Cohabitation Rights Bill [HL]

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, who has pursued this issue with—if I may say so—characteristic persistence and conviction over many years, introducing substantially similar Bills on a number of occasions. These Bills undoubtedly raise important questions of law, policy and fairness.

I do not begin from the proposition that there is no problem to be addressed. There plainly are cases in which the breakdown of a long-term cohabiting relationship can leave one party, often the economically weaker party, in circumstances of genuine hardship. There also remains a widespread misconception that common-law marriage exists, and that couples who live together automatically acquire legal rights equivalent to those of married couples. They do not. That misunderstanding has been recognised by Governments of different political persuasions and is reflected in noble Lords’ speeches and the Government’s current consultation. The question is not whether there is an issue, nor whether some cohabitants deserve protection, but whether this Bill provides the right legal and constitutional answer.

I approach this debate not only as a lawyer but as someone who believes that there is an important constitutional principle which underpins much of our private law. That principle is autonomy. I would put it this way: the common thread running through our private law is not paternalism, but autonomy. The law exists to enable adults who are capable to make deliberate legal choices for themselves and not to relieve them of the need to make those choices. That principle runs through countless areas of our law. When two people decide to marry, they voluntarily assume a legal status containing both rights and obligations. If they prefer, they can enter into a civil partnership. If they want to regulate their financial affairs without marrying or without a civil partnership, they can execute an agreement or a declaration of trust governing ownership of property. If they want to decide who inherits, they can make a will. While they still have capacity, people now can determine who makes decisions on their behalf if they one day lose that capacity in the form of a lasting power of attorney. Each of those legal mechanisms expresses a simple but very profound principle. The law provides a framework, but adults make the choice.

This Bill, however, proceeds from a very different premise. In effect, it says that significant legal obligations should arise not because people have chosen to undertake them but because Parliament has inferred them from the existence of a relationship. That is a significant constitutional step. Of course cohabitation deserves respect. Millions of people choose to live together without marrying for different reasons. Some might marry later, some will never marry and some consciously reject marriage; that is entirely a matter for them. The issue is whether Parliament should transform what, at its heart, is a factual relationship into a legal status without the conscious and voluntary agreement of the people whose lives it governs.

That is why the difference between marriage and cohabitation is fundamentally important. Marriage and civil partnership are not simply descriptions of a relationship; they are legal institutions. They arise because two adults consciously decide to assume legal obligations towards one another before the law. Cohabitation is different. It is a factual circumstance. People may cohabit for months or years. They may intend eventually to marry. They may positively decide never to marry. They may have religious reasons for cohabiting. There could be financial reasons or family reasons. Those could also be reasons why they have chosen not to marry. They may simply prefer not to enter into a legal relationship. The reasons ultimately do not matter. The critical point is that the choice is theirs and belongs to them. I listened carefully to the very interesting speech from my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington, who made some of these points very sharply. He also pointed out very clearly that the characteristics of Jewish mothers are not limited to mothers who are Jewish.

One of the themes running through the noble Lord’s Bill is that after a period of cohabitation, or immediately where there is a child, the law should intervene by default unless the parties have taken positive steps to opt out. That reverses what I suggest is the proper constitutional starting point. I understand why the noble Lord has adopted an opt-out model; indeed, the Government’s current constitution proposes a broadly similar approach. But there are issues, and I look forward to the Law Commission’s report, with an opt-out model. The choice between an opt-in and an opt-out model is not a drafting detail but a fundamental issue. I am sure the noble Lord the Minister will have something to say on that. There may be a point between us on this.

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

The noble Lord called me “the noble Lord”.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am sorry. I did slip into that. I know that sometimes people say “the noble Lord”; I was not trying to be rude or forget that the Minister is in fact a noble Baroness. I hope she will forgive me; it was entirely accidental and unintended.

My Lords, and the noble Baroness the Minister, there is another reason why I have reservations about the Bill, and this is a serious point. There is a constitutional principle engaged here as well, which is the rule of law. One of the points about the rule of law is that the law has to be certain. People have to know where and when legal rules, rights and obligations arise. The law should not leave people guessing where they have inadvertently entered into a legal relationship carrying significant financial consequence. Marriage does that; you know when a marriage begins and when a marriage legally ends. There is no uncertainty when those legal obligations arise. The same is true of a civil partnership, but this Bill is fundamentally different.

One of the first questions the courts will have to answer is: when precisely did these two people become cohabitants for the purposes of the Act? Was it when they first stayed together most nights, when they gave up one property, when they opened a joint bank account or when they began introducing each other as partners? Those are fact-sensitive questions.

To pick up a point made earlier, if you want to increase the role of lawyers and increase legal costs, you introduce a lot of fact-sensitive questions. The decision in Kimber v Kimber illustrates that there is no single, decisive test for determining whether two people are living together as a couple. I fear the Bill would increase uncertainty by increasing judicial discretion, and that makes outcomes more difficult to predict.

It is sometimes said that these proposals simply recognise the reality of modern life. I agree that, at least at some point, the law should come into some sort of contact with reality. But recognising reality is not the same as creating legal status. The Bill would come close to creating what has sometimes been described as marriage without consent. The state should be slow to impose legal obligations that people might have deliberately chosen not to assume.

Freedom means more than the freedom to make choices. It also means accepting responsibility for those choices. The law should support people in making informed decisions but should not too readily relieve them of the consequences of deciding not to enter into legal relationships carrying defined rights and obligations. That does not mean we should be indifferent to genuine hardship. Where children are involved, in particular, their welfare must be of the greatest importance. I look forward in particular to what the Law Commission says in that regard.

