Youth Offending

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress in reducing youth offending in England and Wales over the past 25 years.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, the last two decades have seen significant reductions of children in the formal youth justice system and in youth custody, and this is good news. We now have a much smaller but, perhaps unsurprisingly, more complex group of children in the justice system, and we need to adapt to deal with this. The youth justice White Paper, published on 18 May this year, sets out a comprehensive programme of reform through which we will modernise the youth justice system.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer. In her reply to questions on the Statement yesterday, she stated that

“there is no intention to abolish the Youth Justice Board”.—[Official Report, 20/5/26; col. 427.]

We are grateful for that. However, she will be aware that the powers of the Youth Justice Board set out in Section 41 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 are being steadily stripped away, starting with Liz Truss as Justice Secretary removing the custodial powers and now with the Government following suit by removing the monitoring powers and the core funding powers. Does she not think it would be better to follow the example of the 1997 Labour Government in establishing the board, rather than the example of Liz Truss in stripping it of its power?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to be debating the issue of the Youth Justice Board two days running with the noble Lord. The YJB has made valuable contributions to improving outcomes for children, but it has become clear that the youth justice system is now facing a different set of challenges from those that the board was originally designed to address. We are reforming the board so that it can focus on where it can add the greatest value, which is in driving the continuous improvement of youth justice services, and we are bringing the oversight and funding responsibilities into the Ministry of Justice in order to ensure clearer democratic accountability. I state again, and reassure the noble Lord, that the Youth Justice Board will remain a valued, independent public body with a clear purpose.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I know my noble friend will want to do the right thing, but is it not a fact that the only part of the criminal justice system that has worked really effectively over the last quarter of a century is youth justice, and that the ability to retain and promote staff who gain experience—rather than the musical chairs of the Civil Service, where nobody has long-term experience—should lead us to believe that keeping the Youth Justice Board and its functions makes sense, both for the delivery of the programme she has just mentioned and to ensure that we do not have a situation where the turnover within the MoJ results in people simply not knowing what they are doing?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and I pay tribute to the work he has done in relation to youth justice over the years. While proven offending has reduced significantly, that itself has placed pressures on our partners in youth justice services. For that reason, we need to reassess where our focus is best placed in order to ensure that we can add the most value. It is for that reason that the Youth Justice Board is going to be reformed, so that we know that it is using its independence and skills to ensure that we get the best outcomes for children.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the team leader for children and young people at His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons said recently that what is needed is not further diagnosis but action, in the form of immediate investment in a functional youth custody estate. Why are the Government ignoring his advice and instead indulging in further diagnosis of a well-established problem?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, we are tough on crime but we are smart on prevention. We are focusing on what works: protecting the public and preventing reoffending. It is well known that locking children up, particularly on short sentences, does not work. Some 60% of children who receive short sentences of custody go on to reoffend, whereas those who are diverted at an early stage do not re-enter the justice system and have better lives, which also prevents increasing cohorts of victims in future.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, does the Minister have any plans to amend the minimum age of criminal responsibility?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

We have no plans. The Bar Council is conducting a review of this and we will, like any responsible Government, consider that review once it is reported and take matters from there.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, the prevalence of learning difficulties in the youth justice system is incredibly high. I understand figures show that about 80% of young people who are cautioned or sentenced have some kind of special educational need or neurodivergent condition. Does the Minister agree that this seems to suggest that a stronger focus in the education system on early diagnosis and intervention, particularly for specific learning difficulties, would have an impact on youth offending rates?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness may be referring to the excellent report by the Michael Sieff Foundation, which, as she said, said that up to 80% of children in the custodial estate either have special educational needs or are neurodivergent. This is why the Government want to put resources into early diagnosis and diversion, ensuring that there is in place wraparound care for families whose children are showing signs of perhaps entering the criminal justice system, before it is too late. That is why we have invested heavily in the Turnaround scheme—I pay tribute to the previous Government for doing so—which looks to get children upstream, as it were, before they have become involved in the justice system, and to work with the whole family. The success rate is great. Only 7% of children who have been involved in Turnaround go on to commit offences.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, on a similar subject, what assessment has the department made of the involvement of organisations, particularly arts organisations, that are not specifically involved with the criminal justice system but can help young people at risk of involvement with the criminal justice system? They have, in certain cases, been very successful. Is my noble friend aware of this and will she encourage more organisations to become involved?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am aware of it. We are intending to make sure that everything possible can be done to ensure that children have as many opportunities as possible and therefore do not get drawn into crime.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, as a former youth magistrate and a former board member of the Youth Justice Board, I have seen at first hand the strong leadership at the YJB, particularly through its valuable community-based youth justice services. In the light of the youth justice White Paper, can the Minister please assure the House that the YJB’s role will not be diminished in any way that will undermine these services and that it will retain its capacity and authority so that we do not risk reversing the extremely positive outcomes in youth offending that it has helped deliver over so many years?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, for her work as a magistrate in the adult and youth systems. We have to be grateful to people like her for helping to keep the system going. I hope I have given sufficient assurance—it is certainly my intention to do so—that we really value the work done by the board. We want to use its skills and to ensure that it remains independent and keeps doing the great job that it does.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, I do not think that anybody doubts the Minister’s sincerity, but she should have a little tingle between the shoulder blades when somebody such as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and Members of all Benches express concerns about how the Government are going about fulfilling the White Paper. I think she would find much wider support if, as part of this package, there was not a complete emasculation of the Youth Justice Board and a shunting of it to the sidelines. It is not going to play a key part in this study, and it should. There are lots of people who have had experience of the YJB who would like to help the Government in fulfilling this White Paper. The Minister should get out of the cul-de-sac that she is leading us into.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I respond to the noble Lord with a great deal of sadness because he played a noble role in the Youth Justice Board and in the transformation of youth justice generally. However, the context in which the system operates has changed profoundly since it was set up. The drivers of harm are different and the landscape of public accountability is different as well. That is why we are moving the oversight and funding elements into the Ministry of Justice, but the board will remain independent, doing what it does best.

Youth Justice

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the success in reducing the number of children in custody has been a great achievement, and we should still be concentrating on further bringing down that number. That success has been largely achieved through the work of the Youth Justice Board, in which my noble friend Lord McNally played a major part during the coalition. We note the commitment to reform of the Youth Justice Board, but such reform should be constructive and committed to rehabilitation and reform, turning lives around, whether or not the youth justice service is at some stage in the future housed within the MoJ.

The Statement rightly emphasises how often the criminal conduct of children and young people is the result of instability, trauma and neglect, accompanying violence, addiction and abuse among those around them. But we must also address those factors that lead to Black children being so much more vulnerable to ending up in the criminal justice system. The Statement is right about that, as David Lammy was when he did his review in 2017.

On these Benches we have long sought to address these issues, but the Government now rightly highlight new hazards facing children and young people and leading to crime: online harms, criminal grooming through social media and exposure to extremist content. The £46 million to be invested in the turnaround programme is of course welcome, and the Statement is also right to call for early and effective intervention. But the likely success of new and recent measures—including parenting orders, youth diversion orders, youth intervention courts or reforms to the out-of-court resolution service—cannot yet be assessed. All these measures will take resources, and the amount is difficult to quantify. Can the Minister say a little more about the resourcing of the reforms promised? How, for example, was the £46 million figure assessed?

In proceedings on the Sentencing Bill, now Act, we discussed the extra resources needed for the Probation Service and others, not only for extra handling of early release, tagging and post-release supervision but to improve both the quantity and quality of the supervision of offenders and the help that the Probation Service necessarily provides to the courts.

So how, we would ask, is the need for resources to be kept under review, and what extra resources may there be to meet a need that is currently unforeseen? Is there sufficient flexibility to avoid the increases in offending that inevitably follow from underresourcing? Spending in this area is largely spending to save, given the massive direct and social cost of crime, and particularly of reoffending. Annexe A to the White Paper rightly sets out eleven “golden questions” for further research, saying there are “key evidence gaps”. What plans have the Government to fill those key evidence gaps?

Finally, the age of criminal responsibility is at last to be reconsidered. I remember the noble Baroness defending the present age of criminal responsibility— I disagreed with her then, and I do now—and I note the endorsement by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, of her former views. There is also to be reform of the childhood criminal records regime, or that too is mooted and is welcome. We have long argued that to criminalise a child at the age of 10 flies in the face of all the evidence on developmental reform, and that it is inhumane and wrong. I ask, because this is an all-party and an all-public issue, how will this consideration proceed? Will there be formal public or all-party consideration? I certainly look forward to discussing these issues in depth, as I know others do.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for the points they have made on this important issue. I will turn to the specifics of some of them towards the end of this short address.

On Monday, the Deputy Prime Minister set out in the other place a bold new approach to youth justice. We intend to build a system that intervenes early, responds more effectively and does more to turn young lives around. By doing all these things, we are fulfilling the first duty of government, which is to protect the public.

The evidence is compelling. About 80% of prolific adult offenders began committing crime when they were children. Cycles of criminal behaviour can start early, become entrenched and, if left unchallenged, become harder to break. If we fail to tackle them, we fail not only those children but the victims and communities who suffer the consequences. Every child we divert from criminal behaviour now not only saves a victim next week, next year, but possibly in our grandchildren’s generation.

Diversion for lower-level offences remains the most effective response, and we will set out plans to reform the out-of-court resolution framework later this year. This is most emphatically not us being soft on crime; rather, it is a firm, fair and consistent approach that steps in sooner and addresses the underlying causes of offending before the behaviour escalates. Where children offend, there must of course be swift and meaningful intervention. That said, short custodial sentences for children are associated with high reoffending rates. More than two-thirds of those given a short sentence offend again. Basically, by repeatedly locking these children up, we are locking them into a cycle of repeat offending, and they are highly likely to become the prolific offenders of the future.

Protection of the public is very much at the forefront of our minds. Custody will always be necessary for the most serious and dangerous offences and offenders. However, it is not just about sentencing but about where children are placed while they await trial. We know that for many children, even a short period in custody can deepen the problems that led them to offend in the first place. It breaks their contact with education, and it can break their contact with their families and cause all sorts of problems. That is why it is our ambition to cut the number of children who are remanded in custody by 25% over this Parliament.

