may properly be restricted, in the interests of the community at large, if certain … conditions are satisfied”.

When judges are asked to give effect to and protect qualified rights, such as those conferred by Article 8, they are being asked to make an evaluation of the relevant, competing considerations, which necessarily involves moral and political analysis.

The danger is obvious. It is highlighted by a different chapter in Lord Bingham’s book, entitled “Law not Discretion”. There, he wrote:

“Questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not the exercise of discretion”.


The balance is held, or should be held, by the fundamental constitutional principle that Parliament is sovereign. The Human Rights Act was carefully drafted in a way that reflects this. Judges are not able to strike down Acts of Parliament. Senior judges can make declarations of incompatibility. In most such cases, Parliament properly reacts by amending the legislation in question, in accordance with the court’s judgment. It is not obliged to do so and has not always done so.

As a matter of procedure, following the making of a declaration of incompatibility, Section 10 of the Act permits the Government to amend legislation by a remedial order, which will normally go through on the nod. The Act states, importantly, that this form of fast-track amendment is permissible only where the Minister considers that there are

“compelling reasons for proceeding under this section”.

I turn to a current matter, in which the Government propose to make a remedial order of this nature. In short summary, a few years ago the Supreme Court held in the Adams case that Mr Adams’s internment in the 1970s had been unlawful because the relevant certificate had been signed by the wrong Minister. This rather technical point, taken over 40 years late, opened an unappealing vista of many thousands of claims for compensation. A provision was introduced into the legacy Act with the support of all major parties, which—put colloquially—neutralised the Adams decision.

In 2024, a single judge of the Northern Ireland High Court made a declaration that this provision was incompatible with the claimant’s rights. That decision may have been right; it may well have been wrong. It has been the subject of penetrating—some might think lethal—criticism in a Policy Exchange paper written by Professor Ekins and Stephen Laws. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, provided an illuminating preface, in which he supported the views expressed and explained precisely why it was inappropriate to respond to the declaration of incompatibility by making a remedial order pursuant to Section 10.

The Government appealed the Northern Ireland decision. It is beyond question that that appeal raised issues of fundamental constitutional importance. In summer 2024, the new Government withdrew the appeal. The reasons for that decision are obscure. Now it is proposed that a remedial order be made whose effect will be to remove the neutralising provision. As I have explained, this can lawfully be done only if there is a compelling reason to use the Section 10 fast-track procedure. There is plainly no such compelling reason. On the contrary, there are compelling reasons why the primary legislation should be amended in the usual way, which will give Parliament the opportunity to consider the matter carefully, as clearly needs to happen. If the Minister were able to update the House as to the Government’s plans in this respect, that would be of great interest.

15:00

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I join others in warmly commending the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate and for his excellent speech, which has set off a very valuable debate. The noble Lord is a true liberal, whatever his current location. It is unusual for a Member of the House of Lords to have the honour to chair the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but it is a tribute to him and an honour for this House that he does so. I should record my interest, which is in the register, as a vice-president to my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, of the organisation Justice.

We have heard voices today calling for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, or at least to seek to change it or the Human Rights Act. Do we really want our country to be bracketed with outlaws such as Russia, Belarus and Hungary in ignoring and rubbishing human rights? That would be a regressive and deplorable step.

I agree with the comment by Amnesty—and I do not always—that the conduct of the current Russian Government should be a reminder to us all of our good fortune to live in a country with respect for the rule of law and which, in the main, complies with the rulings of independent courts. The UK leaving the convention would be exactly what Putin wants.

The convention, and the court system that it is attached to, forms a core part of the framework of the long-standing international alliance of states gathered together in the Council of Europe, dedicated to the pursuit of the common goals of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. I commend noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Brinton, who take part in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which I have never had the honour to do.

I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—I am grateful he is still in his place, as I know he has other commitments—that Commonwealth countries are not in the ECHR system because they are not, except for Malta, Cyprus and the UK, located in Europe.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for replying to that point. The point is that they do not rely on an international agreement to provide very good human rights to their citizens. Why should we be different?

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I think answering that might set up another mini-debate, and I am not going to be tempted to go down that road.

For a major power such as us, a founding member of this European system, to leave the convention—and thus the Council of Europe, a point made by several noble Lords—would sow division and confusion among liberal states just when we need solidarity. It would demonstrate that the protection of individual rights against the excesses of state power is an unimportant and futile endeavour.

Indeed, our membership, along with that of all the other liberal democracies in Europe, of the council and its convention is part of the system of regional security that is so vital now. It creates the preconditions for peace through the promotion of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, and helps inoculate people and Governments against the pernicious propaganda coming out of Moscow and elsewhere.

The ECHR is not some remote, foreign product to be resisted as an imposition. That point was made by one noble Lord—I apologise, but I have forgotten who. We should celebrate the fact that the UK has played a pivotal role in not only creating but shaping the ECHR. I noted that several of the lawyers involved, such as the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, seem to come from Merseyside. That must be a fertile source of human rights inspiration. Our judges continue to contribute to the future of the convention system and the wider protection of human rights. I hope that the Government will highlight the UK’s role and work to combat negative rhetoric, misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

The UK’s commitment to the ECHR, and more widely to the rule of law, boosts not only our international reputation but our attractiveness as a place to do business, by emphasising that individual and business rights are protected. Our commitment to the international rule of law underpins our global economic competitiveness and attractiveness as a destination for investment, which the Government are rightly emphasising. It is also part of the Government’s growth mission.

I was intrigued to read an article in the Times this week by the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond. He is not in his place but, as this article was published, I feel able to comment on it without being discourteous. The article’s headline began, “I'm no fan but”, and such a “but” always puts one on notice. His declaration that

“Trump’s effect may be positive … prompting a startling realignment of ideas”


was a jolt, because I must confess that I can see nothing positive coming from President Trump. One of the positive nudges that the noble Lord felt was a result of President Trump was that the ECHR should be rewritten. He did not say how. If he meant that it would be rewritten only in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to, that might be sensible. We are all open to any useful reforms.

The noble Lord, Lord Hague, then confused me by stressing that these actions of Trump are

“a reminder that an effective democratic state is part of a moral order in which its policies should be anchored; that its reach and respect in the world rely on being able to distinguish right from wrong; that the abuse of great power brings resistance and rejection”.

I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord in those remarks. My contention would be that, far from rewriting the ECHR as a reaction to President Trump, we should treasure it all the more as guarding against the kind of developments that, sadly, we are seeing in the United States.

The Human Rights Act brought rights home, as has been said. It was one of the products of the talks on political and constitutional reform 30 years ago between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, known as the Cook-Maclennan talks—after Robin Cook and Robert Maclennan. I am very proud of that and other products. I was delighted to hear the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, stress the value of the Human Rights Act.

We have heard that applications to Strasbourg have been on a general downward trend over the last 10 years. The Human Rights Act has contributed to that, as a lot of those cases have not gone to Strasbourg but have been settled domestically. In 2024, there were only three cases against the UK heard by the court, and only one found a violation. The victor was the Daily Mail, in a freedom of expression case. There were no interim measures or injunctions issued against the UK last year. This is a testament to the strength of our national system of human rights protections. One of the reasons for this harmonious state of affairs is that a productive dialogue has taken place between the Strasbourg and UK courts to deal with any tensions or disagreements. This was confirmed in the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale.

For some people, no bill of rights, whether the European Convention or any other, will be acceptable in the UK system of a political constitution and parliamentary sovereignty. These arguments are always presented as concerns about democracy and democratic accountability. However, they almost always end in arguments for centralising power in the Executive. A lot of human rights challenges are to call the Executive to account. References to the court going too far as a reason to leave the convention system more generally are almost always based in choosing to emphasise the occasional controversial case where the speaker disagrees of the outcome.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I emphasise that any upset to our relationship with the ECHR would affect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which is a crucial instrument. Under that agreement, the UK Government committed to the incorporation of the convention into Northern Irish law. Proposals to legislate for the continued application of the convention into Northern Irish law while withdrawing the UK as a whole from the convention are fundamentally flawed, and there is no practical way of legislating for partial implementation.

In addition, the UK is obliged under the Windsor Framework, following our withdrawal from the EU, to observe a non-diminution of rights as set out in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. There are also, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, commitments in the trade and co-operation agreement to our continued adhesion to the ECHR. Any damage to our human rights observance could imperil the renewal of our data adequacy agreement, crucial to both business and law enforcement co-operation with the EU. For all these reasons, we should not imperil our positive engagement with the European convention and court but instead celebrate our great achievement and good fortune in creating it and sustaining it for 75 years.

15:10

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak for these Benches in this debate procured by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, whose work in the field of human rights needs no introduction. In fact, I remember that when I grew up in Liverpool—I do not know whether, in the eyes of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that now makes me a human rights lawyer—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was campaigning for the rights of Jews and Christians in the USSR to practise their religion. Therefore, I am especially grateful to him for today’s debate, in which we have had the privilege of hearing a number of very fine speeches, some of which have relied on the undoubted human right to push the boundaries of the advisory time limits.

Today’s debate is about not human rights per se but the European Convention on Human Rights, and the two are not the same. To make the obvious point, we had human rights in this country before we signed the European Convention on Human Rights, and many countries in this world that are not signatories to that convention still have and champion human rights. But the European Convention on Human Rights has a long history, and we played a central role in its inception. We were one of the original signatories and, as your Lordships have heard, we helped to draft it.

In 1951 two important things happened in the field of human rights in this country. First, we as a state signed the European Convention on Human Rights and, secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was born. We were one of the first states to ratify the convention, and since 1965 we have also accepted the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court—the European Court of Human Rights. I am proud of our role in building the more just future for Europe from which we all benefit today.

I have mentioned the dates because they are important for context and background. When the ECHR was being drafted, Europe was still recovering from the horrors and destruction of the Second World War. It was only two years after the Nuremberg trials that in 1948 the United Nations promulgated its Universal Declaration of Human Rights, from which the ECHR’s founding principles flowed. I therefore suggest that it is appropriate that on the annunciator right now we have both the anniversary of the ECHR and the Holocaust Memorial Bill.

I want to move from the history to the ECHR today. I agree with a lot of what my noble friend Lord Lilley—who explained to me why he had to leave—said about the history. There is sometimes a pretence about the history—it is not all as people say it was—but let me move to today’s position.

There can be no doubt, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, explained, that the ECHR has led to legal advances. It has enabled judges to make innovative and expansive rulings in the fields of sexual equality, privacy and personal autonomy, to pick just a few topics. But we also have to accept that the approach of the ECHR is to entrust such lawmaking to a court—the Strasbourg court—that is accountable to no one. And while that might be good if you prefer its decisions to those that Governments might otherwise have made, it creates an obvious conflict between parliamentary democracy and an unelected court, especially when that court has gone on to adopt what I suggest to be a very expansive interpretation of the convention, as my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth explained.

Those conflicts range far and wide, and well beyond the scope of this speech, but you can get a sense of the issue from an analysis of 25 leading cases from that court, analysed by Professor Richard Ekins and others in an illuminating paper published by Policy Exchange. It is important to appreciate that it is not a bug; it is a feature. The lack of accountability of the European Court of Human Rights was precisely what made it appealing to those who set it up in the aftermath of fascism and Nazism. They saw the court as providing a check on elected Governments who might otherwise abuse their power. I understand that desire and I share it to an extent, but there are limits, and I wonder whether last year’s decision of the court in the Swiss climate change case has shown that we have reached those limits and perhaps gone beyond them.

Let me explain why. In 2021 the Swiss electorate rejected in a referendum an Act of the Swiss Parliament that called for a 30% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels by 2030. That Act, rejected by the electorate, was then replaced by an Act that provided for a staged reduction by 2050. That more moderate Act was approved by the Swiss people in a referendum. There is nothing in the convention about public health and certainly no mention of climate change, but that did not stand in the way of the Strasbourg court, which held that the Article 8 right to private and family life required Governments to take what it called effective measures to combat climate change, and those measures had to be consistent with the views of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

That of course is the answer to the oft-made challenge, first made today by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws: “Which rights don’t you like?”. I like them all as drafted, but not as interpreted expansively.

The court held in that case that Swiss law was inconsistent with the convention. What about the fact that the Swiss people and their parliament had twice had a say in referenda? The court said that

“democracy cannot be reduced to the will of the majority of the electorate and elected representatives, in disregard of the requirements of the rule of law”.

I give way to no one when it comes to the rule of law, but the rule of law does not require judges to have a roving commission over whole areas of contested and contestable national public policy in complete disregard of the expressed wishes of both parliaments and the people. As our judges on the court have been mentioned, I should add that the UK judge on the court wrote a powerful and principled dissent to this decision that repays careful reading.

The question is not whether the decision is right or wrong on the facts. It is not about whether climate change is real—it is—or whether we should take it seriously; we should. It is about whether and how we make laws on such issues in a democracy. As my noble friend Lord Sandhurst pointed out, in cases where you have contested issues of public policy and you have to balance a lot of factors, the effect of the court’s decision is that these arrangements are arrogated only to the court. Not only must the Swiss change their statute but it seems that they must also take steps to ensure that the changed statute is not itself rejected in a referendum by voters. To pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, this does not centralise power in the Executive; it centralises power in a court—contrary to the expressed wishes, in that case, of both the parliament and the people. Nor, I suggest, is it consistent with the rule of law. Some of the principles of the rule of law are that it must be stable, clear, publicly accessible and not retrospective. The decision of the Strasbourg court in that case is none of those things. As the UK judge said in his dissent, his

“disagreement is of a more fundamental nature and … goes to the very heart of the role of the Court within the Convention system”.

He ended,

“I fear that in this judgment the majority has gone beyond what it is legitimate and permissible for this Court to do and, unfortunately, in doing so, may well have achieved exactly the opposite effect to what was intended”.

Those of us who have concerns about the approach of the Strasbourg court have those concerns because we believe in human rights, not because we have concerns about human rights.