I will take a moment to pick up the points made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, about religious marriage and women being left in a very difficult position if they have had only a religious marriage and not also a civil marriage that gives them civil legal rights and protections. I think I am right in saying that the United Synagogue will not marry you religiously unless, at the same time, it marries you civilly. That is worth looking at; I know it has been brought before this House on previous occasions. It is worth looking at from the position not of treading on people’s religious freedoms but of protecting women in particular and making sure they have the legal rights they ought to as members of our civil society. But we do not need this Bill to do that, and we should not use it to do that.

While I have serious concerns about the Bill, I am also conscious that the Law Commission is looking at this very issue. The Law Commission is one of the unsung heroes of our legal and constitutional settlement. I look forward to its work, which is invariably of an extremely high quality. For those reasons, although I have concerns about the Bill as drafted, I look forward to continuing conversations around this issue and the Bill in light of the work of the Law Commission.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. Of course I accept his apology for what was obviously a slip of the tongue. Before I turn to the points he made, which are interesting and valid as always, I start with the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, whom I congratulate on securing a Second Reading for his Bill. I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his long-standing interest in cohabitation reform, his thoughtful and principled engagement on this important area of family law and his determination in bringing this Bill forward again. He and I spoke yesterday; I hope it was the beginning of a number of conversations on this important topic.

I want to make it absolutely clear from the outset that this Government share his view that cohabitation reform is an important and pressing issue. That is why we committed in our 2024 manifesto to strengthening the rights and protections available to women in cohabiting couples. Broadly speaking, it appears that agreement has broken out all over this House, with the exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and to some extent the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Bailey. I will come back to them in a moment.

I begin with the case for reform. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, there are currently around 3.5 million cohabiting couples—more than twice the number 30 years ago. Despite this, cohabitants have very limited financial protection when they separate or when their partner dies having not made a will. This lack of protection can leave the most vulnerable, including women, children and victim survivors of domestic abuse, exposed to significant financial hardship. It can also leave victims of domestic abuse with an impossible choice: leaving their abuser but then having no financial security at all or staying in a dangerous relationship. These problems are compounded by the fact that many people do not know they have no rights until it is too late.

The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, agrees with the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, when he says that almost half the population believe that there is such a thing as a common-law marriage—the idea that a person will accrue some kind of financial rights simply by living with a partner for a number of years or having a child together. It is a myth. It is simply untrue. Some of your Lordships, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, have raised the point that many individuals choose not to marry. That is a choice that they are entitled to make, and we respect that. But we must be careful not to assume that such choices are always made with a full understanding of the law and its consequences. Children should not be left in a vulnerable financial position as a result of the decisions made by their parents.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, asked, “If they want those financial rights, why not just get married?”, but that risks overlooking the fact that many cohabitants are not aware of their financial rights, as many noble Lords have agreed. Some simply drift into having cohabited. Maybe they thought about getting married but never quite got around to it. I will return in a moment to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, but for some getting married is too expensive and too hard to deal with. I simply disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that more than half the population understand their rights. All the evidence suggests that public awareness campaigns do not improve this understanding at all.

We are aware that we all risk the state overstepping into what are ultimately deeply personal choices about how individuals choose to live their lives. However, concentrating on the freedom of choice aspect ignores the imbalances of power that can exist within relationships and the point that a perpetrator of abuse may refuse to marry a victim precisely to ensure that they have no rights at the end of the relationship. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, made an important point about religious-only marriages. I will return to that in a moment, because that is something about which the Government are really concerned and about which we intend to do something.

I recognise the concern expressed by a number of your Lordships that offering a framework of protections for cohabitants could undermine marriage. I reassure the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that there is no evidence from other jurisdictions that have cohabitation protections that it has undermined marriage at all. The Government are proposing two very different regimes on relationship breakdown: a regime for divorce that is based on sharing, and a regime for cohabitation that is based on need.

The Government support and value marriage. I hope that your Lordships’ House will forgive me for saying that I am always pleased when I see the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, on the speakers’ list of a debate in which I am taking part. He and I come from very different political parties but he always says something interesting, and I thought his speech gave us things to think about. The reason why we say that we are in favour of and support and value marriage is that yesterday we launched our consultation on reforms to weddings law. This forms part of a piece with the consultations on what happens to finances after the breakdown of relationships. We recognise that marriage can be too difficult and too expensive for many people, so we propose—but we are very interested to know everybody’s views about this—moving from a buildings-based to an officiant-based regulation system. That would, for example, permit those who conduct religious marriages to also conduct civil marriages at the same time, so that those who take part in, for example, Muslim marriages can have the protections afforded to others in that situation.

Although the Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on the vital need for cohabitation reform, we do not believe that this Bill is the right vehicle in which to deliver it. I have four reasons for saying this. The first is our ongoing consultation. It will not have escaped your Lordships’ attention that we launched our A Fairer End to Relationships consultation last month, which sets out our approach to cohabitation reform, together with proposals to reform financial remedies on divorce. It represents one of the most significant opportunities in decades for the reform of family law. As part of the consultation, the Government are engaging with a wide range of interested parties to test our proposals and try to achieve consensus about the direction of reform. Legislating at this stage would pre-empt the outcome of that consultation.

The second reason is that the Government are not persuaded that the Bill’s proposed model for cohabitation reform meets the policy objectives set out in our consultation. Our objectives include prioritising a fair outcome for children, protecting the vulnerable, and providing a clear and accessible framework—I take on board what everybody said about lawyers; I think I had better pass on quickly—whereas the Bill proposes a compensation-based approach to cohabitation reform. In broad terms, this means giving the court power to compensate a cohabitant if they have been economically disadvantaged as a result of contributions made during the relationship. The Bill would also allow the reversal of an economic benefit gained in the relationship. This would require the courts to retrospectively assess how contributions create advantage or disadvantage. This would be complicated, it may be hard to evidence, and it would be hugely likely to increase conflict and cost. We know that very acrimonious court proceedings are bad for families and particularly bad for children.

Most importantly, the compensation model does not reliably ensure that needs, particularly the needs of children, are met. For these reasons, the Government prefer a needs-based approach to cohabitation reform which prioritises meeting the financial needs of cohabitants when they separate. For example, this would capture needs which have arisen completely independently of the relationship, such as serious illness or disability, which might not be catered for under a compensation model. Under the Bill, a cohabitee who got a serious illness—for example, ME—shortly after the relationship began and, as a result, could not “contribute” to the relationship would be left unprotected. That cannot be right.

This is particularly important in the cases of families with children, as it is children who are most often affected by the financial consequences of relationship breakdown. A needs-based approach also offers a clearer and more accessible framework, as it respects the choice of people not to marry but is also designed to look after the economically weaker parties in the relationship. I point to the fact that compensation, as a principle, is rarely used even in divorce cases, although we are consulting on whether it should have a place there. We will think about it, but at the moment our view is that the needs-based model is more likely to achieve our objectives.

I note that the Bill reflects the proposals recommended by the Law Commission, but they were made almost two decades ago and things have moved on considerably since then. In particular, there is now much greater awareness of domestic abuse, including economic abuse. It is right, therefore, that we consult on our own approach. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that our approach would benefit not simply victim-survivors of domestic abuse but all cohabitees, once the relationship breaks down, if they are in need of economic support.

Our third reason, which I can deal with very quickly, is coherence across the system. The Government believe that cohabitation reform and the law in relation to finances on divorce should be examined together. Although we propose distinct and separate regimes, we are of the view that we should draw on the Law Commission’s 2024 scoping report on financial remedies, which raised important questions about how the law for divorcing couples could be made fairer and more certain—a topic on which the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has spoken often. I have listened to everything she has had to say, together with the contributions of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on this topic, with great interest.

Our consultation therefore makes proposals aimed at improving the system for divorcing couples who go through financial remedies proceedings. By contrast, the Bill would deal with cohabitation reform in isolation. In our view, that risks missing a wider opportunity. What we want is a coherent, consistent and modern family justice system for married couples who divorce and for cohabitants, whether on separation or on death. We want a system which respects freedom of choice in how families arrange their lives while protecting the vulnerable. That is why we are consulting on all these three areas of reform together.

Finally, the Government have concerns about the Bill’s approach towards intestacy and inheritance claims, because the Bill’s proposed definition of “cohabitant” and its qualifying criteria would create a broader entitlement to intestacy rights than the Government are currently considering.

I hope I have made it clear that the Government are committed to cohabitation reform. We have already begun that work and have committed to legislating when parliamentary time allows, having considered the results of the consultation. Our consultation sets out a clear framework for cohabitation reform that will meet the needs of women, children and those otherwise vulnerable.

Although the Government cannot support the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for the reasons I have given, I hope he will be reassured by the Government’s clear commitment to reform in this area. We share his objective. He and I have talked over many months about various Bills that have come before the House and about other topics. I profoundly hope that we will continue to do so. We want to deliver vital financial protections for cohabitants, so any difference between us is not about whether reform is needed but simply about how best to achieve it. I therefore respectfully invite all noble Lords to engage with the consultation and to give us their views. We want to get this right and we want to do it in a way that is fair, workable and lasting.

Holding the Line Against Tyranny and Anarchy (Constitution Committee Report)

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I begin, as have so many of your Lordships, by saying a few words about the late Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Many have spoken of his career as having been one of exceptional distinction, and observed that he served this country with great integrity and wisdom. I echo that and add a brief memory of my own. I met Lord Mackay a number of times when he was Lord Chancellor and I was a member of the Bar Council. I say I was a member—I was in fact the most lowly and undistinguished member of the Young Barristers’ Committee, having been called to the Bar about a year before and being still in pupillage at the time. Lord Mackay was unfailingly kind and courteous to me and always asked me what I thought. It really was the mark of the man to notice the least significant as well as the most important. We send the best wishes and great sympathies of your Lordships’ House to his family. He is going to be greatly missed.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for having chaired the Constitution Committee during its inquiry into this important topic and for securing this very interesting debate. The issues debated today seem to take on ever greater significance in modern times. This has been reflected in the contributions of all those who have participated and it has been, as one would expect, a debate of exceptionally high quality. I am grateful to the noble Lord and the members of the committee for their thoughtful report. The Government recognise the growing public interest in what the rule of law means, not only in principle but in our fellow citizens’ experience as they go about their day-to-day lives.

The report rewards careful reading, together with the committee’s earlier work on the roles of the Lord Chancellor and the law officers, and on relations between the Executive, the judiciary and Parliament. These issues, concerning constraints on how Ministers act and how the different branches of our constitution work together, are fundamental to a healthy democracy and the strength of the rule of law.

In responding for the Government, I am not going to repeat everything we have said in response to the report, but I will highlight a number of key themes. I begin with the Government’s commitment to the rule of law. I want to make this Government’s position clear. We have been unequivocal in our commitment to upholding the rule of law from the moment we were elected. We recognise that this commitment is a constitutional responsibility which must be carried into practice. It requires, among other things, the protection of judicial independence and respect for the institutions that sustain democratic life. The rule of law is not merely an abstract constitutional principle. Laws that are fair and clear, and courts that are known to adjudicate impartially, are among the stabilising features of a functioning democratic society. They provide the framework which allows our citizens to order their affairs, resolve disputes, hold public authorities to account and conduct business with confidence. The Government agree with the committee that this is not something we can ever take for granted. Indeed, as other Members of your Lordships’ House have said, around the world we have seen that the rule of law is weakened, or even breaks down, when Governments act unchecked or judiciaries are put under political pressure. The Government’s evidence to the committee referred to what has been described as a “global rule of law recession”. In that context, vigilance is essential.

