Lords Chamber

Monday 18th May 2026

(began 1 hour, 53 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:36
14:38
14:38
14:38
None Portrait Business of the House
-

It is, though unlikely if a member from a particular bench ask a question, that we will get back to that bench before other supplementary questions have come from around the House. So, for example, today, the first question is from my noble friend Baroness Nargund Arthur Noble. Ladies asked her question. Supplementary question, and it has been answered, will move around to other benches, and I would not normally expect another Labour member to ask a question until we have heard from the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the crossbenchers and maybe also the bishops benches.

I hope that is clear and of assistance to the House. My only intention of standing at this despatch box, making these contributions on a regular basis is for Question Time to be more effective, for it to provide greater scrutiny and allow more members of the House to participate in this most important part of our business. I hope all noble Lords will bear these remarks in mind when participates today and in the days ahead. I also draw the attention of the House to the letter sent around by the usual channels on the day of the King's Speech.

This letter makes clear that this is a self-regulating house. We all individually need to show self-restraint and apply some self-regulation to our own conduct in this House. As I have said before, if we follow the advice and guidance as set out in the companion, we will not go far wrong. The companion is the agreed will of the House, which enables us to conduct our business efficiently and effectively with courtesy and respect, and at Question time ask questions and have them answered.
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:21
15:22
None Portrait Debate on the Address: Justice, home affairs and the union
-

>> >> My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords My Lords. My Lords. Baroness My Lords. Baroness Levitt.
15:23
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt (Labour)
-
-
>> My Lords. Baroness Levitt. >> My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. It's a privilege. To open. This debate on the government's plans for Home affairs, the justice plans for Home affairs, the justice system and the Union. Let me start by expressing my gratitude to His Majesty for delivering the most gracious speech. And I also want to say at the outset that in the 15 months since I came into your Lordships house, I've been awed by the amount of expertise, experience, and wisdom to be found here, on the subject of which I am sure that many of your Lordships will have noted that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, is to make his valedictory speech today, after 16 years in your Lordships House.

My Lords, we shall miss him. His contributions, like his books, have always been learned, penetrative and eloquent, and he's also never been afraid to tell us straight what he thinks. To have leading political historians in this House has added knowledge and quality to our debates. Because he's already said this publicly. I'm sure he will not mind me referring to the fact that he suffers from Parkinson's disease, because I wanted to say to him that in fact, so does my own father.

And he was 90 last weekend and he's going strong. I'm sure your Lordships will all join me in wishing the noble Lord good health, long life and continued happiness. I also look forward to the maiden speeches of the noble Lord Lord Case and the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. My Lords, in opening this debate, I have two themes the protection of the public and rebuilding trust in our public institutions. We will do this at a national level, but we will also work with the newly formed devolved governments because people in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and here in England expect to see their governments working together to deliver for them.

My Lords all of us long for the sunlit uplands, where the economy is so strong that there is money to pay for everything that we want and deserve. And whilst I, as a proud member of this Labour government, firmly believe that we are on the right path to greater economic strength, we all have to accept that at the moment we cannot afford everything that we want to do and so hard choices have to be made. But the lodestar for this government is these two principles fairness and opportunity for all people across the United Kingdom.

And so I start with the protection of the public, because keeping our citizens safe is the most fundamental duty of all. This government has two objectives to ensure that law enforcement bodies have the tools to tackle emerging dangers, whilst also maintaining the trust and confidence of the communities which they serve. So this government is introducing the biggest reform to policing in two centuries, designed to do three things to respond to rapidly changing threats. Give confidence at a local level that community's priorities are listened to and acted upon, and increase democratic accountability.

My Lords, crime is evolving fast. Sophisticated criminal gangs are working both here and internationally, smuggling drugs and trafficking people into this country, and the online world is making it easier than ever for sexual abusers and online fraudsters to operate. 90% of crime today has a digital element, and fraud now makes up nearly half of all crime. We no longer live in the world of Dixon of Dock Green, which was a reference I knew I could make safely in your Lordships house.

When I said it to my children, I got rather a blank stare, but that really rather makes the point for me. Policing must evolve to tackle modern realities. The Police Reform Bill will restore trust in policing. It will strengthen local policing by driving down waste, cutting bureaucracy, empowering officers in their communities and equipping forces with the technology and skills they need to keep pace with crime as it evolves. We are creating the National Police Service, which will provide a unified response to the most serious crimes, set, stronger national policing standards and ensure that there is more consistency in how the police go about their work.

