Courts and Tribunals Bill

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th November 2026 Lords Chamber

Then take into account the effects of removing the right to elect jury trial, these proposed increases in the sentencing powers of magistrates’ courts, far more cases and more substantial and time-consuming cases—particularly with contested hearings in view, which would make the logjam in the magistrates’ courts far worse. Add to that the fact that, as we have discussed, it is presently far more difficult to secure adequate legal aid in the magistrates’ courts and that there would be a dangerous increase in the number of defendants going unrepresented in more serious cases. With all the effects that such an increase is likely to have on the quality of justice, the time taken to deal with cases and the number of appeals, we have a very serious issue facing us. This would be a retrograde step, quite apart from the issue of constitutional principle involved. It is ill thought out and likely to impair rather than improve our justice system. It is constitutionally improper and we should reject it.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

I advise the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 34 because of pre-emption.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendments 69, 71 and 72. My concern is that already expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Once Clause 1 is enacted—if it is—and the sentencing powers of the magistrates’ courts are increased, there will be a very large increase in the business of magistrates’ courts and they will be overwhelmed. The effect of the amendments I have tabled in this context is to limit the ability of the Government to implement the clauses unless the magistrates’ courts have increased the number of magistrates to 21,000, which seems to be the figure generally accepted as sufficient to handle the increased business. My amendments also provide that, in the event of the number of magistrates falling below 21,000 for a sustained period of three months, the statutory instrument will lapse. The purpose is to try to ensure that there are sufficient magistrates. I have grave doubts that there will be, and that is why I tabled these amendments.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

We need to move on to the Front Benches.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I am the first speaker from these Benches. For us, this is a matter of conscience. My noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham has not had the opportunity to speak. She disagrees with me. She is supportive of the other side. She wished for me to mention that she has been contacted by a young student called Lily, who has contacted a number of other Peers to say that they share her point of view. I hope that Lily and my noble friend will hear that we have acknowledged their sincerely held views, which are very different from mine.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and I have been trying to speak. The noble Baroness has an amendment down. It is not good enough that we are being silenced at a time when the House is being asked to vote to approve something that has not been properly discussed or explored, and the consequences have not been fully considered. It is not good.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I do have an amendment, Amendment 423A, which other noble Lords have signed. It is to ask that prosecutions cease and desist. The reason for it is that we have uncovered over these past few months that different police forces are taking entirely different approaches under the current law, and that women and health professionals do not know where they stand. I refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and to the speech of our noble colleague who is the chair of the College of Policing, about the fact that there needs to be a clear policy direction from Parliament in order that we can have a consistent approach throughout the medical profession and throughout policing.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Grand Committee

Clause 1: Sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

My Lords, I inform the Committee that, if Amendment 1 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 4 because of pre-emption.

Amendment 1

Moved by

Early Legal Advice Pilot Scheme Order 2022

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Grand Committee

Motion agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

My Lords, the Committee will adjourn for a few moments until the people involved in the next business are in place.

Criminal Justice (Electronic Commerce) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Grand Committee

Motion agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

That completes the business of the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.

Committee adjourned at 4.39 pm.

Independent Review of Administrative Law Update

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)]

I am grateful to both noble Lords for their questions and comments. I am sure that this is a matter which we will be debating on a number of occasions in this House, so this evening I am going to be relatively brief, not least because the position of the Government is, as we have said, that we would like to consult on a number of matters, and consultation means just that.

Turning first to the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I join him in paying tribute to work done by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the other members of this committee. They have done sterling work under the great pressure of a prevailing pandemic, and I am sure the whole House is grateful to them for the work they have done. I was very pleased to hear the praise given by the noble and learned Lord to the committee. Last August, he was tweeting that the Faulks committee was there to “dismantle judicial review.” I am pleased to see that, while the noble and learned Lord may tweet in haste, he has read the report and repented at leisure.

As far as publishing the evidence is concerned, we will publish the complete set of non-government submissions received by the panel next week once we have ensured that such publication is GDPR-compliant. That will be followed by a summary of the submissions by government departments to the panel’s call for evidence.

On ouster clauses, the noble and learned Lord used the word sinister. There is nothing sinister about them. There are two questions here: first, should one have an ouster clause at all? That is a matter for Parliament. Secondly, if there is an ouster clause, should it be enforced by the court? That is debated in the report and in the Government’s response to it. It is of central importance, which goes to the heart of the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament. Perhaps I might say, without being flippant, that on this point public law is too important to be left only to public lawyers; that is why we welcome a broad consultation. I am sure that there will be debates on these matters in the future, in this House and in the other place.

As we have set out in our response, the question is essentially whether ouster clauses are being applied by the courts in the manner in which they are drafted and passed by this House and the other place. As to whether an Act of Parliament would be needed, which I think was the noble and learned Lord’s last question, it may well be, depending on which issues are proceeded with. For example, if we proceed with the proposal for a suspended quashing order, that might well have to be done by primary legislation. The Supreme Court in the case of Ahmed concluded that the common law position was that a suspended quashing order was not available.