Our party has made a powerful and lasting contribution to law and justice in Europe and beyond. We remain committed to those values of law and justice, but we need to recognise that the Europe that gave birth to the convention is a Europe of the past. We need new international or improved agreements—as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, identified—that are fit for the present challenges we face and appropriate for those of the future.

I know that over the past couple of years we had long and heated debates in this House on immigration policy. The fact is that over the past years our ability to manage immigration has been hindered by interpretations of international laws, including the ECHR, which are a long way from the intentions of the states when they signed up to those treaties and conventions. I may not be the only one who has had a little wry smile over the past months at hearing echoes of what I used to say from that Dispatch Box repeated in press summaries from No. 10. Things look different when you are in government, as I think the party opposite is now finding. I accept that press reporting of judgments is often exaggerated and sometimes plain wrong, but those who deny that there is a problem at all are also wrong.

That is why we tabled an amendment in the other place to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill that would disapply the Human Rights Act from immigration matters. It is ultimately important that Parliament and Ministers have effective control over our borders.

I will end on a note where we all agree. In a world where the threat of totalitarianism remains, we must not disavow our moral duty to promote justice. That principled stand is entirely compatible with work, perhaps across the House, to ensure that our international agreements remain appropriate for the challenges of today and the future. I again congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on initiating this debate and wish him many more years of fighting, in good health, for the causes close to his heart, both in this House and outside it.

15:21

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for that speech. It is good to see him, and I am very sorry to have learned of the death of his father recently—may his memory be a blessing. I enjoyed the noble Lord’s speech very much. I did not agree with some of it, but he is always entertaining and speaks with passion.

I would gently say on the issue of immigration, about which I argued with very many Ministers over the 14 years we enjoyed in opposition, that the previous Government completely lost control of the system. They had an expensive distraction with Rwanda. There was no co-ordination across Whitehall and minimal engagement with foreign Governments on the topic. I wonder what some of the Ministers were doing: they made speeches about immigration but then did precious little to deal with the problem. What the noble Lord says about the ECHR may or may not be right but there were so many other things that could and should have been done that were not, so we have plenty to do when it comes to tackling immigration before we get to ECHR reform.

Having said all that, I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He has inspired many people, inside and outside this Chamber, over very many years. I thought he set out his argument most convincingly and I thank him for securing this debate.

I begin by completely reinforcing the assertion from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that we always start with history; yes, we often do. I will begin not as far back as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans with the 10 commandments, but with March 1951 when the UK became the first country to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights—the ECHR. Signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, it came into force in the United Kingdom in 1953. Although some commentators would have us believe that the ECHR was imposed on us unwillingly by our neighbours, this is not the case.

In response to the horrors of the Second World War, which engulfed the world in a generation, Winston Churchill was a leading proponent of the Council of Europe, which made this convention the first order of business. Indeed, I know that the Lord Speaker and many of my noble colleagues recently commemorated the historic moment when the treaty that led to the creation of the Council of Europe was signed at St James’s Palace in 1949. I recognise the contributions made by Members of both Houses who serve on the delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig.

Furthermore, a British Conservative MP and lawyer, David Maxwell Fyfe, played a leading role in drafting the convention. The pioneering Labour Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin was active in shaping the convention, and the first president of the European Court of Human Rights was British too, Arnold McNair—Lord McNair.

The Government are proud of Britain’s role in the formation of the European Convention on Human Rights, and of all that it has made possible for our individual rights and freedoms in the decades since. That spans everything from forming an important pillar of the devolution settlements to underpinning guarantees in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and supporting the safety and security of British citizens by facilitating cross-border law enforcement and judicial co-operation in the trade and co-operation agreement.

Yet so much of what the ECHR does for us goes unsung, precisely because so much of it sounds so abstract. So, noble Lords have today shone a light on some of the ways it has made a difference to the lives of people across our country for decades by reminding us of some of those stories. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti explained movingly the impact of the convention on victims of sexual violence. My noble friends Lady Kennedy and Lady Goudie, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, reminded us how central the ECHR is to stability in Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lord Rook spoke about freedom of religion and belief. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, spoke about how the ECHR has literally changed his life. My noble friend Lord Hendy reminded us of the impact of the convention on trade union activity.

We also considered the abolition of corporal punishment in the UK. In 1982, it was an ECHR ruling that put an end to schoolchildren being beaten against their parents’ wishes and paved the way for the eventual abolition of corporal punishment in all state and private schools in the UK. There is also the status of homosexuality in Northern Ireland. Male homosexual acts were a crime in Northern Ireland until 1982, yet a human rights case brought to the ECHR by a gay rights activist from Belfast argued that the criminal law in Northern Ireland amounted to an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his private life. It was rightly decriminalised.

Then there is the duty of states to protect the right to life. The families of the 97 football fans who lost their lives in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster relied on that right while they campaigned for the truth to obtain a new inquest, which concluded that the fans were unlawfully killed. There is also the lifting of the ban on LGBT people joining the military, following a landmark case in 2000 brought by two British servicemen who had been dismissed from the army simply for being gay. The law changed, allowing members of the Armed Forces to be open about their sexuality.

Then there is the protection of religious belief in the workplace. When an employee of British Airways wore a small cross around her neck as a sign of her religious faith, she was suspended from work without pay because the cross violated its uniform policy. Yet, in 2013, the ECHR ruled that this was an unreasonable interference with this woman’s right to freedom of religion, leading to a change in relevant standards in the UK.

Indeed, the ECHR continues to provide protections to the rights of British citizens at home and abroad. Only last month the court ruled that the Cypriot authorities had failed a British woman who alleged that she had suffered horrific sexual violence in Cyprus in 2019, finding that there had been a lack of effective investigation and a violation of her right to respect for a private and family life.

These stories remind us of just a few of the ways our country and our people have benefited from the protections of the European Court of Human Rights over the years. It is important that, as well as applying the law consistently and working in partnership with others well beyond our continent, we tell these stories.

Sadly, there are some who seek to paint a picture of the UK constantly under attack by the European Court of Human Rights. I am not saying that that is what the noble Lord opposite did today—his comments were considered—but it is worth noting too that the UK has one of the lowest rates of applications to the court per million inhabitants, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said. Last year, only one adverse judgment was given, finding one violation against the UK.

The Human Rights Act, which a Labour Government put in place, gives effect to the ECHR in UK law. It was wonderful to hear the recollection from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, of the Queen’s Speech that made this announcement. It is an important part of our constitutional arrangements and fundamental to human rights protections in the UK.

Of course, no organisation is perfect; neither the ECHR nor the European Court of Human Rights is static or frozen in time. The ECHR is a living instrument that evolves in response to emerging challenges and challenging times. The European Court of Human Rights has shown itself to be open to change. Indeed, during the UK’s presidency in 2012, Council of Europe member states adopted a substantial package of reform measures, and only last year, the European Court of Human Rights introduced more fairness and accountability into its approach to interim measures following consultation with member states. There is one accepted principle of dialogue between national courts and the European Court of Human Rights, through which the UK continues to influence the direction and impact of the ECHR. Our respect for the rule of law domestically and internationally is profound, as we are demonstrating through our actions. That is more important than ever at a time where we have been dealt a stark reminder of what is at stake for all of us.

The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, asked about development and education. I can confirm our commitment and support along the lines of his comments, and partnerships in higher education. He put a helpful question. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, invited me to talk about AI regulation. He will forgive me if I do not, but I am sure that a DSIT Minister will be along very shortly and will be happy to take his questions on that.

There are things that we all need for a good life: security, prosperity, equality, human rights and the rule of law. I am afraid I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, but I agree with many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths, Lord Carter, Lord Balfe, Lord Hannay, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said we should, this Government are firmly committed to the European Convention on Human Rights and we will never leave it. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said, quoting former Labour Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, it is self-evident that a world where every individual’s rights are respected is a world that will be more peaceful, and where Britain will be more prosperous and more secure.

As we reset and deepen our relationships with friends across Europe and beyond to help us face the challenges and opportunities of our times, in this 75th year of the European Convention on Human Rights, we welcome this chance to reflect on all we have achieved and to look forward to what needs to come next. We are a Government with a progressive, realistic outlook, meeting the world as it is and working towards how we want it to be in the months and years ahead. We look forward to the celebrations in Strasbourg in November.

15:32

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, referred to his childhood, when I was his family’s constituency Member of Parliament in Liverpool. The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, in her reply to the debate referred to something which deeply affected me during my time as a Member of Parliament; I never expected to have to visit families whose children had died at a football match, as they had done at Hillsborough.

So I have been enormously grateful for the effect of the European convention in helping to shift the law, and to the Government for the commitment they gave at the general election to enact the so-called Hillsborough law. It is an issue the Joint Committee on Human Rights has engaged with. Indeed, we recently published correspondence between the committee and the Government on the duty of candour. It is a good example of how events that take place here in our own jurisdiction can have implications elsewhere, and of how they can be affected from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and from person to person.

Some very kind words have been said by noble Lords today, not least about my longevity. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rook, who said that he hoped one day to grow up to be like me. I do not wish that on him or anybody else. I feel a bit like Methuselah at the end of today’s debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, for whom I have great fondness and admiration, made a very good speech about why we should keep our feet firmly on the ground and never lose sight of the human impact of the decisions that we make. He told us that he had been to the Supreme Court and felt as though he had been surrounded by stars in the galaxy. You do not need to go all the way to the Supreme Court to feel as though you are surrounded by stars in the galaxy. I pay particular tribute to some of the distinguished and celebrated Peers who have spoken in today’s debate. These have been wise voices, and we would be foolish not to study carefully what has been said to us from all sides of the argument. This debate has been worthy of the anniversary, but also worthy of your Lordships’ House.

Obviously, I will not try to respond to every speech, so I will be brief. Reference was made to Article 3. My noble friend Lord Carter was right that even if we did not have the ECHR, the 1951 convention on the treatment of refugees would still be in place. We were also cautioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and others about the dangers of building a whole argument on one or two cases—such as the so-called chicken nuggets case, which was referred to. Noble Lords should go away and read Joshua Rozenberg’s article this week, where he reminds us that in that case, a lower-tier tribunal got it wrong and an upper-tier tribunal got it right. He writes that the argument presented in that case will not prevent the deportation of someone who may be here illegally and therefore should not be resident in the United Kingdom. So let us not build a case for total deconstruction on cases such as that one. Again, a noble Lord reminded us—I think it was my noble friend Lord Hannay—that hard cases make bad law.

When you start to unravel and disrupt, it carries consequences, but that is not an argument against reform. I take the arguments that have been made today, particularly from the Conservative Benches, that this is not a static instrument which is incapable of reform. Things such as the Swiss case are for the Joint Committee on Human Rights to go back and look at and take evidence over. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and I will agree on that, and will find ways for us to look at that kind of judgment and decide whether we are going too far in some circumstances—but that should not become an argument for the destruction of the European Convention on Human Rights. Confronted in our own generation by a new breed of dictators who again threaten the foundations of democracy, it would be sheer defeatism and an act of vandalism to abandon the legacy that has been entrusted to us.

I renew my thanks to everyone who has participated in today’s debate and, in closing this Cross-Bench debate marking the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights, I thank all those who have made such excellent contributions in your Lordships’ House.

Motion agreed.

Royal Assent

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

15:37

Royal Assent was notified for the following Act:

Finance Act.

Covid-19: Day of Reflection

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

15:39

Asked by

[The Lord Bishop of London]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the COVID-19 Day of Reflection, what steps they are taking to improve support offered to people bereaved as a result of COVID-19.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the former chair of the UK Commission on Bereavement and other interests as set out in the register. Though we are small in number, I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate. I am aware that reflection on the impact of Covid-19 is no longer a particularly attractive subject, but I feel strongly that the impact of this world-changing event will continue to be felt in the years to come.

In our nation’s living memory, there has not been a moment in which so many of us have experienced bereavement at the same time. Over the course of 2020 and 2021 alone, there were an additional 750,000 deaths over what would ordinarily be expected based on the previous five-year period. By the end of 2022, an estimated 16,700 children and young people in the UK had been bereaved of their parent or a primary caregiver through the deaths associated with the pandemic.

On Sunday 9 March, we marked five years since the start of the pandemic with a day of reflection, on which communities up and down the country remembered our national and personal loss. Many of these wounds are still raw, and the BBC reported that sobbing could be heard at the National Covid Memorial Wall. This afternoon, I will discuss the particular disruption to bereavement during the pandemic and the long-term impacts of restricted bereavement.

The UK Commission on Bereavement was launched in June 2021 and, in October 2022, we produced our report, Bereavement Is Everyone’s Business. The report identified a number of key ways that the pandemic disrupted the grieving process of those bereaved. The first, and perhaps the most obvious, is funerals. Restrictions meant that there were delays, restrictions in numbers, social distancing of attendees and changes to collective end-of-life rituals: wakes, shivahs, collective recitation at home, nine nights, and the viewing and embalming of bodies at home were not possible.

As with many aspects of the pandemic, not everyone’s experience was the same. Many religious and ethnic-minority groups faced more significant barriers to organising funerals. Many people reported that finding funeral directors or bereavement organisations with culturally appropriate funeral services was difficult, and that not being able to participate in usual rituals prevented them grieving properly.

Being able to access a meaningful and affordable funeral was already a challenge before the pandemic, and it remained so afterwards. According to SunLife’s Cost of Dying report 2025, the average cost of a simple funeral was £4,285, which is a rise of 134% since data collection began in 2004. It also found that a third of people said that the cost of living crisis had impacted on how they organised a funeral. Almost half said that paying for a funeral had impacted on their mental health. The funeral support service Down to Earth, which is run by Quaker Social Action, notes that a complex relationship exists between somebody’s grief and their paying for a funeral. If somebody gets into debt doing so, that debt can last for years and has a profound impact on their feelings around their bereavement. I have serious concern that people’s ability to access the funeral that they may like is financially determined.