My Lords. Whilst operational independence remains a crucial cornerstone of modern policing, this bill will ensure that there is greater accountability to the public through their elected representatives. In order to achieve this, the Home Secretary will set national priorities, improving police performance and ensuring standards are met across the country. In addition, as part of protecting the public, we must keep up with modern dangers and that is why the most gracious speech also included proposals to tackle two of the greatest emerging threats those posed by hostile states as well as by individuals.

The Tackling State Threats Bill creates a powerful new tool to disrupt and deter the activities of state linked entities and those acting in concert with them, and this follows a recommendation made by the independent reviewer. Hostile states sponsor terrorism and create insecurity. So with this bill, we will create a new power for the Secretary of State directly to address organisations that are engaged in state state linked threats with new criminal sanctions for those organisations. But it is not just other countries that represent an evolving threat.

We also need stronger protections against individuals who become fixated with violence and can and do cause serious, real world harm. The Southport attack in July of 2024 was a stark reminder of why this is needed. We must protect the public from those who plan to commit a mass casualty attack, even if they do not have an ideological motive. So we will introduce a national security Bill with measures to tackle online extreme violence, because we all know that exposure to the most graphic and extreme violent material can escalate to planning and conducting an attack.

So this bill will criminalise the creation and sharing of extreme violent violence content, and give law enforcement updated powers to take down cyber criminals, including introducing a cybercrime risk order. And it will criminalise the planning of a mass casualty attack such as the Southport attacks. I turn to my second subject confidence in our public institutions. This government is bringing forward several measures to rebuild that trust, to make sure that systems work as they should, and to restore fairness and predictability.

And I start with a subject close to my own heart, our criminal justice system, whether your Lordships belong to a particular political grouping or to none, I think we can all agree on this. Our criminal justice system is struggling. We might disagree about who is to blame, but we all know that things are not how they should be in a mature democracy. Grotesque delays in cases being tried, victims who feel that the system is weighted against them, guilty defendants gaming the system, and innocent defendants whose lives are ruined by the many months, if not years, waiting to be cleared, by which time they may well have lost their jobs, homes and families.

All these things are closely intertwined. The delays make it worthwhile for the guilty to string things out, which in turn makes victims feel that the system is broken. Today, the backlog of cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court is over 80,000 cases. Without action, that backlog will continue to rise beyond the point of recovery. So we must act, and we are implementing a package of reforms. The first element of our package is a record financial investment in the criminal justice system.

We are funding unlimited sitting days in the Crown Court this financial year. As many courts as the Lady Chief Justice can give us, we will fund. That's part of a record £2.78 billion settlement for the courts and tribunals this year, and it includes significant increases to legal aid in order to attract and retain the excellent lawyers upon whom the system depends. The second element is improving efficiency. We are working hard to give our response to the second part of the Leveson Report, but by way of example, there will be more blitz courts and we're making greater use of technology and artificial intelligence.

The third element of our package is to introduce modernising reforms, and we will do this through the return of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. My Lords, for reasons that I have to confess that I've been a bit mystified by this has attracted huge controversy, and the reason I'm mystified by it is this this government is only doing what pretty much every other government has done in the past, including conservative governments. And let me explain what I mean. It has always been the case that only 10% of criminal cases are dealt with in the Crown Court.

There are obvious reasons for this. Jury trial is much slower and much more expensive than the magistrates court, which is why every government reserves a jury trial for the most serious cases, and what is meant by the most serious cases changes over time. Let me give you a little illustration. Picture the scene on a sunny morning in 1971, a 23 year old barrister set off to the Birkenhead Court sessions to conduct his first jury trial. The name of that young man was Alex Carlile, known to this House as the Lord Carlile of Berriew, and as some of your Lordships know, my noble kinsmen, and in case your Lordships are wondering why I've embarked on this recounting of ancient history, the reason is this the offence for which his client was being tried was driving with excess alcohol.

It was a breathalyser case, and I think your Lordships will now have the point. We don't try breathalyser cases in the Crown Court anymore. They only go before the magistrates. And the reason for that? Well, I can do no better than to use the words of the late, great Gareth Williams QC, Lord Williams of Mostyn in 1999, speaking in your Lordships House when he was Minister of State in the Home Office, he said things are not set in stone. Your Lordships will remember the introduction of the breathalyser provisions and the right to trial by jury.