To do that while keeping the public safe, we will invest £5 million in intensive community placements and stronger bail support. These measures are designed to protect the public and give children a genuine chance of changing course. We will also pilot youth intervention courts. We intend these to take a problem-solving approach, looking at the causes of offending by tailoring the approach to individual circumstances. These will be focused on the children who are most at risk of reoffending.

Early evidence from the similar intensive supervision courts in the adult system, upon which these are loosely based, is encouraging. We will draw on this while continuing to adopt an approach that reflects children’s needs. This will include judge-led reviews as part of a child’s sentence. Judges will play a key role in monitoring their progress. The Government appreciate that this will place additional pressure on the courts. As your Lordships are aware, we are taking action to address capacity through the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

The criminal records review is about ensuring that the system strikes the right balance between protecting the public and supporting rehabilitation. Stable employment is a crucial factor, and where individuals who have committed crimes as children have demonstrably turned their lives around, it serves neither them nor the wider public to impose unnecessary barriers to opportunity. This will be a targeted package of reforms. These may include considering how long childhood offences should be disclosed on basic checks and whether certain offences should remain disclosable for life—for example, when applying for roles working with vulnerable people.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, raised the issue of the age of criminal responsibility. My words were quoted back at me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. I do not resile from them. I used words such as “may” and “risk” and made the point that we would always listen and keep this under review. The review of the age of criminal responsibility is not our review but the Bar Council’s review. Nobody is suggesting that, once that review has reported, we should not look at it. We will look at it and then make a decision. We are evaluating it.

On the question of resources, the Government are committed to putting money into these matters. That is why this is a bold reform. The Government have committed a further £15 million a year for three years to the turnaround programme, which seeks to intervene upstream of criminal justice interventions. On the funding issues concerning the youth justice system and the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, I notice that in their places are the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Clarke, both of whom have had a great deal to do with these issues over the years. I am grateful to see them both.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has ranged far and wide in his criticisms of the Government’s approach to many matters across criminal justice and other areas. We are criticised for consulting on this, but I am not going to apologise for that. This Government take an incremental approach to the reforms we are bringing in, introducing them cautiously and acting on evidence rather than on ideology or whim, so that we know that what we are doing will work before rolling it out nationally.

Regarding consulting on wider issues, I stood at this Dispatch Box on Monday and was criticised from the Opposition Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for introducing too much legislation. This is not legislation: it is consultation and reform, and that is why we are doing it. The bold approach this Government are taking on youth justice is about ensuring that the system intervenes earlier and more effectively. We want to get children and young people back on track so that we can protect the public. To achieve that, we are following the evidence on what works. I look forward to engaging with your Lordships over the coming months as the Government finalise their plans.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, can my noble kinswoman the Minister confirm that the Government reject the miserably pessimistic and defeatist view of the youth justice system expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen? Will she confirm that a key aim of the plan with which she is dealing today must be to provide an improved education service for the diverse cohort of children in custody that is of such good quality that they will not emerge from custody as automatic second-class citizens?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, we are taking decisive action to drive up performance in relation to the youth custody estate. The Deputy Prime Minister chairs a newly established performance taskforce to hold the system to account. It seeks very detailed information on what happens to children in custody, which includes things such as time out of room, access to education, rates of violence and staffing. As we have announced, our target is to increase the time that children spend outside their room by 50%, so that they are engaged in meaningful activities, because every hour that they are in their room they are not engaged in education, training or other purposeful activity. This is about ensuring that children who end up in custody come out as less of a risk to the public than when they went in.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, the Statement refers to the Southport murders and the lack of co-ordination between the appropriate authorities. Does the Minister accept that, when a review or inquiry is commissioned, the terms of reference should provide for the explicit incorporation of a mechanism for reviewing and monitoring the implementation of its recommendations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

That is an interesting idea. I do not think I am going to commit to it today, but I will certainly bear it in mind.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, the YJB is one of the great successes of government over the last 25 years and a great credit to those involved. I do not think the time is wrong for a thorough review of youth justice. As the Minister indicated, there is a whole range of new factors, not least the internet and online harms, since the YJB was created. What I find difficult to understand in this proposal is why, of all the various open-ended proposals and inquiries, it is the YJB that is most decisively sent to the Back Benches.

I urge the Government to appoint a full-time chair of the YJB, allow it to operate at full capacity and keep it outside the Ministry of Justice for the time being, because a lot of the matters will be judgments of the Ministry of Justice as well. I worry that this proposal is part of a long-standing ambition of the Ministry of Justice to take youth justice back into its concern, aided and abetted by the Treasury, which is looking for substantial savings by so doing. Am I being overly suspicious?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute of course to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the Youth Justice Board, which deserves to be congratulated for the work it has done over the last 20 years in relation to reducing youth crime. We have no intention of abolishing the Youth Justice Board. Since it was established, it has made incredibly valued contributions to improving outcomes for children, and there are significant reductions that we can point to the Youth Justice Board for having achieved.

The noble Lord makes the valuable point that, in the years since it was established, children within the justice system now face different challenges and we need to take another look at it. Needs are now much more complex, so the plan is to refocus the Youth Justice Board so that it does what it is really good at, which is driving the continuous improvement of the services.

The Government wish to increase the democratic oversight of some aspects of what the Youth Justice Board is concerned with: funding, accountability and policy. But, as far as the delivery of that is concerned, the intention is that that will remain with the Youth Justice Board because of the excellent work the board does.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I welcome the publication of the youth justice system reform and delivery plan. In particular, I welcome the announcement of an expanded and clearly defined role for the Welsh Government, in recognition of the fact that the context has changed considerably in Wales since the current arrangements were put in place in 1998. Does the Minister agree that the recent expansion of Senedd Cymru and the Welsh Government begins a new chapter for devolution? In relation to youth justice, currently the Welsh Government fund up to 64% of youth justice services in Wales. Is it not time to fully devolve youth justice to Wales?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. In March, we committed to devolving youth, remand and turnaround funding to the Welsh Government for 2027 and 2028. This is part of a broader commitment, as the noble Baroness knows, between the UK and the Welsh Government to establish a clearer and stronger role for the Welsh Government in the delivery of youth justice. It is definitely the intention of this Government to try not to, as it were, empire-build by bringing more things into the centre, but to ensure that we can pool funding and expertise in regional areas, as well as in Wales, in order to ensure that local areas can deliver things for the communities that they serve.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

Does the Minister recognise that the Youth Justice Board was a jewel in the crown of the 1997 Labour Government, dramatically reducing the number of young people in the juvenile secure estate while reducing youth offending and recidivism? Does she also recognise that the powers and responsibilities given to the Youth Justice Board were removed from the Home Office because the youth cohort was relatively small and often ignored, and there was a real danger in going back into the Ministry of Justice that it would be again? Finally, will she explain why the Government, having commissioned a review of the Youth Justice Service by Steve Crocker, have chosen to largely ignore the outcome of that review?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I think he and I are looking forward to speaking to each other about this tomorrow, as I shall be answering a Question on pretty much the same subject. I repeat that there is no intention to abolish the Youth Justice Board, but there is a policy, following a Cabinet Office review of arm’s-length bodies, not just the Youth Justice Board, of ensuring that matters that we believe should be retained within various Ministries and departments in order to ensure democratic accountability are returned there. That is the reason we have taken the view that we have. As the noble Lord rightly says, the review was commissioned. Our view was that we needed to go further than the recommendations that were made.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome the focus on reducing youth crime, but I would like to ask a question. The Minister detailed a 25% reduction in the number of children who are held on remand. Where did this figure come from? If that number is reduced arbitrarily, that pain will be absorbed by the community, because it will have a number of young people in its purview whom it would not have had beforehand who could be causing some problems there.

There was a comment about the propensity of Black children to be more vulnerable to being in the system. Excuse the roughness of the comment I am about to make, but unless as white liberals you are prepared to take on Black parents to do more—they need support and challenge in equal measure to do more to make our children less vulnerable to this system—you will achieve nothing. The things most facing Black children so they end up that way are lack of school achievement, lack of graduate jobs, the high number of single parents and all those things. That is what makes Black children more vulnerable to the youth justice system. Where is the work to improve those figures?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes two points, and I will do my best to answer them. As far as 25% fewer children on remand is concerned, that is not a number that we will take out on an arbitrary basis. It is a target. We are aiming to reduce by 25% the number of children who await trial in custody. The way we want to do that is by strengthening bail provisions, and there is a commitment of additional money so that we can look at things such as bail fostering arrangements to ensure that children do not go into custodial institutions, particularly for short periods, because we know what a terrible effect that can have on them, by breaking all the links I was talking about earlier with families and education.

As far as racial disparities and the disproportionate effect are concerned, it is a great anxiety to us that it remains the case that certain cohorts—normally Black and mixed-heritage children—are disproportionately represented in the justice system and in the custodial estate.

I absolutely take the point about involving parents; that is why we are exploring the question of parental orders and seeing whether we can expand them. This is not about criminalising parents but about making the point that these are children. Sometimes they look like adults, but they are children, with everything that is engaged in that. They need parents to help guide them. Certainly, I have experience of some parents in the youth court who would like to be more involved but the child in question rejects that. It may be helpful for them to be able to say to the child, “I am sorry, I am doing this because the courts told me I have to; there is a parental order in place”. We absolutely agree that these are all critical factors; that is why we are looking at diversion rather than simply locking children up all the time.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am disappointed by the somewhat discordant tone of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, with respect to my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench, who made some sensible points. We all agree that children should not be warehoused through crime academies, we all agree that they should be well educated and we all believe in the concept of rehabilitation, but there has to be a limit on the liberal and permissive policy in the criminal justice system.

I had the privilege of serving on the British Transport Police Authority for four years, and one of our key areas of concern was county lines. Without proper monitoring and without the possible sanction of a custodial sentence, what is the sanction to prevent criminals engaging children and young people in drugs and a life of crime going into the future if there is not the sanction of a custodial sentence for those young people? Is there not a risk that these reforms may result in more young people being drawn into that lifestyle? Is that not something that the Government should seriously take into account?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The Government are seriously taking it into account. That is why we are investing more than £34 million this year in the county lines programme, which has closed more than 3,700 county lines and led to 10,100 arrests. Absolutely, we take it seriously. The important point here is that we are tough on crime but smart on prevention of crime. There is no point continuing to do things that plainly do not work—things that do not protect the public and are bad for the children as well.