A second way in which the grieving process was disrupted was in the most common experience of social isolation and loneliness. A significant part of the bereavement process for many is being with family and friends to support one another in grief, but 74% of adults who were bereaved during the pandemic said that they experienced social isolation and loneliness after the death of a loved one.

Thirdly, having contact with the dying person at the end of life was heavily restricted, as so many people died in hospital. Some said to the commission that knowing that their loved one was alone in hospital before they died was the hardest part of the bereavement process at the time. Those were the impacts that we saw in our work in 2022, but further work has been undertaken since then and there is more to learn.

New research published in 2023 examined the longer-term impact of grief among those who had lost loved ones during the pandemic. It found that, two years after their bereavement, 29% of people studied met the criteria for prolonged grief disorder. In particular, the social isolation and loneliness in early bereavement contributed to higher levels of prolonged grief symptoms.

According to another study on prolonged grief disorder during Covid 19, there may be a detrimental, long-term psychological outcome for those bereaved individuals regardless of the cause of death of their loved one. We do not yet fully understand all this, but there is a growing body of evidence detailing the ongoing impacts of the pandemic on bereaved people and the difference that accessible, timely and effective bereavement support can have on their bereavement symptoms. In addition, we should not forget those with long Covid who grieve the loss of who they were before they contracted the virus. It is important that we support the ongoing impacts in this area as well.

Following the recommendations of the bereavement commission, there has been much progress which we can commend. This has been and is being worked on by different Governments, including the previous Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Markham. We are glad to see the introduction in the Employment Rights Bill of a new right to bereavement leave for people who have lost a close relative. The Government are also introducing the facility for people to register a death online. The Department for Education in England has consulted on proposals to include grief education in the curriculum. On the housing front, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has an amendment to the Renters’ Rights Bill to prevent the use of ground 7 as a ground for eviction—that is, death of a tenant. This increases housing security for bereaved tenants in the private rented sector. It is very welcome.

However, there is more that can be done to support bereaved people. One of the initial recommendations from the UKCB report was for the Government to establish and deliver a cross-departmental strategy for bereavement. It is clear that bereavement and its surrounding issues are multifaceted and in need of cross-government working. A strategy could be a useful way to give this issue the attention it deserves.

The cross-governmental working group was established in 2021 and is a useful space to discuss bereavement-related issues, but there must be much more of a focus if we really are to support bereaved people. There is also the need for wider investment in bereavement services, especially for black, Asian and minority-ethnic communities and others who have been demonstrated as being poorly served. This is particularly significant given that some communities experienced much heavier loss than others during the pandemic, especially in London. If the findings I mentioned earlier prove true, this may mean that some communities are more adversely affected by symptoms of prolonged grief than others, which, of course, leads to poor mental health.

Finally, it seems that everyone, when asked, agrees that it is healthy and good for us as a society to talk about death. However, we are still poor at doing it. I am not going to talk about the substance of the assisted dying debate here, but it has prompted us as a nation to talk about death and dying, though this is still far from a normalised topic for many of us. That is reflected in our planning for and focus on bereavement, both nationally and perhaps personally.

My own experiences as a cancer nurse and as a priest mean that I have sat with people in the final hours of their lives and with people coming to terms with the loss of a loved one. To grieve is a universal experience and part of what it is to be human. My faith prompts me to believe that our feelings and relationships and the grief that comes when we lose somebody important to us are important. These experiences and emotions must be tended to. It is the role of us all, including the state, to do so.

I am grateful to your Lordships’ House for providing the time for this very important debate. Will the Minister agree to meet me and perhaps some of my key colleagues in the bereavement policy space to discuss this further? I hope that the national day of reflection will not confine our thinking on supporting bereaved people to a future crisis or as a thing of the past but that we will take this opportunity to cast a renewed focus on bereavement, because it remains everyone’s business.

15:49

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London on securing this important topical debate and on her excellent introduction to the very wide range of issues contained in it. I shall divide my time into two areas: first, bereavement support to people since Covid but not only because of Covid; and, secondly, the effect of Covid deaths on their loved ones and on wider society.

On deaths at the beginning of Covid during lockdown, through our social conventions for grieving and marking the life of a special person who has died, saying goodbye to a loved one on a phone or a tablet via a nurse holding it up in hospital was extremely hard. Then there were the limited numbers of people being permitted to be at a funeral. However, I have to say that the one benefit has been Zoom funerals. If you cannot be there in person, it is now normal to be able to join online or even see it afterwards, which is an important part of the grieving process.

On new styles of funerals and their cost, to which the right reverend Prelate referred, I am concerned about the advertisements for extremely cheap funerals that are constantly on TV at the moment. I notice that they are just beginning slightly to qualify what is on offer. People do not understand what is on offer. I wonder whether we need to address the issue about advertising regulation for these funerals, because people often buy in advance and then discover that there is literally no service or gathering whatever and there is no way they can mark the cremation of the person either—there is nothing. For some people, it may be the right thing, but I know that many funeral directors are frustrated, because they can offer cheaper funerals than most people imagine. The average price was cited earlier, but they are certainly trying to make sure that they can provide it.

The other big issue is the British style of mourning, if I may put it that way; to call it restrained would be an understatement. There are cultural differences in our own communities, but also in Europe. The first open-coffin funeral that I went to was for a Latvian relative, and everybody at the funeral went up to kiss the person in the coffin. I was 20, and I think it would be fair to say that I was horrified, because it is just not within our culture. One problem with Covid was that all those different cultural ways of saying farewell were probably even more inappropriate. Covid removed our ability to mourn, and I therefore welcome the growth of “grief cafés”, where people can come together to talk about preparing for grief, recognising that somebody is going to die, but also, after they have died, having a safe space where people can come together in an entirely safe and relaxed environment to chat about death and how it is affecting them.

I also want to mark the role of leaders of religions and belief in supporting families and friends and the individual on that journey to death and afterwards. That was one of the hardest things that we lost during Covid. Being on the end of a phone was extremely difficult—unless the weather was fine and you could have a meeting outside—and it transformed the experience, and not in a good way.

I also want to talk about how grief affects children. That journey of grief and saying farewell is very different for anybody under about 16. We fostered two children of a friend of ours, and the vicar and the chaplain of the hospice guided them, aged 10 and 12, and ourselves in what was going to happen. They encouraged us to take the children to see their mother after she had died, when our natural reaction would have been not to do that. But it was the right thing to do, because they were happy to do it, and it helped them to recognise that she was gone for ever. The support that we got from our faith leaders and our wider church community made an enormous difference.

I turn now to the consequences of Covid. I was health spokesperson for what we might describe as the whole of the first big period of Covid, up until December 2022. The most shocking thing that happened was that certain doctors abused the DNACPR decision-making. Never again must these be taken without something on a patient’s file showing that they have explicitly been part of the decision-making, even if it was not their decision, or, if they do not have capacity, that their attorney or next of kin has also been part of it. It was particularly unfortunate that many very elderly people with dementia and those with learning disabilities were given DNACPRs without their and their families’ knowledge.

For those families who lost people who were on the front line during Covid without proper PPE, can the Minister say whether the Government will follow the recommendations for pandemic preparedness in the first report of the Covid-19 inquiry, to ensure that we can protect front-line staff when—not if—the next pandemic arrives? I add to that the front-line staff who survived severe Covid but have been medically retired and are now fighting the NHS, which says that, because these well-loved staff—who served for many years and are important to our NHS—cannot confirm when they caught Covid, they are therefore not entitled to compensation. This is unjust. I know two people whom that has affected very badly. They were in PPE made of black plastic bags right at the start, and both caught Covid within the first three weeks.

Those who died very early on, pre-vaccination, were overrepresented by, as I am sure you will remember, those described as “clinically vulnerable”—I am one of that number and I survived Covid. They are still overrepresented in deaths today, even though the number of Covid deaths is much lower. This winter, we have seen a large number of deaths from flu and pneumonia. Part of the problem is that Ministers, past and present, tell us that Covid is over, but it is not. The consequence of that is sometimes long Covid, but it also affects decisions about whether Covid is airborne or not.

UKHSA and NHS England tell us that Covid is not airborne transmitted and that the main transmission is usually through contact with droplets. The WHO disagrees with this and changed its definition two years ago. Why? Because the WHO realised that the size of the virus was small enough to mean that it is airborne. That is important because that requires masks and ventilation for those who may be at risk. The WHO says that we should consider using masks if at risk. I would love us to get to the stage of Japan and China, where if you have a bad cold and you are going on the underground, you put a mask on. That has not been in our culture, but it would help those who remain at home because they are so clinically vulnerable that they do not feel safe going out.

That would also reduce transmission of various viruses in schools. My regular hospital is Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge, which during lockdown devised a very cheap but effective ventilator that is now available on every ward. The staff also mask up very early on. However, in schools there is a large amount of transmission, not of Covid but of other viruses, because there is no ventilation in classrooms except that ordained by the head teacher.

That frustration is born out of the death of a very dear friend of mine who survived a major lung transplant at Papworth. When he went home, his care worker did not wear a mask and she gave him Covid. He died, after the long period he had spent in hospital and after all the NHS work to try to take care of him. The equation does not seem right there.

Can the Minister say, therefore, whether the Government will make sure that all the recommendations that come out of the Covid inquiry—not only those in the first report, which we have seen—mean that we keep our people safer, not only from Covid, and encourage our front-line staff, including those in the NHS, that where they work they will be able to work safely? Above all, given the tone and nature of this debate, will we be able to support people as they face death and the loss of loved ones in the future?

15:59

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for securing this debate on this important matter. I thank her and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their moving remarks about the lessons they feel we ought to learn.

Listening to the moving opening remarks from the right reverend Prelate, I was reminded that we all have experience of losing people during Covid and of grief, or perhaps delayed grief. I will share my own experience, if I may, not for therapy but for reflection. On 20 September 2020, I lost my father-in-law and then, four hours later, I lost my father; my children lost both their grandfathers on the same night. Both of them lived abroad, and so we were not able to grieve in the usual way. We had to watch the funerals, one day after the other, on a WhatsApp video. It was not until July 2022 that I was able to visit my father’s grave in America and break down and cry, and to scatter the ashes of my father-in-law in another country. You realise when you break down and cry the feelings that you had been holding back all these years, and how that has been debilitating in some ways. I had not realised that until that time.

Given that, I want to take the opportunity to express my condolences and sympathy to all those who suffered personally or lost loved ones during the pandemic. I pay tribute to all the wonderful health and care workers who looked after us and those suffering from Covid-19. We should acknowledge the work of public and private sector workers who carried on working to deliver essential services—some of which are not always considered essential services, whether it be driving buses or home delivery. While others were able to isolate quite safely in their own homes, they put themselves at risk.

Noble Lords will be aware that, when in Government, we announced the NHS and social care coronavirus life assurance scheme to protect the families of front-line NHS and social care workers who sadly died while providing essential work. Initially, it was a payment of £60,000 to the families in England, with funding for similar schemes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but we felt it was important to increase that level of support to families facing bereavement. Sadly, uptake was not as high as it could have been, and we had to extend the scheme to September 2023 to ensure that more families could benefit.

While money can help in many cases, other types of support are, as the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness discussed, important for bereaved people. In 2021, research indicated that, for every Covid-19 death, there were up to nine people affected by bereavement, highlighting the importance of bereavement care. There are those who are still experiencing ongoing bereavement. As I say, it took me two years, and there are others who still have not found closure in their own lives on these issues. It is really important that they continue to receive the necessary support and care.

The world-renowned Mayo Clinic has defined “ongoing bereavement” as when

“feelings of loss are debilitating and don’t improve even after time passes”.

We are often told that time heals all wounds; in many cases, those wounds still have not healed for people. Many of us have lost loved ones or friends, but those with ongoing bereavement find it incredibly difficult and challenging to get on with their daily lives and to do even the simplest things.

Noble Lords may be aware that the very first recommendation of the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration was the introduction of a UK-wide day of reflection, to be held on the first Sunday of March, to commemorate the anniversary of the first lockdown. The report says—I think it is worth repeating—that this is to

“remember and commemorate those who lost their lives since the pandemic began … reflect on the sacrifices made by many, and on the impact of the pandemic on us all … pay tribute to the work of health and social care staff, frontline workers and researchers … appreciate those who volunteered and showed acts of kindness during this unprecedented time”.

I know that in all our faiths there are always references to small acts of kindness, and we saw some amazing acts of kindness throughout, even though it was a horrible time and a time of great grief and uncertainty for many people. We welcome the Government’s decision to continue the commitment of the last Government to commemorate this anniversary. It is important to remember all those who were lost, and the Government should be credited with continuing to recognise this.

One topic I would like to ask the Minister about is bereavement education, which was raised by both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness. As others have said, in many cultures, death may be celebrated or simply accepted as part of the circle of life, with young children attending funerals or ceremonies to understand the inevitability of death. In our culture, we are not so open about these issues. We often do not deal with death until a friend or loved one passes away, especially when it is unexpected.

I sometimes think about the New Orleans funerals: they start off in a very sombre mood, with marching, but then suddenly the mood changes to one of a celebration of a life. I have often said to my wife—I do not envy her, if she survives me—that I want a combination of a Muslim funeral and a New Orleans funeral. I am not sure how that would go down, or whether the imam would appreciate the switch-over. We should celebrate life, and make sure that we remember to discuss death earlier in our lives.

I was a bit worried about making people laugh, because, until now, it felt as though we were at a funeral, but I am very pleased that we can have a laugh. Sometimes people laugh when they celebrate a life; they tell stories and have fond memories of the person who has passed away. That is a wonderful way of making sure that we celebrate people. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, faith leaders—indeed, the right reverend Prelate is one herself—are very good at helping families to face grief and bereavement.