I now turn to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. First, on Cart, the panel’s analysis is, as he says, very thorough on this point. The evidence shows that only a very small percentage of this type of judicial review is ever successful. We do not feel the need to redo the consultation exercise carried out by the panels in that regard; we are focusing our consultation on how best to give effect to the recommendation in the panel’s report.

On suspended quashing orders, I note and broadly welcome the noble Lord’s support for these as a matter of principle. Obviously, there are questions about how they would be implemented; I look forward to discussing that matter with him in due course. I hear what he says on ouster clauses and I have obviously also read the paragraphs to which he referred. I think where he got to was that the position on ouster clauses would be given robust scrutiny by Parliament. I welcome robust scrutiny by the noble Lord and, indeed, by other noble Lords, but the panel said that there are circumstances in which it may be appropriate for Parliament to oust or limit the jurisdiction of the courts if there is sufficient justification for doing so. Given that, we think that it is right to consult on that question.

The noble Lord makes the point that, if one is to have a prospective remedy, it is important in the interests of justice to ensure that people who may have been unfairly affected by the decision are considered. We are clear that there must be a means by which a court can make an order with retrospective effect if the circumstances require it. However, with respect to a court making a suspended quashing order, we would like to consult on whether that should be an available option and, if it is, the circumstances and safeguards that that option would bring with it.

I hope that I have responded to all the points raised by both speakers. I will check the Official Report to ensure that I have done so.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

We now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 48. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 48

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 49 agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 50. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 50

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 52. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 52

Moved by

Motoring Offences Review

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord makes a fair point about the delay. We do, however, intend to move to a public consultation before the end of the year, with a view to bringing forward any legislative changes that are necessary later in this Session.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, two years ago the Justice Secretary said that this review was necessary in order to make our roads safer. Is that still the purpose of the review, and will it apply to careless drivers as much as to other road users?

[Lord Faulks]

This is a difficult area. The distinction between careless driving and dangerous driving, although long established, does not please everybody. There are always difficult balances between assessing the culpability of driving and the effect of driving. Relatively minor episodes of careless driving can cause serious injury; very dangerous driving can sometimes not cause much in the way of harm. It is a difficult matter. It is also important to establish some proper correlation between the sentencing for driving offences and sentences, say, for dishonesty or assault cases and that sort of thing. It is a difficult matter, but we are proceeding.

Marriage: Humanist Ceremonies

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

What Parliament decided, in Section 14 of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, was of course that the Secretary of State should arrange a review, which the Secretary of State did—that is the Law Commission review—and that he has a power rather than a duty to make the order which the noble Baroness refers to. It is of course quite right that Scotland has operated a different arrangement, whereby you may go to a registry office and have a schedule permitting you to get married anywhere. Marriages have taken place on the top of a mountain and in the middle of a loch, identified only by a GPS reference. However, these are serious matters. The Government think it necessary to consider marriage as a whole and it is interesting that the Law Commission’s thorough report does in fact not recommend simply activating that order-making power, as the noble Baroness will have seen.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, following that answer, can the Minister confirm that the system in Scotland is that the celebrants are registered rather than the locations where the ceremonies take place? That is the material difference. However, opinion polls consistently show public support for humanist marriages, so can he tell us why the Government keep trying to kick this into the long grass rather than using the powers that they have to bring it about?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Baroness is quite right of course that it is a celebrant-based system. A schedule is issued by the register office stating where the marriage can take place, and the celebrant then goes back to the register office and the matter is registered there. The Government have considered the matter and will continue to do so, and will bear in mind the very cogent representations that have been made on behalf of humanists. At paragraph 3.20 of its report, the Law Commission said that,

“activating the statutory order-making power to permit marriages according to the rites of non-religious belief organisations is simply not, in our view, a viable option”.

The Government have to take that into account and consider the integrity of marriage as well as, of course, the wishes of individuals.

Prison Service: Trans Prisoners

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Barker]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the death of Vicky Thompson, whether they will review the Prison Service’s treatment of trans prisoners.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, I offer my condolences to Vicky Thompson’s family and friends. Every death in custody is a tragedy and we are committed to reducing their numbers. While investigations are ongoing it is inappropriate for me to comment on the circumstances of Miss Thompson’s death. The policy on the care and management of prisoners who live or propose to live in a gender other than one assigned at birth is currently under review.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. Recent events have shown that placing trans women in male estates is dangerous. Does the Minister agree that trans prisoners should be housed in the estate of their acquired gender in the first instance and moved to another estate only following a thorough investigation that rules out all other safe alternatives?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, Prison Service Instruction 07/2011 sets out the National Offender Management Service’s policy on the care and management of prisoners in the circumstances outlined by the noble Baroness. It suggests that, in the first place, somebody’s gender, whether their original gender or one that they have chosen under the Gender Recognition Act, should be reflected in where they are housed. Nevertheless, there is a degree of discretion allowed to the Prison Service, which it exercises, to make sure that someone in that situation is treated with appropriate care, consideration and sensitivity.