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

Can my noble friend the Minister talk a little more about bail fostering? In my dealings with the parents of children who were caught up in county lines, one of the biggest issues they had was getting the child away from the pernicious behaviours of the gang. Being able to foster a child outside the area and break that connection with the gang seems to be a jolly good thing, particularly given that the gangs were also very active within the institutions in which those children were placed, whether custodial or educational. Can my noble friend give us a little more detail about fostering arrangements on bail?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her support of the Government’s plans in relation to this. The point about gang involvement is very much at the forefront of the Government’s mind. One of the reasons we do not want children in the custodial estate is because that is where they end up with the rest of the gangs. We are actively involved in exploring specialist placements such as remand foster care. I will write to my noble friend to give her some more detail in relation to the arrangements.

[Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)]

My Lords, I welcome the announcement in the Statement that the number of young people being detained in custody has reduced significantly. There is something being done reasonably well, so I would be reluctant to change it dramatically. I would like an assurance that there is no predetermined position to change the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10. There may be some options for reasonable movements away if exceptions can be made, but I would not want to see it done automatically without the proper consultation, because we need to find a way to ensure that there are fewer young people in custody but at the same time that they abide by the law.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The reduction in the number of children involved is very good news. In fact, it is an even greater reduction than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said. He said that there are now only about 1,400 children in custody, whereas it is actually only just over 400, so it is even better. The noble Lord will recall that a few moments ago the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, repeated back my words from when I was standing here dealing with the age of criminal responsibility before. I can certainly reassure him that we do not have any plan to change the age of criminal responsibility. We are going to let the Bar Council report and then we will look at what that report says. We know that it is fraught with risks. I can recall the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, making a powerful speech about the risk that gangs could recruit children with impunity if either the age of criminal responsibility is raised or their criminal records are wiped clean. We will bear in mind all those things when we look at this. The clue is in the word “consulting”, which is what we get criticised for doing by the party opposite.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the plan. Will the Minister join me in recognising the role that young offender institutions play? Can she update the House on the recruitment and retention of those who serve in often very difficult circumstances in those institutions?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I certainly will pay tribute to those who work in young offender institutions—it is a really difficult job—but the custodial youth estate is fundamentally failing children at the moment. There is quite a lot of evidence that smaller units such as secure children’s homes are more effective at supporting children. It is a difficult issue. Noble Lords may have heard a rumour that we inherited a challenging financial position, and plainly we need to consider that while we are deciding what to do, but we have a youth custody transformation plan. In essence, the White Paper is the umbrella that sets out where we intend to go and three further announcements will then be made: the youth custody transformation plan in autumn 2026, the diversion from custody—the non-custodial options—plan also in autumn 2026, and the review of youth courts and the part that they play in the treatment of children in the criminal justice system, which I am sure noble Lords will be delighted to hear is being conducted by the eminent academic Professor David Ormerod KC, which is intended to report in August 2027.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Government said that they will try to slash custodial remand for young offenders by one quarter. Is that correct? Surely remand should be used in response to need and not subject to arbitrary targets. That does not make any sense at all. What happens if violent youth crime and repeat offending go up? I hope to goodness they do not but, if they do, will she and her fellow Ministers stick to the targets? That makes no sense.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

It is for our independent judges to decide whether somebody is given bail or remanded. All that we are looking at is whether alternatives can be offered to the courts. At the moment, you tend to have a straightforward binary choice of bail back at home where half the problem started in the first place or remand into custody in one of these institutions that we know do not work for children and where there is a huge risk of reoffending once they are released. For the most serious offences, there is no question but that children will continue to be remanded into the custodial estate. But we want to be more imaginative about this, remembering that these are not tiny adults but children, and some of them come from very difficult circumstances.

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the report. I am among those who would like to see the age of criminal responsibility increased—

King’s Speech

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Crawley]

Moved on Wednesday 13 May by

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as follows:

“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to open this debate on the Government’s plans for home affairs, the justice system and the union. I express my gratitude to His Majesty for delivering the most gracious Speech.

I want to say at the outset that, in the 15 months since I came into your Lordships’ House, I have been awed by the amount of expertise, experience and wisdom to be found here. On that subject, I am sure that many noble Lords will have noted that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, is to make his valedictory speech today after 16 years in your Lordships’ House. We shall miss him. His contributions, like his books, have always been learned, penetrative and eloquent, and he has 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 the noble Lord has already said this publicly, I am sure he will not mind me referring to the fact that he suffers from Parkinson’s disease. In fact, so does my own father, who was 90 last weekend and is going strong. I am 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.

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 the national level but we will also work with the newly formed devolved Governments because people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and here in England, expect to see their Governments working together to deliver for them.

We all long for the sunlit uplands where the economy is so strong that there is money to pay for everything that we want and deserve. While 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, 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.

I start with the protection of the public, because keeping our citizens safe is the most fundamental duty of all. This Government have two objectives: to ensure that law enforcement bodies have the tools to tackle emerging dangers while maintaining the trust and confidence of the communities they serve. This Government are introducing the biggest reform to policing in two centuries, designed to do three things: to respond to rapidly changing threats, to give confidence at a local level that communities’ priorities are listened to and acted on, and to increase democratic accountability.

Crime is evolving fast. Sophisticated criminal gangs are working both here and internationally, smuggling drugs and trafficking people into this country. 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”. I knew I could make that reference safely in your Lordships’ House, but when I said it to my children I got rather a blank stare. That rather makes the point for me that 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. While 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. To achieve this, the Home Secretary will set national priorities, improving police performance and ensuring that standards are met across the country.

In addition, as part of protecting the public we must keep up with modern dangers. 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. 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 engaged in state-linked threats with new criminal sanctions.

But it is not just other countries that represent an evolving threat. We also need stronger protections against individuals who become fixated on violence and can and do cause serious real-world harm. The Southport attack in July 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. We all know that exposure to the most graphic and extreme violent material can escalate to planning and conducting an attack. This Bill will criminalise the creation and sharing of extreme violence content, give law enforcement updated powers to take down cyber criminals, including introducing a cyber crime risk order, and criminalise the planning of a mass casualty attack such as the Southport attack.

I turn to my second subject: confidence in our public institutions. This Government are bringing forward several measures to rebuild that trust, to make sure that systems work as they should and to restore fairness and predictability. 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 that 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. There are 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 worth while 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. Without action, that backlog will continue to rise beyond the point of recovery, so we must act.

We are implementing a package of reforms. The first element 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 is part of a record £2.78 billion settlement for the courts and tribunals this year, which includes significant increases to legal aid 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 are making greater use of technology and artificial intelligence.

The third element of our package is to introduce modernising reforms. We will do this through the return of the Courts and Tribunals Bill. For reasons that, I must confess, I have been a bit mystified by, this has attracted huge controversy. The reason I am mystified by it is that this Government are doing only what pretty much every other Government have done in the past, including Conservative Governments. 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 more expensive than in the magistrates’ court, which is why every Government reserve jury trial for the most serious cases—and what is meant by “the most serious cases” changes over time. Let me give a little illustration.

Picture the scene: on a sunny morning in 1971, a 23 year-old barrister set off to the Birkenhead Quarter Sessions to conduct his first jury trial. The name of that young man was Alex Carlile, known to this House as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and, as some of your Lordships know, my noble kinsman. In case your Lordships are wondering why I have 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. I think your Lordships will now have the point. We do not try breathalyser cases in the Crown Court any more; they go only before the magistrates. As for the reason for that, 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 it 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”.—[Official Report, 19/5/1999; col. 366.]


The party that had removed the right of jury trial for these cases was, of course, the party opposite. I do not say that to criticise them, but merely to make the point that this is what Governments do to keep up with modern life. They just move the line as to which cases are tried in the magistrates’ court and which require the greater time and resources of judge and jury in the Crown Court. 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 to the better and fairer immigration and asylum system that we promised the British people. We will not hesitate to remove those with no right to be here and ensure that our immigration rules are enforced. But I also say that this Labour Government will never shirk the responsibility of providing refugee status to those fleeing war and persecution. We will continue to meet our international obligations, while 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 have made a good start: we have cut £1 billion from the asylum Bill, and we have increased the return of illegal immigrants by 31% since coming into office. However, it is absolutely clear that we cannot solve this by incremental measures alone; the task is too urgent and too big. 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 8, 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.

We will create a new independent appeals body and a system that is fair and 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, 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.

A failure in accountability of those who serve or should serve the public has worn down public trust. His Majesty confirmed the carryover of two Bills designed to right past wrongs. The first will fulfil 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 victims of other tragedies where the state was at fault, including infected blood, Horizon and Grenfell.

The Bill will introduce a duty of candour and individual accountability, and it will 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.

His Majesty confirmed the return of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. This Bill is also 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. We will therefore reform the current system of addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. This 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.

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. I would welcome discussion with any of your Lordships, from whichever party or group, about any or all of these plans. This Government are keen to draw upon the experience and wisdom in this House, about which I spoke at the beginning of this speech. Where we can achieve consensus, we will do so. 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, we can build a better future for us all.

First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2026

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 19 March be approved.

Relevant document: 57th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 27 April.

Motion agreed.

First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2026

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That the Grand Committee do consider the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 20206

Relevant document: 57th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, this instrument introduces fees for applications in the residential property division of the Property Chamber that arise from, or are amended by, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. It is made under the powers provided by Section 42(1)(a) and 42(2) and Section 49(3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. It marks the first stage of a wider programme of reform which will introduce a fairer and more sustainable fees framework in the Property Chamber, supporting the significant reforms to the private rented sector brought by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.

Through that Act, the Government have delivered landmark changes which represent the biggest expansion of rights for renters in a generation. But rights matter only if people can enforce them, and this depends on a sufficiently resourced tribunal that is accessible for all. At present, only half of the application types brought to the Property Chamber incur a fee. This has created an unfair system that neither reflects the cost of proceedings nor supports a proportionate contribution from users, and it has resulted in inconsistencies whereby some users have to pay to access the service where others do not. The Government are therefore introducing a new tiered fees framework.