I remember that with perfect satisfaction and happiness, because it kept many of us going in south and west Wales for many years, running completely bogus defences. I can say this now about whether the policeman was wearing his cap and, if not, whether that constituted full uniform. Eventually, the right to elect trial in breathalyser cases was wholly removed and transferred to the magistracy. One cannot set these matters in stone. One must take a sensible balance and build in judicial safeguards.

And the party, which had removed the right of jury trial for these cases, was, of course, the party opposite. I do not say that to criticise them. I merely do it to make the point that that is what governments do in order to keep up with modern life. They just move the line as to which cases are tried in magistrates court, and which require the greater time and resources of judge and jury in the Crown Court. My Lords, we are a Labour government. We did not come into office and I did not come into your Lordships House to remove jury trial.

This is a sensible and proportionate response to the changing nature of criminal offences and the way in which they are prosecuted in the public interest, because the modelling is clear, investment and modernisation alone are not enough. We also need to reform. I turn now to the better and fairer immigration and asylum system that we promised, promised the British people. We will not hesitate to remove those with no right to be here and ensure our immigration rules are enforced.

But I also say this this Labour government will never shirk the responsibility of providing refugee status to those fleeing war and persecution, and we will continue to meet our international obligations whilst encouraging those who want to build a life in the UK to do so via safe and legal routes. What we see on our television screens unfolding in the English Channel is grotesque vulnerable adults and children being exploited and put in danger and it must stop. We've made a good start.

We've cut £1 billion from the asylum bill, and we've increased the return of illegal immigrants by 31% since coming into office. But, my Lords, it is absolutely clear that we cannot solve this by incremental measures alone. The task is to urgent and too big. So the Immigration and Asylum Bill will introduce the most significant changes to the immigration system in a generation. It will restore order and control by tightening the application of article eight, ensuring that family life means only the core family unit, and addressing the misuse of the modern slavery framework.

It will speed up the removal and deportation of illegal migrants and foreign criminals, as well as reducing the pull factors driving illegal migration. And we will create a new independent appeals body and a system that is fair, fast and commands public confidence, which will ensure the immediate forced removal of those who have exhausted all their appeals. We will ensure that refugees who do integrate, who contribute and play a full part in our society will be able to come off basic protection and settle more quickly.

These proposals will make our immigration system fair and fit for purpose, and allow us to focus on those who genuinely need support. My Lords a failure in accountability of those who serve or should serve. The public has also worn down public trust. His Majesty confirmed the carry over of two bills designed to right past wrongs. The first is fulfilling our manifesto commitment to get the public accountability law on the statute book. We are determined to deliver for the Hillsborough families after 37 long years, as well as the other victims of other tragedies where the state was at fault, including Infected Blood, Horizon and Grenfell.

The Bill will introduce a duty of candour, individual accountability and require honesty and frankness. When things go wrong, it will put powerful new obligations on public bodies and officials to help investigations to get to the truth. And it will make sure that there is parity of arms at inquests, representing the largest expansion of civil legal aid in a decade. Taken together, the measures in this Bill will give individual citizens real and meaningful ability to challenge the state. My Lords His Majesty also confirmed the return of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.

This bill, too is designed to rebuild public trust as well as ensuring dignity for the families of victims. Many of those families have suffered so much down the years and simply want answers about what happened to their family members killed in the Troubles. So we will reform the current system of addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. It includes measures to enhance next of kin participation, safeguard witnesses including our veterans, and bolster confidence in the Reformed Legacy Commission. This is a proportionate and workable approach to addressing this dark period in our history.

My Lords, I know that in the best traditions of your Lordships House, the debate to follow will allow for a full and interesting discussion of this government's agenda. And may I also say that I would welcome discussion with any of your Lordships, from whichever party or group, about any or all of these plans. This government is really keen to draw upon the experience and wisdom in this House, about which I spoke at the beginning of this speech, and where we can achieve consensus, we will do so.

My Lords, the most gracious speech set out this government's approach to keeping the public safe and restoring trust. We are determined that by doing so, all.
15:39
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
Hear, hear. My Lords, I'm. >> Hear, hear. My Lords, I'm. >> Grateful to the noble Baroness. >> The Minister, for her speech for outlining the government's legislative programme for the new session in the area of Justice and Home Affairs. I was particularly impressed, if I may say respectfully, that her speech managed both to defend her husband and to revive Dixon of Dock Green, a combination not often encountered in modern criminal justice policy. Like the noble Lady, the Minister. I also look forward to the maiden speeches from the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, whose route to high office in the church was assured when she was ordained in Liverpool, and also, of course, to the maiden speech of the noble Lord Lord Case, whose route to Cabinet Secretary was assured when he had.