What more can be done? On the review of the relationship, sex and health education—RSHE—statutory guidance, can the Minister update the House on whether some thought is being given to include specific content on grief and bereavement education? If not, can she share any current thinking on the options being considered? Both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness discussed the importance of this. Sometimes, it is not very easy to do that in a top-down, government-led way, so how do we create a space to ensure that we talk about these issues? I know it is not an easy subject to tackle, and it needs to be treated with the utmost sensitivity. Anything that the Minister can share with us today, or in writing later, would be gratefully received.

Finally, given the importance of the issues that we have discussed in this debate, can the Minister give the House a firm date for when a response to the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration’s final report will be published?

The subjects we are discussing are part of an understandably complex and sensitive area. We were all touched by Covid, either directly or indirectly. We all lost loved ones or friends, or we heard stories from those who did, and some of us suffered from delayed or extended bereavements. The best thing we can take from the debate is this: let us not forget those who passed away; let us not forget those who are still suffering from the effects of long Covid; and let us not forget those who are still experiencing bereavement.

16:07

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the right reverend Prelate on securing this important and touching debate, which was somewhat inevitable, considering the subject. I acknowledge her ongoing dedication. Since chairing the UK Commission on Bereavement and the publication of the report, the right reverend Prelate and the commission have continued to champion this important issue. I am very happy to agree to the meeting that she requested.

I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on the Front Benches, not only for sharing their personal experiences and reflections, which is what this subject is about, but for raising the points that they did. I know that they, like me and the right reverend Prelate, want to improve support for those who are bereaved.

The right reverend Prelate made the very good point that there is bereavement through the loss of a loved one, but there is also bereavement through the loss of what might have been. One such example of that, writ large, is those who have long Covid—and I am sure that we can all think of others. It is always right to think about loss in those terms. As has been said, we all have and will experience grief through the course of our lives. It is absolutely vital that bereaved families and friends have access to the support that they need, and when they need it. That can come from a variety of sources, as noble Lords have described, and I will return to that later.

I assure your Lordships’ House that the Government are looking for the best ways to support those in grief, including those bereaved as a result of Covid-19. On behalf of the Government, I also associate myself with the thanks to those who provided services with full public spirit, no matter what sector they were from. Whether private, public, charitable or voluntary, they were public spirited to the core and they kept us going. I am deeply grateful. I also reiterate the condolences to all those who were bereaved and all those who suffered loss of some kind and have been affected by the pandemic.

Noble Lords have referred to the day of reflection. This year marked the fifth such event since the outbreak of the pandemic. As we have heard, it is a significant milestone and an opportunity to form one’s thoughts, memories and actions as we remember all those who were affected.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, chaired the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration to consider appropriate ways to remember those who have died and how we should mark such a sombre time in our history. Of course, it is not history for those who are bereaved; it continues to be with them. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the commission for their extensive work in speaking with those who are most impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, including representatives from bereaved family organisations. I am grateful to those organisations for their work.

The commission’s first recommendation of 10 is that:

“A UK-wide day of reflection should be established and held annually on the first Sunday of March”.


On 9 March this year there were more than 200 events in communities across the country, and we saw how important this day was to so many. The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, asked about a day of reflection in the future. We see how much this day matters to people and how many communities took part, and I thank all those local organisations and communities for contributing to that. We very much hope that will create a foundation for future years.

The day of reflection allowed people to remember the many losses in a way that was appropriate and meaningful for them. It struck me to be very much in contrast to our experiences during the pandemic, which for that period of time were ones of isolation, separation and the loss of the lives we used to lead. There was close working with charities, faith groups and other voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations. That was very much the mark of the day of reflection, and I appreciate the role of those organisations, not just in the day of reflection but in supporting those who experience grief. I am sure we all pay tribute to them and their work.

In Sheffield the city council continues to work in partnership with Compassionate Sheffield, which aims to improve people’s experiences of life, loss and death. Access to support is certainly important; it has been referred to throughout this debate. To give just one example, of which noble Lords will be aware, the Government are prioritising funding to expand NHS talking therapies. That is something to which people can self-refer, or they can consult their GP in order to get to that point, and it is a tremendous service for people.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, rightly referred to the issue of children and young people’s mental health. Again, I mention the expansion of mental health support teams in schools, putting in place Young Futures hubs, which will provide access to mental health support, and the recruitment of 8,500 new mental health workers to treat children and adults. In all these ways, we hope to support children and young people who are bereaved.

On the point the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised about PPE, we are responding to each of the reports from the inquiries, and that will be dealt with. I totally agree about keeping people safer and the matter of Zoom. That has provided comfort in a way we could not possibly have anticipated. I noted her comments about ads for very cheap funerals, and I will raise them with the appropriate ministerial colleagues.

The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, talked about culture. Indeed, different religions and communities have different cultures. As he will know, in the Jewish tradition, it is tradition to sit shiva for around a week, where support can be freely given by visiting the home of the bereaved. As my noble friend Lady Anderson reminded me, it is hard to get a group of people together and not feel some form of celebration while giving that support. All these models are ones that we can look to.

On the points made about long Covid—which is a very real issue and will not be going away—we have invested £314 million to expand treatment and rehabilitation services and established 100 long Covid services for adults and 13 specialist paediatric hubs for children and young people. They assess people with long Covid and direct them into ways of care, to provide the right support, treatment and rehabilitation. We have also invested £50 million in 22 research projects for long Covid. In all this, I hope people can be reassured that we continue to support people.

On the question about adding bereavement to the national curriculum, we are reviewing the RSHE curriculum and will look carefully at responses to the consultation on the draft revised RSHE statutory guidance, which ended in July. I will take a particular interest, with my ministerial colleagues, about where that sits.

My department brings together government colleagues to discuss bereavement as part of a government working group on bereavement. It is a forum to share best practice. Today’s debate will feed into that very well. We take the reports from the UK Commission on Bereavement very seriously and continue to engage with them.

On the right reverend Prelate’s point about end of life, dying well is a fundamental right in regard to human dignity and compassion. We have a responsibility to ensure the best possible care. That includes supporting families and carers, including young people, who are involved in that.

NHS England has developed guidance to support ICBs with their duty to commission palliative care services within integrated care systems. That guidance requires commissioners to ensure that significant access to bereavement services be available for families and carers, including children and young people.

I turn to ongoing research. The pandemic made clear the need for bereavement services to offer both practical and emotional support, as noble Lords have referred to. Noble Lords will not be surprised that not everybody knows about these services. Many services are particularly not reaching those from ethnically diverse communities. Through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Government have commissioned a study investigating how to improve bereavement services for those from ethnically diverse groups. That includes those from black African, black Caribbean, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, Somali, Chinese and Roma backgrounds. I certainly look forward to the study’s findings, which will be published later this year.

Finally, we need to take an evidence-based approach to health, and NICE balances best care with value for money across the NHS. Decisions on whether NICE will create new or update existing guidance are overseen by a prioritisation board chaired by NICE’s chief medical officer, and the prioritisation board is considering bereavement as a potential topic for guidance development.

In reiterating my sympathies to all those who were bereaved and all those who continue to be affected directly or indirectly by the Covid-19 pandemic, I feel that it is incumbent on us to look to make further progress on bereavement support services. I look forward to continued cross-government working—and, I am sure, cross-party working—to achieve this.

Crown Court Criminal Case Backlog

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

16:21

Moved by

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

That this House takes note of the Crown Court criminal case backlog, and the impact of delays on reliability of evidence, experience of victims and fairness of proceedings for defendants.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, it is an honour to introduce this debate on the troubling issue of the backlog in the Crown Courts. I am grateful to those who have indicated that they wish to speak in this debate, many with extensive knowledge of the subject. I am especially looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield. Her experience, skill and reputation concerning issues affecting children, including those who have in some way come into contact with the criminal justice system, go before her. I know that she will have very important contributions to make in your Lordships’ House, today and in the future.

In recent days the Government have made a welcome announcement, which was repeated in your Lordships’ House. They indicated that their attention is focused on the subject of this debate and that they intend to take appropriate steps to reduce delays in the Crown Court—and without diluting justice.

They have appointed the distinguished retired judge Sir Brian Leveson to prepare recommendations on this difficult subject. Like Sir Brian, I was there when the Crown Court started in 1971, often appearing in cases alongside him. So was the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We may have been in the very same courtroom on the first day of the Crown Court. He and I, with the late Lord Hooson, were in a set of provincial chambers that produced as many Peers as Blackpool. Sir Brian’s many years in the Court of Appeal, as well as his practical experience in the Crown Court in the past, will have given him a view, as it were, from the bridge of the criminal justice system. I know that he will be paying close attention to the advice and help offered to him by those ratings who have spent the recent post-Covid years on the deck in the Crown Court, watching the delays accumulate.

I have some statistics. In September 2024 there were 73,105 open criminal cases, nearly double the figure for 2019. Seriously delayed cases included 21% for violence and 18% for sexual offences. Public funding for justice declined by 22.4% in real per person terms between 2010 and 2023. This is an unacceptable situation.

As it happens, last Friday I attended the valediction of a judge at the Maidstone Crown Court. His honour, Judge Philip Statman, is not a famous judge, but he has been an exceptionally good one, admired over 20 years in two Crown Courts. Those who were there took the trouble of attending because we knew that he was an outstanding member of the judiciary who should be listened to.

In a courtroom with standing room only, we congregated to say a reluctant farewell to someone who has been the very model of a modern circuit judge. He has tried everything—for example, murders—but, like all circuit judges, he has tried cases small as well as great. He has dealt with many of the short hearings that unreasonably and unnecessarily interrupt almost every judge’s working day and increase the backlog, but more of that later. He told us of how in his last three weeks as a circuit judge in what he described jocularly as “the bits and pieces court”, he dealt with 10 cases each day, 150 in his last three weeks—one judge, 150 cases. He commented that too much judge time is spent filling the roles of case progression officers and that:

“Every hour spent on administration is an hour away from judge craft, from getting it right for all those coming before the court to seek justice”.


Judge Statman was not grumbling, but he was giving a gentle plea for change to enable judges to judge in accordance with their oaths to do right to all manner of people. He described the effect of delay on victims as he had seen it, on survivors, on defendants and on those who conduct cases. As he said, we need more judges, more and competent criminal advocates and more sitting days. Otherwise, how does one explain inordinate delay to grieving families in cases of murder, death by dangerous driving or sexual abuse?

I adopt for this debate his reference to the case of R v ZA of 2023 in the Court of Appeal. Two experienced appellate judges commented:

“All too often judges’ lists allow too little time to prepare for a sentencing hearing, for the hearing itself and then for the judge to take time to reflect and to weigh up all relevant, often conflicting, considerations in arriving at the appropriate sentence”.


Today I received through an email a message from a judge who will remain anonymous, who described how they had done 30 hours of unpaid preparation for a case they were about to see in the Crown Court. In ZA, the Court of Appeal said:

“Court listing should ensure that there is sufficient time for the judge, even if that judge heard the trial and knows the case well, to read and consider all reports and to prepare sentencing remarks”


in age and intelligence-appropriate language. Judges must have time to think—wise and correct words.

Again, I reflect the views expressed by Judge Statman when I say, without any risk of serious contradiction, something about juries. The jury trial is the jewel in the crown of the Crown Court. As Statman reminded us:

“Rights took centuries to earn but they can be brushed away at a stroke”.


That we should remove the right of jury trial from some triable either-way cases to save time and cost is easily said but, in my view, neither proved nor justified. There is no need to replace jury trial for smaller cases. In any event, what is a small case? A small case to some is a huge case to others. A small case for some means the end of their working life, their reputation, their marriage or their family. If a police officer in a case of assault that is triable either way is accused of behaviour that would end his career, should that attract a lesser tribunal than asking for a trial by his peers? If a teacher, a doctor or one of us is accused of a relatively minor offence of dishonesty, conviction will likely end our professional lives and destroy our reputations. Should we deny such people trial by their peers? Having been there in the courtroom conducting such cases for the defence and the prosecution on numerous occasions in over half a century of my legal career, I challenge in principle the removal of jury trial, especially because it is completely unnecessary.

What are the time savings that it is asserted would take place if jury trial was removed from some potentially significant cases? If a judge were sitting either alone or with magistrates, unlike a jury’s verdict the judgment would have to be reasoned. We could not simply have “guilty” or “not guilty” without any explanation. That reasoning would be very similar to the legal directions and summary of the evidence given by the judge in jury trials and would take just as much time. There might be a very small net saving in court time dealing with a jury after it is retired, but, generally, that represents only a tiny slice of time taken up in court.

Indeed, it is very likely that decisions from such intermediate courts—as I think they are called—would give rise to a significant increase in appeals and thus more use of court time. It would be difficult fairly to exclude appeals on questions of fact which are not appealable from jury verdicts, save in the event of important new evidence arising after the jury verdict. I know that subsequent speakers will address alternative ways to use judges more effectively.

In addition, time can be saved by the use of amended Crown Court rules. Prosecution and defence advocates should be required to provide short skeleton arguments well ahead of the hearing date for all cases, including guilty-plea cases not requiring a jury. The prosecution should be required to indicate in advance any sentencing guidelines that are relevant. The defence should be required to indicate the nub of their mitigation submissions, including an indication of what they submit should be an appropriate sentence in the case. Advocates should be paid for the work they do on such intermediate documents. Currently, almost the entire fee payment in a criminal case is loaded into the final trial or plea hearing. I welcome the presence in this debate of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, who has done valuable work in relation to legal aid, and look forward to hearing what he says about payment of advocates.

Advocates should be required to adhere tightly to the time-saving rules and remunerated for that currently unpaid work they do on pre-hearing documentation. I have no doubt that there would be a favourable cost-benefit evaluation of such work. I am sure from my experience that that sort of exchange of information would mean that many cases would be over in minutes with such a system. There should be a target of no more than two hearings in every ordinary case—you would not believe how many hearings there are sometimes in small cases in the Crown Court.