In summary, once introduced, it will consist of three levels. The first is a standard fee of £200 for applications to the tribunal, together with a hearing fee of £300. Secondly, where there are concerns about access to justice issues, there will be a lower level—an application fee of £114 and a fee of £227 for hearings. There is a final third tier for those cases with the most acute need to preserve access to justice, such as applications to appeal a rent increase. In these cases, there will be a modest application fee of £47, but there will be no hearing fee. Exemptions will continue to apply for urgent building safety issues and low-value claims.

The average cost to the taxpayer of a case brought to the Property Chamber is more than £900. Therefore, the fees in this framework represent a modest contribution to running costs and illustrate a commitment to maintaining access to justice. I will now describe in a little more detail how the regime will work.

First, the Renters’ Rights Act will extend the right to apply to the Property Chamber to request a determination of rent to all private rented sector tenants. Tenants can make such a request upon notice of an annual rent increase, or within the first six months of a tenancy, if they believe that the proposed rent is above the open market rent. The Act includes the tenants’ rights to challenge the validity of a notice proposing a rent increase. As I have just said, under the new regime these applications will attract a £47 application fee but will be exempt from hearing fees.

Secondly, the Renters’ Rights Act introduces a new route to the tribunal to challenge the terms of a tenancy that arises on succession from a tenancy that was previously made under the Rent Act 1977. Under this new regime, these applications will cost £47 but will be exempt from a hearing fee.

Thirdly, this instrument applies the proposed new standard £200 application fee and £300 hearing fee to appeals against the new financial penalties that local authorities can impose on landlords under the Renters’ Rights Act.

Finally, this instrument brings new rent repayment order routes created by the Renters’ Rights Act into the existing fees structure and applies a £114 application fee and £227 hearing fee, to match comparable applications.

I shall briefly outline the impact of this instrument and what it will mean in practice. As many of the measures in this instrument stem from new or amended rights introduced by the Act, some users will be required to pay fees where none have previously been payable. This reflects the move towards a fees framework that more consistently reflects the cost of proceedings and asks for a proportionate contribution from users.

In the case of rent appeals, as I have already said, the need to protect access to justice is more acute. I wish to reassure your Lordships that the introduction of a fee for these cases has been carefully considered. In such cases, the consequences of being unable to bring an appeal makes an applicant more vulnerable to housing instability and economic hardship, and therefore a considerably lower fee of £47 has been applied. In addition, there are mitigations that further ensure that fees do not deter tenants seeking to challenge a rent increase. The Help with Fees remissions scheme will remain available to eligible applicants who cannot afford to pay a fee.

Under the Act, any rent increase will take effect from the first rent period following the tribunal’s decision to approve any increase and will not be backdated. The tribunal will not be able to increase rent above the level proposed by the landlord. In cases of undue hardship, the tribunal will be able to delay the rent increase by up to two months. These measures ensure that tenants feel safe to challenge proposed increases without fear of additional financial pressures.

Finally, where tenants are successful in appealing their rent increase, they may be able to recover the tribunal fee from their landlord. Without these measures, the taxpayer would be required to shoulder a greater proportion of the costs of the system. This instrument provides the necessary framework for a sustainable courts and tribunals system that is fair and accessible for all those who need it. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, for the first time we start to consider some of the practical effects of this controversial Act. I will make no comments on its merits; the Act has been passed, as was the will of Parliament, and now we have to deal with the consequences.

The schedule of fees here provides for the cost of enforcement of the judicial tribunal framework for the provision. We see a large expansion, consequent to the Act, of the number of things that can spawn a complaint. I am thinking particularly about the appeal for a rent increase. The lowest level, at £47, provides no disincentive to bringing a claim. In fact, a single month’s delay can pay for itself. I understand that it is important that we have open justice, but this is creating a perverse fiscal incentive to have a go, especially, as we heard just a few moments ago, as any rent increase that might happen following the appeal would not be backdated to the point at which the appeal was made.

Landlords are already waiting a year to gain possession, for example, in the case of non-payment of rent. It occurred to me to wonder whether the Government have made an assessment. What assessment has been made of the likely consequential number of cases and any additional timescale and further delay as a result of these fees passing into the regulations? Will we see an avalanche of claims that will gum up the tribunal system and give further incentives for claims to be made which provide an asymmetry between the rights of the landlord and the rights of the tenant?

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this order. It forms part of a wider programme of reform to the Property Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal following the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We recognise the Government’s objective: to move towards a more sustainable system of cost recovery while maintaining access to justice. Where fees do not fully reflect the cost of the service provided, there must be a legitimate discussion as to how that gap should be addressed.

This instrument would introduce fees for new categories of cases, including financial penalty appeals and rent appeals. The decision to set the fee for rent increase appeals at £47, with no associated hearing fee, reflects concerns raised by stakeholders about affordability. While it is right that the Government have listened to those concerns and adjusted their approach accordingly, there must remain important questions about the broader context in which these changes are being made, not least the valid concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller.

These reforms sit alongside significant changes to the private rented sector, including the abolition of Section 21. As has been raised previously from these Benches, there is a risk that reforms to tenants’ rights proceed ahead of necessary improvements to the capacity and efficiency of the courts and the tribunal system. There is a balance to be struck. While fees must not become a barrier to justice for tenants seeking to challenge rent increases or enforcement decisions, we on these Benches are concerned that the structure of the system could create unintended incentives; we have heard that from my noble friend Lord Fuller. For example, where an appeal delays the implementation of a rent increase, even where that appeal is ultimately unsuccessful, that may create uncertainty for landlords and have an adverse impact on the functioning of the market.

Further, while the Help with Fees scheme will remain in place, the Government have not produced a full impact assessment of these changes. Given that this is the first stage of a wider reform programme, the Committee would benefit from greater clarity on the cumulative impact of these measures, particularly on access to justice for lower-income applicants and how that is to be balanced.

We do not oppose the principle of these changes. A fair and sustainable tribunal system is in the interests of all parties. However, it is essential that, as the Government proceed with the later stages of reform, they do so in a way that carefully balances cost recovery with genuine access to justice and does not build in unreasonable deterrents for landlords. The Government must ensure that the system is properly resourced to deal with the demands being placed upon it. I look forward to the Minister’s response to these points.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Fuller, for their helpful and constructive contributions. A point that they both made, with which I agree, is that this is always a balancing exercise. As I made clear in my opening remarks, there is no question of trying to recoup the entirety of the cost of running the system. This is merely about seeking a contribution because it is right to do so.

The setting of the lowest level of fee, particularly in relation to rent increases, was not intended to try to dampen demand; rather, it is a small contribution designed to be fixed at a level that does not hamper access to justice. I remind noble Lords that some of those who are subject to rent increases are some of our most vulnerable citizens. While £47 may seem a modest amount to us, to some people it can seem an almost insuperable burden, which is why I have sought to reassure that there is help there for those who cannot afford it at all.

In relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, about the amount of demand, I hope to be able to reassure him by saying that we are ready for Friday. Friday is when all of this will begin. We have a centralised operational hub and have recruited extra staff, which is why we are bringing in all these reforms in tranches, to ensure that the system is not overwhelmed.

This draft instrument is a necessary step that strengthens the sustainability and fairness of the Property Chamber. It delivers, as I said, the first phase of the new fees framework. It is one that strengthens fairness and consistency, supports greater levels of cost recovery and protects access to justice. Our reforms ensure that users of the Property Chamber contribute to its cost where they can afford to do so, while ensuring that vulnerable renters are able to benefit from the protections contained in the Renters’ Rights Act.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I would like to press the Minister just a little harder. While I know she is ready for 1 May, which is in five days’ time, is she able to give us an assessment of what she thinks is the best estimate, either by percentage or the number of cases, of what might be spawned as a result of the fees and charges that are laid out before us? I am asking for a number, so at least we can benchmark success in the months and years to come and see whether we are better or worse than intended. That would help us scope what the resources of the tribunal system may need to be in future.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, no full impact assessment was done in relation to this because it does not reach the required threshold for one. However, some assessments have been made, including looking at 250 types of applications to see whereabouts to fix the fees to try to make the greatest contribution while balancing it with access to justice. The best I can do is offer to write to the noble Lord and provide such figures as we have.

Motion agreed.

Victims and Courts Bill

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 4B and 4C, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 4D in lieu.

4D: Clause 12, page 16, line 30, at end insert—
“(b) after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) Before making regulations under subsection (1A) that relate to costs orders under section 17, the Lord Chancellor must—
(a) consult—
(i) the Law Society,
(ii) the General Council of the Bar, and
(iii) such other persons as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate, and
(b) publish an impact assessment in respect of the regulations.””

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, these amendments relate to private prosecutions. I start by expressing my thanks to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to the Bill throughout its passage.

I thank the Opposition Front-Bench team, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for their scrutiny and for all the time they have given in these debates. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, gave up his time on Monday to meet me and my officials and we had a productive discussion, for which I thank him.

I would especially like to express my sincere gratitude to the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench team, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for their constructive, helpful and friendly engagement throughout this Bill. While we have not always agreed, it has been a real pleasure doing business with them.

It is clear that this Bill has benefited from the quality of scrutiny in this House and has been strengthened by the considerable expertise and insight contributed by Members of your Lordships’ House, both during debates and in the informal discussions we have had around the edges.

I turn to Motion A, relating to Amendments 4B and 4C, tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. I am grateful to both Houses for the depth and seriousness with which Clause 12 has been scrutinised. I will briefly explain the Government’s position and set out the statutory assurances that we have brought forward for your Lordships’ consideration.

From the beginning, we acknowledged the concern about a possible chilling effect on private prosecutions and I reiterate the Government’s reassurances that this is not, and never has been, the intention. We recognise that Amendments 4B and 4C were aimed at encouraging scrutiny and bringing transparency in relation to any regulations that may be made to determine the rates at which private prosecutors can recover costs from central funds. The Government share those objectives. Where we differ is not on the importance of oversight but on the appropriate and proportionate legislative mechanism by which that oversight should be secured.

Amendment 4C would require any such regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government recognise the desire for parliamentary scrutiny, and we are committed to ensuring that any use of this power is subject to proper oversight. The question is not whether there should be scrutiny but what form of scrutiny is proportionate to the power that Parliament is being asked to confer.