As his doctoral supervisor, I understand the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Limpsfield, and like the noble Lady, the Minister, I also pay tribute to the noble Lord in. What I understand is to be his valedictory speech. He is one of the houses greatest historians and constitutionalists. His wisdom and scholarship have enriched our political life for many years. According to Wikipedia, which might be accurate on this point, at least when created a life peer, he said, and I quote, I hope I can help the House of Lords a bit on constitutional matters.

I'll certainly give it my best shot. My Lords, I think I speak for the whole House when I say that there are few, if any, better shots. My Lords, I'm going to focus on the justice and constitutional aspects of the programme, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower will have more to say about the Home Office and immigration matters before turning to the substance. I cannot help observing that the Gracious Speech is admirably confident in declaring what His Majesty's Government will do in current political circumstances.

A little more conditional drafting might have been prudent. One is tempted to suggest that May rather than will is currently the operative auxiliary verb. Because so much of the programme before us bears the unmistakeable imprint of the current Prime Minister's constitutional philosophy, although I doubt those words have ever crossed his own lips. It is an approach to policy and political life in which the instinctive answer to almost every social problem is not stronger institutions, stronger families, stronger civic culture or greater democratic resilience, but instead another statutory duty, another regulator, another criminal offence, another extension of state authority.

This government in its programme speaks the language of moderation and pragmatism, but beneath it lies an unmistakeably, loyally belief that society can be reordered from Whitehall by legislative design and managed compliance. It is a vision in which politics becomes litigation by other means, and in which the state readily and steadily and constantly expands, while responsibility is transferred upwards from citizens and communities to officials, regulators and courts. But my Lords, before turning to the matters which do divide us, I first want to turn to a matter which ought to unite us.

His Majesty chose to address anti-Semitism in, I think, the second or third paragraph of the gracious speech, and with respect. He was right to do so, because the fight against anti-Semitism goes directly to the themes of justice, public order and national cohesion which underpin this debate. My Lords, I am sure the whole House joins me in recording our gratitude to His Majesty for his visit to Golders Green last Thursday. It demonstrated moral leadership, solidarity and an understanding that the rise in anti-Semitism is not some marginal or community based concern, but a direct challenge to the values and cohesion of this country.

And that challenge is becoming increasingly visible on our streets. On Saturday afternoon, London witnessed two very different marches. 1st March was under the banner of Palestinian activism. The other was addressed by Tommy Robinson. But there was one deeply disturbing point of convergence between them. At the 1st March, a banner declared end Zionist control of the UK government. At the 2nd March, a banner demanded end Zionist occupation of Britain. Different crowds, different political tribes, but the same ancient poison, the same conspiracy theory, the same obsessive belief that Jews or Zionists used as a euphemism, secretly control governments, societies and nations.

The far left and the far right now increasingly resemble two mirrors facing one another, reflecting the same hatred back and forth in slightly different language. One wraps it in the rhetoric of anti-imperialism, the other in the rhetoric of nationalism and racial grievance. But beneath both lies precisely the same anti-Semitic conspiracy theory and the overnight news my Lords is no better. Police are investigating another violent physical attack in Golders Green. In the early hours of this morning. The Metropolitan Police have asked the organisers of the Nova Festival exhibition to take down the main sign and to keep the location a secret, not a censorship but a protective measure.

The fact that an exhibition commemorating young people murdered at a music festival should require covert policing and counter-terrorism precautions before it can safely open in London in 2026, is a disturbing reflection of the climate we face in Britain today. His Majesty the King has, as I said, shown leadership and moral clarity. We now look to the government to show leadership and legislative clarity, and that means moving urgently to proscribe the IRGC in full. Last Thursday, in the other place, the security Minister said the government would bring forward fast track legislation quotes in the coming weeks.

And I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will be able to clarify later tonight precisely when the government intends to bring this legislation before Parliament and whether it is intended to commence the Bill here or in the other place. My Lords, at the centre of the government's programme for justice reform is the Courts Modernisation Bill. We have been consistently told that these measures are necessary to tackle court backlog and restore confidence in the criminal justice system. Now we on these benches do not dispute the seriousness of the backlog.