In an excellent House of Lords Library briefing, produced on 13 March this year, one of the three causes of the current situation was described as “more ineffective trials”, saying that 27% of trials do not go ahead on the day scheduled—almost a doubling since 2017. Key reasons included witness and defendant unavailability and the late arrival or non-arrival of prisoner transport. This shocking figure calls for severe contractual financial penalties for such failures.

Another cause of the backlog is the decline in the number of criminal law barristers available for publicly paid criminal work. Declaring my interest as a member of a chambers conducting predominantly criminal work, I suggest that remunerating criminal advocates proportionately to comparable activities elsewhere in their profession would produce sharper, quicker, better prepared cases.

Sitting days need to be increased, which, in my view, would show a cost-benefit gain. Part of the cost-benefit analyses should factor in the paraphernalia of problems for everyone involved, including witnesses and victims facing worsening mental health until the case is determined, and 20% of defendants being retained in custody but acquitted later, with considerable financial loss.

We have to recognise that sometimes the work can be done better. Doing cases a little faster can improve the quality of a trial, and that should be subject to judicial directions, particularly where there is interminable documentary evidence that could be summarised more effectively and which juries struggle with.

A major area for further possible change is in relation to very complex fraud cases—those expected to last more than 20 days. I have done a number that have lasted months and months, far more than 20 days. In cases where it can be agreed between prosecution and defence that a non-jury trial would be satisfactory, subject to specific provisions that would be acceptable, we could speed up the courts. Such provisions might include a maximum sentence of, say, seven years’ imprisonment; a judge sitting with two experts, along the lines of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which was presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, when I became a chair of that tribunal; and a full written judgment on Competition Appeal Tribunal lines. These courts could be separated from the general Crown Court.

In addition, there should be more and earlier diversion orders in suitable cases, to ensure that young defendants especially can be diverted from crime; more efficient listing schemes, such as the trial blitz at Manchester Crown Court; and increasing the credit for guilty pleas where the case has not yet reached trial.

Unfortunately, we have a crisis in the Crown Court, but we should not waste that crisis. I suggest that careful, moderate modernisation of the Crown Court system, including more efficient management at every level, from the courtroom to the Lord Chancellor’s Department, can solve current problems without damaging the fundamentals of our trusted justice standards and principles.

16:36

[Baroness Longfield (Lab) (Maiden)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. It is a privilege to be part of this debate today, and an honour of my life to be giving my maiden speech in this great House.

I start with thanks to all my new colleagues on these Benches and to noble Lords from across the House for their warm welcome. I thank my sponsors, my noble friends Lady Armstrong and Lady Andrews, for their huge support and encouragement, not just lately but over the years. I thank the House staff for being so helpful and kind as I find my way around this place, with its corridors and procedures. They have been tolerant and courteous, and have always pointed me in the right direction.

I chose this debate today because it relates to so many of the issues that I have spent 40 years of my working life focusing on: families and children growing up in poverty, in poor housing, with poor mental health, living with domestic abuse and addiction—those children most likely to fall through the gaps.

I will come back to that, but I wanted first to give noble Lords an idea of my own journey to this place. I grew up in Otley, a small town in West Yorkshire. My father’s family worked as engineers, and he designed engines for aviation. My mother was a carer for her parents, who had lost their sight early on in life. We all lived in the same house, so I knew first hand the challenges that life could bring, and how vital support was. Their values of hard work, enterprise, caring for your community and a strong dose of that Yorkshire “get on with it” spirit, alongside a good deal of encouragement from some great teachers, were what I took with me when I left home to be the first in my family to go to university, and afterwards, as I threw myself into working with children and families in communities in east and west London.

New to the capital in the 1980s, I found the inequalities of childhood experiences stark. The families that I worked with in the East End had no expectations that the explosion of creativity, enterprise and wealth happening along the river in Canary Wharf would change their lives at all. However, they showed me how things might be different: how, with the right support at the right time, families can overcome challenges and share in the opportunities available in this great country.

I have spent the last four decades working to enhance those opportunities for all children. I led a national children’s charity and worked with the noble Baronesses, Lady Harman and Lady Hodge, on the delivery of the Sure Start programme in the No. 10 strategy unit. I campaigned for many years for better childcare at a time when many saw the issue as quite niche.

As Children’s Commissioner for England, I spent six years championing the rights and interests of children with those in power who make decisions about children’s lives. I am particularly proud of the pioneering work that my office did in highlighting the barriers that hold back children and their life chances.

My last year as Children’s Commissioner coincided with the Covid pandemic. I saw then how children can too often slip from view and be an afterthought. We should of course celebrate that most children and families in our country are doing well, but a sizeable group are not, and we need to be ambitious for them too. We have lost so many of the early intervention programmes—Sure Start, youth clubs, family support projects—and now pour billions into acute late intervention services. These are the £1 million kids who come into care too late and cost £250,000 a year and more to care for. We should also pay attention to the corrosive impact of issues of misogyny and violence online, so powerfully portrayed on our screens at the moment in the drama “Adolescence”. If your Lordships have not seen it, please tune in.

That brings me to this debate today and young people in the criminal justice system. When I have asked children in prison how they ended up there, almost every one can pinpoint when things got worse and what could have been done differently. It is almost like a blueprint: the first exclusion at school, mum losing her job, the professional interventions that came too late. Some four in 10 children in custody now are on remand and most will not receive an immediate custodial sentence once they get to court. That is why I have argued that we should do everything we can to keep most children out of custody during remand. We are seeing promising results from a Ministry of Justice pilot that keeps children on remand in the community in Manchester. It would be great to see more of those.

It will not surprise noble Lords to hear that I will continue to work on causes such as this in the House. I believe in the potential of public services to stand alongside people to bring about that positive change. I also believe—as my mother used to say to me quite often—that where there is a will, there is a way. I know everyone in this House wants children in our country to flourish, but experience has taught me that it will not happen on its own for a lot of children. They need help to prevent problems becoming barriers. I will be doing all I can to ensure that we in this House do all we can to provide the kind of help and support that can change those lives.

16:42

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure and an honour to follow the maiden speech from my noble friend Lady Longfield. She is a legend. She has spent decades tirelessly campaigning to improve the experience of children. In her powerful and moving speech she demonstrated her continued determination to fight for the rights of some of our most vulnerable citizens. Her persuasive expertise will make her a valued Member of your Lordships’ House and I very much look forward to working with her in the future.

Other noble Lords have and will express concern at the effects of the backlog on victims and defendants. What is less well known is that there is a looming recruitment and retention crisis in the judiciary because, as your Lordships have heard, the caseload of Crown Court judges is unsustainable. The recent Judicial Attitude Survey, conducted by Professor Cheryl Thomas, found very high levels of stress and disillusionment in judges, with 35% of them planning to take early retirement. When you add this to those who will retire by virtue of age, 42% of Crown Court judges will be gone by 2029. Of the part-time judges, from whom new judges are appointed, only 22% are planning to apply for a full-time role.

There are things that can be done, and some of them do not need to cost much money. It just requires the system to think about things differently. It has been a tenet of faith over many years that what is needed is judicial case management. Untold hours have been spent by senior judges and others devising Criminal Procedure Rules which set out timetables. But I hate to have to break it to them that they have been wasting much of their time. Most of the parties to a criminal trial have barely heard of the rules, far less read them. The reason: in the Crown Court there are no sticks and precious few carrots. You cannot make the parties comply and there is no incentive for them to do so, because they are paid the same whether they do or do not.

The result is a large number of pointless hearings in court, achieving little other than both increased blood pressure and an increased backlog. I do not have to imagine these problems because, until just before Christmas, I was one of those judges. I used to think constantly, “I’ve got 35 years’ experience as a criminal barrister, 12 of which were as a KC. I never thought that I would sit in hearing after hearing, day after day, saying to counsel, ‘So, you’ve done none of the things you were ordered to do. Okay, let’s set a new timetable, which you and I both know you are not going to comply with either’”.

Crown Court judges are a precious resource. Many of them came to it because they regard it as public service. Yet they cannot get on with the things they ought to be doing, because they are—to be frank—spending a large proportion of their working lives messing around, setting timetables.

I too have reservations about an intermediate court with no jury. My concerns include the impact on diversity and thus on public confidence. Most juries are economically and socially diverse, the judiciary less so. So, my proposal is not an intermediate court but an intermediate judge: the criminal master, who could, for example, be a district judge interested in promotion to the Crown Court. The master could hear all the small routine applications, leaving the judges free to do what they ought to be doing: presiding over jury trials and passing sentence.

16:46

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, on an outstanding maiden speech and welcome her again to this House. Indeed, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for leading this debate. In response to his invitation, I briefly say that in my view we have two fundamental problems with the court system. First, there are not enough criminal lawyers to go around—whether it is CPS, prosecution or defence. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, also said, there are many inefficiencies in the court system. If we can tackle those, we may not need radical reform.

I will take four points very briefly. Despite the recent increase in sitting days, I understand that in 2025, Snaresbrook Crown Court will still be unable to use more than 15 out of 20 courts: in other words, 25% below capacity. Isleworth Crown Court reportedly closed five courts last month, and, according to today’s Times, last Friday, only eight out of 20 courts at the Old Bailey were working. At present, the court backlog is an emergency. There is no justification in such an emergency for allowing outdated accounting rules to restrict court sittings.

On the question of costs, the court system has high fixed costs—buildings, permanent judges, staff, and so forth. But the marginal costs are relatively low: a part-time recorder’s fee is £800 a day. So, 10 recorders, sitting remotely, could do at least 50 extra court cases or directions hearings a day for less than £10,000. It is basic economics that, with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, the correct economic response is to maximise throughput—to reduce unit costs. But the present restrictions lead absurdly to the opposite result: higher unit costs per court disposal. That is not an efficient system.

More fundamentally, under the Courts Act 2003 and the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the Lord Chancellor has a statutory duty to ensure an “efficient and effective system” of courts and tribunals. Under Section 17 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 the Lord Chancellor takes a formal oath,

“to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts”.

That is an absolute obligation, not subject to Treasury whim or political change in the wind. So, would the Minister accept that, by virtue of those statutes, resources must be ring-fenced from spending cuts and funded properly?

Lastly, given the astonishing figure from the NAO that 27% of court trials are ineffective, as already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, does the Minister agree that although listing is traditionally regarded as “a judicial function”, the general efficiency of listing practices, as distinct from decisions on individual cases, is a legitimate subject of public debate and scrutiny by Parliament?

16:50

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, to her place and congratulate her on an excellent maiden speech; we look forward to hearing more from her.

The Lady Chief Justice, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Carr, told the Constitution Committee on 26 February that dealing with the backlog felt like

“running up a down escalator”.

She said:

“We cannot, even sitting to maximum capacity at the moment, diminish the backlogs”.


Cases are now being listed as far forward as 2028. Two inquiries are under way. The very principle of access to justice is threatened, with all the effects that this has on victims and witnesses and on lawyers and judges.

Giving evidence, as I have on a number of occasions, is not easy. The very fact that your account is to be challenged both for truth and accuracy is very daunting. The further you are from the events you are attempting to describe, the greater the pressure and the greater the possibility of self-doubt—a weakness any competent cross-examiner will exploit.

As for lawyers, according to the National Audit Office’s report on 4 March, 1,441 trials were cancelled on the hearing day in 2023, compared with 71 in 2019, because no legal professionals were available. The average time taken for a case in the Crown Court has increased in four years from 480 days to 695 days. I will say something about short listing. For the last trial I was involved in, I went five times to the Crown Court for nothing because my junior had something paid to do. I am sure you can feel the hurt as I speak.

The remuneration at the criminal Bar is so pitiful that it reminds me of the days of the dock trial. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who is to be congratulated on securing this very important debate, is too young to remember the line of ageing barristers whose careers had been wrecked by the war and who sat in the Birkenhead quarter sessions in their yellowing wigs, hoping to be picked by a defendant for the princely sum of two guineas—with five shillings, of course, for the clerk. We are back to those days.

As for judges, the Judicial Attitude Survey, published in February, found that more than three-quarters of serving judges suffer from work-related stress symptoms, with higher figures for females and minority judges. Some 30% said they are suffering from burnout. In addition, the survey showed that court buildings and equipment are in a mess and that such buildings are not fit places to work in.

This is not the time for wringing hands. I do not apply my family motto, ar bwy mae’r bai—who can we blame? It is a time for action. What are the Government going to do?

16:53

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, it is humbling to speak in this debate in the company of those better qualified than me to make comment, but I rise to speak particularly about the impact on victims. From London, I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, to her place.

It continues to be a great shame that criminal justice is one of those Cinderella public services. We often talk or feel that spending money on things such as schools and healthcare is good, and of course it is. However, talking about spending money on prisons, probation and the courts is much less frequently affirmed, despite the fact that not spending in the courts has a terrible implication for victims. I wonder whether improving public understanding of the importance of a well-functioning court system for victims and defendants may be key to winning wider support and gaining resources that are so desperately needed. What consideration have the Government given to improving public understanding in this way?

As has already been mentioned, the new report by the Victims’ Commissioner lays bare the extent of the impact. It includes a significant toll on victims’ mental and physical health, with the risk that they may, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, give up on seeking justice altogether—a second injustice compounding the first. The Public Accounts Committee report published last week details particular distress experienced by victims of rape, serious sexual offences and violent crimes. Many found the court delays so traumatic that they withdrew from the process. In adult rape cases, 59% of victims were dropping out pre-charge in June 2024.

Perhaps the most distressing part, as already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, is the increasing number of ineffective trials—scheduled trials that do not go ahead on the day. As we have heard, according to the report published by the National Audit Office last month, the proportion of ineffective trials has increased from 16% in 2019 to 27% in 2023, with some of the reasons mentioned including failed or delayed transport. I wonder whether money is being saved in one part of the system at the cost of another. What steps are the Government taking to look at spending holistically across the system so that increased investment can be shown to pay for itself in the longer term?