As I have said on many occasions, Clause 12 is merely an enabling provision. Self-evidently, it does not itself prescribe rates, and, as matters stand, it is not yet possible to know the degree of technical complexity or granularity that future regulations may contain. To require in primary legislation the affirmative procedure in every eventuality would mean that there would have to be full debates in both Houses on regulations that may prove highly technical, detailed and/or operational in nature. The Government’s view is that such an approach would not represent a proportionate use of Parliament’s time, nor would it necessarily enhance the quality of scrutiny.

The negative procedure strikes the right balance. It ensures that regulations are laid before Parliament and are subject to scrutiny, including by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and that they may be prayed against, debated and annulled where either House considers the substance of the regulations, the supporting evidence or the consultation undertaken to be insufficient. That procedure preserves Parliament’s ability to intervene where there are genuine concerns, while allowing the detail of implementation to be addressed in a practical and efficient manner.

I turn to Amendment 4B, which would require the Ministry of Justice to publish an impact assessment prior to the laying of regulations. Again, I wish to make it clear that the Government believe in the importance of transparency and evidence-based policy-making. That said, as drafted, this amendment is not appropriately framed for the established process. Proposed new paragraph (b) appears to be based on a misunderstanding of how impact assessments operate. The Government do not respond to an impact assessment; rather, an impact assessment is published alongside a consultation to inform it. It is then updated to reflect the final position when the Government respond to the consultation and bring forward regulations. That is the established and proper process.

However, we have listened carefully to the strength of feeling expressed in your Lordships’ House about the need for proper evidential underpinning and stakeholder engagement before any rates are set. For that reason, we are now tabling an amendment in lieu that embeds those objectives effectively by placing clear, workable and enforceable requirements in statute.

First, the amendment will place in primary legislation a statutory duty requiring the Lord Chancellor to consult before laying any secondary legislation to set rates. This will not be a discretionary power but a legal obligation. The consultation will be full, thorough and public, engaging those with relevant expertise of those who may be affected, as well as those who may be affected—for example, charities and specialist lawyers. As part of the process of setting any rates, the Government will publish a full response to the consultation. This will not be a box-ticking exercise. The Government remain open minded about where the rates should be set. The consultation will take place at a formative stage, allowing evidence to inform and shape the rates in a meaningful way.

Secondly, the amendment requires that an impact assessment be published before any regulations are made. This will provide Parliament, and others with an interest in these matters, with a clear assessment of the likely effects on any groups affected by the proposed policies. Overall, the amendment in lieu will embed consultation, evidence gathering and impact analysis directly into the statutory framework governing the exercise of this power. It will ensure that the decision-making is transparent and accountable, while preserving the necessary flexibility for an enabling power to operate proportionately and effectively in practice.

I hope that this explanation demonstrates that the Government have listened, reflected and responded constructively to the concerns raised by your Lordships’ House. The alternative approach we now propose strikes the right balance between parliamentary oversight and practical administration, while ensuring that any rates set are founded on good evidence and tested through full and open consultation. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Bull) (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Amendment 4D. This is likely my last appearance on the Front Bench though not, I anticipate, my last speech in this Chamber. I shall simply say that I have greatly enjoyed debating Home Office and justice issues, of which I have had practical experience both as a barrister and as a recorder and deputy judge. I have enjoyed sparring with the Minister, who some 20-plus years ago was a member of the Bar Council’s legal services committee when I chaired it. I continue to respect her ability and expertise, as demonstrated in all aspects of her portfolio in this House. It has been a pleasure to do friendly battle with her.

Moving on, private prosecutions are a vital safeguard within our justice system. They ensure that when the state cannot or does not act, victims, particularly charities, are not left without recourse. For charities, this mechanism is especially important. Fraud and theft—crimes that can often become cumulatively significant—divert funds from vital causes. They then erode public trust in those charities. With limited police and Crown Prosecution Service capacity, many such cases would, I fear, otherwise go unaddressed. Private prosecutions are therefore an essential backstop. They secure convictions and compensation without burdening public resources.

Crucially, the costs recovered from central funds are modest, and typically only partial. They represent a small proportion of overall public expenditure—just 0.18% of the overall legal aid budget. Yet recovery of the costs of private prosecutions enables charities to pursue recoveries that would otherwise be financially out of reach. If charities cannot rely on private prosecutions as a shield against theft and fraud, then we fear that the public will be unwilling to donate towards their causes.

Due to the importance of private prosecutions for access to justice, we tabled an amendment that Clause 12 do not stand part of the Bill on Report. Unfortunately, the Government cited financial privilege as a reason for rejecting the Conservative amendment.

My noble and learned friend Lord Keen instead tabled an amendment in lieu. That amendment would have achieved the following. First, it would have ensured that an impact assessment was launched on the potential effect of Clause 12, with particular regard to its consequences for charities and victims’ access to justice. Secondly, it would have constrained the Government in exercising their regulation-making powers until after a response had been published to the impact assessment. Thirdly, it would have required such regulation to be subject to the affirmative procedure of both Houses.

The amendment in lieu offered by the Government today partially fulfils at least the first two of those aims. It would require the Lord Chancellor to consult the Law Society, the General Council of the Bar and other bodies considered appropriate before publishing an impact assessment. I suggest that charities as well as private prosecutors themselves would fall under this final category. There is no reason why not.

I thank the Minister in the other place for confirming that the Government will publish a full response to the impact assessment before setting any rates. That assurance is most welcome. Unfortunately, however, there is no provision that regulations made under Clause 12 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Minister in the other place said that, given that it is unclear how complex the structure of the rates will be,

“it would be disproportionate to mandate a process that risks lengthy debate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/4/26; col. 88.]

We argue that precisely because of the novel and complex nature of these regulations, the affirmative procedure is all the more important and in no way disproportionate. To reject it is to undermine proper transparency and accountability. However, I recognise that the Government have moved some real way on the issue of private prosecutions, so we will not oppose their amendment in lieu today.

The Conservative Party will always champion access to justice and the rule of law. We therefore keenly await the publication and findings of the impact assessment. We are also grateful for the co-operation and discussions that we have had with representatives of the Liberal party in this place and the impact that has had on the whole Bill and on the particular aspect of private prosecutions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a pleasure to bring the Victims and Courts Bill through this House; it is now another step closer to becoming law. The Bill will deliver on our manifesto commitment to support and protect victims, restore confidence in our justice system and implement swifter and fairer justice.

I cannot leave the Bill without taking the opportunity to thank all the officials in my department who have worked so hard to bring this legislation forward. I wanted to thank them all by name, but I was told I was not allowed to, so I shall have to settle with doing a group thanks. They worked late into the night, tirelessly and always good-humouredly, which is quite something.

In closing, I urge noble Lords to support the Government’s amendments related to private prosecutions, and I look forward to working with your Lordships in this House as we take forward the implementation of the Bill.

Motion A agreed.

Burial Provision in England and Wales

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of burial provision in England and Wales; and whether they consider existing statutory duties on local authorities to be sufficient to ensure long-term burial capacity.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, we are aware of increasing localised pressure on burial spaces in some parts of the country. The Government do not have day-to-day operational responsibility for burial grounds, which are managed locally. At present, there is no statutory duty on local authorities to make provision for burial, so it is a matter for each authority to allocate local resources in line with local priorities

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for the Answer, but, since I tabled this Question, a number of individuals and groups from Birmingham, Dewsbury and Croydon, as well as my home city of Sheffield, have been in touch with me, deeply concerned about the lack of burial provision, often provided by the council but also by individuals and organisations, often religious based. Clearly, the system at the moment is not working. Will the Minister consider looking at what else the Government can do to issue guidance? For example, when councils draw up local plans, they have space for homes, businesses et cetera. Could the Government not look at insisting that they also provide burial grounds?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

We absolutely recognise the concerns, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter. Local authorities’ independence from central government means that they are responsible for managing their resources in line with local priorities, which they are best placed to evaluate. That said, the Law Commission has recently issued its report on burial. As part of the Government’s response, we are keen to engage with a range of interested parties, including local authorities, because we want to understand how best to assist them with local provision and management of burial capacity for the future.

[Lord Popat (Con)]

My Lords, there are over a million Hindus and Sikhs living in this country who continue to face significant delays in securing a place at a crematorium, often long after their loved one has died. I have lobbied the previous Government on this issue, and I am pleased that the first ever Hindu crematorium will be opened by Anoopam Mission by the end of this year. However, this alone will not meet the demands of these communities, and we need greater provision both in London and Leicester. Can the Minister tell us what further steps the Government are taking to reduce waiting times for cremations and to ensure that families can carry out final rites within the time, as per the custom and practice?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

Measures have been taken in recent years to update crematoria so that they better reflect and understand the needs of different cultures and faiths. To a certain extent, I must repeat my earlier Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, that it is for local authorities to deal with this, because they decide what their priorities are, depending on the groups they represent locally. We are keen to engage closely with representatives from faith communities on all issues in relation to death management, particularly when we are considering our response to the Law Commission’s report.

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the hardest things to do as an MP is meet with a bereaved parent. It is even worse if they tell you that they are worried about the funeral costs for their child. Can I take this opportunity to ask my noble friend the Minister whether all families under the children’s funeral fund will be exempt from fees charged for the cremation or burial of a child, and how this can be accessed?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government believe that families who have suffered the unimaginable loss of a child should not have to worry about the cost of a funeral. The children’s funeral fund is not means-tested; it is available where the death of a child takes place in England, regardless of nationality, faith or residency status. There are similar schemes in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The cost is usually covered by the funeral provider and then the provider reclaims it from the fund. Families who wish to arrange the funeral themselves can access the fund and the details are on the GOV.UK website.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, the excellent report last month from the Law Commission on burial and cremation law addresses the problems of burial grounds which are either full, closed, disused, poorly maintained or even lost. It makes specific proposals for the modernisation of complex and inconsistent laws, and it promises a draft Bill in, I think, 2028. Meanwhile, will the Government consider earlier implementation of those recommendations in the report that would not require primary legislation?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The Law Commission report, which we welcome, was published on 18 March this year and is the first part of a wider project that will also consider the legal framework for new funerary methods and the rights and obligations in relation to funerals and the deceased. That last sub-project is expected to conclude by the end of 2027 and, as the noble Lord rightly says, the Law Commission will publish draft legislation in mid-2028.