This Government have described the rule of law as one of the most enduring of British values. It is not uniquely British, of course, but it has long shaped the constitutional development of the United Kingdom and its constituent nations. Over time, safeguards for judicial independence have developed and the limits of executive power have been settled. Those achievements require constant vigilance, as well as careful and disciplined maintenance. The relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts is central to the health of our democracy. A strong rule of law depends not only on what statutes say but on the habits of restraint, mutual respect and accountability that govern the way the institutions behave towards one another.

Within that framework, the constitutional roles of the Lord Chancellor and the law officers—I notice that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General has materialised on the seat next to me—are of particular importance. The committee returned to these questions, and the Lord Chancellor recognised the continuity between this report and the committee’s earlier work on those offices. Their responsibilities form part of the architecture through which the rule of law is upheld within government. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General have led the way in setting out the Government’s commitment to the rule of law—which started in the very early days of this Government with my noble and learned friend’s Bingham Lecture—both within the United Kingdom and on the international stage.

The noble Lord, Lord Norton, observed that many of our fellow citizens are perhaps broadly unaware of what is meant by the rule of law, but it concerns us all. It is a subject not only for lawyers or constitutional specialists; it matters to every person who expects the laws to be applied fairly, decisions to be taken lawfully, rights to be upheld and state power to be exercised within proper limits. Anyone who buys a house, opens a business, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, observed, falls out with a neighbour, is entitled to trust that society is effectively and fairly regulated by law.

Against that background, I turn to a few of the themes that have been raised by your Lordships during today’s very interesting debate. I start with judicial independence. It is one of the clearest themes in the committee’s report, and the Government are clear in their agreement. Independent courts are of fundamental importance. They are a vital protection against overreach by the Executive, and their impartiality gives the public confidence in our justice system and brings stability not only to public life but to social and, importantly, business relationships.

The Government are concerned about the danger posed by baseless attacks on the integrity of judges. We agree with the many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Beith, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and Lord Burnett, and my noble friend Lady Andrews that in recent times we have seen a regrettable and intolerable rise in reckless criticism of judges. We see their impartiality being called into question and attempts to bring their independent role into the political fray. The Government are very concerned that abuse of the judiciary, on social media and elsewhere, has led to unacceptable threats to judges’ safety. The Lord Chancellor has spoken out against such attacks and has made clear his concern about attempts to erode public trust in the independent judiciary.

Judicial decisions will often be debated, scrutinised and criticised. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, that that is entirely proper in a democratic society. However, our position is that such debate must proceed with care, accuracy and respect for the constitutional role of the courts. The committee’s observation, echoed by the Lady Chief Justice, that this is a shared responsibility and that we are stronger together is an important one. I am sure we can all agree on that point.

Where the Government do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, is in his suggestion that the requirement that our judges and KCs have understanding of the principles of inclusion is some kind of ideological brainwashing. I think I may speak for many when I say that I am proud that our judges respect, understand and embrace the values of our diverse society. Our diverse society is not just about colour; it is about disability. I think we will all have been moved by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, about his experience as a wheelchair user recently. We understand that that understanding in our judges is how we preserve their independence.

I turn to the committee’s consideration of issues relating to legislation, legal certainty and the legislative process. We recognise that the rule of law is shored up by the approach that we take to the ordinary business of governing—in the clarity of the laws that we pass, the discipline of legislative practice, the quality of scrutiny and the strength of institutions. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel publishes materials and drafting guidance designed to ensure that legislation is clear, accessible and consistent. It gives further support to legal clarity by reviewing Bills to make sure that legislation is comprehensible, including to those who do not have a detailed knowledge of the subject. We also recognise and pay tribute to the essential role played by committees of this House, which carry out scrutiny of legislation as it progresses. That is critical to maintaining the integrity of our legislative process.

The issue of delegated powers was raised by my noble friend Lord Stansgate and the noble Lord, Lord Carter. We take seriously and agree that delegated powers should be properly framed and strike the right balance between what is put in primary legislation and the flexibility that can sometimes be offered by delegated legislation. The Government publish a delegated powers memorandum for each Bill that contains such powers, setting out the proposed powers, their purpose and justification. This memo, alongside the Bill, will be subject to rigorous scrutiny by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

The committee’s report highlights several important challenges relating to the maintenance of an effective justice system. These were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham. These include delays in courts and tribunals and issues in accessing legal advice and representation. The Government are well aware of the scale of the challenge and are committed to reducing backlogs and improving the performance across courts and tribunals. Steps are being taken to increase judicial capacity. Working closely with the judiciary, the Government are also exploring the scope for achieving greater efficiency through the innovative use of technology across courts and tribunals. That includes AI-enabled tools for tasks such as transcription and document summarisation, with a view to supporting more timely case progression.

We also agree with the committee on the importance of a properly functioning system of legal aid. The scope of legal aid provision is under review. I reassure my noble friend Lady Andrews that there has been considerable investment in the legal aid system. For example, in response to the acute pressures in the housing and immigration sectors, the Government have increased fees in these categories for the first time since 1996. We have also increased criminal legal aid solicitors’ fees and invested up to £34 million a year for criminal defence advocate legal aid fees. The Government agree that people and businesses must be enabled to resolve disputes quickly and fairly.

On the subject of delays in the courts, the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, asked four questions. I am looking at the clock, so I will write to him and place a copy in the Library, as there are answers to all of those but I do not have the time now to go into the detail that I think he would want.

I turn to trust in policing, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Waldegrave, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Blackwater and Lord Shinkwin, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. We acknowledge that confidence in policing declines if there is a perception that the police are not consistently effective in responding to crime. This can be contributed to by a reduced visible presence in neighbourhoods and lower satisfaction among victims with how incidents are handled. Trust is shaped by how fairly and respectfully people feel that they are treated, particularly in the use of intrusive powers such as stop and search, where perceived disproportionality can undermine confidence among some communities. The Government are rebuilding trust in policing by being more effective in tackling the crimes that have the greatest impact on communities. The police have been successful in reducing knife crime, but we recognise that less dramatic crimes such as anti-social behaviour can have a corrosive effect on confidence within communities. That is why we have brought in a number of new orders designed to reduce this.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes that the term “two-tier policing” is used mainly to drive division and hatred. It undermines the brave work of police officers up and down the country who do their job, as they should, without fear or favour. Irresponsible claims of two-tier justice are not supported by the evidence and risk undermining confidence in the institutions that uphold the rule of law.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Laing, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, all mentioned the teaching of the rule of law in schools. The Government completely agree that a healthy democracy depends on informed citizens. It is important to present the rule of law as a foundational principle in this context. Work to improve the education given to young people on these points is well under way. For example, the Attorney-General’s office has been working with the Oak National Academy and the Association for Citizenship Teaching to develop new lesson plans on the rule of law for all key stages, and new lesson plans were launched on 2 July. More broadly, the Attorney-General’s Youth Ambassadors Programme recruits young people from across the United Kingdom and plays an important role in ensuring that the rule of law is communicated across the United Kingdom and beyond in a way that is accessible, engaging and rooted in the voice of the youth.

My noble friend Lord Griffiths asked about the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Profession of Lawyer. I asked for the answer, and all I can say is that we are working towards ratification. I am afraid it is not what my noble friend was hoping for; I cannot give him any more than that at present. My noble friend Lady Andrews asked about the Legal Support Strategy Delivery Group. I am happy to tell her that it next meets on 28 July. The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, I am afraid to say, turned the debate into rather a partisan attack on the Government. I hope that he and your Lordships will forgive me for not going into the issue of jury trials today.

The Government welcome the committee’s contribution, together with the further thoughts that have been expressed in your Lordships’ House today. We will continue to reflect carefully on the recommendations the committee has made. We should not take our courts and tribunals, or the wider constitutional culture that supports them, for granted. Events in other parts of the world show what can happen when public confidence in these institutions is undermined. The challenge before us is not a theoretical one: it is a practical constitutional responsibility. This Government are dedicated to ensuring that the rule of law remains not only a defining principle of our constitution but a lived reality in the governance of the country. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave: Britain is not broken. We are proud of the United Kingdom’s long history of respect for the rule of law, but our pride must be matched by vigilance.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti-social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 1 June be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 June.

Motion agreed.

Employment Tribunals

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce waiting times for consideration of cases in the Employment Tribunal system.

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

My Lords, the Government recognise that there are significant pressures on the employment tribunal. To try to deal with this, we are maximising sitting days and recruiting more employment judges to ensure swifter justice. We have also now expanded remote hearings through a virtual region, which enables about 2,000 sitting days to take place annually without geographic limits. It is hoped that the Fair Work Agency will also ease pressure on the employment tribunal; it is now enforcing rights such as the national minimum wage and, in due course, will enforce additional ones such as holiday pay.

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that reply and I very much welcome the work that has been and is being done with ACAS and others to address this challenge. I hope that proposals for change will quickly be developed. The waiting period for employment tribunal hearings is clearly unacceptably high; it is two years or more in many areas. Important new rights and protections have been established by the Employment Rights Act, but they must be delivered in reality and not just on the statute book. Can the Minister give an assurance that, as well as speeding up the handling and determination of cases, attention will be given to ensuring the effective enforcement of tribunal awards without the need for complex and time-consuming county court procedures? The last official survey on this issue showed that less than half of successful claimants had secured the full payment of the award that had been made by a tribunal. This is—

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

Can the Minister assure me that enforcement of awards will be taken firmly into consideration in developing new proposals to overhaul the whole system?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

Will I make myself popular if I simply say yes? I will give a bit more detail than that. The law is absolutely clear that workers should receive the payments to which they are entitled, and we are committed to strengthening enforcement options. At the moment, a claimant can instruct a High Court enforcement officer, and using the officer is free of charge. That is intended to encourage the employer to pay the award. But, as part of the plan for change, we are looking at ways of strengthening enforcement options, including through the employment tribunal penalty scheme, which has moved to the Fair Work Agency. The agency will work closely with HMRC, the Insolvency Service and other relevant enforcement bodies to do this as effectively as possible.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, it is the unqualified duty of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to hold the present Government to account—not the previous Government.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

With the backlog in the employment tribunal now exceeding 50,000 cases, the Law Society has warned that lengthy delays leave employees and businesses in prolonged uncertainty. What target have the Government set for reducing the outstanding case load, and by what date do they expect waiting times to return to pre-pandemic levels?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

Of course I accept that the noble and learned Lord is entitled to hold this Government to account, but I am also entitled to remind noble Lords about the record of the previous Government.