Finally, I welcome the Government’s wider focus on reforming criminal justice and the call for creative thinking. This is seen especially through the sentencing review, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester submitted a paper proposing a new approach to sentencing reform. I hope we will continue to think creatively, but always with victims and defendants in mind, to reduce the Crown Court blockage.

16:56

[Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)]

My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, on her instructive maiden speech.

The outstanding case load in the Crown Court has reached a level that is irretrievable without a radical change to the way in which many Crown Court trials are conducted. I will repeat just a few figures. In January 2019, the outstanding case load was 33,000; it rose to 40,000 as Covid lockdown engulfed us in 2020, and by the end of September 2024, it was over 73,000. The December figure will soon be published by the Ministry of Justice, and there is no doubt that it will be significantly higher. The backlog continues to grow because the volume of cases coming into the system has greatly increased, and there is no sign of that volume diminishing. The proportion of cases taking more than a year to conclude in the Crown Court has roughly doubled over the same period.

All those involved in the system are working hard to iron out problems that result in too many hearings, ineffective trials or late guilty pleas—and much else that has been referred to. I am afraid that those changes and improvements will not solve the problem, but they would help. Similarly, extra sitting days would not solve the problem but would help.

There is an obvious solution, and in this I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who must be congratulated on securing this debate. A substantial proportion of cases that can be tried either in the magistrates’ court or in the Crown Court, but which currently go to the Crown Court, should be decided in that court by the same composition that deals with appeals from the magistrates’ court—a judge and two magistrates. Obvious cases for such trials would be all offences that carry a maximum of two years’ imprisonment. It is the accident of the maximum sentence that enables a defendant to elect for jury trial.

Many other cases—including drugs offences, criminal damage, regulatory offences and others where, on conviction, the sentence would inevitably be non-custodial or a short term of imprisonment—might also be considered for such trials. Such trials would take hours rather than a couple of days, because that is how long they take in the magistrates’ court. Perhaps more importantly, many of the tactical not guilty pleas that are entered in the Crown Court at the moment would evaporate.

The limit on these speeches today, which I notice I have reached, makes it impossible to develop the arguments or deal with the reasoned arguments in opposition. But, having pondered this question for some time, I note that this solution, first mooted 25 years ago by Sir Robin Auld, stands a good chance of reversing what is otherwise an inexorable decline.

17:00

[Baroness Hazarika (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Longfield on her excellent maiden speech. She has been such a force for good in public life, speaking up for young people, and I know she will make a fantastic contribution. She is also my roommate; I do not know whether that is a blessing or a curse for her, but it is certainly very lucky from my point of view.

We are all rightly concerned about the huge backlogs in the court system. As we heard, there are reports of cases being heard in 2028. It is profoundly shocking, and we all know that justice delayed is justice denied. How can we look victims of crime in the eye and say that we do care when their trial could take years and they have to live in limbo waiting for their day in court—particularly female victims of sexual violence? These delays cause anger, hurt and frustration to all parties, and we have heard that they can also make people drop their cases.

The system that this new Government have inherited is broken. That is why it is good that some radical thinking is going on, and I welcome the fact that the Government have asked Brian Leveson to conduct this review. I know that many noble Lords and noble Baronesses will disagree, but I think it is time to examine whether we can move away from trial by jury in some but not all cases. I ask this question: how can it be right that a class C drugs offence sits in the Crown Court while a vulnerable rape victim has to wait five years from report to court?

I also hope that we can use magistrates’ courts more. They do excellent work and, having spoken with many in the profession, I know that they would be keen to step up. Can the Minister tell us whether there are plans to recruit more magistrates, as we may need more of them if we are to change the system? Can he also update us on plans to improve court infrastructure, including crumbling buildings and the national computer system, which often goes down and causes delays?

We all have a shared interest in sorting this out. Our country is built on the rule of law, and we believe in having a strong legal system. But, if we do not find a way to clear these backlogs in a reasonable time-space, there is a real danger that people will not only lose trust in our system but feel that we now live in a society that is essentially lawless, and that crimes go unpunished for years and years, and then maybe just wither away. That is something that none of us wants.

17:03

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, on her excellent speech. I declare an interest as a practising barrister and a former recorder of the Crown Court. There is no doubt about the disastrous consequences of delays. They are unfair to defendants and to witnesses, particularly complainants, and they bring the whole justice system into disrepute.

The Constitution Committee considered the effect of Covid on court backlogs when I was a member of it. It was right to do so; it is a constitutional issue. I was anxious to explore the possibility of reducing jury trials and replacing them with a mode of trial by judge only, or by a judge and two magistrates. My colleagues were a little uneasy about this suggestion, although I spoke about it in your Lordships’ House. I even asked a question addressed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. I suggested that a defendant at least should have the right to choose to be tried by a judge rather than a jury—a pretty modest proposal, but I was met with a very firm response in the negative.

It is time to think quite seriously about jury trial. Of course we have a strong romantic attachment to it. We know very little about why juries come to their decisions. Anecdotes about the process are not always reassuring. We infantilise juries by only allowing the admission of evidence that we think they can handle, rather than allowing them to decide what is important. We do not require any reasons to be given for their decisions, which makes the appeal process difficult.

It is worth standing back and considering why it is desirable that more than 90% of all offences are tried by those with expertise—either district judges or magistrates who are trained and have a legal adviser—but, for the 5% or so of the most serious offences, we think it wise to allow them to be tried by a random selection of citizens who will, no doubt, do their best. It should, perhaps, be borne in mind that we used to have jury trials for personal injury and libel cases. Their absence is not missed. Nor are juries a universal feature of the criminal justice system. Of course, I pay regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said about this. I congratulate him on bringing forward this debate.

Three minutes is not long enough to develop this important topic, but I would commend a chapter by the late and much missed Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood in his book, Second Helpings. It was more than 50 years ago that Lord Roskill suggested that fraud cases should not be tried by juries.

These backlogs allow us to think about the future of this mode of trial. I hope this Government are rather more amenable than their predecessor to the possibility of at least restricting trial by jury, perhaps through intermediate trials. It is not a good idea to abolish something because of the backlogs, but the backlogs allow us to think carefully about what we need to do by way of trials.

17:06

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, the failure to use professional qualified interpreters in our courts often results in cases being adjourned. This adds to the backlog, not to mention the costs.

I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group on Modern Languages and as vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists. I warmly welcome this week’s publication by the MoJ of the review of qualifications and experience required by public service interpreters. I thank the Government for accepting all its recommendations.

During the Covid lockdown there was a major shift towards remote court hearings, but a series of reports found serious concerns about remote interpreting, with misunderstandings, delays, poorly performing technology, and missed verbal and non-verbal cues. The University of Surrey’s Centre for Translation Studies has produced cutting-edge research on the use of technology in court interpreting. This research and best practice guidance have been provided to the MoJ. Can the Minister say whether these have been distributed to the courts? There will always be certain situations where remote interpreting is appropriate or unavoidable. Remote interpreting generally takes more time and slows things down, so if the primary driver is cost saving then the impact on court time and, therefore, backlog clearing must be factored in when weighing up the imagined savings versus true costs.

The other strategy which might well backfire and cause greater delays is the uncontrolled use of AI-enabled machine translation, rather than a qualified human being. Accuracy must be non-negotiable but, according to the CIOL, for interpreting—as opposed to translation —it is very unlikely in the near term that AI or machine translation will be usable as anything other than a support tool for human interpreters without major risks and the likelihood of appeals and legal challenges. It works pretty well for the standard European Romance languages and for German, but significantly less so for languages with many dialects, such as Arabic. It can be nearly useless for languages which are rarely included in AI training data, including many Asian and African languages.

Given this disparity, it would be almost impossible for the courts to maintain equality of treatment before the law. AI and machine translation commonly fail to detect sarcasm, irony or humour, not to mention slang and euphemisms—often used in crime to disguise meaning —which human interpreters readily understand but which leave AI befuddled and hallucinating. Is the MoJ fully engaged with DSIT in its work to develop policy on AI, including for machine translation, so that the courts can derive the benefits without the pitfalls? Can the Minister also reassure the House that the amendments to the victims’ code to ensure the use of only professional qualified translators and interpreters, which he supported so strongly in opposition, will be brought into practice without any further delay?

17:10

[Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)]

My Lords, I also start by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, and thanking her for an important maiden speech. The issues of sentencing, prisons and the court system simply cannot be separated. The backlogs that have triggered this debate must be looked at in that wider context. The recent Public Accounts Committee report, looking specifically at the Crown Court backlog, made the point that, at the end of last year, 11% of the prison population was made up of remand inmates, the highest level in 50 years. Some 32% of the remand population have been held on remand beyond six months, with 5% on remand for more than two years. The report makes the point that even getting levels down to where they were in 2019, just six years ago, would free up as many as 8,000 prison places.

The state of our prisons and the very difficult and important work of helping to equip people for a life beyond their release is made even harder with such a high proportion of inmates there on remand. The situation is also not helping the remand prisoners themselves; the longer someone waits before coming to court for resolution of their guilt or innocence in the eyes of the law, the more removed they often become from the day-to-day fabric of their life, job, family and friends. That helps no one.

There has been political consensus for a long time now that much sentencing is not optimal, with people being sent to prison when in many cases other sentences would be more appropriate. The courts sit at the heart of this conversation. The sentencing review that has been referenced and is being undertaken by David Gauke is hugely important, but these reforms should not be looked at piecemeal. As Leveson also undertakes his review into this issue around backlogs and the criminal courts more broadly, the two reviews absolutely must be dovetailed together into one coherent whole.

Reform is long overdue, and it requires us to look at the system as a whole: sentencing and courts. With court backlogs and prison capacity forcing these issues to be addressed, we should see this as an opportunity. I ask the Minister two specific questions. First, what is being done to consider the impact of the large number of remand prisoners on the wider pressures and capacity issues in the prison system? Secondly, can he commit that the Government will respond in an integrated way to the two reviews when they report, and consider changes to sentencing and the courts system as a whole?

17:12

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, the essential causes of the backlog we are debating are clear enough. They are to be found in prevalent austerity measures, underfunding of legal aid, sales of the court estate and underinvestment in the remainder—and what has been described as the unmitigated disaster of the privatisation of the Probation Service. A bad situation was made worse for the courts and their users by the pandemic, some of which I spent in a subterranean Nightingale court. The response of all court staff to the pandemic was impressive and should be acknowledged.

The effects of the backlog are also clear, particularly for victims. The courts have to prioritise some types of case, inevitably to the disadvantage of others. Delays impair the court process: evidence gets mislaid, witnesses disappear or disengage, and juries require specific necessary directions on the effect of passing time on memories of events and on the availability and reliability of witnesses. Of particular concern to family judges are cases in which there are parallel proceedings in a criminal and family court. It used to be possible to defer hearing a family case likely to be determined by the outcome of a criminal case. Delays now mean that that simply cannot be done. The situation is now reversed, with charging decisions often awaiting the decision of a fact-finding hearing in the family court. That produces yet further delay in the criminal case and prolonged uncertainty for the family, and the children in particular.

In the short term, clearly courts and the court estate should be worked to full capacity without artificial and frustrating restrictions on permitted sitting days. That would allow for the use of trial and sentencing blitzes, and more use of part-time judges, including those authorised to sit in retirement. However, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, that it is really time to end the fiction that listing is a judicial function.

Longer term, consideration should be given to the Bar Council proposal requiring Crown Court trials to start within six months of the first hearing. In time, this will prove no more unrealistic than the 26 weeks for disposal of public law children’s cases in the family court, to which legal and other professionals have responded resolutely. That should be underpinned by rigorous case management by procedural judges, relieving the full-time judiciary—particularly in smaller court centres—from work which cuts into and holds up listed and ongoing trials.

Time does not permit the consideration of the longer-term suggested solutions eroding jury trials, but we should recall the Lammy review and research that concluded that the one stage in the criminal justice system at which minority groups do not face disproportionality is when a jury reaches a verdict.

17:16

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Longfield on her maiden speech. I greatly welcome the arrival in your Lordships’ House of such a powerful advocate for children. I declare my own interest: I have been lead non-executive director of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service since 2018. I welcome the Government’s efforts to reduce the court backlog, and a timely court system is fundamental to public confidence in justice. However, this is only one of the steps needed for a sustainable criminal justice system.

Prisons are at bursting point; very soon, offenders will once more be held in police cells, under Operation Safeguard. The Ministry of Justice has introduced various early-release measures, otherwise offenders would have no prison to go to. The logistical challenges and public protection risks involved in deciding who to release, and when, are obviously tremendously complex. Prison building will not resolve this crisis, and certainly not soon, as I think the Lord Chancellor has recognised. Normally, prisons would operate at about 90% occupancy, not 99%-plus. Even these lower levels often mean serious crowding in Victorian prisons, such as HMP Wandsworth and Wormwood Scrubs. The normal regimes of education and work are often restricted, particularly when there are staff shortages. The consequences are starting to appear in boredom, disorder and violence.

The truth is that the whole system of courts, prisons and probation is operating way beyond capacity, and increasing activity in one part of the chain simply increases demand pressure elsewhere. We need much more than temporary fixes. Locking up more and more people for longer and longer has led to the current crisis, but it has done little to reassure the public that they are adequately protected. I eagerly anticipate the reviews by Sir Brian Leveson into court backlog and David Gauke into sentencing.

The way to square the vicious circle is through the greater use of non-custodial punishment. I use the word “punishment” deliberately, to convey the seriousness of the intent. Currently, fewer than 10% of offenders are tagged and fewer than 2% are on home-detention curfews. In my view, we will need a new branch of the probation service to supervise considerably increased numbers of offenders in the community. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the criminal justice system can be brought back into a long-term sustainable balance only by a fundamentally reconceived and radically improved probation service, which will need considerable investment?

17:19

[Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, on an excellent speech and look forward to hearing a little more from her later on.