There is also a separate Law Commission project looking at offences against the deceased. All these things are interrelated. We will consider all the recommendations issued recently by the Law Commission and the various workstreams to see what is the most practical approach to publishing our response, including timing, to make sure that we do not do things piecemeal in a way that, in the end, makes things worse rather than better.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the Law Commission has identified that an estimated 250,000 sets of ashes have not been collected from funeral directors, leaving them either unburied or unscattered. What consideration has the Minister given, or will she give, to following other countries such as Germany that mandate a final resting place for cremated ashes?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

As with all matters relating to what happens at the end of life, these are sensitive, difficult and complicated matters. The Law Commission identifies that there can be many reasons why ashes remain uncollected, including people who simply cannot face going to pick them up. However, that does not solve the problem of them sitting on shelves, which is not an appropriate way to treat human remains. We will consider this matter carefully as part of our response to the Law Commission’s helpful and sensitive report.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, private burial grounds in England and Wales are largely unregulated, compared with the local authority-run cemeteries and burial grounds mentioned by the Minister. Hundreds of burial grounds are subject to changes in private ownership and, as they are not regulated, there is no requirement for the standards we would expect from local authorities. I declare an interest as my family are buried in such a burial ground in north London, with totally unregulated, unscrupulous owners. They do not have to have a register of those buried there and unlawful exhumations are taking place. Will the Government try to bring private burial grounds in line with the regulations for local authority-run burial grounds to stop the scandals that are taking place?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am very sorry to hear of the experience of the noble Baroness. That story draws attention to exactly why the Law Commission looked at this area in the first place. Our laws concerning how burial is governed are a patchwork; they are often inconsistent with each other, they are very difficult to understand and sometimes they do not appear to be entirely logical. That is why the Law Commission is proposing that they are all brought together. As I said earlier, it is sensitive and sometimes difficult, and there are odd anomalies. Noble Lords may be aware that people can be buried in their back garden if they want to: it is not a regulated thing. We need to look at this carefully and make sure that we get it right.

[The Lord Bishop of Chichester]

The Church of England has a responsibility and common-law duty to bury all members of a parish living within its boundaries in a churchyard according to the rites of the Church of England and, if it does not have a churchyard, it is dependent on municipal provision. So we have an interest in this. One of the things this says to us is the importance to all people of faith of their rites of burial. We in the Church of England want to promote that strongly. Following the Law Commission report, would the Minister be willing to speak with the Faith and Public Life department of the Church of England to look at historic churchyards under our care and how they are preserved, at what provision currently exists within our open churchyards and how that can be sustained and monitored, and at what scope there might be for opening and consecrating new churchyards?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to reiterate the Government’s commitment to and respect for the beliefs of all our faith communities, many of whom have very strongly held views about what is appropriate at the end of life, both how it happens and the timing of it. The answer to the question of whether I would have a meeting is, “Of course”.

Victims and Courts Bill

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 15th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1A: Because this Amendment would impose undue pressure on the resources of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Judicial Office.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall speak also to Motions B, B1, C, and C1. This group concerns amendments made in this House relating to access to court transcripts, and homicide abroad. In relation to each, I shall set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.

I will speak first to Motions A and C, which relate to Amendments 1 and 3, originally tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, both of which concern access to criminal court transcripts.

I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her extensive engagement on the Bill throughout its passage in the Lords, as well as in recent weeks. I am sorry she is not in her place today. I know she has not been well, but I think she may be joining us remotely in due course. I hope she can hear me when I say that she and I have spent significant time with each other discussing these amendments at length, and I really am grateful to her for her constructive and collaborative approach in addressing the issues before your Lordships’ House today.

That said, I am disappointed and frustrated that I have not been able to get a meeting with the Opposition Front Bench, despite making numerous attempts through various channels to do so. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, knows I am sincere when I say the Government agree that it is extremely important for victims to be able to access information relevant to the criminal court proceedings in their case. But, as we made clear both in Committee and on Report, these amendments would not achieve the meaningful benefits that victims are seeking. In the case of the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, the Government believe it could in fact undermine victims’ experience rather than improve it.

With that, I turn to Motion C1, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. We have already set out in previous debates the operational and financial implications this amendment would have. Our first reason for not accepting it is that while the Government are firmly committed to strengthening transparency, this would create substantial pressures on a system in which resources are finite.

The second reason is arguably the more important one: the potentially serious and damaging impact this amendment may have on countless victims. The noble and learned Lord has said that this amendment contains a pragmatic safeguard for victims, in that victims would be able to request anonymisation prior to publication. The Government fundamentally disagree that this gives protection, because it does not give victims the right to object to the publication of sentencing remarks. Instead, it limits victims to requesting anonymisation ahead of publication and does so within a relatively narrow window of 14 days from the point at which the request is received.

How is this to work in practice when the police and/or the CPS would have to locate the victims—probably quite a number of them—explain the request to them and give them time to consider the request? Then the victims would need to respond, and then redactions would need to be carried out sufficiently in what in some cases will be a long and complicated document. Following sentence, many victims will be traumatised and will just want to start putting what has happened behind them. What would happen should a victim of a horrifying crime request that their sentencing remarks not be published at all?

By denying victims a right to determine whether remarks relevant to their case, often containing highly personal and sensitive information, are published online for the world to see, this loss of agency significantly risks being distressing rather than empowering. It is unlikely to feel like an improvement in transparency or experience and may in fact compound the harm caused by the offence. This Government believe that transparency is not served by measures that risk causing further distress to victims or undermining confidence in the justice system. The Government do not accept that this amendment strikes the right balance between openness and protection and believe it would in practice do more harm than good.

I have made the point already that we are focused on delivering the substantial commitment made earlier this year, that by spring 2027, we will provide all victims with Crown Court sentencing remarks relevant to their case, free of charge, upon request. I thank all Members of your Lordships’ House from all parties and groups, including the Opposition Front Bench, for their constructive engagement during the debates on that amendment during the passage of the Sentencing Act 2026. The significant expansion will deliver meaningful benefits and represents an important step forward in helping many victims better understand their case. It will, we accept, genuinely enhance transparency in the justice system.

That said, we recognise that there remains a need to consider what more can be done to support victims’ access to information about court proceedings relevant to their case, particularly in cases that do not result in a conviction. That is why I am pleased to confirm that the Government are undertaking a study to explore the use of AI transcription in the criminal courts. This is another step towards greater transparency and improving access to court transcripts by examining how artificial intelligence transcription could support the production of court records more quickly and at a lower cost. Many of these cases involve sensitive personal information, and we must ensure that the use of AI transcription delivers high levels of accuracy, upholds the integrity of court proceedings and protects information where necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, Motion C1 in my name would insist on my amendment from Report regarding the publication of court transcripts. It would require sentencing remarks by the Crown Court to be freely published online, while also informing applicants of their right to request anonymity if they wish it.

Open justice is a fundamental principle of the institution of democracy and the public confidence in that institution. This Motion would make it easier for victims, journalists and the wider public to understand exactly what is happening in the court system. This is of particular relevance regarding grooming gangs and the formal inquiry that the Government launched just this week. It would help to facilitate the transparency required to hold the guilty accountable.

As faith and confidence in public institutions continue to dwindle, many believe that the state does not operate to serve their best interests. The Sentencing Act now has the effect of an automatic presumption of short sentences—a policy that in practice effectively abolishes custodial sentences of one year or less. It is more important than ever that the public can access the reasoning behind sentencing decisions, so that confidence in the rule of law and the integrity of judicial decision-making is preserved.

In the other place, a Labour MP said she was confused about why the Minister was not accepting Lords Amendments 1 and 3 at that point. The Minister said in reply that the Government

“are willing to go further, and we will look to see what more we can do in the Lords”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/26; col. 326.]

Yet the Government have taken no action on this issue other than to reject my amendment in its entirety. I therefore feel compelled to move Motion C1.

I thank the Liberal Democrats for their consistent support of this amendment and the principle that it upholds. It was the combined effort of 160 Conservative and 55 Liberal Democrat Peers that saw this amendment’s successful passage. I also thank the 56 Liberal Democrat MPs who supported the amendment in the other place. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat Justice spokesman said:

“I urge all colleagues to vote for all these excellent Lords amendments, which are incredibly important to victims and their families”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/26; col. 337.]


There may have been a little wobble since—I am not clear why—but I hope that our efforts in the voting Lobby today will compel the Government to act.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions and for the thoughtful way in which they have engaged with this issue. I recognise the commitment and valuable contributions that all have made during the passage of the Bill. To those who spoke powerfully about the need for victims better to understand what has happened in court and why, I say that the Government are absolutely aligned with that objective. I thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising that point about victims being either explicitly told or made to feel that they should not attend court to hear the rest of the trial. It is a powerful point. I have had experience of it personally. I shall take it away and see what I can do to improve the situation.

As I have set out, Lords Amendments 1 and 3 would impose statutory duties that risk being unworkable, would create delay and have effects that would not serve victims well. Our priority must be to ensure that the commitments we make are ones that we can deliver. That is why the Government have focused on delivery through the Sentencing Act 2026 and why we are now going further through the study in artificial intelligence transcription, about which I spoke a moment or two ago.

Turning very briefly to support for victims of homicide abroad, I repeat my absolute assurance that the Government share the ambition of strengthening the support available to families bereaved by homicide abroad. The commitments that I have outlined today do go further. Cross-departmental work to improve consistency and support through a comprehensive review will put families at the centre so that we can ensure they get the support they need. I urge noble Lords to support Motions A, B and C.

Motion A agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.

2A: Because the Commons consider that the obligations to which Lords Amendment 2 would give rise are unworkable.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B) not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.

3A: Because this Amendment would impose undue pressure on the resources of His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Judicial Office.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.

4A: Because Lords Amendment 4 would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion D I shall speak also to Motions D1, E, F and G. This group concerns amendments made in your Lordships’ House relating to private prosecutions and the unduly lenient sentence scheme. For each, I will set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.

Motions D and G relate to Amendments 4 and 7, originally tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. These amendments would have removed Clause 12 from the Bill entirely, meaning that the Lord Chancellor would not have the power to set the rates of costs recoverable from central funds in private prosecutions.