Simply to deal with the question, it is true of all parts of the justice system that we are working hard to help parties to resolve cases before they get to court. Court should be the end of the process, not the beginning. It is the most expensive bit and the bit that is most stressful for all those involved. But for cases which must reach court, we are maximising sitting days; we are increasing judicial recruitment; I have already mentioned the virtual region; we are looking to roll out digital systems and pilot AI transcription; we have invested in centralised telephone support so that litigants get a better service when they ring; and work is being done to see how legal officers can better support the judiciary. Judges are our expensive and scarce resort. We want to see how we can support them better and maximise judicial time.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the House will know that I do not believe that whistleblowing cases belong in the employment tribunal, but that is where they are. Does the Minister recognise that the cost of going to tribunal is a minimum of £50,000 for a primary hearing, and that the delay is at least three years before the case starts, then followed by appeals, often extending cases out to five to seven years, and that these are used as weapons by employers to make sure that individuals are silenced or accept settlement? It very much discourages whistleblowing and accounts for much of the failure to speak out in many of the scandals that many of us are aware of. Will she take action on this issue and create a new whistleblowing framework?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her work in relation to whistleblowers. It is incredibly important. The delays across the employment tribunal generally are unacceptable as far as all litigants are concerned, and that is why we are working to try to bring them down but also to ensure that access to justice is really something meaningful and not just words. For most one to two-day cases, we can still list cases in 2026, but there are very long waiting times in the south-east and London south. I take the point that she makes, and perhaps she and I could meet and talk about it further.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that managers and senior leaders of businesses need greater investment in the skills and ability to resolve workplace conflict at the earliest point, rather than letting those disputes fester and become entrenched? This would give a better impact on productivity, staff retention and business costs. What is being done to encourage that greater investment in skills in the workplace?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I first pay tribute to my noble friend for the work she does as chair of ACAS, and I agree with her about the importance of helping managers resolve issues before they fester. This was the point I was making earlier: we want court to be the end of the process rather than the beginning. I am very grateful to her for the work that her organisation is leading, which is intended to strengthen internal workplace resolution processes, including through an ACAS awareness-raising programme and strengthened internal resolution processes that aim to raise awareness for employers about conflict management and to increase the use of informal resolution before these disputes escalate.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, mentioned the Employment Rights Act. The Minister will be aware that every single employer organisation, from the CBI through to the Federation of Small Businesses, has predicted that not only will it destroy growth and damage jobs but lead to a very large spike in tribunal cases. Can the Minister tell the House specifically about her department’s impact assessment for the Act and what it says about the increase in tribunal cases?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The noble Lord will understand that I am not going to relitigate the passing of the Employment Act all over again as part of this Question Time. The Government are managing the impact on the employment tribunal. One thing they are doing, commencing in October this year, is extending the time for individuals to make a claim from three to six months. We believe that that will help people to try to work things out beforehand or to prepare their cases better before they come to the employment tribunal. I am not sure if that entirely answers the noble Lord’s question, and I do not have the impact assessment in front of me, but I will write to him.

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

My Lords, the noble Baroness’s view is undoubtedly that employment tribunals are intended to provide a cheap, efficient and effective way of resolving employment disputes. If she shares that view, does she not therefore agree that the issues raised by this Question and highlighted around the House are of great importance?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

Absolutely—I do not think anybody who is interested in access to justice, whether it is the employment tribunal or anywhere else, can fail to be concerned by an increase in waiting times and in the open case load, which we sometimes call the backlog. There has been a huge increase in the number of cases coming into the system, not just into the courts but through ACAS. We are not entirely sure why that is, and one thing we need to do is to find out why there is an increase, but I definitely share the noble Lord’s concern.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, further to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I wonder if there is any work afoot to try to triage cases, because it seems to me that, in some instances, what an employer needs is to have his or her head knocked against the wall, and the employee may deserve the same treatment. Is there somebody at an early stage who can do that?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

It is partly the role of ACAS to do that kind of thing, but the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice, working together across government, have set up the dispute resolution system taskforce. That is to support the Government in considering options to reform the employment dispute system so that it works better for workers and businesses. The taskforce will consist of unions, businesses, legal representatives and third sector organisations. Using all that combined expertise, it will help us find ways of achieving earlier resolution for some of these troubling cases.

Imprisonment for Public Protection

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans the Secretary of State for Justice has to meet families of prisoners serving an Imprisonment for Public Protection or Detention for Public Protection sentence.

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

My Lords, the Deputy Prime Minister recognises the impact that IPP and DPP sentences have on the families of those serving those sentences. My noble friend Lord Timpson meets regularly with families as part of his ministerial responsibilities for these issues, and he values the insight that those discussions provide. The engagement he has ensures that the voices and experiences of families are heard. The Government remain committed to ongoing dialogue, recognising how this informs the action that we take to support progression and rehabilitation.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, there are nearly 1,000 IPP prisoners who have never been released, all of them now way beyond their tariff, and there are another 1,500 or so in the community subject to frequent and capricious recall. What can I say to the mother of the prisoner, whose name I supplied to the Minister in advance, who has been recalled again recently, despite being in employment and having a supportive employer? If the Deputy Prime Minister perhaps feels unwilling to meet the families of the prisoners, will he be willing at least to meet a delegation of noble Lords to come and talk to him about this continuing scandal?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, given his ministerial responsibilities, it is entirely appropriate that my noble friend Lord Timpson leads the engagement in this area. As the noble Lord knows, he holds quarterly IPP round tables with Members of your Lordships’ House to discuss progress and to hear directly from noble Lords about their concerns. Indeed, the next one is due to take place in a couple of weeks’ time, at which the Chief Inspector of Probation will answer noble Lords’ questions. The Justice Secretary also has met parliamentarians and campaign groups, and he remains fully sighted on this important issue. As regards the person whose name the noble Lord helpfully provided me with in advance, I am very much aware that my noble friend Lord Timpson and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, are corresponding about this separately, and I do not think it is appropriate that I say something about the personal circumstances today.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the Independent Sentencing Review chaired by David Gauke recognised the unique challenges posed by the remaining IPP population and recommended further reforms to support progression towards release. What progress have the Government made in implementing those recommendations, and will the Minister commit to publishing regular updates on outcomes for IPP prisoners so that Parliament can judge whether those reforms are actually making a meaningful difference?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to reassure all your Lordships that the Government completely understand and share the concerns about this very troubling cohort of prisoners, but the first duty of every Government is to keep the public safe, and that must come first. So, in order to try and reduce this cohort safely, through the action plan the Government are working on licence reform, progression work, recall improvements and support for those prisoners in order to demonstrate risk reduction. We have now provided those serving the IPP sentence with an earlier opportunity for licence termination and an additional opportunity for those serving these sentences thereafter. The IPP annual report and action plan for 2026-27 will be published in July.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, Ministers are facing three Oral Questions about IPP prisoners within a fortnight, the third being mine. That is because we are determined, co-ordinated and—speaking for myself—an angry bunch. Why are the Government granting early release to a group of prisoners guilty of very serious crimes when, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, 900 prisoners subjected to the scandalous and ethically outrageous injustice of indeterminate IPP sentences have never been released and are being held in prison three, four or five times longer than their court-mandated sentences for much lesser, non-violent and often minor crimes?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

There is a persistent myth that people got IPP sentences for rather trivial offences, which is in fact not true. It was always required at the time that it was both a serious offence and that they had demonstrated concerns about previous offending. There is this cohort that needs to be looked at, and the Government are anxiously trying to ensure that we make every move we possibly can to make sure that they are helped to demonstrate that they are no longer a risk. However, no Government—and that includes the Government who were led by the party opposite—will release people when the independent Parole Board has adjudged that they remain a risk to the public.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, the impact of IPP sentences on family members is absolutely devastating, especially with miscarriages of justice, which IPPs indeed are on an industrial scale. On Wednesday 15 July, many of these families will be at Westminster again to protest against this never-ending injustice, marching from the Ministry of Justice at 11 am to the Houses of Parliament to hold one of their regular meetings. Therefore, will the noble Baroness ask the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, whether he will kindly agree to meet the delegation of these family members on 15 July? Maybe he will even join them, bearing in mind that they will be outside his own building.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I will certainly pass that on to my noble friend—I suspect that he may already know. He regularly meets with the families, because we understand the pressures that are upon them and are anxious to hear what we can do to ensure that we can safely release this troubling cohort while protecting the public as well.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, what are the Government doing to ensure that IPP prisoners are located in prisons close to their families so as to facilitate visits by their families? This must be one of the surest ways of achieving rehabilitation.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an important point. I am happy to reassure him that we have now reallocated the IPP prisoners. The vast majority—around 95%—are in the appropriate custodial settings, in terms of both the visits and the care that they need, in order to help them to get to a point where we can start looking at release.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will be there on 15 July and urge everybody to go to the MoJ and join in—advert over. The point was made that we see these as trivial offences but some of them are serious, but what is trivialised is the recall. The mother of the prisoner to whom the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred recently handed her own son in on a recall after an anonymous malicious complaint. No charges have been made; nothing has happened. The mother says, “This is cruel. It’s torture”. It is a sword of Damocles hanging over families. Will the Minister and her department act with urgency? For IPP prisoners, when recalled for no criminal offences, it is on average 28 months before they can even see a probation officer. That is cruel, that is wrong and the ministry needs to do something about it.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

Can I make two things clear? First, recall is not used as a punishment for a minor breach of licence. I am afraid that the noble Baroness is wrong about that. It is a means of protecting victims and the public when the Probation Service assesses that it can no longer manage that offender in the community. Recall is an important and swift public protection measure. Also, HMPPS has strengthened the scrutiny and quality assurance of recall decisions. There is a higher threshold for IPP prisoners in relation to recall. There must be not only a breach of their licence conditions such that there is a concern about the risk that they present but a causal link between that breach and the index offence for which they are serving the sentence in the first place.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to the figure that my noble friend Lord Moylan mentioned—namely, the nearly 1,000 prisoners on IPP sentences who are still incarcerated and are well beyond their tariff. The Minister will know that not everything that is in her brief is necessarily worth reading out. The resort to the mantra of public safety is overused. There may perhaps be a handful of those 1,000 prisoners who are not safe to be released because they are genuinely dangerous or because they have become so institutionalised that they are incapable of living within the community. Can she please invite her noble friend Lord Timpson, whom we all admire, to work a lot harder than he does—and he works very hard—to ensure that at least 950 of those 1,000 prisoners are released on parole this year?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I join the noble and learned Lord in his admiration for my noble friend Lord Timpson, but the fact is that we have an independent Parole Board, which makes the decisions—not the Government—on whether someone can safely be managed within the community, as the noble and learned Lord knows. If they cannot be safely managed in the community and are released, they will be living next door to you—and no responsible Government are going to do that.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti-social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Anti-social Behaviour and Prevention and Investigation Measures) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2026.

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

My Lords, I begin with a brief explanation of what this instrument is not. It is not a mechanism for extending legal aid, and it does not represent a change to legal aid policy. It does not introduce any new pressure on legal aid, and thus we do not expect it to result in any significant increase in cost.

It is a technical instrument—in effect, a piece of housekeeping—to ensure that the legal aid framework remains aligned with wider legislation and continues to operate in a clear and consistent way. It is needed because Parliament has approved several new measures, so this instrument ensures that the legal aid framework is appropriately updated. The instrument delivers three key things: continuity of legal aid where anti-social behaviour orders are being replaced; clarity in the legal aid framework for TPIMs; and consistency across the closely related TPIM and STPIM national security regimes.

I turn first to the anti-social behaviour measures. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 created or revised three anti-social behaviour injunctions: first, respect orders; secondly, youth injunctions; and thirdly, housing injunctions. All are new orders, but are broadly similar to the current anti-social behaviour injunctions that they are replacing. Civil legal aid is already available for anti-social behaviour injunctions under the existing legal aid legislation, but an amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act—known universally as LASPO—is needed to ensure that civil legal aid is available for these provisions.

The policy intention is one of continuity, because without these amendments there would be a risk of unintended gaps in legal aid availability. This instrument therefore ensures that individuals subject to new anti-social behaviour orders continue to have access to legal advice and representation, subject to the usual means and merits tests.

I turn now to the national security measures. There are two aspects of what the instrument does in relation to national security. First, it makes clarificatory amendments to the legal aid regulations in relation to terrorism prevention and investigation measures—or TPIMs—to make clear in legislation the framework that already operates in practice.

Secondly, it aligns the legal aid arrangements for state threats prevention and investigation measures—STPIMs—with those for TPIMs, which reflects the close similarity of the measures and ensures consistency in their handling. TPIMs are civil measures imposed by the Home Secretary with the aim of preventing or restricting an individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activities; STPIMs are a parallel regime designed to prevent and disrupt individuals who are involved in hostile state threat activity. Both can place restrictions on an individual’s movement, associations and daily life. Strong legal safeguards are required in order to ensure fairness, accountability and compliance with human rights obligations. It is therefore essential that the legal aid framework applying to these measures is coherent, clear and fair.

Currently, civil legal aid is available for advice and representation in proceedings relating to TPIMs and STPIMs for those who are subject to such measures, which will not change. However, although legal aid is already available for TPIM cases, the legislative framework is complex and has given rise to ambiguity. This instrument takes how the scheme already operates in practice and puts it into legislation, thus ensuring both transparency and consistency.

Generally speaking, legal aid covers a number of aspects of legal representation, not all of which are subject to the same regime in terms of means and merits testing. This is in order to ensure that taxpayers’ money is targeted so that it is used in the best way. In this instance, this instrument confirms that, for TPIMs, legal help is non-means-tested, thus ensuring access to early advice, but legal representation for TPIM proceedings is means-tested. This reflects the fact that TPIM proceedings are treated for legal aid purposes as judicial review cases, because they apply the same principles. Legal aid for judicial review proceedings is means-tested. Therefore, in order to ensure consistency, this instrument makes it clear that TPIMs are treated in the same way.

STPIMs are closely modelled on TPIMs. This instrument ensures that the legal aid scheme operates fairly and consistently across these two national security measures so, as with TPIMs, legal help is available on a non-means-tested basis for STPIMs, enabling individuals to access immediate advice where they are the subject of one. However, legal representation for proceedings in relation to an STPIM remains subject to the standard means and merits tests, consistent with TPIMs and for the same reasons that relate to judicial review proceedings.

As with the amendments made in relation to the anti-social behaviour measures, these amendments do not reflect a change in legal aid policy. Rather, their purpose is to remedy ambiguity and avoid differences in treatment between comparable regimes. This instrument is a necessary and important housekeeping measure: it preserves continuity of legal aid where existing anti-social behaviour injunctions are being replaced; it clarifies the legal aid framework for TPIMs; and it ensures that STPIMs are treated consistently with the comparable TPIM regime. It is a technical instrument that helps maintain access to justice, coherence in the legal aid scheme and consistency across related statutory regimes. I beg to move.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for laying this instrument. We on these Benches support the order. As the Minister explained, this is a largely technical instrument. It ensures that legal aid continues to be available where new civil orders introduced by the Crime and Policing Act replace or mirror existing arrangements. In particular, it extends legal aid to proceedings relating to respect orders, youth injunctions and housing injunctions, and makes sensible technical amendments concerning terrorism prevention and investigation measures, and state threats prevention.

Continuity in access to legal aid is an important principle. Where Parliament creates a new legal mechanism with potentially significant consequences for individuals, it is right that the legal aid framework keeps pace. This order achieves that objective without altering, as the Minister indicated, the underlying policy on eligibility or legal aid provision.

We particularly welcome the inclusion of respect orders. During the passage of the then Crime and Policing Bill, we consistently argued that these orders should be robust and effective tools for tackling persistent anti-social behaviour. Indeed, we sought to strengthen them further by amendments that would have lowered the age of eligibility. Communities clearly require swift action where anti-social behaviour blights neighbourhoods and damages public confidence but, if respect orders are to command confidence, it is equally important that proceedings are fair and that those subject to them have access to appropriate legal representation. This instrument sensibly preserves that continuity.

In closing, I pose one question to the Minister. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the Government do not expect this order to have any significant impact on the public or voluntary sectors. Can she confirm that the Legal Aid Agency and legal aid providers are fully prepared to implement these changes immediately upon commencement, so that there is no gap in provision before the relevant provisions of the Crime and Policing Act come into force? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, for welcoming this statutory instrument. The answer to his question on the legal aid agencies is yes; we are ready for that. This instrument, as the noble and learned Lord said, is a necessary step to ensure that the legal aid framework remains aligned with wider legislation. It supports access to justice and ensures that the legal aid scheme operates coherently.

Motion agreed.

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.