We must accept that the criminal justice system currently does not have the capacity—in the CPS, defence lawyers or prison places—to get a grip and deal with the delays we have in the judicial system. As a former commissioner, I want to talk about what is happening now on the streets in relation to policing.

The Minister has heard from me previously on rape cases and others that took place 10 days ago. It takes four years for a rape case to arrive at the Crown Court. At the present time, 91 trials listed at Snaresbrook will not be heard until the latter part of 2028. These are the same delays they have at Southwark, Woolwich, Wood Green and the Central Criminal Court.

What is the answer to this? Obviously, we must have one. There is, in my view, some low-hanging fruit. The first would be the reopening and continuation of the Nightingale courts. The second would be turning magistrates’ courts into more of a Crown Court, which is what happened at Hendon when Harrow was closed.

We have to build additional courts and they have to be at the right standard. I recently went to some courts; they were filthy, the toilets were disgraceful, and the whole atmosphere was not one that you would want to spend much time in. I believe that the court hearings should go from 10 am to 4 pm.

In addition, greater credit should be given to a defendant pleading guilty on the first day of his or her appearance, rather than the third appearance or when he or she turns up for trial.

The question of determining trials either way should be decided by a judge and not the defendant. Greater consistency should be given to listing the process, allowing the police to prioritise case types at given times. They have made a plea for me to talk about that today.

The only way that this can be dealt with is by a cross-party and cross-departmental attack, chaired by someone who has the power to get different departments to deal with the problem. It must be solved; it is a scandal at the present time.

17:22

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a former chair of the Bar Council and recorder of the Crown Court. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, and welcome her to this House.

The context today was set for me by the survey just published showing that one in three criminal barristers is considering leaving criminal work because they say they work too hard for too little. That will only make things worse.

From 2009-10 to 2022-23, the last year we have, public funding for justice in England and Wales had declined by over 22% in real terms. It is worth noting that the Ministry of Justice budget is about 1% of the health budget. Obviously, some backlog in the Crown Court is inevitable. Cases waiting to be tried need time for proper preparation. The issue is not the backlog but the deficit—the failure—in the system to properly cope with it.

The backlog, we have heard, is caused by many different factors, but especially, I suggest, reduced court sitting days and too few criminal barristers and those with the right certification and approval to take serious criminal cases, such as rape cases and so on. I welcome the Government’s recent decision to raise the sitting-day cap to 110,000 in the next financial year, but there must be adequate funding to ensure that these new available sitting days are properly used.

The number of cases coming into the Crown Court routinely exceeds disposals. In the third quarter of 2024, over 31,000 cases were received into the Crown Court—a 12% increase on the previous year. This rising tide must be controlled and reversed. The number of cases in the backlog, as we have seen, has continued to rise over time.

What are we going to do to tackle that backlog? We have had a number of suggestions. One made by the Bar Council was that the CPS must give more consideration to the better use of cautions and conditional cautions for low-level offending by those of relatively good character who are not likely to receive prison sentences. The CPS should also consider whether a summary charge, with the consequences of summary trial, may be sufficient for many cases, particularly now that the jurisdiction of the magistrates’ courts has been increased.

I endorse the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, with his experience as Lord Chief Justice, that we should look very seriously at an intermediate court of a judge sitting with justices.

The court estate must be used to full capacity. The cap on sitting days for the Crown Court must be removed. Better fees must be paid to criminal and defence barristers to ensure that we have enough to meet the demand. Some 20 years ago, as chair of the Bar Council, I urged the then Department for Constitutional Affairs to pay properly for pretrial case management—nothing was done, and we have the current mess because of that.

There we are. Delay damages victims, witnesses and defendants, and it destroys this country’s reputation for justice. We must do better.

17:26

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my new colleague, my noble friend Lady Longfield, on her maiden speech and give her a very big welcome to your Lordships’ House.

I rarely speak in Thursday Back-Bench debates, for I fear that I do not have the necessary expertise. I am not sure that I have the necessary expertise for this debate, but, long ago, I practised as a young barrister in the Courts of Assize and the Courts of Quarter Sessions—later the Crown Courts—in the 1960s and 1970s. At that time, I was not aware of any backlog at all of criminal cases waiting for trial, but it is now a big problem. As is recorded in the briefing notes provided by our Library, 73,205 criminal cases were awaiting trial in September of last year.

A Bar student, who was my guest last night, told me that he worked recently in the Birmingham Crown Court, which has 12 courts altogether but only three ushers. The result was a great underuse of those courts. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, made that point in relation to other courts, and I endorse all that he said. Clearly, something is wrong.

The great difference between those days of long ago, when I was in practice at the Bar, and these days, is the length of trials. Murder trials then seldom went over a week and were often much shorter; now they are double or treble the time, or even longer. It is exactly the same with other criminal trials. Indeed, a colleague who works on civil matters told me the other day that he could not make further commitments because he was about to start a trial that was scheduled for a year. That was quite unheard of in those days of long ago.

It is very difficult to cut down the length of criminal trials—it will be perceived that there is too much at stake for both the prosecution and defence—but we have to play our part in reducing this terrible backlog. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, identified in his excellent opening speech, greater efficiency in court processes could be of real help.

17:29

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

My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging and impressive debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for securing it and for the comprehensive and persuasive way in which he opened it. I also join with everyone in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, on her excellent and moving maiden speech. Her long experience with the charity 4Children and as Children’s Commissioner will be invaluable, and she has shown today how she will give us a fuller insight into how the criminal justice system impacts on the lives of children and young people.

The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, rightly concentrates on the impact of delays on evidence, victims and the fairness of proceedings for defendants. Last Tuesday, following the Lord Chancellor’s Statement to the House of Commons, I described the current backlog of 73,000 cases awaiting trial as “an utter disgrace”. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, have given us some more of the figures.

I maintain that the Government could mitigate these delays with determined and urgent action to reduce them. Every lawyer who has worked in trials, civil and criminal, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, well knows that evidence becomes less accurate with the passage of time. The accounts of honest witnesses often differ markedly, even when events are recent and reasonably fresh. Discerning the truth becomes much more difficult as time passes. Recollections fade, witnesses become unavailable, and details are forgotten—often, details which could help distinguish accuracy from falsehood, whether deliberate or unintended. Then, documents get lost, or their meaning and import are not recalled.

Unreliable evidence means unreliable trials, often leading to surprising acquittals where juries cannot be sure of guilt. There is also a risk of unsafe convictions, particularly where defence evidence cannot be found or witnesses traced and called. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, pointed out, the problems are compounded by our having a demoralised, frustrated and often overstressed judiciary, and, as my noble friend Lord Thomas and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, said, an underpaid and unhappy cadre of barristers.

The Motion speaks of the effect on victims. In that context, we rightly stress the effect of years of delay on victims of sexual violence, with many dropping out of prosecutions because they simply cannot take the strain, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London described. That is desperately unjust for the victims, who feel they have no option but to let the perpetrators go free and to live with the guilt that goes with the fear that those same perpetrators will reoffend against other victims. So, perpetrators are not brought to justice, and that means a widespread lack of public confidence in the justice system as a whole.

The Minister mentioned last week that there were courts—he mentioned Bristol—where sexual violence cases were treated separately and brought on faster than other cases. Should not that be a general practice? But it is not just in sexual violence cases where victims suffer from these delays; court delays blight the entire system.

Then, the Motion speaks of unfairness to defendants. Innocent defendants are deprived, sometimes for years, of the chance to clear their names. They and their families suffer unjustly through the process, often ostracised by friends, losing employment and suffering intolerable strain for extended periods. Defendants who are guilty can lose the chance of early access to rehabilitative services, sometimes in ways that might be surprising.

Many defendants, as we all know, need help with mental health issues, but they can be cut off from treatment. My daughter, an NHS doctor, has referred me to the exclusion criteria of one NHS trust for access to talking therapies. Such therapies are not available to

“Individuals who are undergoing court or legal proceedings which involves harm to others”,

and I do not believe this is atypical. So, defendants to a charge of violence cannot access, sometimes for years of delay, a service that might really help them to address the mental issues that brought them before the court in the first place. Thus, the cruelty of justice delayed takes a serious toll on the lives of all those affected.

What is to be done? First, the MoJ must take up all the sitting days the Lady Chief Justice says are available. My noble friend Lord Thomas referred to her views, and I have no doubt that she is right: whatever the exact figure, there are several thousand extra days that could be utilised.

The first reason given by the Minister last week for not taking up those extra days was competition for resources, but long delays in court hearings do not save money—they cost money. The delayed trials have to be paid for in the end, and meanwhile there are more defendants in prison on remand, as the noble Baroness, Lady Porter, said. They may be acquitted or receive community sentences at the end. There are more defendants, victims and families with their lives on hold, making greater demands on public resources as they await delayed trials. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, on increasing efficiency to reduce costs in this area.

The second reason given by the Minister last week was the need to have some headroom in the system to accommodate surges in demand for court time, caused by events such as the riots last summer. That argument has some force, but it would be better for such headroom to be provided—if the need arises—by emergency measures in the short term, rather than by tolerating unjust and unacceptable delays in the long term.

As others have pointed out, the court maintenance programme needs to be put on an emergency footing so that our, frankly, decrepit courts—many unusable and unused, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, pointed out—can be restored to full service, with temporary buildings used while the necessary repairs are undertaken.

Last week I suggested that the Government should consider evening and weekend sittings for uncontested cases, leaving more court days available for trials. Might the Minister respond to that suggestion?

I also agree with the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, that we should have criminal masters to deal with a raft of applications that do not need the attention of judges. More of the Nightingale courts may have to remain open for longer than planned—even if they are not ideal, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said, they can be used.

We need to improve procedures, so that fewer cases are adjourned because of the listing errors and prison transport mistakes that currently bedevil the Crown Courts. I also agree with the procedural suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for more advanced notice of skeleton arguments to be deployed. I have always agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on the need for efficient interpretation.

The Government accept that more must be done and that, even with the measures they are taking, the backlogs will grow. They pin their hopes on proposals for structural reform, but we cannot rely only on the hope that the Leveson review will solve the problem. Certainly, in time, structural reform of the system may help. For my part, I am loath to restrict jury trials, not least for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that juries are multiracial and tend to be non-discriminatory.

I see the possibilities, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, of a new solution for long fraud trials. When it comes, Sir Brian’s report will have to be carefully considered, the Government will need to respond and any reforms will take time to implement, and even more time to have an effect on the backlogs. Given the urgency, we do not have that time.

17:39

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by extending my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, for her maiden speech and for the insight she gave on the issue of children in the justice system, an area where I know she will continue to make very important contributions to the proceedings of this House. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for securing this debate on such an urgent and important issue.

I shall not seek to repeat all the damning statistics that we have heard already. In a sense, they speak for themselves. For far too many victims, justice now feels out of touch. For far too many accused, the resolution of a criminal complaint feels out of reach. Victims of serious crimes such as rape, murder and robbery are told that their cases will not be heard until 2027—or, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, pointed out, in some instances, 2028. Half of victims have had their Crown Court trials adjourned or rescheduled. This is not just a matter of inconvenience or inefficiency; it is a failure of society to deliver the justice that victims deserve and expect, and it is a failure of our society to give accused their right to resolution of a criminal complaint within a reasonable and rational time.

Listening to these contributions, I note that some would adopt the view that there is somehow an absolute right to trial by jury. I would not accept that proposition. Almost 90% of criminal complaints are disposed of without the requirement for a jury. It may be regarded as some sort of fundamental right, but it is not absolute, and we should not regard it as something that is inviolate.

We face a situation in which the proposal for modest change or careful and moderate improvements is simply not going to be enough. The present Lady Chief Justice has pointed out that the backlog continues to increase, despite the best efforts of the Ministry of Justice, the courts and the legal profession to see it go otherwise. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, her predecessor as Lord Chief Justice, again pointed to the situation we are in as being, in essence, in need of “radical change”. Radical change is the only thing that is going to improve matters in the present situation.

We heard from a number of noble Lords about the difficulty of maintaining the appropriate number of lawyers at the criminal Bar. Indeed, it is clear that, over many years now, recruitment to the criminal Bar has been rendered far more difficult by reason of the very limited legal aid made available to those who practise in that critical and important area. The noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, also made the point that there is an impact not only on the practising Bar but on the judiciary themselves, who in many instances feel overburdened by the situation that has been allowed to develop in the last few years.

We have to look at how we can approach this. I would respectfully adopt the view already expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, and touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that we should look at some sort of intermediary court structure. There is clearly room to deal with the either-way cases that, I understand, represent some 40% of the existing backlog in the Crown Court.

There are a number of ways in which it could be done. The adoption of something similar to the Diplock courts, with a Crown Court judge sitting with two magistrates, for example, would be one way forward. Whether that should deal with only specified offences or whether it should deal with, for example, a sentencing power of up to two years, or, I might venture, up to five years, is a matter for debate and cannot be resolved at this time, but there is clearly a need to address that issue and to potentially introduce such an intermediary court.

With respect, I do not accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that this would give rise to a greater number of appeals. As I understand it, that was not the experience with the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland but again, that issue bears examination. It will also be necessary to take into account the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on the impact of non-jury trials on certain parts of our society. I appreciate the importance of that, but it can be examined going forward.

The reality is that we cannot continue as we do at the present time. We cannot continue with a backlog in the Crown Court that is simply increasing. It is out of control. There are some interim measures that can be taken. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, referred to the Nightingale courts. I understand that about 60 were established, of which only about 16 are in use at present. The question then arises of whether we have the judiciary to man those additional courts. Do we have the practitioners at the criminal Bar who will be available to prosecute and defend in those additional courts? There are so many factors coming together here that create not just one problem but a chemistry of problems, which cannot be resolved by one or two simple steps. It will take a leap of imagination by the Minister and his department to address this in a capable, credible and effective way.

My noble friend Lady Porter of Fulwood and the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, made an important point. There is an inextricable link between the present, increasing backlog and the immediate problem that we face with our prison population. I understand from the Library statistics that something like 20% of our prison places are taken up by prisoners on remand. Of those, a very large proportion represent what would be regarded as either-way cases. If we can relieve the backlog, one immediate advantage may be that we take some of the pressure off our present prison estate.

We must look at this in the round. It is not just a case of saying that we need more judges. It is not just a case of saying that we need more to pay lawyers more—although I always think that is a very good idea. It is not a case of saying that we need more courtrooms, or of saying that we can just introduce an intermediate court. We have to bring all these features together. Having regard to that, we are immediately faced with the issue of resources.

Can I make this request of the Minister? Will he ensure that he passes the Hansard report of this debate to his colleagues in His Majesty’s Treasury?

17:48

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a fantastic debate. It has been wide-ranging and extremely well informed. My noble friend Lady Longfield made an excellent maiden speech. I very much look forward to working with her and learning from her in the future as we discuss youth justice and young people. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for securing this debate. There is no doubt that the Government face a profound challenge in the Crown Courts. Our ability to provide justice to the public is of utmost importance and I am very glad that we have had this debate here today.

I will rehearse some of the statistics, even though other noble Lords have given them. When the Government came to power, we inherited a record and rising courts backlog which today stands at over 73,000 cases. It was around half of that figure five years ago.

The issue is more difficult to tackle than just rising numbers. Receipts are increasingly high and the outstanding case load is different from before the pandemic, as it is made up of a greater proportion of more serious and complex offences. Those offences take up more court time and tend to have a lower guilty-plea rate.

In July, the Lord Chancellor made an immediate decision upon entering office to increase Crown Court sitting days by 500 on top of the allocation provided by the previous Lord Chancellor in the previous Government. This was followed by a further increase of 2,000 sitting days in December of last year. We also increased magistrates’ courts’ sentencing powers for a single triable either-way offence: previously, they could only impose a six-month prison sentence for these offences; that has now been increased to 12 months and, in doing so, we have freed up capacity in the Crown Court to hear more of the most serious cases. The capacity that will be freed is equivalent to an extra 2,000 sitting days in the Crown Court. We did not stop there. Earlier this month, we announced funding for a record high allocation of 110,000 sitting days in the next financial year to deliver swifter justice for victims. This is 4,000 more days than the previous Government funded.

However, we are aware that increased capacity alone is not enough and only fundamental reform will tackle the issue. That is why we appointed Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, to conduct a wholesale review of our criminal courts and propose long-term reforms. Tackling the outstanding case load in the Crown Court is a top priority for this Government, and we will look to act on recommendations from the report as soon as possible.

I want to touch on other jurisdictions. The department has been focused on tackling demand within the Crown Court, but it is important to recognise that it is part of an interlinking court system and we must work to tackle demand across the whole system. More than 90% of all criminal cases are dealt with in magistrates’ courts, where cases continue to be completed swiftly. Although the case load rose from 72,151 cases to 333,349 cases between September 2023 and September 2024, the timeliness in getting through that increased case load within magistrates’ courts has remained stable. That is a real achievement, which we should acknowledge, of the MoJ in managing the issue and of the magistrates’ courts themselves.

To deal with increased demand, we continue to invest in the recruitment of more magistrates. On the point made by my noble friend Lady Hazarika, we are aiming to recruit 2,000 new and diverse magistrates this year and similar numbers in the next couple of years. But we need to increase that figure, and one of the things I spend my time doing is working out how we can increase the recruitment of magistrates. When I started as a magistrate about 20 years ago, there were 30,000 magistrates in England and Wales; there are now 14,000. We need to get the numbers back up to over 20,000, and then up again, depending on what Sir Brian recommends.

In family courts, the case load in both public and private is reducing a bit, so that is a good story. There are other problems within the family court arena, which I am very aware of, but there is not the emergency situation in family courts which we are seeing in the Crown Court.

To return to the issue of the Crown Court backlog, many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Marks, asked about the impact of delays on the reliability of evidence. This affects victims and witnesses, and of course many witnesses are victims as well. There are measures in place to support them in giving their evidence.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London asked about support for victims. We regard that as important and we accept that victims tend to drop out the longer that a case is delayed. The criminal justice system already works together to give vulnerable and intimidated victims an earlier opportunity to provide their evidence after a not guilty plea is entered. Under Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, eligible victims can have their cross-examination pre-recorded, enabling victims or witnesses to give evidence at an earlier stage, when their recollection of events is likely to be better. In addition, the police, the CPS and HMCTS employ a joint protocol to expedite cases involving witnesses under 10 years old, thereby maximising the opportunity for them to provide their best evidence and minimising the stress and emotional impact of the criminal justice system.

Prosecutors have guidance on allowing witnesses to refresh their memory. This usually involves the witness rereading their witness statement on the day of the trial. The department’s funding of the national Witness Service means that crucial emotional and practical support is provided to both prosecution and defence witnesses in all criminal courts in England and Wales, to enable them to give best evidence.

I wish to address the undeniable impact that court backlogs have on victims. The human cost of these delays is considerable, and witnesses—who are often victims as well—play a crucial role in ensuring that justice is served. Indeed, as the Victims’ Commissioner mentioned in her report, the delays in the court system can have a particularly adverse impact on victims of rape and serious sexual offences. To ensure ongoing communication with victims in the pretrial period, every CPS area now has at least one dedicated victim liaison officer in its rape and serious sexual offence unit, and pretrial meetings are offered to all adult victims of these crimes. This Government have committed to introducing free, independent legal advice for victims and survivors of adult rape across England and Wales to help them understand and uphold their legal rights. We aim to begin a phased rollout of that service later this year.

The Government have committed to implementing the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024. The Act contains a package of measures that, once implemented, will improve victims’ experience of the criminal justice system and offer better access to information. The first tranche of victim-related measures from the Act commenced in January this year. They simplify the complaints process for victims and enhance the Victims’ Commissioner’s ability to hold criminal justice agencies to account. We are implementing provisions to ensure that local commissioners collaborate on support services for certain victims. We will consult on a new victims’ code, so that every victim of crime knows the rights they should receive under the code.

Lastly, on support to victims, I agree with the Victims’ Commissioner that support services have an important role in keeping victims engaged with the criminal justice system, and that this can help mitigate the impacts of court delays. That is why, in the upcoming financial year, we have protected dedicated spending in the department by maintaining this year’s funding levels for ring-fenced sexual violence and domestic abuse support.

Moving on to the fairness of proceedings for defendants, we recognise that the prolonged uncertainty of waiting for a trial can be overwhelming for some defendants, and we do not underestimate the impact that this has on the defendants and their families. The judiciary and the Crown Court are responsible for ensuring that cases are heard as promptly and efficiently as possible. They continue to work to prioritise cases, including those involving custody time limits. Custody time limits safeguard defendants by preventing them being held on remand in prison for an excessive amount of time prior to their trial. If the trial cannot be heard before the limit expires, the court must release the person on bail, unless the prosecution successfully applies to extend it.

Fairness is integral to the criminal justice system. While miscarriages of justice are, thankfully, rare, it is important that our appeal system, including the possibility to apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, functions well. Last month, the Law Commission launched a public consultation on the law relating to criminal appeals, aimed at ensuring that the system is fair and effective. We look forward to receiving the final recommendations from the Law Commission once the consultation exercise has concluded.

Reducing the Crown Court backlog and improving the experience of victims through the process of seeking justice continues to be the priority of this Government. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for raising this subject.

I turn to contributions from noble Lords in the debate. Both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, expressed scepticism about the judicial function of listing. The noble and learned Lord argued that general listing was a legitimate subject for debate in Parliament and generally. He said that specific listing of specific cases should remain a matter for judges. That was an interesting point—I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Meston, agrees with it—and I will make sure that it is fed back to colleagues.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, spoke about the time for action. We agree with that, of course, and we are acting: we have these two extremely important reviews under way. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Porter, that we think daily about dovetailing these two reviews and how they will work together, because this is an integrated system—a point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, made. You really need to look at the whole system to try to get the benefits we hope to achieve through the reforms.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, pointed out that there are a number of areas where jury trials have stopped and the world has not stopped turning. We wait to see what Sir Brian recommends, but there may be a recommendation for an intermediate court for cases up to, say, two years’ sentencing—or maybe five years, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, suggested. We wait to see on that matter.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked about interpreters. There is of course an absolute requirement in the code for professional translators. The Government will consult on a new code in due course. I recognise her point about the importance of interpreters to enable fair trials and fair hearings in courts.

I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for raising the Lammy review, which quite rightly pointed out the trust that people have in jury trials, particularly people from ethnic minorities. I and the Government recognise that it is a gold standard. However, it does not necessarily mean that all trials, or the same proportion of trials as now, will continue to be jury trials. The point was well made and is one that we need to reflect on as we consider proposals as they come forward. I add that magistrates, of course, are more diverse than the rest of the judiciary, particularly here in London. We—I was a magistrate—were a pretty diverse bunch within London. Nevertheless, I thank the noble Lord for making that point.

My noble friend Lord Lemos spoke with great authority about the problems of overcrowding. Of course I aspire to great investment within the whole system, but his points about the knock-on problems of overcrowding in the Prison Service were absolutely right.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, made a number of detailed proposals. I am sure the officials will read them with great interest, but I will not comment on them individually now. I thought they were points well made.

The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, spoke about there being too few criminal barristers. That is obviously right. There is no shortage of trade unionists for the criminal barristers in this House, I have to say, although that does not mean it is not merited. The noble Lord also advocated for the increased use of out-of-court disposals. It is worth reflecting that one of the great successes over the last 20 years is the reduction in the number of youths in custody. That is very much driven by the increased use of out-of-court disposals for youths.

When I started as a youth magistrate, there were 3,000 youths in custody; now, it is a matter of a few hundred, and out-of-court disposals were a part of that transition, if I may put it like that.

My noble friend Lord Hacking gave me one of his usual history lessons, for which I am very grateful. The point he made about trials getting longer and longer were of course absolutely right.

There are other points I would like to make. My noble friend Lady Levitt and the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Marks, spoke about the Judicial Attitudes Survey and asked what the Government are going to do with it. One thing the Government will do, obviously, is continue to invest in regular recruitment and recognise the factors that have come up through that survey. There will be a major review of judicial pay, which has been commissioned, and it will look at the issues affecting judges and particular judge types. So, we recognise the point that my noble friend made.

The other point, which was made by the noble, Lord Carlile, was about prisoner transport and how—as I know from my own experience—this is often a source of delay. I can confirm that, in respect of the transport supplier, when the delays are unacceptable and there is performance failure, then direct action can be taken by the MoJ. That is done occasionally, and it is recognised that a completely unreasonable number of delays are caused by prisoners or defendants simply not getting to court on time—I absolutely recognise that point.

I have already welcomed my noble friend Lady Longfield, but I want to say that I am very glad she will be joining my colleague the honourable Nic Dakin for his round-table discussion on the topic of youth in the criminal justice system. My office is literally next door to Nic Dakin’s, so I am sure I will hear all about it.

The big point to close on—this has been accepted by all noble Lords who have spoken—is that that we really have a very profound challenge in front of us. As a Government, we are taking bold actions to try and address the two main problems that affect our criminal justice system, which are Crown Court backlogs and prisoner overcrowding. These two problems are hugely interlinked, and we are determined to address these problems and turn the tanker around. But there are many aspects to this, and I look forward to the interest of noble Lords as we continue along this road.

18:08

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I shall say just a few short points in closing. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his considered reply. May I gently urge him to look at the research of Professor Cheryl Thomas of University College into rape cases where the victim does not give evidence in the presence of the court? The results of that research are very unfavourable to the procedure. It is just not working well.

Secondly, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, for her maiden speech. I will simply say that she did not disappoint.

I noted the right reverend Prelate’s comment about creative thinking. There should be some creative thinking that does not immediately assume that we must get rid of jury trials in a large number of cases because we are so pessimistic about the future. We can be optimistic, and indeed, surely, as one noble Lord said, it is time to get on with what can be done now, without waiting for Sir Brian Leveson’s report. Some of it is staring us in the face.

For example, my noble kinswoman and others’ suggestion of the introduction of criminal masters or procedural judges could be started tomorrow. It would make a huge difference in courts such as Snaresbrook, which has been much mentioned. I would also urge upon the Government that my noble friend Lord Meston’s reference to allowing criminal and family courts to work much more closely together could also be used with civil courts and major fraud trials. There is a great deal of work that can be done that would shorten lists and delays.

The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in his interesting historical analysis—it was before my time but, like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I had heard all about it when I started at the Bar—urged that there should be ushers in every court. It is such a simple thing. If there is an usher and a clerk in the court, the work gets done. If they are not there, the witnesses cannot be brought in, the charges cannot be read out properly and there are unreasonable burdens placed on the judges. Those are simple things we can do immediately.

We have a difference about juries. I say both to my noble friend Lord Faulks and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, that in my view they are wrong about juries. First, the reference to civil juries is irrelevant to this discussion. Civil juries did not send people to prison for a long time, in effect, and judges have to send people to prison if they have been convicted by a jury of a serious offence.

In relation to the Diplock courts, I say with enormous respect to the noble and learned Lord, whom I admire greatly, that it is a poor analogy. The Diplock courts deal only with the most serious cases and were created in an atmosphere that did not want to get rid of a single jury trial, but it was because you could not get a fair trial in Northern Ireland at that time for special reasons. I do not think that Diplock courts take us anywhere.

I hope I will be forgiven for not referring to everyone who has spoken, but in closing, I simply want to thank all noble Lords who have taken part and say that the Government have a very big task on their hands.

Motion agreed.

Online Procedure Rules (Specified Proceedings) Regulations 2025

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Civil Proceedings and Magistrates’ Courts Fees (Amendment) Order 2025

Motions to Approve

18:12

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

That the draft Regulations and Order laid before the House on 29 January and 6 February be approved.

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 17 March.

Motions agreed.

House adjourned at 6.12 pm.