In 2024-25, the Ministry of Justice spent £6.3 million on private prosecutions. Over the past decade, this figure has increased significantly and has proved to be highly variable. There is some evidence that the near certainty of substantial cost recovery can create incentives for prosecutors to pursue cases that are disproportionate or are an unsuitable remedy for the legal issues in the case. We have seen litigation charges far exceed what a privately paying client would consider reasonable and which are wholly out of proportion to any loss incurred. We have also seen private prosecutions used as a no-lose tactic in civil or commercial disputes—for example, in an effort to gain leverage in what is, in essence, a civil dispute by bringing a criminal prosecution. As the noble and learned Lord has said before, £6.3 million is a small proportion of overall Ministry of Justice spending. That may be so, but it is still a great deal of money, and this Government are committed to ensuring the proportionate and responsible use of taxpayers’ money, regardless of the scale of the expenditure.

Clause 12 will allow the Lord Chancellor to set rates recoverable in private prosecutions, but only when informed by extensive stakeholder engagement and public consultation. We will set rates that are proportionate to the complexity and seriousness of the case, ensuring consistency, clarity and transparency, all the while safeguarding the vital right to bring a private prosecution. I make it absolutely clear that this Government have no intention of trying to curtail that right; that is not what the clause is intended to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Marks for his comments on private prosecutions, and for the discussions we have had with the Minister, and separately with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, over the course of the Bill.

I echo the two important points from our Benches made by my noble friend Lord Marks. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has helpfully reflected in his Motion, an impact assessment on these specific regulations is vital. It would assess how workable they are, especially for the charitable and voluntary sectors, as well as for access to justice. My noble friend’s second point was equally important, and one that we on these Benches often talk about: the risk of giving Ministers the power to use regulations—in this case, to recover costs—without any transparency or reference back to Parliament. The Government need to think hard before they bring that into force.

I now turn to Motion E on unduly lenient sentences. I repeat my thanks to the Minister and her officials, as well as to the late Helen Newlove, the current Victims’ Commissioner, the new Victims’ Commissioner for London, and all their staff over the many years that I and others have been laying amendments to improve the arrangements for victims to be able to submit a claim to the Attorney-General to review an unduly lenient sentence.

I want to pick up where I left off in the previous group, when I outlined how the criminal justice process can seriously let down victims, including on the occasions when they are left distraught by a sentence that really does not meet the level needed for the horrendous experience that they were put through. I am very grateful to the Minister for her comments about the extraordinary work that Tracey Hanson has done to ensure that, after her family’s experience, changes should be made. Her experience was an appalling failure of public service to victims like her and her family. Over 10 years ago, her 21 year-old son, Josh, was the victim of an unprovoked knife attack. In Josh’s case, it took four years for a conviction and sentencing to be reached. She said:

“At no stage during the trial or at the point of sentencing was I informed of the ULS scheme. I only learned of its existence from another bereaved parent, by which time I had just hours left to act within the strict 28-day limit. With no clear guidance available, I submitted an appeal late in the evening on the 28th day, only to be told it was ‘out of time’ because it arrived outside office hours. That decision was final. I had no right to appeal”.


I have heard a little of the energy that the indomitable Tracey Hanson, Claire Waxman and others found on that single day to try to get an appeal in, after being told of it by another bereaved parent, which was, as been mentioned, on deadline day. That formal notice did not give a notice of an hour by which an appeal had to be submitted. Frankly, it was appalling that the Attorney-General’s Office chose to reject it because its idea of the end of the day was Friday hours—namely, 4 pm—even though it was posted by hand through its doors after that deadline but on the Friday.

That is why, during the passage of this Bill, our amendments have consistently asked for special arrangements. First, there must be a duty on an official body to notify a victim as soon as possible after sentencing, and in the event that a victim has not been informed in that time, special arrangements should be made. That is why I am so grateful to the Minister for the government amendments in Motions E and F. Yes, the Minister and I have had extensive discussions and, yes, we have agreed on some things and disagreed on others, but I want to thank Ministers in the MoJ for the round-table meeting with a number of victims last month, when four Ministers were able to hear at first hand from victims about their experience. I hope that, too, played a part in the decision to change things.

Motions E and F are very helpful steps forward to resolve problems and change an intransigent process that has blocked access to justice for victims. We hope that this will now signify a real change to their experience.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by touching briefly on the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Once again, I am grateful to your Lordships for the care and consideration brought to this debate, not only today but throughout the passage of this Bill. These measures matter; they will make a meaningful difference to those who have already endured so much.

I turn to the question of private prosecutions and reiterate that I recognise the concerns raised in relation to Clause 12. I want to make it clear again, as I have said before, that the vast majority of private prosecutions do not result in claims on central funds and will remain entirely unaffected by this measure. It is absolutely right that a number of respected charities make use of the private prosecution route to protect the public and prevent and pursue wrongdoing, but those cases account for only 10% to 15% of claims made on central funds. I make it absolutely crystal clear that we have no issue with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. This enabling power does not restrict who may bring a private prosecution, nor does it narrow the types of cases that may be pursued, and nothing in the clause alters the long-standing statutory right to bring a private prosecution.

It has been suggested that the Government must first consult in order to understand the landscape, but the need has already been established. The Justice Select Committee’s 2020 report published 42 accounts of written evidence and expressly recommended that the Government take a closer look at the private prosecution landscape, particularly when public money is involved. Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts also heard evidence of private prosecutions being misused and imposing significant burdens on the courts. Clause 12 responds to these findings, and I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his support.

Having said all that, we will engage thoroughly with stakeholders and we will hold a public consultation before any secondary legislation setting the rates is brought forward. As part of that process, we will undertake and publish an impact assessment.

I have stressed the importance of prescribing rates which address disproportionate costs without chilling the private prosecutions market. I bear in mind that, in recent years, your Lordships’ House has expressed concern about the quality of impact assessments, so we will work hard to develop an impact assessment which allows the Government to make good, evidence-based decisions. We believe that that is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is referring to when he seeks to compel the Government to respond to an impact assessment in paragraph (b) of Amendment 4B. I would be grateful if he could let me know whether he means something else. Had he accepted my invitation to a meeting, we might have been able to resolve that in advance.

I urge noble Lords to support the Government’s amendments on the ULS scheme and to support Motions D, E, F and G.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A, and do propose Amendments 5B to 5F in lieu—

5A: Because this Amendment gives rise to legal uncertainty.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A, and do propose Amendments 6B and 6C in lieu—

6A: Because the Victims’ Code already stipulates that victims will be informed of the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.

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

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, once again we have had a full and passionate debate on a matter of the utmost significance. It is apparent, from both deliberations in Committee and from today, that views on this matter are deeply and sincerely held across your Lordships’ House.

A wide range of points have been raised by noble Lords. Let us consider a variety of them. We have heard about issues around how the police investigate cases, about the interaction of telemedicine and criminal investigation, about the potential for women to face coercion, about issues of safeguarding of younger women and about issues of domestic abuse—to name but a few mentioned tonight. A lot of ground has not yet been covered. Other noble Lords have not yet spoken or have wanted to speak but have not been able to. What this tells us is that the matter is very far from settled. Some noble Lords’ concerns have plainly not been allayed.

This brings me back to the point I made in Committee. This clause has not received anything like adequate scrutiny. It is true that we have now had several hours of debate on this matter in your Lordships’ House. The point I made before, however, still stands: it is a matter of procedure, not substance. In the other place, however, this clause was considered for only 46 minutes of Back-Bench debate. No parliamentary committee has been able to seek views and take evidence, and if ever there was the need for a parliamentary committee to take evidence on a policy, this is it. We need to hear from and test the views of the police, of the CPS, of doctors, of obstetricians, of safeguarders and, if possible and most importantly, of women or their representatives and advocates. This policy was not in the Government’s election manifesto. It has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, public consultation, or an impact assessment. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, put it very well in Committee. She said that the clause was passed

“in the other place following a very brief and truncated debate, entirely incommensurate with the gravity of its impact”.—[Official Report, 2/2/26; col. 1336.]

Changes to the law of abortion are and remain issues of conscience. The Opposition do not and will not take an official position on the substance of the clause. There is a multitude of views in my own party, and the issue is in the hands of your Lordships’ House as a matter of conscience. But that does not mean that we are released from our duty to undertake due diligence and rigorous interrogation of the consequences of changing the social law of this country. Whatever one thinks of the substance of the issue itself, the truth is that this clause has been tacked on to the side of a Crime and Policing Bill when it should not have been. That is no way to make law.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be as brief as I can. I shall start, as I did in Committee, by reiterating that the Government maintain a neutral stance on abortion in England and Wales. Many of the amendments in this group are similar or identical to those tabled in Committee. So, save in a very few cases, I shall not repeat the Government’s assessment of their workability. This means that if I do not explicitly mention an amendment, it is either because there are no workability issues or because I set them out fully in Committee. As a shorthand, I will refer to conduct that comes under Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, collectively as “abortion offences”.

I begin with Amendment 423ZA tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. It is unclear how this amendment is intended to work in practice—in particular, which party would bear the burden of establishing a lack of mental capacity and what the standard of proof would be. Thus, it is possible that it would create confusion for practitioners. Your Lordships may wish to note that the law already takes account of defendants’ understanding of their actions in various ways. It is unclear how this amendment is intended to interact with well-established criminal law principles.

Amendment 422E, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, is similar to that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, in Committee, but it contains an additional requirement that a prosecution could not be brought any later than 12 months from the date of the alleged offence. Your Lordships will be aware that, other than for summary-only offences, there is, almost without exception, no statutory time limit for prosecuting criminal offences in England and Wales. The reason for that is that evidence may emerge over several years, so a limitation period would remove the ability to prosecute in cases where evidence of guilt came to light much later on. The introduction of a limitation period could lead to differences in outcomes depending on when evidence becomes available, the complexity of the case and the resources of investigating and prosecuting authorities.

Amendment 423, in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is similar to the one he tabled in Committee, but it differs in three respects: it would broaden the scope of the specified defences; it would make provision for who must bear burden of proof in relation to those defences; and it would introduce additional provisions relating to police investigations. In relation to the workability concerns I raised in Committee, for the second and third of these differences there are some further issues. In relation to the burden of proof, the drafting is ambiguous. If the intention is that the defendant should bear the evidential burden, clarification would be needed. In relation to the proposed new provisions for police investigations, your Lordships may wish to note that decisions on whether to initiate, and the scope of such an investigation, are currently operational matters for the police.