Victims are waiting years for justice and defendants are left in limbo. There is a real risk that cases collapse under the weight of delay. But my Lords, the fact that a problem is serious is no justification for some of the alarming solutions proposed. A jury trial should not be viewed as an administrative inconvenience. It is a central safeguard of liberty in our constitutional order, and the right to be judged by one's peers has endured precisely because it protects the individual from the unchecked power of the state.

It commands public confidence in a way that no technocratic reform or efficiency drive ever can or ever will. And indeed, the strongest arguments in favour of jury trial have come from the government. The Prime Minister, in his previous incarnation as the Director of Public Prosecutions, said, and I quote, the right to trial by jury is an important factor in the delicate balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the individual. The further it is restricted, the greater the imbalance.

Likewise, in his 2017 review into racial bias in the criminal justice system, the current Lord Chancellor described juries as, quote, the only stage without racial bias. He recognised that juries are not obstacles to justice, but defenders of fairness and equality under the law, and one point which the noble Lady the Minister didn't deal with, but I would ask the government to think about, is this we have a judiciary in this country of the highest quality, but they are not reflective of the society in which we live at the moment.

We, so to speak, get away with it in our criminal justice system, because juries are representative. If you do away with juries and your and defendants walk in and they see a judge and perhaps two magistrates who don't look like them, who don't come from where they come from, who don't speak like them, who don't share the same life experiences. That is going to lead to demands for different ways of appointing our judges, and perhaps for radical reform of our judiciary.

And I do gently ask the government to think about this very carefully. We might not get what we wish for these same figures. The Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor, who in the past were so confident in the strength of the jury system, now ask us to accept that juries have become barriers to efficiency. And under this government, therefore, this proposal reflects not only a change of policy but a collapse in principle. And let me take on the point that the noble Lady, the Baroness, the lady the Minister, mentioned about the change of offences which go to magistrates and juries.

And, of course, there have been changes over the years. But we are talking here about serious cases under these reforms, offences which attract sentences of up to three years imprisonment may be heard without a jury. Many sexual assault cases will fall within scope. Fraud and theft cases may be heard by a judge alone. Those. If I may pick up the noble Ladies phrase, those are among. I would suggest the most serious cases and for the government to suggest that these offences no longer warrant.

The constitutional safeguard of jury trial is a profound shift in the balance between citizen and state, and reflects a stripping away of individual citizen's rights. That is particularly the case because one of the most alarming elements of the bill is its retrospective effect, its impact on those already waiting jury trial defendants who have already exercised their lawful right to elect Crown Court trial, now find that right about to be removed, according to the government's bill, after the fact, Parliament is being asked to change the rules midway through the process for individuals who made their decisions based on the law, as it stood at the time, that is unfair, and it will be seen throughout the country as profoundly unfair.

Perhaps the most remarkable feature of this debate is that the evidence which the noble Lady, the Minister, didn't really touch on, increasingly points against the government's case. Last week, the Chief executive of His Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service confirmed that cases are being resolved at a faster rate than forecast because sitting days have increased and courts are operating more effectively, lifting the cap on judicial sitting days, which the government should have done when it came into office, and not only after the Lady Chief Justice asked for it, has reduced and begun to reduce backlogs in key regions across England and Wales.

Of course, we need more judges. Of course we need more of it. We also need more courts actually capable of sitting. Last week, 10% of courts capable of sitting did not sit. Because of such problems with the court. Are are a service and the way the courts have been maintained, these are long running problems. These are long running problems. But the answer is not to abolish juries. The answer is to deal with the criminal justice system. And there is a fundamental lack of legislative coherence at the heart of the government's policy.

When justifying these reforms, the Lord Chancellor claimed that defendants are gaming the system. He said by electing Crown Court trials for relatively minor offences, the Minister for courts in the other place asked do we think. She said, do we think that someone who has stolen a bottle of whisky from a mini-mart should receive the right to trial by jury? Well, I can answer that question for the Minister. Yes. Her own government thinks that because the Government's Crime and Policing Act, which received Royal Assent just a matter of weeks ago, restored low value shoplifting offences to the ordinary either way regime, thereby preserving the defendant's right for low level shoplifting offences to a trial by jury in the Crown Court.

So why were these low level shoplifting offences sufficiently serious to justify a jury on an either way offence, whereas now we are told that they are so minor that jury trial should be removed. What makes all of this, of course, especially troubling is that the basis for this policy has fundamentally changed. When it was introduced, we were told this is necessary to reduce the backlog. It was all about efficiency and the Criminal Bar Association, the Law Society, the Bar Council said,
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page