Amendment 423A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is also similar to one tabled in Committee. While the Government remain neutral on changing the criminal law, it is important that investigations into other offences, such as murder, manslaughter or infanticide under the Infanticide Act, are still carried out. Those offences would continue to be investigated and prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service if the test for prosecution is met. Your Lordships may wish to note that this amendment would be likely to trigger a review of any live investigations and prosecutions. However, we would not expect this to carry any significant resourcing implications.

Amendment 426C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, is again similar to an amendment tabled in Committee. It might be helpful to remind your Lordships of the point that I made then, namely that the proposed new offence is not limited to obtaining abortifacient drugs for use in the termination of a pregnancy. Abortifacient drugs are not defined in legislation and are also used for non-abortion-related purposes. In addition, further amendments would be needed to clarify whether the offence was one that is to be triable either way, whether the maximum penalty on conviction on indictment should be the same as that on summary conviction and whether the maximum penalty in the magistrates’ court should align with its general powers, which update automatically should the limits on its sentencing powers change in the future.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I would be grateful for clarification as to whether the Government have considered their own current inquiries into the grooming gangs. There was evidence there that:

“Victims and survivors were also critical about how easy it can be to obtain emergency contraception or abortion services without appropriate questions being asked”.


This evidence has been relied on consistently in Committee and on Report, yet there are concerns. Have the Government looked at that?

Secondly, in relation to the case that I mentioned in Committee, which contradicts much of what has been said, the comments of His Honour Mr Justice Cooke in Leeds Crown Court, in the case of Sarah Catt, very clearly state that this was a “cold calculated” decision that she took for her own convenience and self-interest. She took pills at 39 weeks and gave birth, and it seems she never revealed where the body was. She had a history of deceit and concealment—that is in the judgment of Leeds Crown Court. So have the Government considered, also in relation to other amendments about pardons, that this was conduct not of a victim but of a woman who perpetrated a crime?

Finally—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her points, which I am sure your Lordships’ House will want to take into account when deciding whether, as a matter of policy, to vote for or against the various amendments. I remind the noble Baroness that these are not government amendments—the Government are neutral—but I am sure that everyone in your Lordships’ House has heard them and will take them into account in various ways.

Amendment 425 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, is identical to one tabled in Committee. I raised at that stage the Government’s concerns about workability and operational difficulties, and they remain. In short, the effect of Amendment 425 might be to reduce access to early medical abortion due to resource constraints on the ability of abortion providers to hold in-person consultations.

Amendment 426D, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, is new, but it carries similar possible operational effects to those I set out in Committee in relation to Amendment 425, about which I spoke a moment ago. The proposed new clause in Amendment 426D may have a detrimental impact on abortion provision and access for under-18s, including those who live in remote areas or who have difficulties in attending a clinic. It should also be noted that it is unclear whether this amendment would require under-18s to have all consultations face to face, including any initial contact with the service. If so, this would further increase the workability concerns, including resourcing constraints on providers and access to abortion provision for young people.

Amendment 426B, in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton, is once again very similar to an amendment tabled in Committee. The duty on the Secretary of State, as drafted, poses substantial operational and resourcing implications. There is no centrally held record of women who have been convicted of, cautioned for, arrested for or investigated on suspicion of abortion offences. Therefore, the Secretary of State would be unable to comply with the duty to direct the specified bodies to delete such details from records. If this is the will of Parliament, consideration will need to be given to how to deliver the objectives of this amendment in a way that is operationally workable.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I appreciate that the hour is late and very charged emotions have been expressed, so I do not intend to delay the House with a long response. I simply point out to those Members who are not familiar with the Companion and were surprised that so many of us did not take interventions that this was not due to any lack of respect for their positions. The Companion says at 4.29 that a Member

“may justifiably refuse to give way, for instance … in time-limited proceedings”.

I wanted to make that clear.

I have heard what the Minister has said about Amendment 422E. I will go away and consider that. This was meant to be a compromise. I know that Members want to get to other substantive amendments. I therefore do not wish to test the opinion of the House and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

With the House’s permission, it might be helpful if I set out the Government’s position, and then perhaps we can take it from there, if the noble Baroness is prepared to give way to me at this stage. The Government have some workability and drafting concerns about the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, but I will focus on the central issue so that the House knows what the Government’s position is.

Although the Government remain neutral on the overall issue, we recognise that assisted dying regimes being implemented in different parts of the UK and the Crown dependencies could create practical issues for those in one jurisdiction who are involved, in some way, in the lawful assisted death of a person in another jurisdiction. However, I support what my noble and learned friend said: the Government consider it premature to legislate on this issue. We do not yet know whether assisted dying will become lawful in the various jurisdictions, what the final form of any such regimes may be, or how and when they would be implemented. Legislating now in this unique way to amend the criminal law in England and Wales without clarity about these frameworks risks unintended consequences. The Government do not rule out that, in due course, processes may be agreed between the jurisdictions—or, if necessary, future legislation placed before this House and, potentially, other Parliaments—to achieve these aims.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that indication. On the basis of that, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Victims and Courts Bill

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 17th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That the Bill be now read a third time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, I will make a short statement on the position regarding legislative consent on this Bill. A legislative consent Motion was received from the Senedd on 24 February 2026. The amendments voted in by your Lordships’ House on Report engage the LCM process. Conversations are ongoing with the devolved Governments on how these amendments would apply to them. It has not been possible to complete this process before Third Reading. Amendments will be made if they decline to grant approval. The amendments on court transcripts are currently drafted to extend UK wide; we presume that this is an error and that the intention is that they should extend to England and Wales only, because they use terminology specific to this jurisdiction and that has been the focus of debates on this topic.

Clause 21: Commencement and transitional provision

Amendment 1

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their constructive engagement with this important Bill at every stage of its passage. On behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen, I thank noble Lords for their contributions both in Committee and on Report. Although there were several areas of disagreement, we on these Benches believe that the Bill, as amended on Report, leaves this House as better legislation than when it entered.

I am particularly pleased that noble Lords across this House voted in favour of Amendments 16 and 20. Open and transparent justice is a fundamental principle: it underpins democracy and the rule of law. It is therefore only right that sentencing remarks, which explain judges’ reasoning for the sentences they impose, be made available to members of the public who are not present in court.

Equally, private prosecutions are an integral part of our justice system. Where the CPS is unwilling or unable to act, private prosecutions are a vital avenue for parties to get access to justice. In particular, many charities use private prosecutions to recover losses by theft and fraud. The removal of Clause 12 preserves the current system. Clause 12 would have created a state of uncertainty in the legal market. It would have had a detrimental effect on the availability of private prosecutions for those who need that service. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his support on these points.

Amendment 1, in my name and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, will remove a cross-reference to a clause that no longer stands part of the Bill.

I also commend the Liberal Democrats on their engagement with the Bill. It was pleasing to find areas of agreement during the Bill’s passage. I am grateful for their amendments on both notification and exceptional circumstances for unduly lenient sentence applications. I strongly urge the Government in the other place to recognise the importance of these reforms and to support all the amendments that passed on Report. Both of the amendments before us have the support of the Conservatives and of the Victims’ Commissioner.

Turning briefly to Amendment 29, it was disappointing that the Minister spoke against our opposition to the automatic release of sexual offenders and domestic abusers at the one-third point of their custodial sentences. If the Government are still committed to their manifesto pledge of halving violence against women and girls, the amendment deserves serious consideration. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her expression of support on this point. We, in turn, intend to return to this issue at a later date.

I remain grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions during the various stages of the Bill. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on the amendments relating to the publication of sentencing remarks, private prosecutions and the unduly lenient sentence scheme. I have no doubt that these issues will return to your Lordships’ House in due course. I beg to move Amendment 1.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a minor and technical amendment following Report, and the Government will not oppose it today.

Amendment 1 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The Bill represents a significant step forward in strengthening both the rights of victims and the way in which our courts operate. At its heart, it seeks to ensure that victims are treated with dignity, compassion and respect throughout the justice process, while ensuring that our courts are able to deliver justice more swiftly and effectively.

I thank all Members of your Lordships’ House who contributed during the debates; the officials for all their support during its passage; and all noble Lords who have given their time and expertise to scrutinising the Bill during its passage through your Lordships’ House and, through their engagement, have strengthened the Bill in the process.

I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their support for and engagement on the key measures in the Bill. I look forward to continuing to work with them on the recent amendments regarding the unduly lenient sentencing scheme, court transcripts and support for victims of homicide abroad.

I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for their informed, thoughtful interventions and the constructive challenges that they have put forward. I look forward to discussing further their recent amendments regarding court transcripts and private prosecutions.

I am grateful for the broad support for this Bill across the House, and I look forward to working on its implementation. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, I am very grateful that the Conservatives have already expressed their thanks for the Bill. We echo that thanks. I welcome the very constructive engagement from all sides of the House. I particularly thank my noble friends Lord Marks and Lord Russell, with whom I have worked closely on victims’ issues for many years. I also thank the House more generally. The timely passage of this Bill is unusual, and I am very pleased that we were able to conduct our business in the time allocated and still come to the end of the Bill and feel that real progress has been made.

This is where I thank the Minister and all her officials because, despite the fact that a number of votes were won on Report—we look forward to continuing to work with her—many of the items we discussed in private between Committee and Report have been resolved to some extent or another. On behalf of all the groups and the individual victims who got in touch, not only now but in the run-up to the Bill, we are grateful for the progress that has been made. That does not mean, however, that everything is done; I and many others will continue to work on those particular issues. From our side, as has already been mentioned, we particularly want to see some movement on court transcripts, homicide abroad and unduly lenient sentences. We are very grateful for the discussions that are already beginning between now and ping-pong.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly—conscious of my noble friend to my left—to pay tribute to the Minister for how she has handled her first Bill through your Lordships’ House with good humour and considerable judicial skill. It is always slightly challenging to put an amendment or an argument to a Minister when it is quite clear that she has understood exactly what you are trying to say and all the flaws in your argument before you have got past the first paragraph.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for our working together so effectively. I also congratulate the Minister on the extraordinary achievement in having, on occasion, got the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties to be on speaking terms, let alone voting terms.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords.

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments.