First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 2026
Baroness Levitt Excerpts(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt
That the Grand Committee do consider the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Fees (Amendment) Order 20206
Relevant document: 57th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, this instrument introduces fees for applications in the residential property division of the Property Chamber that arise from, or are amended by, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. It is made under the powers provided by Section 42(1)(a) and 42(2) and Section 49(3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. It marks the first stage of a wider programme of reform which will introduce a fairer and more sustainable fees framework in the Property Chamber, supporting the significant reforms to the private rented sector brought by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025.
Through that Act, the Government have delivered landmark changes which represent the biggest expansion of rights for renters in a generation. But rights matter only if people can enforce them, and this depends on a sufficiently resourced tribunal that is accessible for all. At present, only half of the application types brought to the Property Chamber incur a fee. This has created an unfair system that neither reflects the cost of proceedings nor supports a proportionate contribution from users, and it has resulted in inconsistencies whereby some users have to pay to access the service where others do not. The Government are therefore introducing a new tiered fees framework.
In summary, once introduced, it will consist of three levels. The first is a standard fee of £200 for applications to the tribunal, together with a hearing fee of £300. Secondly, where there are concerns about access to justice issues, there will be a lower level—an application fee of £114 and a fee of £227 for hearings. There is a final third tier for those cases with the most acute need to preserve access to justice, such as applications to appeal a rent increase. In these cases, there will be a modest application fee of £47, but there will be no hearing fee. Exemptions will continue to apply for urgent building safety issues and low-value claims.
The average cost to the taxpayer of a case brought to the Property Chamber is more than £900. Therefore, the fees in this framework represent a modest contribution to running costs and illustrate a commitment to maintaining access to justice. I will now describe in a little more detail how the regime will work.
First, the Renters’ Rights Act will extend the right to apply to the Property Chamber to request a determination of rent to all private rented sector tenants. Tenants can make such a request upon notice of an annual rent increase, or within the first six months of a tenancy, if they believe that the proposed rent is above the open market rent. The Act includes the tenants’ rights to challenge the validity of a notice proposing a rent increase. As I have just said, under the new regime these applications will attract a £47 application fee but will be exempt from hearing fees.
Secondly, the Renters’ Rights Act introduces a new route to the tribunal to challenge the terms of a tenancy that arises on succession from a tenancy that was previously made under the Rent Act 1977. Under this new regime, these applications will cost £47 but will be exempt from a hearing fee.
Thirdly, this instrument applies the proposed new standard £200 application fee and £300 hearing fee to appeals against the new financial penalties that local authorities can impose on landlords under the Renters’ Rights Act.
Finally, this instrument brings new rent repayment order routes created by the Renters’ Rights Act into the existing fees structure and applies a £114 application fee and £227 hearing fee, to match comparable applications.
I shall briefly outline the impact of this instrument and what it will mean in practice. As many of the measures in this instrument stem from new or amended rights introduced by the Act, some users will be required to pay fees where none have previously been payable. This reflects the move towards a fees framework that more consistently reflects the cost of proceedings and asks for a proportionate contribution from users.
In the case of rent appeals, as I have already said, the need to protect access to justice is more acute. I wish to reassure your Lordships that the introduction of a fee for these cases has been carefully considered. In such cases, the consequences of being unable to bring an appeal makes an applicant more vulnerable to housing instability and economic hardship, and therefore a considerably lower fee of £47 has been applied. In addition, there are mitigations that further ensure that fees do not deter tenants seeking to challenge a rent increase. The Help with Fees remissions scheme will remain available to eligible applicants who cannot afford to pay a fee.
Under the Act, any rent increase will take effect from the first rent period following the tribunal’s decision to approve any increase and will not be backdated. The tribunal will not be able to increase rent above the level proposed by the landlord. In cases of undue hardship, the tribunal will be able to delay the rent increase by up to two months. These measures ensure that tenants feel safe to challenge proposed increases without fear of additional financial pressures.
Finally, where tenants are successful in appealing their rent increase, they may be able to recover the tribunal fee from their landlord. Without these measures, the taxpayer would be required to shoulder a greater proportion of the costs of the system. This instrument provides the necessary framework for a sustainable courts and tribunals system that is fair and accessible for all those who need it. I beg to move.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, for the first time we start to consider some of the practical effects of this controversial Act. I will make no comments on its merits; the Act has been passed, as was the will of Parliament, and now we have to deal with the consequences.
The schedule of fees here provides for the cost of enforcement of the judicial tribunal framework for the provision. We see a large expansion, consequent to the Act, of the number of things that can spawn a complaint. I am thinking particularly about the appeal for a rent increase. The lowest level, at £47, provides no disincentive to bringing a claim. In fact, a single month’s delay can pay for itself. I understand that it is important that we have open justice, but this is creating a perverse fiscal incentive to have a go, especially, as we heard just a few moments ago, as any rent increase that might happen following the appeal would not be backdated to the point at which the appeal was made.
Landlords are already waiting a year to gain possession, for example, in the case of non-payment of rent. It occurred to me to wonder whether the Government have made an assessment. What assessment has been made of the likely consequential number of cases and any additional timescale and further delay as a result of these fees passing into the regulations? Will we see an avalanche of claims that will gum up the tribunal system and give further incentives for claims to be made which provide an asymmetry between the rights of the landlord and the rights of the tenant?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this order. It forms part of a wider programme of reform to the Property Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal following the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We recognise the Government’s objective: to move towards a more sustainable system of cost recovery while maintaining access to justice. Where fees do not fully reflect the cost of the service provided, there must be a legitimate discussion as to how that gap should be addressed.
This instrument would introduce fees for new categories of cases, including financial penalty appeals and rent appeals. The decision to set the fee for rent increase appeals at £47, with no associated hearing fee, reflects concerns raised by stakeholders about affordability. While it is right that the Government have listened to those concerns and adjusted their approach accordingly, there must remain important questions about the broader context in which these changes are being made, not least the valid concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Fuller.
These reforms sit alongside significant changes to the private rented sector, including the abolition of Section 21. As has been raised previously from these Benches, there is a risk that reforms to tenants’ rights proceed ahead of necessary improvements to the capacity and efficiency of the courts and the tribunal system. There is a balance to be struck. While fees must not become a barrier to justice for tenants seeking to challenge rent increases or enforcement decisions, we on these Benches are concerned that the structure of the system could create unintended incentives; we have heard that from my noble friend Lord Fuller. For example, where an appeal delays the implementation of a rent increase, even where that appeal is ultimately unsuccessful, that may create uncertainty for landlords and have an adverse impact on the functioning of the market.
Further, while the Help with Fees scheme will remain in place, the Government have not produced a full impact assessment of these changes. Given that this is the first stage of a wider reform programme, the Committee would benefit from greater clarity on the cumulative impact of these measures, particularly on access to justice for lower-income applicants and how that is to be balanced.
We do not oppose the principle of these changes. A fair and sustainable tribunal system is in the interests of all parties. However, it is essential that, as the Government proceed with the later stages of reform, they do so in a way that carefully balances cost recovery with genuine access to justice and does not build in unreasonable deterrents for landlords. The Government must ensure that the system is properly resourced to deal with the demands being placed upon it. I look forward to the Minister’s response to these points.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Fuller, for their helpful and constructive contributions. A point that they both made, with which I agree, is that this is always a balancing exercise. As I made clear in my opening remarks, there is no question of trying to recoup the entirety of the cost of running the system. This is merely about seeking a contribution because it is right to do so.
The setting of the lowest level of fee, particularly in relation to rent increases, was not intended to try to dampen demand; rather, it is a small contribution designed to be fixed at a level that does not hamper access to justice. I remind noble Lords that some of those who are subject to rent increases are some of our most vulnerable citizens. While £47 may seem a modest amount to us, to some people it can seem an almost insuperable burden, which is why I have sought to reassure that there is help there for those who cannot afford it at all.
In relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, about the amount of demand, I hope to be able to reassure him by saying that we are ready for Friday. Friday is when all of this will begin. We have a centralised operational hub and have recruited extra staff, which is why we are bringing in all these reforms in tranches, to ensure that the system is not overwhelmed.
This draft instrument is a necessary step that strengthens the sustainability and fairness of the Property Chamber. It delivers, as I said, the first phase of the new fees framework. It is one that strengthens fairness and consistency, supports greater levels of cost recovery and protects access to justice. Our reforms ensure that users of the Property Chamber contribute to its cost where they can afford to do so, while ensuring that vulnerable renters are able to benefit from the protections contained in the Renters’ Rights Act.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I would like to press the Minister just a little harder. While I know she is ready for 1 May, which is in five days’ time, is she able to give us an assessment of what she thinks is the best estimate, either by percentage or the number of cases, of what might be spawned as a result of the fees and charges that are laid out before us? I am asking for a number, so at least we can benchmark success in the months and years to come and see whether we are better or worse than intended. That would help us scope what the resources of the tribunal system may need to be in future.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, no full impact assessment was done in relation to this because it does not reach the required threshold for one. However, some assessments have been made, including looking at 250 types of applications to see whereabouts to fix the fees to try to make the greatest contribution while balancing it with access to justice. The best I can do is offer to write to the noble Lord and provide such figures as we have.
Victims and Courts Bill
Baroness Levitt ExcerptsThursday 23rd April 2026
(5 days, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Victims and Courts Bill 2024-26 View all Victims and Courts Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 190-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendment - (22 Apr 2026)
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 4B and 4C, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 4D in lieu.
“(b) after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) Before making regulations under subsection (1A) that relate to costs orders under section 17, the Lord Chancellor must—
(a) consult—
(i) the Law Society,
(ii) the General Council of the Bar, and
(iii) such other persons as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate, and
(b) publish an impact assessment in respect of the regulations.””
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments relate to private prosecutions. I start by expressing my thanks to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to the Bill throughout its passage.
I thank the Opposition Front-Bench team, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for their scrutiny and for all the time they have given in these debates. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, gave up his time on Monday to meet me and my officials and we had a productive discussion, for which I thank him.
I would especially like to express my sincere gratitude to the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench team, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for their constructive, helpful and friendly engagement throughout this Bill. While we have not always agreed, it has been a real pleasure doing business with them.
It is clear that this Bill has benefited from the quality of scrutiny in this House and has been strengthened by the considerable expertise and insight contributed by Members of your Lordships’ House, both during debates and in the informal discussions we have had around the edges.
I turn to Motion A, relating to Amendments 4B and 4C, tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. I am grateful to both Houses for the depth and seriousness with which Clause 12 has been scrutinised. I will briefly explain the Government’s position and set out the statutory assurances that we have brought forward for your Lordships’ consideration.
From the beginning, we acknowledged the concern about a possible chilling effect on private prosecutions and I reiterate the Government’s reassurances that this is not, and never has been, the intention. We recognise that Amendments 4B and 4C were aimed at encouraging scrutiny and bringing transparency in relation to any regulations that may be made to determine the rates at which private prosecutors can recover costs from central funds. The Government share those objectives. Where we differ is not on the importance of oversight but on the appropriate and proportionate legislative mechanism by which that oversight should be secured.
Amendment 4C would require any such regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government recognise the desire for parliamentary scrutiny, and we are committed to ensuring that any use of this power is subject to proper oversight. The question is not whether there should be scrutiny but what form of scrutiny is proportionate to the power that Parliament is being asked to confer.
As I have said on many occasions, Clause 12 is merely an enabling provision. Self-evidently, it does not itself prescribe rates, and, as matters stand, it is not yet possible to know the degree of technical complexity or granularity that future regulations may contain. To require in primary legislation the affirmative procedure in every eventuality would mean that there would have to be full debates in both Houses on regulations that may prove highly technical, detailed and/or operational in nature. The Government’s view is that such an approach would not represent a proportionate use of Parliament’s time, nor would it necessarily enhance the quality of scrutiny.
The negative procedure strikes the right balance. It ensures that regulations are laid before Parliament and are subject to scrutiny, including by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and that they may be prayed against, debated and annulled where either House considers the substance of the regulations, the supporting evidence or the consultation undertaken to be insufficient. That procedure preserves Parliament’s ability to intervene where there are genuine concerns, while allowing the detail of implementation to be addressed in a practical and efficient manner.
I turn to Amendment 4B, which would require the Ministry of Justice to publish an impact assessment prior to the laying of regulations. Again, I wish to make it clear that the Government believe in the importance of transparency and evidence-based policy-making. That said, as drafted, this amendment is not appropriately framed for the established process. Proposed new paragraph (b) appears to be based on a misunderstanding of how impact assessments operate. The Government do not respond to an impact assessment; rather, an impact assessment is published alongside a consultation to inform it. It is then updated to reflect the final position when the Government respond to the consultation and bring forward regulations. That is the established and proper process.
However, we have listened carefully to the strength of feeling expressed in your Lordships’ House about the need for proper evidential underpinning and stakeholder engagement before any rates are set. For that reason, we are now tabling an amendment in lieu that embeds those objectives effectively by placing clear, workable and enforceable requirements in statute.
First, the amendment will place in primary legislation a statutory duty requiring the Lord Chancellor to consult before laying any secondary legislation to set rates. This will not be a discretionary power but a legal obligation. The consultation will be full, thorough and public, engaging those with relevant expertise of those who may be affected, as well as those who may be affected—for example, charities and specialist lawyers. As part of the process of setting any rates, the Government will publish a full response to the consultation. This will not be a box-ticking exercise. The Government remain open minded about where the rates should be set. The consultation will take place at a formative stage, allowing evidence to inform and shape the rates in a meaningful way.
Secondly, the amendment requires that an impact assessment be published before any regulations are made. This will provide Parliament, and others with an interest in these matters, with a clear assessment of the likely effects on any groups affected by the proposed policies. Overall, the amendment in lieu will embed consultation, evidence gathering and impact analysis directly into the statutory framework governing the exercise of this power. It will ensure that the decision-making is transparent and accountable, while preserving the necessary flexibility for an enabling power to operate proportionately and effectively in practice.
I hope that this explanation demonstrates that the Government have listened, reflected and responded constructively to the concerns raised by your Lordships’ House. The alternative approach we now propose strikes the right balance between parliamentary oversight and practical administration, while ensuring that any rates set are founded on good evidence and tested through full and open consultation. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Bull) (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Amendment 4D. This is likely my last appearance on the Front Bench though not, I anticipate, my last speech in this Chamber. I shall simply say that I have greatly enjoyed debating Home Office and justice issues, of which I have had practical experience both as a barrister and as a recorder and deputy judge. I have enjoyed sparring with the Minister, who some 20-plus years ago was a member of the Bar Council’s legal services committee when I chaired it. I continue to respect her ability and expertise, as demonstrated in all aspects of her portfolio in this House. It has been a pleasure to do friendly battle with her.
Moving on, private prosecutions are a vital safeguard within our justice system. They ensure that when the state cannot or does not act, victims, particularly charities, are not left without recourse. For charities, this mechanism is especially important. Fraud and theft—crimes that can often become cumulatively significant—divert funds from vital causes. They then erode public trust in those charities. With limited police and Crown Prosecution Service capacity, many such cases would, I fear, otherwise go unaddressed. Private prosecutions are therefore an essential backstop. They secure convictions and compensation without burdening public resources.
Crucially, the costs recovered from central funds are modest, and typically only partial. They represent a small proportion of overall public expenditure—just 0.18% of the overall legal aid budget. Yet recovery of the costs of private prosecutions enables charities to pursue recoveries that would otherwise be financially out of reach. If charities cannot rely on private prosecutions as a shield against theft and fraud, then we fear that the public will be unwilling to donate towards their causes.
Due to the importance of private prosecutions for access to justice, we tabled an amendment that Clause 12 do not stand part of the Bill on Report. Unfortunately, the Government cited financial privilege as a reason for rejecting the Conservative amendment.
My noble and learned friend Lord Keen instead tabled an amendment in lieu. That amendment would have achieved the following. First, it would have ensured that an impact assessment was launched on the potential effect of Clause 12, with particular regard to its consequences for charities and victims’ access to justice. Secondly, it would have constrained the Government in exercising their regulation-making powers until after a response had been published to the impact assessment. Thirdly, it would have required such regulation to be subject to the affirmative procedure of both Houses.
The amendment in lieu offered by the Government today partially fulfils at least the first two of those aims. It would require the Lord Chancellor to consult the Law Society, the General Council of the Bar and other bodies considered appropriate before publishing an impact assessment. I suggest that charities as well as private prosecutors themselves would fall under this final category. There is no reason why not.
I thank the Minister in the other place for confirming that the Government will publish a full response to the impact assessment before setting any rates. That assurance is most welcome. Unfortunately, however, there is no provision that regulations made under Clause 12 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Minister in the other place said that, given that it is unclear how complex the structure of the rates will be,
“it would be disproportionate to mandate a process that risks lengthy debate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/4/26; col. 88.]
We argue that precisely because of the novel and complex nature of these regulations, the affirmative procedure is all the more important and in no way disproportionate. To reject it is to undermine proper transparency and accountability. However, I recognise that the Government have moved some real way on the issue of private prosecutions, so we will not oppose their amendment in lieu today.
The Conservative Party will always champion access to justice and the rule of law. We therefore keenly await the publication and findings of the impact assessment. We are also grateful for the co-operation and discussions that we have had with representatives of the Liberal party in this place and the impact that has had on the whole Bill and on the particular aspect of private prosecutions. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a pleasure to bring the Victims and Courts Bill through this House; it is now another step closer to becoming law. The Bill will deliver on our manifesto commitment to support and protect victims, restore confidence in our justice system and implement swifter and fairer justice.
I cannot leave the Bill without taking the opportunity to thank all the officials in my department who have worked so hard to bring this legislation forward. I wanted to thank them all by name, but I was told I was not allowed to, so I shall have to settle with doing a group thanks. They worked late into the night, tirelessly and always good-humouredly, which is quite something.
In closing, I urge noble Lords to support the Government’s amendments related to private prosecutions, and I look forward to working with your Lordships in this House as we take forward the implementation of the Bill.
Burial Provision in England and Wales
Baroness Levitt Excerpts(6 days, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of burial provision in England and Wales; and whether they consider existing statutory duties on local authorities to be sufficient to ensure long-term burial capacity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, we are aware of increasing localised pressure on burial spaces in some parts of the country. The Government do not have day-to-day operational responsibility for burial grounds, which are managed locally. At present, there is no statutory duty on local authorities to make provision for burial, so it is a matter for each authority to allocate local resources in line with local priorities
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for the Answer, but, since I tabled this Question, a number of individuals and groups from Birmingham, Dewsbury and Croydon, as well as my home city of Sheffield, have been in touch with me, deeply concerned about the lack of burial provision, often provided by the council but also by individuals and organisations, often religious based. Clearly, the system at the moment is not working. Will the Minister consider looking at what else the Government can do to issue guidance? For example, when councils draw up local plans, they have space for homes, businesses et cetera. Could the Government not look at insisting that they also provide burial grounds?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
We absolutely recognise the concerns, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter. Local authorities’ independence from central government means that they are responsible for managing their resources in line with local priorities, which they are best placed to evaluate. That said, the Law Commission has recently issued its report on burial. As part of the Government’s response, we are keen to engage with a range of interested parties, including local authorities, because we want to understand how best to assist them with local provision and management of burial capacity for the future.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, there are over a million Hindus and Sikhs living in this country who continue to face significant delays in securing a place at a crematorium, often long after their loved one has died. I have lobbied the previous Government on this issue, and I am pleased that the first ever Hindu crematorium will be opened by Anoopam Mission by the end of this year. However, this alone will not meet the demands of these communities, and we need greater provision both in London and Leicester. Can the Minister tell us what further steps the Government are taking to reduce waiting times for cremations and to ensure that families can carry out final rites within the time, as per the custom and practice?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
Measures have been taken in recent years to update crematoria so that they better reflect and understand the needs of different cultures and faiths. To a certain extent, I must repeat my earlier Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, that it is for local authorities to deal with this, because they decide what their priorities are, depending on the groups they represent locally. We are keen to engage closely with representatives from faith communities on all issues in relation to death management, particularly when we are considering our response to the Law Commission’s report.
Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)
My Lords, one of the hardest things to do as an MP is meet with a bereaved parent. It is even worse if they tell you that they are worried about the funeral costs for their child. Can I take this opportunity to ask my noble friend the Minister whether all families under the children’s funeral fund will be exempt from fees charged for the cremation or burial of a child, and how this can be accessed?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, the Government believe that families who have suffered the unimaginable loss of a child should not have to worry about the cost of a funeral. The children’s funeral fund is not means-tested; it is available where the death of a child takes place in England, regardless of nationality, faith or residency status. There are similar schemes in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The cost is usually covered by the funeral provider and then the provider reclaims it from the fund. Families who wish to arrange the funeral themselves can access the fund and the details are on the GOV.UK website.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, the excellent report last month from the Law Commission on burial and cremation law addresses the problems of burial grounds which are either full, closed, disused, poorly maintained or even lost. It makes specific proposals for the modernisation of complex and inconsistent laws, and it promises a draft Bill in, I think, 2028. Meanwhile, will the Government consider earlier implementation of those recommendations in the report that would not require primary legislation?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The Law Commission report, which we welcome, was published on 18 March this year and is the first part of a wider project that will also consider the legal framework for new funerary methods and the rights and obligations in relation to funerals and the deceased. That last sub-project is expected to conclude by the end of 2027 and, as the noble Lord rightly says, the Law Commission will publish draft legislation in mid-2028.
There is also a separate Law Commission project looking at offences against the deceased. All these things are interrelated. We will consider all the recommendations issued recently by the Law Commission and the various workstreams to see what is the most practical approach to publishing our response, including timing, to make sure that we do not do things piecemeal in a way that, in the end, makes things worse rather than better.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, the Law Commission has identified that an estimated 250,000 sets of ashes have not been collected from funeral directors, leaving them either unburied or unscattered. What consideration has the Minister given, or will she give, to following other countries such as Germany that mandate a final resting place for cremated ashes?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
As with all matters relating to what happens at the end of life, these are sensitive, difficult and complicated matters. The Law Commission identifies that there can be many reasons why ashes remain uncollected, including people who simply cannot face going to pick them up. However, that does not solve the problem of them sitting on shelves, which is not an appropriate way to treat human remains. We will consider this matter carefully as part of our response to the Law Commission’s helpful and sensitive report.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, private burial grounds in England and Wales are largely unregulated, compared with the local authority-run cemeteries and burial grounds mentioned by the Minister. Hundreds of burial grounds are subject to changes in private ownership and, as they are not regulated, there is no requirement for the standards we would expect from local authorities. I declare an interest as my family are buried in such a burial ground in north London, with totally unregulated, unscrupulous owners. They do not have to have a register of those buried there and unlawful exhumations are taking place. Will the Government try to bring private burial grounds in line with the regulations for local authority-run burial grounds to stop the scandals that are taking place?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am very sorry to hear of the experience of the noble Baroness. That story draws attention to exactly why the Law Commission looked at this area in the first place. Our laws concerning how burial is governed are a patchwork; they are often inconsistent with each other, they are very difficult to understand and sometimes they do not appear to be entirely logical. That is why the Law Commission is proposing that they are all brought together. As I said earlier, it is sensitive and sometimes difficult, and there are odd anomalies. Noble Lords may be aware that people can be buried in their back garden if they want to: it is not a regulated thing. We need to look at this carefully and make sure that we get it right.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
The Church of England has a responsibility and common-law duty to bury all members of a parish living within its boundaries in a churchyard according to the rites of the Church of England and, if it does not have a churchyard, it is dependent on municipal provision. So we have an interest in this. One of the things this says to us is the importance to all people of faith of their rites of burial. We in the Church of England want to promote that strongly. Following the Law Commission report, would the Minister be willing to speak with the Faith and Public Life department of the Church of England to look at historic churchyards under our care and how they are preserved, at what provision currently exists within our open churchyards and how that can be sustained and monitored, and at what scope there might be for opening and consecrating new churchyards?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to reiterate the Government’s commitment to and respect for the beliefs of all our faith communities, many of whom have very strongly held views about what is appropriate at the end of life, both how it happens and the timing of it. The answer to the question of whether I would have a meeting is, “Of course”.
Victims and Courts Bill
Baroness Levitt ExcerptsWednesday 15th April 2026
(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Victims and Courts Bill 2024-26 View all Victims and Courts Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 184–I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (14 Apr 2026)
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I shall speak also to Motions B, B1, C, and C1. This group concerns amendments made in this House relating to access to court transcripts, and homicide abroad. In relation to each, I shall set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
I will speak first to Motions A and C, which relate to Amendments 1 and 3, originally tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, both of which concern access to criminal court transcripts.
I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her extensive engagement on the Bill throughout its passage in the Lords, as well as in recent weeks. I am sorry she is not in her place today. I know she has not been well, but I think she may be joining us remotely in due course. I hope she can hear me when I say that she and I have spent significant time with each other discussing these amendments at length, and I really am grateful to her for her constructive and collaborative approach in addressing the issues before your Lordships’ House today.
That said, I am disappointed and frustrated that I have not been able to get a meeting with the Opposition Front Bench, despite making numerous attempts through various channels to do so. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, knows I am sincere when I say the Government agree that it is extremely important for victims to be able to access information relevant to the criminal court proceedings in their case. But, as we made clear both in Committee and on Report, these amendments would not achieve the meaningful benefits that victims are seeking. In the case of the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, the Government believe it could in fact undermine victims’ experience rather than improve it.
With that, I turn to Motion C1, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. We have already set out in previous debates the operational and financial implications this amendment would have. Our first reason for not accepting it is that while the Government are firmly committed to strengthening transparency, this would create substantial pressures on a system in which resources are finite.
The second reason is arguably the more important one: the potentially serious and damaging impact this amendment may have on countless victims. The noble and learned Lord has said that this amendment contains a pragmatic safeguard for victims, in that victims would be able to request anonymisation prior to publication. The Government fundamentally disagree that this gives protection, because it does not give victims the right to object to the publication of sentencing remarks. Instead, it limits victims to requesting anonymisation ahead of publication and does so within a relatively narrow window of 14 days from the point at which the request is received.
How is this to work in practice when the police and/or the CPS would have to locate the victims—probably quite a number of them—explain the request to them and give them time to consider the request? Then the victims would need to respond, and then redactions would need to be carried out sufficiently in what in some cases will be a long and complicated document. Following sentence, many victims will be traumatised and will just want to start putting what has happened behind them. What would happen should a victim of a horrifying crime request that their sentencing remarks not be published at all?
By denying victims a right to determine whether remarks relevant to their case, often containing highly personal and sensitive information, are published online for the world to see, this loss of agency significantly risks being distressing rather than empowering. It is unlikely to feel like an improvement in transparency or experience and may in fact compound the harm caused by the offence. This Government believe that transparency is not served by measures that risk causing further distress to victims or undermining confidence in the justice system. The Government do not accept that this amendment strikes the right balance between openness and protection and believe it would in practice do more harm than good.
I have made the point already that we are focused on delivering the substantial commitment made earlier this year, that by spring 2027, we will provide all victims with Crown Court sentencing remarks relevant to their case, free of charge, upon request. I thank all Members of your Lordships’ House from all parties and groups, including the Opposition Front Bench, for their constructive engagement during the debates on that amendment during the passage of the Sentencing Act 2026. The significant expansion will deliver meaningful benefits and represents an important step forward in helping many victims better understand their case. It will, we accept, genuinely enhance transparency in the justice system.
That said, we recognise that there remains a need to consider what more can be done to support victims’ access to information about court proceedings relevant to their case, particularly in cases that do not result in a conviction. That is why I am pleased to confirm that the Government are undertaking a study to explore the use of AI transcription in the criminal courts. This is another step towards greater transparency and improving access to court transcripts by examining how artificial intelligence transcription could support the production of court records more quickly and at a lower cost. Many of these cases involve sensitive personal information, and we must ensure that the use of AI transcription delivers high levels of accuracy, upholds the integrity of court proceedings and protects information where necessary.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, Motion C1 in my name would insist on my amendment from Report regarding the publication of court transcripts. It would require sentencing remarks by the Crown Court to be freely published online, while also informing applicants of their right to request anonymity if they wish it.
Open justice is a fundamental principle of the institution of democracy and the public confidence in that institution. This Motion would make it easier for victims, journalists and the wider public to understand exactly what is happening in the court system. This is of particular relevance regarding grooming gangs and the formal inquiry that the Government launched just this week. It would help to facilitate the transparency required to hold the guilty accountable.
As faith and confidence in public institutions continue to dwindle, many believe that the state does not operate to serve their best interests. The Sentencing Act now has the effect of an automatic presumption of short sentences—a policy that in practice effectively abolishes custodial sentences of one year or less. It is more important than ever that the public can access the reasoning behind sentencing decisions, so that confidence in the rule of law and the integrity of judicial decision-making is preserved.
In the other place, a Labour MP said she was confused about why the Minister was not accepting Lords Amendments 1 and 3 at that point. The Minister said in reply that the Government
“are willing to go further, and we will look to see what more we can do in the Lords”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/26; col. 326.]
Yet the Government have taken no action on this issue other than to reject my amendment in its entirety. I therefore feel compelled to move Motion C1.
I thank the Liberal Democrats for their consistent support of this amendment and the principle that it upholds. It was the combined effort of 160 Conservative and 55 Liberal Democrat Peers that saw this amendment’s successful passage. I also thank the 56 Liberal Democrat MPs who supported the amendment in the other place. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat Justice spokesman said:
“I urge all colleagues to vote for all these excellent Lords amendments, which are incredibly important to victims and their families”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/26; col. 337.]
There may have been a little wobble since—I am not clear why—but I hope that our efforts in the voting Lobby today will compel the Government to act.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions and for the thoughtful way in which they have engaged with this issue. I recognise the commitment and valuable contributions that all have made during the passage of the Bill. To those who spoke powerfully about the need for victims better to understand what has happened in court and why, I say that the Government are absolutely aligned with that objective. I thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising that point about victims being either explicitly told or made to feel that they should not attend court to hear the rest of the trial. It is a powerful point. I have had experience of it personally. I shall take it away and see what I can do to improve the situation.
As I have set out, Lords Amendments 1 and 3 would impose statutory duties that risk being unworkable, would create delay and have effects that would not serve victims well. Our priority must be to ensure that the commitments we make are ones that we can deliver. That is why the Government have focused on delivery through the Sentencing Act 2026 and why we are now going further through the study in artificial intelligence transcription, about which I spoke a moment or two ago.
Turning very briefly to support for victims of homicide abroad, I repeat my absolute assurance that the Government share the ambition of strengthening the support available to families bereaved by homicide abroad. The commitments that I have outlined today do go further. Cross-departmental work to improve consistency and support through a comprehensive review will put families at the centre so that we can ensure they get the support they need. I urge noble Lords to support Motions A, B and C.
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 2A.
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4A.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion D I shall speak also to Motions D1, E, F and G. This group concerns amendments made in your Lordships’ House relating to private prosecutions and the unduly lenient sentence scheme. For each, I will set out why the Government cannot accept these amendments.
Motions D and G relate to Amendments 4 and 7, originally tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. These amendments would have removed Clause 12 from the Bill entirely, meaning that the Lord Chancellor would not have the power to set the rates of costs recoverable from central funds in private prosecutions.
In 2024-25, the Ministry of Justice spent £6.3 million on private prosecutions. Over the past decade, this figure has increased significantly and has proved to be highly variable. There is some evidence that the near certainty of substantial cost recovery can create incentives for prosecutors to pursue cases that are disproportionate or are an unsuitable remedy for the legal issues in the case. We have seen litigation charges far exceed what a privately paying client would consider reasonable and which are wholly out of proportion to any loss incurred. We have also seen private prosecutions used as a no-lose tactic in civil or commercial disputes—for example, in an effort to gain leverage in what is, in essence, a civil dispute by bringing a criminal prosecution. As the noble and learned Lord has said before, £6.3 million is a small proportion of overall Ministry of Justice spending. That may be so, but it is still a great deal of money, and this Government are committed to ensuring the proportionate and responsible use of taxpayers’ money, regardless of the scale of the expenditure.
Clause 12 will allow the Lord Chancellor to set rates recoverable in private prosecutions, but only when informed by extensive stakeholder engagement and public consultation. We will set rates that are proportionate to the complexity and seriousness of the case, ensuring consistency, clarity and transparency, all the while safeguarding the vital right to bring a private prosecution. I make it absolutely clear that this Government have no intention of trying to curtail that right; that is not what the clause is intended to do.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Marks for his comments on private prosecutions, and for the discussions we have had with the Minister, and separately with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, over the course of the Bill.
I echo the two important points from our Benches made by my noble friend Lord Marks. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has helpfully reflected in his Motion, an impact assessment on these specific regulations is vital. It would assess how workable they are, especially for the charitable and voluntary sectors, as well as for access to justice. My noble friend’s second point was equally important, and one that we on these Benches often talk about: the risk of giving Ministers the power to use regulations—in this case, to recover costs—without any transparency or reference back to Parliament. The Government need to think hard before they bring that into force.
I now turn to Motion E on unduly lenient sentences. I repeat my thanks to the Minister and her officials, as well as to the late Helen Newlove, the current Victims’ Commissioner, the new Victims’ Commissioner for London, and all their staff over the many years that I and others have been laying amendments to improve the arrangements for victims to be able to submit a claim to the Attorney-General to review an unduly lenient sentence.
I want to pick up where I left off in the previous group, when I outlined how the criminal justice process can seriously let down victims, including on the occasions when they are left distraught by a sentence that really does not meet the level needed for the horrendous experience that they were put through. I am very grateful to the Minister for her comments about the extraordinary work that Tracey Hanson has done to ensure that, after her family’s experience, changes should be made. Her experience was an appalling failure of public service to victims like her and her family. Over 10 years ago, her 21 year-old son, Josh, was the victim of an unprovoked knife attack. In Josh’s case, it took four years for a conviction and sentencing to be reached. She said:
“At no stage during the trial or at the point of sentencing was I informed of the ULS scheme. I only learned of its existence from another bereaved parent, by which time I had just hours left to act within the strict 28-day limit. With no clear guidance available, I submitted an appeal late in the evening on the 28th day, only to be told it was ‘out of time’ because it arrived outside office hours. That decision was final. I had no right to appeal”.
I have heard a little of the energy that the indomitable Tracey Hanson, Claire Waxman and others found on that single day to try to get an appeal in, after being told of it by another bereaved parent, which was, as been mentioned, on deadline day. That formal notice did not give a notice of an hour by which an appeal had to be submitted. Frankly, it was appalling that the Attorney-General’s Office chose to reject it because its idea of the end of the day was Friday hours—namely, 4 pm—even though it was posted by hand through its doors after that deadline but on the Friday.
That is why, during the passage of this Bill, our amendments have consistently asked for special arrangements. First, there must be a duty on an official body to notify a victim as soon as possible after sentencing, and in the event that a victim has not been informed in that time, special arrangements should be made. That is why I am so grateful to the Minister for the government amendments in Motions E and F. Yes, the Minister and I have had extensive discussions and, yes, we have agreed on some things and disagreed on others, but I want to thank Ministers in the MoJ for the round-table meeting with a number of victims last month, when four Ministers were able to hear at first hand from victims about their experience. I hope that, too, played a part in the decision to change things.
Motions E and F are very helpful steps forward to resolve problems and change an intransigent process that has blocked access to justice for victims. We hope that this will now signify a real change to their experience.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I start by touching briefly on the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Once again, I am grateful to your Lordships for the care and consideration brought to this debate, not only today but throughout the passage of this Bill. These measures matter; they will make a meaningful difference to those who have already endured so much.
I turn to the question of private prosecutions and reiterate that I recognise the concerns raised in relation to Clause 12. I want to make it clear again, as I have said before, that the vast majority of private prosecutions do not result in claims on central funds and will remain entirely unaffected by this measure. It is absolutely right that a number of respected charities make use of the private prosecution route to protect the public and prevent and pursue wrongdoing, but those cases account for only 10% to 15% of claims made on central funds. I make it absolutely crystal clear that we have no issue with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. This enabling power does not restrict who may bring a private prosecution, nor does it narrow the types of cases that may be pursued, and nothing in the clause alters the long-standing statutory right to bring a private prosecution.
It has been suggested that the Government must first consult in order to understand the landscape, but the need has already been established. The Justice Select Committee’s 2020 report published 42 accounts of written evidence and expressly recommended that the Government take a closer look at the private prosecution landscape, particularly when public money is involved. Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts also heard evidence of private prosecutions being misused and imposing significant burdens on the courts. Clause 12 responds to these findings, and I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his support.
Having said all that, we will engage thoroughly with stakeholders and we will hold a public consultation before any secondary legislation setting the rates is brought forward. As part of that process, we will undertake and publish an impact assessment.
I have stressed the importance of prescribing rates which address disproportionate costs without chilling the private prosecutions market. I bear in mind that, in recent years, your Lordships’ House has expressed concern about the quality of impact assessments, so we will work hard to develop an impact assessment which allows the Government to make good, evidence-based decisions. We believe that that is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, is referring to when he seeks to compel the Government to respond to an impact assessment in paragraph (b) of Amendment 4B. I would be grateful if he could let me know whether he means something else. Had he accepted my invitation to a meeting, we might have been able to resolve that in advance.
I urge noble Lords to support the Government’s amendments on the ULS scheme and to support Motions D, E, F and G.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A, and do propose Amendments 5B to 5F in lieu—
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A, and do propose Amendments 6B and 6C in lieu—
Baroness Levitt
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.
Crime and Policing Bill
Baroness Levitt ExcerptsWednesday 18th March 2026
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 View all Crime and Policing Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 167-VI(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Corrected Sixth Marshalled List) - (17 Mar 2026)
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, once again we have had a full and passionate debate on a matter of the utmost significance. It is apparent, from both deliberations in Committee and from today, that views on this matter are deeply and sincerely held across your Lordships’ House.
A wide range of points have been raised by noble Lords. Let us consider a variety of them. We have heard about issues around how the police investigate cases, about the interaction of telemedicine and criminal investigation, about the potential for women to face coercion, about issues of safeguarding of younger women and about issues of domestic abuse—to name but a few mentioned tonight. A lot of ground has not yet been covered. Other noble Lords have not yet spoken or have wanted to speak but have not been able to. What this tells us is that the matter is very far from settled. Some noble Lords’ concerns have plainly not been allayed.
This brings me back to the point I made in Committee. This clause has not received anything like adequate scrutiny. It is true that we have now had several hours of debate on this matter in your Lordships’ House. The point I made before, however, still stands: it is a matter of procedure, not substance. In the other place, however, this clause was considered for only 46 minutes of Back-Bench debate. No parliamentary committee has been able to seek views and take evidence, and if ever there was the need for a parliamentary committee to take evidence on a policy, this is it. We need to hear from and test the views of the police, of the CPS, of doctors, of obstetricians, of safeguarders and, if possible and most importantly, of women or their representatives and advocates. This policy was not in the Government’s election manifesto. It has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, public consultation, or an impact assessment. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, put it very well in Committee. She said that the clause was passed
“in the other place following a very brief and truncated debate, entirely incommensurate with the gravity of its impact”.—[Official Report, 2/2/26; col. 1336.]
Changes to the law of abortion are and remain issues of conscience. The Opposition do not and will not take an official position on the substance of the clause. There is a multitude of views in my own party, and the issue is in the hands of your Lordships’ House as a matter of conscience. But that does not mean that we are released from our duty to undertake due diligence and rigorous interrogation of the consequences of changing the social law of this country. Whatever one thinks of the substance of the issue itself, the truth is that this clause has been tacked on to the side of a Crime and Policing Bill when it should not have been. That is no way to make law.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I will be as brief as I can. I shall start, as I did in Committee, by reiterating that the Government maintain a neutral stance on abortion in England and Wales. Many of the amendments in this group are similar or identical to those tabled in Committee. So, save in a very few cases, I shall not repeat the Government’s assessment of their workability. This means that if I do not explicitly mention an amendment, it is either because there are no workability issues or because I set them out fully in Committee. As a shorthand, I will refer to conduct that comes under Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, collectively as “abortion offences”.
I begin with Amendment 423ZA tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. It is unclear how this amendment is intended to work in practice—in particular, which party would bear the burden of establishing a lack of mental capacity and what the standard of proof would be. Thus, it is possible that it would create confusion for practitioners. Your Lordships may wish to note that the law already takes account of defendants’ understanding of their actions in various ways. It is unclear how this amendment is intended to interact with well-established criminal law principles.
Amendment 422E, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, is similar to that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, in Committee, but it contains an additional requirement that a prosecution could not be brought any later than 12 months from the date of the alleged offence. Your Lordships will be aware that, other than for summary-only offences, there is, almost without exception, no statutory time limit for prosecuting criminal offences in England and Wales. The reason for that is that evidence may emerge over several years, so a limitation period would remove the ability to prosecute in cases where evidence of guilt came to light much later on. The introduction of a limitation period could lead to differences in outcomes depending on when evidence becomes available, the complexity of the case and the resources of investigating and prosecuting authorities.
Amendment 423, in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is similar to the one he tabled in Committee, but it differs in three respects: it would broaden the scope of the specified defences; it would make provision for who must bear burden of proof in relation to those defences; and it would introduce additional provisions relating to police investigations. In relation to the workability concerns I raised in Committee, for the second and third of these differences there are some further issues. In relation to the burden of proof, the drafting is ambiguous. If the intention is that the defendant should bear the evidential burden, clarification would be needed. In relation to the proposed new provisions for police investigations, your Lordships may wish to note that decisions on whether to initiate, and the scope of such an investigation, are currently operational matters for the police.
Amendment 423A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is also similar to one tabled in Committee. While the Government remain neutral on changing the criminal law, it is important that investigations into other offences, such as murder, manslaughter or infanticide under the Infanticide Act, are still carried out. Those offences would continue to be investigated and prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service if the test for prosecution is met. Your Lordships may wish to note that this amendment would be likely to trigger a review of any live investigations and prosecutions. However, we would not expect this to carry any significant resourcing implications.
Amendment 426C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, is again similar to an amendment tabled in Committee. It might be helpful to remind your Lordships of the point that I made then, namely that the proposed new offence is not limited to obtaining abortifacient drugs for use in the termination of a pregnancy. Abortifacient drugs are not defined in legislation and are also used for non-abortion-related purposes. In addition, further amendments would be needed to clarify whether the offence was one that is to be triable either way, whether the maximum penalty on conviction on indictment should be the same as that on summary conviction and whether the maximum penalty in the magistrates’ court should align with its general powers, which update automatically should the limits on its sentencing powers change in the future.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I would be grateful for clarification as to whether the Government have considered their own current inquiries into the grooming gangs. There was evidence there that:
“Victims and survivors were also critical about how easy it can be to obtain emergency contraception or abortion services without appropriate questions being asked”.
This evidence has been relied on consistently in Committee and on Report, yet there are concerns. Have the Government looked at that?
Secondly, in relation to the case that I mentioned in Committee, which contradicts much of what has been said, the comments of His Honour Mr Justice Cooke in Leeds Crown Court, in the case of Sarah Catt, very clearly state that this was a “cold calculated” decision that she took for her own convenience and self-interest. She took pills at 39 weeks and gave birth, and it seems she never revealed where the body was. She had a history of deceit and concealment—that is in the judgment of Leeds Crown Court. So have the Government considered, also in relation to other amendments about pardons, that this was conduct not of a victim but of a woman who perpetrated a crime?
Finally—
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her points, which I am sure your Lordships’ House will want to take into account when deciding whether, as a matter of policy, to vote for or against the various amendments. I remind the noble Baroness that these are not government amendments—the Government are neutral—but I am sure that everyone in your Lordships’ House has heard them and will take them into account in various ways.
Amendment 425 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, is identical to one tabled in Committee. I raised at that stage the Government’s concerns about workability and operational difficulties, and they remain. In short, the effect of Amendment 425 might be to reduce access to early medical abortion due to resource constraints on the ability of abortion providers to hold in-person consultations.
Amendment 426D, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, is new, but it carries similar possible operational effects to those I set out in Committee in relation to Amendment 425, about which I spoke a moment ago. The proposed new clause in Amendment 426D may have a detrimental impact on abortion provision and access for under-18s, including those who live in remote areas or who have difficulties in attending a clinic. It should also be noted that it is unclear whether this amendment would require under-18s to have all consultations face to face, including any initial contact with the service. If so, this would further increase the workability concerns, including resourcing constraints on providers and access to abortion provision for young people.
Amendment 426B, in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton, is once again very similar to an amendment tabled in Committee. The duty on the Secretary of State, as drafted, poses substantial operational and resourcing implications. There is no centrally held record of women who have been convicted of, cautioned for, arrested for or investigated on suspicion of abortion offences. Therefore, the Secretary of State would be unable to comply with the duty to direct the specified bodies to delete such details from records. If this is the will of Parliament, consideration will need to be given to how to deliver the objectives of this amendment in a way that is operationally workable.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I appreciate that the hour is late and very charged emotions have been expressed, so I do not intend to delay the House with a long response. I simply point out to those Members who are not familiar with the Companion and were surprised that so many of us did not take interventions that this was not due to any lack of respect for their positions. The Companion says at 4.29 that a Member
“may justifiably refuse to give way, for instance … in time-limited proceedings”.
I wanted to make that clear.
I have heard what the Minister has said about Amendment 422E. I will go away and consider that. This was meant to be a compromise. I know that Members want to get to other substantive amendments. I therefore do not wish to test the opinion of the House and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
With the House’s permission, it might be helpful if I set out the Government’s position, and then perhaps we can take it from there, if the noble Baroness is prepared to give way to me at this stage. The Government have some workability and drafting concerns about the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, but I will focus on the central issue so that the House knows what the Government’s position is.
Although the Government remain neutral on the overall issue, we recognise that assisted dying regimes being implemented in different parts of the UK and the Crown dependencies could create practical issues for those in one jurisdiction who are involved, in some way, in the lawful assisted death of a person in another jurisdiction. However, I support what my noble and learned friend said: the Government consider it premature to legislate on this issue. We do not yet know whether assisted dying will become lawful in the various jurisdictions, what the final form of any such regimes may be, or how and when they would be implemented. Legislating now in this unique way to amend the criminal law in England and Wales without clarity about these frameworks risks unintended consequences. The Government do not rule out that, in due course, processes may be agreed between the jurisdictions—or, if necessary, future legislation placed before this House and, potentially, other Parliaments—to achieve these aims.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that indication. On the basis of that, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Victims and Courts Bill
Baroness Levitt ExcerptsTuesday 17th March 2026
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Victims and Courts Bill 2024-26 View all Victims and Courts Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 176-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (16 Mar 2026)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I will make a short statement on the position regarding legislative consent on this Bill. A legislative consent Motion was received from the Senedd on 24 February 2026. The amendments voted in by your Lordships’ House on Report engage the LCM process. Conversations are ongoing with the devolved Governments on how these amendments would apply to them. It has not been possible to complete this process before Third Reading. Amendments will be made if they decline to grant approval. The amendments on court transcripts are currently drafted to extend UK wide; we presume that this is an error and that the intention is that they should extend to England and Wales only, because they use terminology specific to this jurisdiction and that has been the focus of debates on this topic.
Clause 21: Commencement and transitional provision
Amendment 1
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their constructive engagement with this important Bill at every stage of its passage. On behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen, I thank noble Lords for their contributions both in Committee and on Report. Although there were several areas of disagreement, we on these Benches believe that the Bill, as amended on Report, leaves this House as better legislation than when it entered.
I am particularly pleased that noble Lords across this House voted in favour of Amendments 16 and 20. Open and transparent justice is a fundamental principle: it underpins democracy and the rule of law. It is therefore only right that sentencing remarks, which explain judges’ reasoning for the sentences they impose, be made available to members of the public who are not present in court.
Equally, private prosecutions are an integral part of our justice system. Where the CPS is unwilling or unable to act, private prosecutions are a vital avenue for parties to get access to justice. In particular, many charities use private prosecutions to recover losses by theft and fraud. The removal of Clause 12 preserves the current system. Clause 12 would have created a state of uncertainty in the legal market. It would have had a detrimental effect on the availability of private prosecutions for those who need that service. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his support on these points.
Amendment 1, in my name and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, will remove a cross-reference to a clause that no longer stands part of the Bill.
I also commend the Liberal Democrats on their engagement with the Bill. It was pleasing to find areas of agreement during the Bill’s passage. I am grateful for their amendments on both notification and exceptional circumstances for unduly lenient sentence applications. I strongly urge the Government in the other place to recognise the importance of these reforms and to support all the amendments that passed on Report. Both of the amendments before us have the support of the Conservatives and of the Victims’ Commissioner.
Turning briefly to Amendment 29, it was disappointing that the Minister spoke against our opposition to the automatic release of sexual offenders and domestic abusers at the one-third point of their custodial sentences. If the Government are still committed to their manifesto pledge of halving violence against women and girls, the amendment deserves serious consideration. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her expression of support on this point. We, in turn, intend to return to this issue at a later date.
I remain grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions during the various stages of the Bill. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on the amendments relating to the publication of sentencing remarks, private prosecutions and the unduly lenient sentence scheme. I have no doubt that these issues will return to your Lordships’ House in due course. I beg to move Amendment 1.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, this is a minor and technical amendment following Report, and the Government will not oppose it today.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The Bill represents a significant step forward in strengthening both the rights of victims and the way in which our courts operate. At its heart, it seeks to ensure that victims are treated with dignity, compassion and respect throughout the justice process, while ensuring that our courts are able to deliver justice more swiftly and effectively.
I thank all Members of your Lordships’ House who contributed during the debates; the officials for all their support during its passage; and all noble Lords who have given their time and expertise to scrutinising the Bill during its passage through your Lordships’ House and, through their engagement, have strengthened the Bill in the process.
I am especially grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their support for and engagement on the key measures in the Bill. I look forward to continuing to work with them on the recent amendments regarding the unduly lenient sentencing scheme, court transcripts and support for victims of homicide abroad.
I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for their informed, thoughtful interventions and the constructive challenges that they have put forward. I look forward to discussing further their recent amendments regarding court transcripts and private prosecutions.
I am grateful for the broad support for this Bill across the House, and I look forward to working on its implementation. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, I am very grateful that the Conservatives have already expressed their thanks for the Bill. We echo that thanks. I welcome the very constructive engagement from all sides of the House. I particularly thank my noble friends Lord Marks and Lord Russell, with whom I have worked closely on victims’ issues for many years. I also thank the House more generally. The timely passage of this Bill is unusual, and I am very pleased that we were able to conduct our business in the time allocated and still come to the end of the Bill and feel that real progress has been made.
This is where I thank the Minister and all her officials because, despite the fact that a number of votes were won on Report—we look forward to continuing to work with her—many of the items we discussed in private between Committee and Report have been resolved to some extent or another. On behalf of all the groups and the individual victims who got in touch, not only now but in the run-up to the Bill, we are grateful for the progress that has been made. That does not mean, however, that everything is done; I and many others will continue to work on those particular issues. From our side, as has already been mentioned, we particularly want to see some movement on court transcripts, homicide abroad and unduly lenient sentences. We are very grateful for the discussions that are already beginning between now and ping-pong.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly—conscious of my noble friend to my left—to pay tribute to the Minister for how she has handled her first Bill through your Lordships’ House with good humour and considerable judicial skill. It is always slightly challenging to put an amendment or an argument to a Minister when it is quite clear that she has understood exactly what you are trying to say and all the flaws in your argument before you have got past the first paragraph.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for our working together so effectively. I also congratulate the Minister on the extraordinary achievement in having, on occasion, got the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties to be on speaking terms, let alone voting terms.
Humanist Weddings
Baroness Levitt Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress and timetable towards legal humanist weddings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government announced on 2 October last year that they intend to reform weddings law when parliamentary time allows. Our reforms will reflect a commitment to making marriage law fairer, simpler and more modern, while protecting the solemnity and dignity of marriage. We want to create a level playing field for all groups, and this will include allowing humanist weddings to be legally recognised for the first time. We will consult on the details early this year.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I apologise to the House for my repeated appearances on this matter. Can my noble friend the Minister provide further clarity on the timeframe and next steps? It is already early 2026 and the consultation does not appear to be here yet. It is 13 years and counting since the Government acquired the right to legally recognise humanist marriages by order, and it is nearly six years since the High Court found the lack of legal recognition of humanist marriages to be discriminatory. Given the years of delay faced by humanist couples, can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that it will be our Labour Government who finally legally recognise humanist marriages, as has been done in Scotland and Northern Ireland in the interim while they have been looking at this matter? Perhaps she could meet with me to discuss in more detail the path to legal recognition.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My noble friend should not apologise for raising this matter again; I think the entire House will want to thank her for her continued commitment to driving this forward. I had a feeling that, if my noble friend did not ask what “early” meant, somebody else would. I thought about replying “at pace” but then thought that that would make me deeply unpopular, so I am going for “as soon as possible”.
On a more serious point, my noble friend asked a number of questions which it is possible several other noble Lords may also wish to raise. The Government are not planning on using the order-making power. We do not want to create other inequalities with other groups; we want to make sure that there is a level playing field for all groups.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, in Scotland in 2024, there were more humanist weddings than there were weddings of all religious faiths combined—evidence not only of the substantial demand for humanist marriage but of the accelerating decline of traditional religions. Nine months ago, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, assured the House that the Government were “working at pace”; later, he said that they were “making haste” on the issue. The Minister is obviously aware of this, and I do not apologise for requoting what she has just said. I wonder whether she can help us understand exactly what and when “working at pace” will deliver.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
This was one of the reasons why I thought I should probably not use the expression “at pace” a second time. The Government are going to run two consultations on three closely related issues, all to do with how families are formed and what happens when they break down. There will be a consultation on weddings reform and a consultation on cohabitation reform, which is a manifesto commitment. There is also going to be a consultation on financial remedies on divorce or dissolution of civil partnerships, including nuptial agreements. The Government are committed to doing this as early as possible.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend is against making an order. Is she aware that the lead civil servant on the Equality Act and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act thinks that the evidence for removing the discrimination against humanists by making an order, even if there is an interim measure pending a final order, is overwhelming? She further adds that it would not introduce any new inconsistency in the rules—that is to say, laying the order would not discriminate against any other group. So is it not such a bad idea after all?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure that I can do better than to quote from the Law Commission report, which looked specifically at this issue. It said that it would be anomalous and unfair to privilege these non-religious belief organisations over religious groups, which are subject to greater legal regulation. In particular, it would be very difficult to justify why the fewest restrictions should be applied to the newest categories. It is for that reason that the Government are not going to use the order-making power to single out humanists.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, a few years ago, despite major constitutional issues, a Labour MP in the other place, and I in this place, were able to steer same-sex marriage legislation through in relation to Northern Ireland in a very short time. When there is agreement on all sides, as there is here, why cannot we get the legislation through as quickly as we did a few years ago?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The answer to that is that there is not agreement on all sides as to what this should look like. I mentioned earlier the Law Commission’s report; its conclusions were greeted with some reservation by the humanists and the Church of England, while being widely welcomed by other groups. We absolutely need to make sure that we get this right and that we do not, in solving one set of inequalities, create some more.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, the deficiencies and complexities of our marriage law were addressed by the Law Commission as long ago as 2022, followed by a government response three years later. The common objective is simple enough: to provide legally binding and reasonably dignified marriage ceremonies. Can the Minister agree that when these long-awaited and necessary reforms arrive, they should benefit not just humanists but other groups that are equally disadvantaged by the current law? If that does not happen soon, there will be increasing and possibly justified pressure for less satisfactory, piecemeal measures. At the same time, can the Minister indicate whether there will be a role for properly regulated independent celebrants?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a number of good points. One of the issues here is the question of the independent celebrant, because not everybody thinks it is a good idea to license independent celebrants—for example, humanists think it is not a good idea to license independent celebrants. That is why this has to be looked at and why we have to consult widely. However, we have given the commitment that we will legalise humanist marriages—it is just a question of making sure that we do it in a way that does not create further inequalities.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, what advice do the Government have for humanist couples who are waiting to be wed and have heard that there is going to be a fourth consultation, as well as the introduction of complex and potentially controversial marriage law ahead of this much-needed change? What assurance can they offer to couples that humanists will soon have the choice of getting married in line with their beliefs, the same as their religious counterparts?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The assurance is that we have made the commitment and it is going to happen.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s intention to make it easier for couples to marry in legally binding ceremonies that reflect their religious, or non-religious, beliefs. However, I am concerned by the potential direction of travel of some aspects of these reforms, particularly the possible authorisation of this new category of commercial celebrants, which the Minister has referred to. I understand that, as has already been acknowledged, Humanists UK shares this concern. Can the Minister set out how the Government will ensure that safeguards are in place to protect against the commercialisation of weddings?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
One of the things the Government are consulting on is how to ensure that all marriages, no matter by whom they are conducted, are dignified, solemn and worthy of the name. In that, they are reflecting the fact that the Government believe that marriage is more than just a ceremony between two individuals; it says something about the way society sees itself, about relations between society and families, and about the way families are formed. That is one of the reasons why we are consulting.
Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)
Are there are any protections for those who may be at risk of forced or predatory marriage?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
Tackling forced marriage is part of our mission to halve violence against women and girls within a decade. In 2024, the forced marriage unit worked with the General Register Office to introduce bespoke workshops for registrars to help them to recognise these things. When it is suspected that a person is not entering a marriage of their own free will or lacks mental capacity, the proceedings will be stopped until the registrar is satisfied that the individual has the capacity to make an informed decision. It is also a criminal offence to cause a person who lacks mental capacity to enter into a marriage.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
Baroness Levitt ExcerptsFriday 13th March 2026
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 112-XI Eleventh marshalled list for Committee - (11 Mar 2026)
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, debate on this group, as with every group thus far in the Bill, has been extensive and in depth. We have heard from around 19 noble Lords on over 70 amendments. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not believe that it would be an effective use of your Lordships’ time for us to summarise the excellent contributions made across all Benches by many noble Lords. The relevant points have been highlighted. We welcome the opportunity to hear from the Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to understand their position on the proposals that we have all listened to with interest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, as with the groups on 27 February, I have structured this speech by grouping amendments by theme rather than taking them in order. This is in the interests of dealing with them as quickly as possible. If anything needs a longer explanation then I will take interventions, but it would be a more effective use of time if noble Lords wrote to me so that I could try to give a fuller and more detailed explanation.
I will begin with some observations about the legal implications of some of the amendments, then outline what the Government see as operational workability issues presented by some of the amendments. Finally, there will be some brief drafting considerations. I shall continue to limit my comments to amendments on which the Government have major legal, technical or operational workability concerns. I remain happy to write to any of your Lordships who have further questions relating to the workability of any amendment and will place a copy in the House Library.
The Government’s position remains that it is for Parliament to consider the policy. I will therefore not provide a government view on the merits of any proposed changes or make any observations in a personal capacity. When we were last in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, raised how the Government plan to implement this Bill; she was not alone in doing so but she mentioned it specifically. We have not undertaken detailed implementation work as that would precede the parliamentary process. Should Parliament pass the Bill, the Government will undertake detailed work to develop a delivery model and on workforce planning, engaging with stakeholders and delivery partners, including the judiciary.
I turn first to legal considerations and specifically the compatibility of some of the amendments with the European Convention on Human Rights. The articles in question are Article 6 and Article 8. I turn first to Article 6 risk. There are four amendments in this group which, in the Government’s opinion, may interfere with a person’s right to a fair trial under Article 6. The first is Amendment 499, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, which would introduce a route to annulment of a certificate of eligibility where material circumstances have changed. However, it requires further detail about the process, so it is difficult for us properly to assess it at the moment.
The Government have concerns that Amendment 498, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, would prohibit any further referral to a panel where the commissioner has previously dismissed the individual’s application to review a panel decision. This has the potential to breach Article 6 in circumstances where a material change has subsequently arisen.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
The Minister will know that I will discuss later why I do not think that the legislation should apply to Wales, and that the Welsh Senedd should make the decision. I tabled the amendment because, at the moment, the judge does not have to be a judge from this country. As far as I can tell from the Bill, it could be a judge from anywhere in the world who has served under the common-law process.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am sure that the House will welcome that clarification from the noble Baroness, but it may be that there is a drafting issue, because the amendment refers to England rather than England and Wales, and there is no such creature as a member of the senior judiciary from England only.
Finally in this group, the Government have concerns that Amendment 929B, also in the name of the noble Baroness, may have an impact on the operability of an assisted dying service by placing apparently arbitrary limits on the resourcing of the panel when the demands of that service are, as yet, unknown.
I turn now to groups of amendments dealing with assisted dying review panel proceedings and powers. Amendment 463, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, would require the commissioner to assess the procedure adopted by every individual assisted dying review panel. That would remove any flexibility for the panel to deviate from procedure, should it seem appropriate to do so for either inquisitive or compassionate reasons associated with the case.
Amendment 464, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, would give the panel the same powers, privileges and authority as the High Court. The powers of a High Court judge are significant and wide-ranging. They are set out across statute, court rules and the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The Government think that some of them, such as the power to imprison for contempt, are not the sorts of powers that your Lordships may feel are appropriate for such a panel. Without more clarity and detail, it is impossible to assess whether this kind of extension would be appropriate, and it would be extremely difficult to apply in practice. In the view of the Government, the amendment ought to set out which powers, privileges and authorities it is intended to capture.
Regarding Amendments 495B and 941A, both in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, your Lordships may wish to note that requiring the panel to identify and provide a report on unmet social or palliative care needs is not within its remit, nor would the panel necessarily have the knowledge of local service provision or the expertise to make personalised recommendations on social and palliative care. Such a report therefore risks containing inaccurate or incomplete advice.
I turn to panel referrals and capacity. Amendment 445, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, seeks to ensure that the panel is independently satisfied that the person seeking assistance has continuously had capacity from the point of their first declaration. Your Lordships may wish to note that the amendment is likely to cause major workability concerns. It would be extremely difficult for the panel to determine whether the person had capacity throughout this period, rather than just at the point at which the capacity assessment is made. Moreover, it might result in people being excluded because of temporary, brief periods of incapacity. For example, a person would not have had continuous capacity if they had had an operation under general anaesthetic during this period.
On panel decisions, Amendment 496, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, would mean that a person cannot apply for their case to be reconsidered on the basis that the decision was irrational. That would be unusual, as the elements of the existing test under Clause 18 reflect the three primary grounds applicable in judicial review proceedings and are part of a recognised set of legal principles applicable to decision-making. If a person wished to challenge a first panel’s decision for being irrational, which is a term of art in legal proceedings, they would still be able to do so via judicial review. That would create an inconsistency in forum that would need to be justified.
Amendment 496A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weir, would add failure adequately to consider evidence relating to disability-related vulnerabilities to the grounds under which, where a panel declines to grant a certificate of eligibility, the commissioner could refer a person’s case to a second panel. Your Lordships may wish to note that failure properly to consider relevant information would already be captured by the irrationality ground for reconsideration set down in Clause 18(2)(b). Similarly, a decision that was inconsistent with equality legislation already engages the first ground of challenge in Clause 18(2)(a), because it would contain an error of law.
I have taken rather longer over this than I had intended. Noble Lords will be delighted to know that I am nearly there. The final part is on drafting considerations and Amendment 490. If your Lordships support any of these amendments, the Government may need to revisit the drafting to ensure clarity and coherence with the statute book. To give one example, Amendment 490, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, contains some ambiguous terms that might need tightening up. In the interests of time, I will not go into more detail, but I am happy to discuss further with the noble Baroness in due course. Having taken rather longer than I had hoped, that is it from the Government on this group.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Actually, I have further questions of clarity from the Government’s response. In the amendment that I tabled about His Majesty’s Counsel, the Minister mentioned workability concerns about there not being enough people. I would like to understand whether the government proposal suggested that amendment to the Bill’s sponsor. Do the Government have any consideration about alternatives I proposed during debate, where, instead of King’s Counsel, we could have people such as deputy court judges or other sorts of judges? In the two weeks since we last discussed this matter, have the Government considered that?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
As a general point, the Government merely point out workability concerns and do not suggest ways in which they might be remedied. That would be a matter for the Member who tabled the amendment to discuss with the sponsor of the Bill. So no, we have not come up with any proposals because—I am sure that the noble Baroness is sick of me saying this—we are neutral on this. We just point out where we can see difficulties with the amendment as drafted.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Did the Government propose, on workability grounds, the suggestion in Schedule 2 that King’s Counsel should be included? It may be that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, can answer that, but a constant theme has been trying to understand what the Government have suggested in their private workings with the sponsor of the Bill, which they will not share with the House. Did they suggest this as a way to make it workable? That is what I am trying to get to the bottom of.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I am going to have to write to the noble Baroness about this, because I do not think I can answer it. My noble friend the sponsor will deal with the question of panels. If this question is actually about the assistance given by the Government, I refer to my previous answers, but I will write to the noble Baroness on her specific point.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, in the course of this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred movingly to the death of her parents. I pay tribute to her courage and her contribution.
I will deal with the groups of amendments in themes. First, I will deal with appointments to the panels. The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, through his Amendment 925A, said that there should be a proper appointments procedure. I agree with him that there should be a proper appointments procedure. The Bill currently places the obligation of the appointment of panel members on the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. That is in Clause 4(4)(b) and in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2. I believe that that is adequate. The voluntary assisted dying commissioner must have a proper process. I have faith that he will do that, and the law will require him to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, also proposes that the Judicial Appointments Commission make the legal appointments. Remember that one of each of the panels would have to be either a judge or King’s Counsel. I am not in favour of that. My noble friend Lady Levitt indicated that there were problems with that, but I have a more principled objection: we are dealing here not with judges but with members of a particular panel, so I do not think that this is either appropriate or necessary.
Victims and Courts Bill
Baroness Levitt ExcerptsTuesday 10th March 2026
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Victims and Courts Bill 2024-26 View all Victims and Courts Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 141-R-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (9 Mar 2026)
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her Amendment 1, which addresses the thresholds proposed in the Bill. As she knows, we on these Benches have similarly expressed concern about the proposed threshold. This restricts the effect of Clause 3 to offenders sentenced to four years or more. Given the evident consensus against the current threshold, we on this side look forward to the Minister’s response.
Amendments 2 and 3, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, raise interesting and entirely reasonable points, revealing potential gaps in the present legislation, so again I look forward to what the Minister will say.
This brings me to Amendment 4, in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. It seeks to extend the safeguarding framework in Clause 3 so that it applies to those convicted of the most serious child cruelty offences—and I emphasise “cruelty”, as it is not just about sexual offences. It should be noted that in respect of the Crime and Policing Bill we understand that the Government have tabled a new schedule, which lists child cruelty offences, taking the step of treating sex offenders and child cruelty offenders analogously. Our amendment uses the very same definition of child cruelty, so it is wholly consistent with the Government’s thinking.
Our amendment asks the Government only to take the same stance in this Bill to ensure that the parental responsibility of offenders is restricted when serious child cruelty has been committed. If the Government are not inclined to support this, we ask why. I ask the House again, regarding parental responsibility, why should our response to a child who has suffered cruelty differ from cases where a child has been sexually assaulted? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government appreciate that this group of amendments is driven by a desire to safeguard the children who are, quite rightly, at the centre of these difficult and sensitive cases. As I said in Committee, this aim is one I share.
Amendment 2, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks to apply our proposed parental responsibility measures to as yet unborn children. There are complexities to this, because there are three distinct groups of as yet unborn children who would be caught by this measure. These are as follows: first, a child who has been conceived as a result of the rape of the victim by the defendant, but who is as yet unborn at the date of sentence; secondly, a child who has been conceived but is as yet unborn when their father is sentenced to four years’ or more imprisonment for a child sex offence; and, thirdly, a child who will be conceived at some point in the future but has not yet been conceived. Different considerations apply in relation to each.
We thank the noble Lords and the noble Baroness for their amendment because, in the course of our consideration of it, we have realised that an unborn child who has been conceived as a result of rape is not covered by Clause 4, as currently drafted, to which the noble Lord, Lord Russell, referred. As my honourable friend Minister Davies-Jones said in the other place, safeguards are in place through the family courts which could restrict parental responsibility in these cases, but it is a serious gap in Clause 4, and I have asked my officials to look further at this and consider how we can best protect this group of children. This is complex, and I cannot address it today, here and now, but I will write to your Lordships with an update on this as soon as I can.
The second group, to which I have already referred in outline, consists of women who are pregnant by a man at the time he is sentenced to four or more years’ imprisonment for a child sex offence. I appreciate that these children are likely to be at the same risk as the living children for whom he already holds parental responsibility. Again, in relation to that category, I have asked my officials to consider what approach may be possible in these cases.
It is the third group covered by this amendment that causes us difficulties. It refers to any or all future children of someone who has received a four-year sentence for a child sex offence, in perpetuity. This would cover a child conceived, say, 50 years after that sentence had been imposed and served. It is this last cohort of children that is the reason the Government cannot accept this amendment. We cannot know what the circumstances of each case will be for future children, particularly when decades may have passed between the sentence and their birth. We cannot, therefore, be sure that we are acting in the best interests of a child who may not be conceived for many decades hence by automatically preventing the offender acquiring parental responsibility.
It is important that I restate what has already been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton: these measures are not an additional punishment for the offender. The point of them is to offer rapid protection to the offender’s existing children who are deemed to be at an immediate risk, right then and right there, in the Crown Court. That is why under the Government’s proposals, the restriction can and should happen automatically, at the point of sentence—but a child conceived many years later is a much more complicated and challenging proposition. In general terms, the proper place to make decisions about the welfare of future children is in the family court, so in most cases it is the family court where these applications should be determined.
As I have said before, criminal court judges do not have the training, the experience or, frankly, the time to consider, in each individual case, whether the restriction of parental responsibility is in the best interests of that particular child. That kind of consideration should be made by the expert and experienced judges of the family court—judges such as the much-respected noble Lord, Lord Meston—who will have the benefit of reports from, for example, expert social workers. It is self-evident that this kind of determination cannot be made in advance of the child’s birth, possibly many decades in advance.
Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and probably other noble Lords are aware, parental responsibility can be acquired in multiple ways, and while it may be the noble Lord’s intention that this amendment should apply only to parents who automatically acquire parental responsibility, it would not prevent an unmarried father obtaining parental responsibility for future children by being named on the birth certificate if the mother wished to do so. It is a fact that not all mothers accept the guilt of their partners, even post-conviction and sentence. This would create a situation in which some offenders could never acquire parental responsibility for a future child without a separate order being made, while others could. That would be a significant inconsistency in the law which we cannot accept. For these reasons, we cannot accept this amendment, but again I thank your Lordships for bringing to my attention cases where the mother is pregnant at the time of sentencing. Those unborn children require protection, and we will look at how best to provide it.
I turn to Amendment 3, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, but spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Russell. This amendment seeks to create mandatory bail conditions preventing defendants contacting children for whom they hold parental responsibility while they are under investigation or awaiting trial on bail. We all want to ensure that children are protected when a parent has been accused of a serious sexual offence, but the Government cannot accept this amendment. Existing legislation already provides the police and courts with powers to impose robust bail conditions, which can include requirements not to have any unsupervised access to children and not to live and sleep at an address where children are living, and it is absolutely standard for there to be a condition not to contact prosecution witnesses, including children, in a case where those children are giving evidence. If there is a real danger to witnesses or to children, it is very likely that bail will be refused. However, in the real world, there will be some cases in which there is plainly no risk to the suspect’s children, so to remove the judge’s discretion would probably be incompatible with Article 8.
As the law stands, there are no mandatory bail conditions of any kind for any type of offence. To start introducing them would restrict the important discretion of the police and courts to apply conditions on a case-by-case basis to address real risks. It would also interfere with the presumption of innocence and the presumption of entitlement to bail, both of which underpin our whole criminal justice system. The amendment also seeks to impose a condition which would require the accused to disclose the nature of any bail conditions imposed to the family court while they are under investigation or on trial if there are existing children proceedings. The joint protocol on the disclosure of information between family and criminal agencies and jurisdictions already provides a clear framework for the sharing of information, so there is no need for such a statutory provision. For these reasons, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
I now turn to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I have had a number of very useful conversations with the noble Baroness, whom I greatly admire, and I understand the aim of this amendment. I think and hope that she understands that I share her wish to protect as many children as possible, but Clause 3 is not a marker for when parental responsibility should be restricted; it is about when such a restriction should happen automatically at the point of sentence—that is to say, without the usual consideration by the family court. Any individual who poses a serious risk to children should not be able to exercise parental responsibility, but to restrict it automatically, we must be certain that the restriction is in that child’s best interests. The seriousness of the offences in scope of our measure, marked by a sentence of four years or more, ensures that we can be confident, in those cases, that that is the case.
That is not to say that an offender who has committed sexual offences against children but has received a sentence of less than four years’ imprisonment cannot or should not have their parental responsibility restricted; in some cases, that will be exactly what should happen, but an application to restrict parental responsibility can then be made to the family courts in exactly the same way as it can be now. They will consider all the circumstances of the case and make a decision in the child’s best interests.
Amendment 4 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, seeks to introduce an automatic restriction on the exercise of parental responsibility for offenders convicted of child cruelty and sentenced to imprisonment of four years or more. The Government believe the aim of this amendment is sound and principled; child cruelty offences are heinous, and we all wish to protect as many children as possible, so we understand why the noble and learned Lord seeks to extend the Government’s measures.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, reflects a commitment to ensuring victims are entitled to free transcripts on the route to verdict and bail decisions and conditions that are relevant to their case. In Committee, we supported the broader amendment, which included sentencing remarks as well. On the amendment now before us, which includes transcripts of the route to verdict, our position has not changed; if anything, we are even more supportive, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this matter to Report.
Similarly, Amendment 16 in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst is also designed to enhance access to important transcripts without charge, this time focusing on sentencing remarks. I will not rehearse the arguments and evidence for this, as we have all heard the benefits and how it would help the interests of victims and underlines our open justice system.
We have listened carefully and, after further thought, have revised the amendment that we brought forward in Committee. While we have not changed our position on this amendment focusing on sentencing remarks, the amendment now gives the relevant victims the right to anonymity rather than non-publication. In addition, it still requires the court to make victims aware of this right before sentencing remarks are published. With this crucial and pragmatic safeguard in place, we hope that the House finds this to be a well-considered and reasonable amendment that focuses on how this will work in practice and not only on the principle of transparency, on which I believe we are all agreed. In these circumstances, I intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 16.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for their constructive engagement on the subject of court transcripts over recent weeks.
As the noble and learned Lord said, there is nothing between us on the principle of increased transparency for criminal court proceedings. As your Lordships will know, the Government recently announced that we will provide free transcripts of sentencing remarks for victims whose cases are heard in the Crown Court; it is one of the provisions of the Sentencing Act. Delivering this new entitlement is a significant operational undertaking. It is essential that we get it right, so that victims can receive the information they need in a timely way. However, the new proposals in the amendments in this group, taken either individually or together, would put that commitment under strain.
Through her Amendment 5, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, wants to include an entitlement to transcripts of bail decisions and the route to verdict. There are two difficulties with that. First, providing transcripts of bail decisions would involve extra resource. Transcripts are not free and producing even those for short hearings, if extended across England and Wales, would be expensive. Secondly, it would not provide significant benefits over and above the systems already in place. Transcripts on bail decisions are rarely informative for victims; they usually just set out the decision—where the judge says either that bail is granted and lists the conditions, or that bail is refused, with rarely any kind of reasoned judgment—and, as I said, they would come with cost implications. Under the victims’ code, victims already have the right to be informed of bail outcomes and release conditions.
We recognise that, when information is not provided in a timely or consistent way, this can cause distress and anxiety for victims and add to what is already a difficult experience. The experiences spoken to in Committee by the noble Baroness is clearly not what we expect or wish—nor are they, I am pleased to say, the norm. We are currently exploring how responsibilities under the victims’ code are being met by the relevant service providers and how better to support them in the delivery of the code.
We will also seek victims’ views on access to bail information and whether current processes are working correctly, through the ongoing victims’ code consultation. To strengthen that further, the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 will introduce a compliance framework requiring criminal justice bodies to keep their delivery of the code under review. Therefore, legislation needed to drive improvement in notifying victims of bail conditions is already in place.
Because this amendment arrived only yesterday, I have not had an opportunity to discuss the question of routes to verdict with the noble Baroness, but I think it is possible that she may have been misinformed about what a route to verdict is and what it consists of. It is our view that a route to verdict is unlikely to add significant, or indeed any, value for victims. It is usually a very short document; in most trials, it is typically about 10 lines long. Very rarely would a route to verdict be longer than two pages. It sets out a few questions that the jury should ask themselves in private, when they are applying the law to the facts of the case. However, the jury never gives its answers to those questions because we do not have reasoned judgments in criminal trials. Therefore, the victim will not be any wiser as to what the answers were; they would simply know the questions that were asked. These routes to verdict are almost always—unless the printer is broken—provided to the jury in hard copy, so a transcript is not needed and would add nothing.
The noble Baroness also raised concerns in Committee about victims being asked to leave the courtroom after giving evidence. I agree that this is a real issue and should not happen. I give the noble Baroness my assurance that I will work with the appropriate officials to ensure that victims understand that they are generally entitled to remain in court if they wish to do so and that arrangements—such as the use of screens or remote observation, so that they cannot be seen and do not have to see the person they accuse—can be made in some, if not all, circumstances. This is a practical and immediate step that we hope will make a real difference to victims’ experience without requiring further legislation.
Amendment 16 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would require the Crown Court to publish transcripts of sentencing remarks within 14 days of a request for such remarks being made. Publishing sentencing remarks online is significantly more resource-intensive than simply providing them to the victim.
Public release demands a higher standard of anonymisation to remove both direct and indirect identifiers of victims and witnesses. Jigsaw identification is where a number of apparently innocuous pieces of information, when put together, particularly by people who have some knowledge of the local area, for example, can in fact lead to the identification of the victim. Even something such as the location of a shop, if there are people around who know it, could tell them who the victim is.
That kind of anonymisation is detailed and skilled work. Current AI-based tools cannot reliably carry out anonymisation for the complex and sensitive material heard in the criminal courts. The cost of getting it wrong is profound. It requires trained staff manually to review each transcript, and research suggests that it takes around 45 minutes of staff time to review every hour of a transcript before publication is possible. That means that even a modest increase in publication volumes would create disproportionate pressures in operational capacity in the Crown Courts, which cannot take any further pressure.
Furthermore, requiring the court to make the victim aware of their right to request anonymity, to make the appropriate redactions and to publish the transcript online within 14 days of any request is just not viable. Our priority must be delivering the sentencing remarks for victims, as set out in the Sentencing Act, properly and at pace, before taking on any further changes that could undermine or delay that work.
Finally, I would like to reassure your Lordships that we have listened to what was said in Committee, and work is already under way to improve the transcripts application process to make the system more accessible for all users. I thank your Lordships for raising these important issues. We all agree about the principle of transparency; the only issue between us is the best way to deliver it. We believe these issues can be and are being addressed through non-legislative means, and I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, if content, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the Minister for their contributions. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his support of our Amendment 5. We on our Benches absolutely agree that his amendment helps the interests of victims’ right to anonymity, and we are very grateful for that. As he said, it is practical.
I preface my reply to the Minister by saying that through these amendments we are seeking to ensure that the problems that victims have at the moment are resolved. The difficulty we have is that we are being told it is all too expensive, difficult and complicated. I have been sitting in your Lordships’ House for at least six years getting that sort of response. Victims are very grateful for the pilot that has gone through on the sentencing notes, but the issue is that there are other things that victims need to hear.
We appreciate that there are significant issues that need to be resolved, but it was only through pressure from your Lordships’ House during the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Act that we got the pilot that is now being rolled out. I really hope we can convince the Government that they should do another pilot to at least look at some of the issues that either my amendment or the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, tackles, because we believe that to be important. However, in the meantime, because we think that this is just too far in the future, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, the important amendments in this group address real issues for victims and victim support. Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, seeks to introduce independent victim navigators on a national basis to act as a liaison between the police and victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. The principle behind this amendment has force. Victims of these offences often face complex barriers to accessing support. To navigate the criminal justice system can be daunting for those who have experienced exploitation or coercion. This specific service is needed. The amendment reflects recommendations made by your Lordships’ Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee. We on these Benches therefore hope that the Government will give careful consideration to the proposal, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Amendment 7 in the name of my noble friend Lord Polak, introduced so eloquently by him and echoed by my noble friend Lord Farmer and others, likewise focuses on strengthening the framework of support available to victims. It places a duty on relevant authorities to commission sufficient and specific services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and child criminal exploitation. The principle that victims should have access to appropriate and specialised services is widely shared across this House. To ensure that support provision responds to the varied needs of victims, including children and those with particular vulnerabilities, is an important objective. My noble friend’s Amendment 7 also draws on the recommendations made by the Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee. It seeks to translate those recommendations into a more structured system of support. These are serious matters that deserve careful reflection. We hope that the Government will consider the intent behind this amendment with that in mind.
Amendments 11 to 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, address different but no less important aspects of victim support. They include support for caregivers of victims, access to restorative justice services, and the assessment of their use. Each of these raises serious issues about how the criminal justice system supports victims and those adversely affected by crime. It is important to do something in this direction. They highlight questions around the availability of services, the role of restorative justice and the broader framework through which victims are to be assisted. They all deserve serious consideration. Again, I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 6, in the names of my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, would require the Government to implement independent modern slavery victim navigators in every police force in England and Wales, and would also define their functions.
The Government welcome the interest shown in modern slavery and in providing assistance to survivors. I am grateful to my noble friend for meeting me to discuss the issue, and I was pleased to meet Eleanor Lyons, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. I have also been extended an invitation irresistibly put by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I hope that I can respond in an equally irresistible manner by saying that of course I will make a commitment to meeting, particularly since I think that I am committing my noble friend Lord Hanson to doing so, rather than myself. If, however, it is me, I shall be delighted to meet Restitute and, indeed, would be genuinely interested to do so.
I am sorry to disappoint noble Lords, but the Government cannot accept this amendment because it would duplicate existing services, so statutory funding is not an effective use of taxpayers’ money. We are not saying that victim navigators, who are widely valued, cannot or should not be used. They are already successfully funded through police and crime commissioners, through central government grants such as the Ministry of Justice’s victims fund and through charitable donations. Of course local areas can continue to use them: it is right that each local area should determine their value and provide funding if it is appropriate to do so. Each police force, and other law enforcement bodies, such as the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, has the autonomy to fund a victim navigator if it is considered a necessary resource to help it carry out its functions.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I will start first with Amendment 8, in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier but introduced so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. The amendment seeks to insert a new clause. It would require a review of how domestic and overseas victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences could be better compensated. Crucially, such a review must look into how this can be done without the need for civil proceedings, which we all know would be drawn-out, expensive and not always fruitful. I have supported this concept since my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier first started arguing for it: certainly as long as I have been in the House and since I was a member of the Select Committee inquiry into fraud four years ago. Something must be done.
We hope that the Government have given this serious consideration since Committee and I look forward to hearing from the Minister what steps the Government are taking to address the issue and whether conclusions will be reported to Parliament. Warm words—which we have heard—butter no parsnips. We on this side want to hear that something will be done. If it is true that a review has been offered that will report in 2028, that is far too long. As Mr McEnroe would say, “You cannot be serious”.
Amendment 14 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, also addresses an important issue that we should not overlook. The amendment creates a clarification to support recognition of certain forms of online-only child abuse. It would bring them into the scope of recognition of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. We can only ask, “Why on earth not?” As I said in Committee, the scheme must keep pace with the way in which and the places in which criminal activity now takes place. We look forward to hearing an update from the Minister.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 8, in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Marks, has been spoken to most persuasively, as ever, by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I too join him in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, for his ongoing commitment to this matter. I am sorry he is not in his place today, but he and I met recently with my noble friend Lord Hanson to talk about this in more detail.
There is a review and it is a priority for all of us, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, for his continued drive to champion victims and his expertise in this matter. The Government take the compensation of victims of economic crime very seriously. We are committed to ensuring that, wherever possible, funds are taken from criminals and returned to victims. As I have said on several other occasions and will not repeat now, there are several existing mechanisms that enable compensation for victims of economic crime. We accept that they are either not used sufficiently or they do not go far enough.
The Government have an existing public commitment through the UK Anti-Corruption Strategy 2025 to review UK policies and procedures for compensating victims of foreign bribery. There is a review; it is comprehensive and I have happy news for the noble Lord, Lord Murray: it is not 2028 but 2027—and that is next year. I understand the desire of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, to see this matter addressed as soon as possible and I completely understand his frustration, which he has expressed both in this Chamber and privately when we met, but given the existing review and the other current and future measures, the Government do not believe that it is appropriate for a legislatively required review to be introduced at this time.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
Given the incidence of appeals where initially it was ruled that it was not a crime of violence but, on it being investigated further, it was acknowledged that it did count as a crime of violence, can the Government request that that be looked into more carefully and closely? The incidence of such crimes, which may or may not be viewed as crimes of violence, is increasing rapidly. Clarification from the board as to what criteria it is using, so that those who have suffered have a much clearer idea of whether that might be included, would be extremely helpful to them and save a lot of time and anguish.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I will certainly take that away and write to the noble Lord. A number of things are in issue here. For example, I do not know how many appeals across the board are successful. It may be that it is a greater number for this category of cases; it may be a smaller number. I simply do not know, so I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive response on the question of a review. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, was grateful for the meeting. Our continuing frustration is about the timescale. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, and I are very pleased to hear that 2027 is there rather than 2028, but we both know that that is next year and that now is March 2026. We would be even more grateful if there were a commitment to finish the review and produce results this year, because almost undoubtedly for a comprehensive scheme there will require to be legislation. That takes time, as we all know, and therefore the sooner that we can get on with this the better it is. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, these amendments clearly touch on important issues about victim safety, transparency and access to information. Amendment 10 raises an interesting question about how the victims’ code applies where a close relative has been killed abroad. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on that proposal.
With regard to Amendment 15 in my name, the victim contact scheme needs to be extended here, given that some offenders convicted of violent and sexual offences may now receive sentences much lower than before. It is important to consider whether victims in those circumstances will be adequately supported and informed. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that amendment as well.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I begin with Amendments 9 and 15 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, which seek to extend the eligibility for the victim contact scheme. As far as Amendment 9 is concerned, as I said in Committee, victims of coercive or controlling behaviour, stalking and harassment are already eligible for the updated scheme regardless of sentence length. Victims of violent and sexual offences, and of dangerous driving, where the offender receives a sentence of less than 12 months’ imprisonment will be able to request information through the new dedicated helpline.
The Bill already includes a mechanism for providing information about an offender to victims of any offence, irrespective of sentence length, where probation considers them to be at risk of physical or psychological harm if they are not given such information. However, the Government have a duty to safeguard taxpayers’ money and to ensure that it is used in the most effective and proportionate way. Our approach targets finite public funding on those most in need of the proactive contact through the victim contact scheme, while still providing the helpline for all victims to request information. Any expansion of the scheme would require diverting public funds from other essential parts of the criminal justice system.
That said, we will keep the eligibility under review. The Bill includes regulation-making powers for the Secretary of State to amend the list of offences and the specified lengths of sentence of such offences, which determine eligibility for either scheme. The Government believe that secondary legislation is the much more effective way of being able to tweak the scheme should it prove to be needed, rather than requiring primary legislation, which, of course, is much more difficult to deal with if it has an unintended consequence. Each of these amendments contains a requirement that information should be communicated in a timely and sensitive way. Of course this matters, but we believe that this is best achieved through guidance and training, not primary legislation.
Finally on the subject of these two amendments, I reassure your Lordships that we will be monitoring the scheme through the victims’ code compliance framework under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, which will include an annual report. With this in mind, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
I turn next to Amendment 10 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I thank them both for their tireless work for victims and for continuing to raise this important matter. We have had a number of helpful and constructive meetings about this, and it is common ground between us that, when the unimaginable happens and a relative is a victim of homicide abroad, the help available to their families and loved ones can be patchy. We know that, and we all agree that it is not good enough.
As is so often the case with the noble Baroness’s and the noble Lord’s amendments, we agree entirely on the objective, but there is perhaps less consensus about the right way forward, because we think we can do this a better way. In addition—as the noble Baroness knows because I have discussed this with her—we are worried about unrealistically raising the expectations of victims’ families at an enormously sensitive and difficult time for them. The difficulty with this amendment, attractive though it may seem, is that many of the provisions of the victims’ code cannot and do not apply to most homicides abroad, because they cannot be prosecuted in the UK. In cases where the offence can be prosecuted in the UK, the code already applies.
Many aspects of support in these cases depend upon overseas judicial systems, which fall outside the scope of the victims’ code. Including them in an appendix risks creating unrealistic expectations. At a very stressful and dangerous time, we do not want families, who have had a quick look at the code and were not able to take in all the detail, to have the impression that they are guaranteed support and then to feel let down because decisions are made by foreign authorities over which the UK has no control.
Police in England and Wales can become involved only if they are formally invited by the relevant overseas authority. For example, under right 6 of the current victims’ code, victims have the right to be told by the police when key decisions on the investigation are made. However, in cases overseas, updates and access to information are determined by the processes and timelines of the foreign jurisdiction. This means that fixed reporting requirements, such as those in the victims’ code, cannot be guaranteed.
That said, we are all in agreement that these families can experience particular challenges navigating overseas criminal justice processes. For that reason, the Government published the victim-facing guidance in January 2026, and I am pleased to hear from the noble Baroness that she regards this as a good start. It brings together clear and accessible information for families in these difficult situations, setting out the services that can support them and directing them to the help that they need. As the new victims’ code is developed, we will review what further signposting information can be included to support all families bereaved by homicide abroad. Our feeling is that it should be a bespoke thing, rather than being tacked on to a victims’ code, most of which will not apply. The code consultation went live on 5 February; we are interested in encouraging everybody to contribute to it.
In addition, the newly updated organisational roles and responsibilities document, published in February 2026, sets out how the FCDO, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Ministry of Justice, the Chief Coroner and the coroners service will work together when a British national is the victim of murder or manslaughter abroad. While every case is considered individually, this document seeks to ensure a consistent level of service for bereaved families.
Within this, the Homicide Service can and does support families bereaved by a homicide abroad, including emotional and practical support, such as by covering the cost of translated documents. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will not be surprised to hear that I cannot confirm anything today about the long-term future and budget of the Homicide Service. I am sorry that I cannot do that here and now, but I am sure she understands.
When the Bill was in Committee in this place, I heard concerns that families accessing Homicide Service support for translated documents are not always having a consistent experience. In the delivery of the next multi-year Homicide Service contract from April 2027, the Ministry of Justice will work with the provider to look again at how translation services are provided for this group of victims. We want to ensure that their needs are properly met when documents require translation and that this is reflected in the contract.
In addition to addressing concerns from Members of your Lordships’ House, the FCDO will review and refresh the training provided to consular staff on supporting families bereaved by homicide abroad.
Finally, I am grateful to the office of the Victims’ Commissioner for engaging with the FCDO and other agencies through the murder and manslaughter working group, which brings together stakeholders from across government, policing and the third sector to share expertise, align efforts and drive meaningful improvement. Where appropriate, the FCDO’s senior officer for global consular services will offer to meet the Victims’ Commissioner herself, or her representative, when particular issues arise that merit further discussion. I have already put the Victims’ Commissioner in touch with those representatives whom the noble Lord and the noble Baroness met at our meeting.
I turn finally to Amendments 17, 18 and 19 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. Before I move on to the operational issues that concern the Government, there is a drafting issue, so I first must raise a technical point. These amendments apply only to new Sections 44F and 44K in Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Bill. Those sections apply where a restriction order or restriction direction is not made. In Committee, noble Lords indicated that their concern is with cases of homicide—entirely understandably—but, in such cases, the offender will almost certainly be a restricted patient. Those victims would therefore be eligible for the victim contact scheme and would not need to request information through the helpline. The provisions updating the victim contact scheme are in Part 1 of Schedule 2, so the amendments as drafted cannot achieve their aim. I believe that noble Lords are more concerned about homicide cases, which would not be covered.
However, I turn to the wider points of principle. I listened carefully to the contributions made in your Lordships’ House and to the powerful arguments made to me by Emma Webber and Julian Hendy of Hundred Families, whom I was privileged to meet. I entirely accept that these three amendments are motivated by a desire to improve the provision of information to victims of mentally disordered offenders, but the challenge we face is not a legislative gap. The most effective way to secure better outcomes for victims is to ensure that clinicians have the understanding, confidence and tools to get it right first time. That is not achieved through more primary legislation, nor through complex, costly bureaucracy; it is achieved through improving decision-making in the first place, increasing awareness and embedding a clearer understanding of responsibilities—ensuring that there is not a knee-jerk defensiveness about supplying information.
That is why I am pleased to announce that we will be bringing forward a comprehensive capability-building programme with three core strands. First, we will make sure that clinicians understand their duties. To do that, we will work together with the Department of Health and Social Care to update the statutory Mental Health Act code of practice. We are going to add victim liaison requirements to the NHS secure service specifications, introduce a detailed joint protocol for clinicians and HMPPS staff and work with the Caldicott Guardian Council to support guardians’ role as expert information advisers to clinicians. Secondly, we will improve victim liaison officers’ understanding of this complex area and provide training to bolster the role of specialist mentally disordered offender victim liaison officers. Thirdly, we will produce victim-facing materials to explain clearly what information is and is not usually provided to victims of mentally disordered offenders. These will also explain the routes by which they can make a complaint, including if they did not receive the information they expected.
I consider that these measures will significantly improve the consistency of information provided to victims, and I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Russell, not to press his amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I am sorry, my Lords; I had not actually spoken to Amendment 9, as may have been noted, so it rather passed me by that it was for me to respond.
Having heard from the Minister, it is certainly my intention to support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which she will be moving.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I have relaid the amendment on the victim’s right to review in the event of discontinuance of proceedings. Amendment 23 would extend the period that a case can be discontinued in the Crown Court to bring it in line with the magistrates’ courts. This would mean that the CPS could discontinue a case at the Crown Court, with the option to reopen it following a successful victim right to review application, if it concludes that it made an error in stopping the prosecution.
I was grateful for the Minister’s response in Committee, when she explained that this amendment would mean wide-ranging implications for both victims and defendants. I have relaid it because I hope that she will be able to clarify the timescale for the Government’s response to Sir Brian Leveson’s important report on wider court reforms and improving efficiency. Perhaps even more importantly, will this issue of a victim’s right to review be, at the very least, included in discussions in the MoJ in the context of Sir Brian’s report and the wider court reforms? While appreciating that all of this may take time, there is a pressing and unequal arrangement at the moment. We will, I suspect, continue to lay amendments on this and to question Ministers in the future.
My noble friend Lord Marks has supported Amendment 20 on private prosecutions, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. As he said, we will support the Conservatives if they should choose to divide on it.
Amendment 29, laid by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, would create exemptions to the early release scheme for sex offenders and domestic abusers. In Committee, the Minister referred to enhanced supervision when offenders of sexual crimes are released—that is, the use of tags and bail conditions that can impose wide restrictions on an offender visiting or travelling in areas that pose risk for the victims. That is as it should be. However, the proposers of this amendment say that it has not been working well in recent years—I have to say that includes when they were in power. If that is the case, can the Minister tell me how we can then protect victims from their offenders?
I want to ask whether those convicted of stalking and coercive control would be included in the category in Amendment 29, given that they are now included in the appendix of relevant serious crimes covered in the victims’ code and are exempt from automatic release after recall, such as breach of a protective order.
Having asked these questions, we are minded to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, if he should decide to test the opinion of the House in due course.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I begin with Clause 12. There are two points that I want to make at the outset: the Government’s motivation for introducing this provision is not to save money, and we do not wish there to be a chilling effect on private prosecutions. Indeed, we are supportive of the long-standing right to bring a private prosecution and we recognise the important part such prosecutions play in the criminal justice landscape.
Expenditure on private prosecutions is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has already said, a very small proportion of overall Ministry of Justice spending. But what matters, regardless of the scale of expenditure, is clarity, consistency, proportionality and value for money. The Justice Select Committee, in its 2020 report Private Prosecutions: Safeguards, invited the Government to take a closer look at the private prosecution landscape, particularly where public funds are engaged. An enabling power as in Clause 12 allows us to do precisely that, in a careful and evidence-led way. The Justice Committee highlighted three key principles which should underpin reform. These are: first, addressing the disparity between defence resources and those of private prosecutors; secondly, safeguarding the right of individuals to bring a private prosecution; and, thirdly, ensuring the proportionate and responsible use of public funds. We agree with the Justice Committee about these principles.
At present, there are no prescribed rates for private prosecutors recovering costs from central funds, which is public money. This results in significant uncertainty, with the courts and the Legal Aid Agency required to assess claims case by case, often by reference to civil guideline rates and leading to disputes, appeals and judicial reviews, adding to costs and delay in the courts. The courts play a vital role in overseeing private prosecutions and have made a number of important changes, but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said during debate in Committee, this is a matter with which the Government have to grapple. The question of the amount of costs recoverable in principle is a matter of public policy and it is appropriate that such policy decisions are made by a democratically accountable officeholder, rather than developed incrementally through case law. The enabling power in Clause 12 ensures that any framework adopted has a clear statutory basis and is subject to parliamentary oversight.
The majority of private prosecutions do not result in any claim on central funds and will be entirely unaffected by this measure. Moreover, most private prosecutors are assiduous in applying the full code test set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors and in their overall conduct of the case. But there is some evidence that, at the margins, the near certainty of substantial costs recovery may cause private prosecutions to be pursued which are either disproportionate or an unsuitable remedy, when the issue in dispute is essentially one which requires a civil law adjudication.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, this has been a thoughtful debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and her supporters for their work on these issues.
On Amendment 21, I reiterate the sentiments expressed in Committee and by many noble Lords across the House from all parties. In light of the appalling Post Office scandal, keeping in mind the increasing use of artificial intelligence, the need to remove the presumption of reliability for computer evidence is now clear. The noble Baroness has responded to some of the concerns expressed in Committee in bringing forward this redrafted amendment. I commend her attention to this issue.
My concern is that the Government have had long enough to look at this. Their call for evidence closed on 15 April 2025, so I look forward to hearing from the Minister where we are now, given that the call for evidence is a year old. I am sure she will be anxious to update us on that.
I understand the basis for Amendment 22, but I have some reservations about its detail. There is an issue about the objectivity of the conditions listed in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause. I would certainly be interested to hear more about how the court should consider who is suitably qualified to give evidence about
“linguistic and artistic conventions and the social and cultural context of the creative or artistic expression”.
It is an important area, but it is also a difficult one that will repay further consideration.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 21 in the names of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and a formidable trio of other Members of your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who is not in his place, is extremely important. I really mean it when I say I want to thank my noble friend, both for tabling it and for the work she has done to refine it since Committee. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Beamish, all of whom have given up their time to meet me during the last two weeks to discuss this amendment to try to get it right. I know the entire House wants to thank the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and my noble friend Lord Beamish for their ceaseless championing of the victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal. It is thanks to them that we are here taking the steps we are today.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly. I put my name to both amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which we first laid in Committee. In essence, what the Minister said when she wound up this group in Committee was “We are listening and I am making a listening speech”. I hope that, even though she has been on her feet for much of today, she is still in listening mode. I do appreciate, as I think we all do, the way she has approached both Committee and Report; it is a refreshing change from some experiences one has had in recent years. I look forward to what I hope will be a positive “listening” response.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I express my thanks to Claire Waxman, the Victims’ Commissioner, and to Tracey Hanson and Katie Brett, who have campaigned with great commitment on behalf of victims.
In Committee, much was said on all sides about the importance of the unduly lenient sentence scheme in ensuring consistency. As all who participated know, it is not an appeal for victims who are dissatisfied by the length or type of sentence: rather, it is a legal safeguard, exercisable by the Attorney-General, to correct sentences that fall outside the appropriate range. As such, it is a constitutional safeguard vested in the Attorney-General as guardian of the public interest, not a mechanism for anyone to relitigate sentencing. That said, victims will often play a vital role in drawing cases to the Attorney-General’s attention for consideration: we recognise and indeed encourage that.
As is generally known, the time limit is a strict one: 28 days with no exceptions. The Government are aware of and have listened to the comments of the victims and those supporting them, who have long complained that the system just is not working for them; in particular, that they are often not told about the ULS scheme; and, in any event, 28 days is not long enough.
Against that background, I turn to the amendments concerning the time limits, in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Sandhurst. Your Lordships will be aware that the Government had been considering tabling their own amendment to increase the time limit. As I said in Committee, we hoped to bring something forward on Report. Today, I take up the invitation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, to set out why we have not done so.
This is fundamentally a Bill for victims. Unsurprisingly, victims have told us that they want to be listened to by the Government. Both victims and the Victims’ Commissioner have told us clearly that increasing the time limit to 56 days would not address the problem they face. They have told us that any time limit, whether it is 28 days, 56 days or 365 days, is meaningless if they are not informed about the ULS scheme in the first place.
Plainly, all victims should be told. There are mechanisms in place for doing so, but we have heard enough from victims to make it clear to us that there are occasions on which this is not happening. To paraphrase what I said today in an earlier group, a right is not much of a right if you do not know about it.
To the victims, I say: we have heard you and we will continue to listen. The victims asked us not to bring forward our amendment extending the time limit to 56 days, and so we have not done so. This explains why we cannot accept Amendments 24 and 25.
I turn to Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I thank her for not only raising the issue but for the positive and constructive talks we have had. As some of your Lordships may have gathered, the noble Baroness and I have been spending rather a lot of time together over the last few weeks. I have enjoyed every moment, of course. I can understand why it is felt that an exception from the strict time limit would be a good thing, but there are a number of issues with it, and I will try to deal with these briefly.
First, it seeks to treat a symptom of the problem rather than tackling the cause. The underlying problem is that some victims are apparently not being told about the ULS scheme. The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to address that by creating a mechanism to bypass the time limit if that happens. But this Government are not here to patch up the symptoms; the Government’s view is that we must address the root cause—victims are telling us that they are not being informed—rather than create a mechanism that responds only after the problem has occurred.
The second issue is the question of what exceptional circumstances would mean in practice. The Government’s concern is that the amendment will be self-defeating, because “exceptional” has its ordinary meaning—something unusual, not typical—and cannot be exhaustively defined in legislation, but something that is not genuinely unusual cannot be described as exceptional. Given that the noble Baroness’s reason for tabling the amendment is, regrettably, that victims do not get told about it, if they are not told, it cannot be exceptional. This is very likely to apply to the very cases that would not be able to take advantage of the law. I hope the noble Baroness will understand why the Government cannot accept the amendment and that she will work with me and my officials as we look to address the real issue: ensuring that victims are notified of the scheme in the first place.
Amendment 30 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, would require a public consultation. The Law Commission did exactly this. The Law Commission has held a public consultation on the ULS scheme, including specific questions about the 28-day time limit. Holding another one would be a waste of taxpayers’ money. I hope your Lordships will join me in looking forward to the commission’s final report when it is published later this year. The Government will, of course, consider its findings carefully.
I turn briefly to the remaining amendments, which seek to place a statutory duty on a designated government department or the Crown Prosecution Service to notify the victims. Again, there is no issue between us about the fact that the Government need to ensure that every victim is told. I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve, but I want to persuade her that there is a better way of doing it.
The amendments seek to create a duty which already exists. Police in witness care units are already responsible for informing victims about the unduly lenient sentence scheme. Using primary legislation to try to make people do what they are already required to do is not the best way of going about things. These amendments impose a duplicative statutory duty, potentially with different timeframes or differing lines of accountability. It must be self-evident that this risks confusion rather than clarity, particularly where concurrent statutory duties could blur operational responsibilities. The fear is that the victims might actually, as a result, end up worse off.
I therefore ask your Lordships to work with us, the Victims’ Commissioner and the victims themselves to get to the heart of the issue and develop practical, workable improvements to notification and awareness. We want every victim to be properly informed, in good time, so that they can exercise their rights with confidence. Our focus is on fixing the long-standing problems with notification rather than changing the time limits themselves.
We already have the commitment of the Attorney-General’s Office, the CPS, the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs’ Council to work closely with us to improve awareness of the scheme. They have all urgently assessed what actions can be taken in their respective areas. There is a quite a detailed plan.
Given the time, I will undertake to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, rather than read out the next four pages of my speech, for which I do not think anybody would thank me. For these reasons, I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I thank the Minister for her explanation and understand that she is giving further consideration to this issue. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Assisted Dying Legislation: Isle of Man and Jersey
Baroness Levitt Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bassam of Brighton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to enable legislation passed by the Tynwald of the Isle of Man and States Assembly of Jersey allowing assisted dying to receive Royal Assent in a timely fashion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, since receiving the Isle of Man’s Assisted Dying Bill, we have engaged with its authorities, in line with the UK’s responsibility for its international relations. This includes ensuring compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. Advice on Royal Assent will go to the Lord Chancellor in due course and, when we receive the Jersey law, we will follow the normal process of scrutiny in a timely manner.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. We are in an odd position—are we not?—on the assisted dying Bill. The Isle of Man has legislation in place, the Welsh Assembly has just approved a legislative consent Motion, the States Assembly of Jersey has agreed a Bill and the Scottish Parliament will shortly follow. Yet, after nearly nine months and 180 hours of consideration in our Parliament, we are still stuck on Clause 3 of a 57-clause Bill. Given that 73% of the public back the Bill, is not the position of the Bill’s House of Lords opponents beginning to look rather odd and, frankly, out of touch?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend knows, the Government have been clear that we are neutral on the topic of assisted dying and the passage of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. It is a Private Member’s Bill and my noble friend the Chief Whip has made it clear that there will be no government time given to the Bill in your Lordships’ House. It is for your Lordships to determine the progress of the Bill.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, before Royal Assent has even been granted to Jersey’s Bill, a Deputy has tabled a Motion calling for assisted dying to be extended to non-terminally ill people with unbearable suffering. In reply, the Health Minister has said “Now is not the time, but it would be appropriate to consider extending the law as part of the three-year review of the Act”. Does the Minister not agree that this demonstrates that the terminal illness criterion is no cast-iron guarantee, but is simply the mission creep that many of us have warned against concerning our legislation?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, the Crown dependencies are self-governing jurisdictions with their own democratically elected Parliaments. The UK is not responsible for looking at the content or the policy of any legislation that they pass, but merely for checking that it is compatible, for example, with the European convention. I am certainly not going to say anything that would change the Government’s position of neutrality in relation to the Private Member’s Bill that is passing through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, the process leading up to advising on Royal Assent is one in which the UK Government examines island legislation to see if it has unintended effects in the United Kingdom. Is that process being gone through and, if so, how, given that we do not know what the Government’s position would be on such fundamental questions as whether assisted dying would be provided within or outside the National Health Service, and all the dependencies rely on specialist medical help from hospitals in England?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
At the risk of repeating myself, the Government do not look at the merits of the legislation that they receive in relation to the Crown dependencies: these are stand-alone pieces of legislation that do not affect the position the Government take in relation to the Private Member’s Bill before this House.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, in addition to the assisted dying legislation in the Crown dependencies of Jersey and the Isle of Man, there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, observed, also legislation coming forward in Scotland and, quite distinctly and separately, in England and Wales. If assisted dying becomes lawful in one jurisdiction of the United Kingdom but not another, can the Minister explain what UK-wide framework has been developed to manage the legal, ethical and medical consequences of that divergence, or are we in danger of creating for the United Kingdom a fragmented regime in this most ethically sensitive issue, without any agreed cross-border protocol?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I understand why the noble and learned Lord asks that question, but it would be entirely premature of the Government to work out what the situation is going to be, since we do not know whether or if that Private Member’s Bill will pass through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I oppose the principle of assisted dying and I think that the current Bill is very flawed. However, I also regret the fact that your Lordships’ House has not been able to actually have votes on some of the key elements within the Bill. I think there are many noble Lords who regret the way this Bill is being conducted.
My noble friend says the Government are neutral, which I fully understand, but, in the current circumstances, surely the Government need to think about how Parliament can be helped to come to some conclusions. Surely, we would start with a vote in principle in the Commons. If it is in favour, the Government should produce a Bill that would allow us to have proper scrutiny. Will she at least consider a way forward that enables us to come to a proper conclusion?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, I do not know how many more ways I can find to say that the Government are neutral on this Bill. My noble friend the Chief Whip has made extra days available on Fridays: we still have four more to go. How that time is used is a matter for your Lordships’ House, bearing in mind that the position of the Government consistently has been that this is a question of conscience and not a matter for the Government.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, how are the Government considering the proposed legislation in the different areas to be safe within the European Convention on Human Rights, given that we have already heard that Jersey’s euthanasia is proposed to extend to those who are not terminally ill and that the deficits in the infrastructure of the Isle of Man Bill have already been identified? There is ongoing discussion about the Bill proposed in Scotland, which looks quite different, and the Welsh Assembly gave legislative consent to only some parts of the Bill, under the impression that, if it did not, it would have no control whatever over how the legislation was enacted, given that health is devolved to Wales.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. She has asked for quite a lot of information and we may have to write to her on that. I can certainly speak about what happened in relation to the Isle of Man. We have the Isle of Man for assistance on the Bill’s reliance on codes of practice for the implementation of pre-death and post-death reviews. We also asked for assistance on the training and guidance of healthcare professionals, specifically around safeguarding against potential coercion. The Jersey Bill has not arrived with us yet, but I repeat that the merits of the legislation are not a matter for this Government.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, set out in the Ministry of Justice’s communications with the Isle of Man, there are a number of concerns with the legislation there that are very similar to the concerns that many of us have with the Bill before this House, and many amendments have been put down to deal with those concerns. We would be making faster progress if the sponsor of the Bill would engage seriously with those concerns and accept some of the amendments that have been put forward by those who want to make the Bill better.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
Can anybody think of another way for me to say that the Government are neutral in relation to this Bill? And I am certainly not going to comment on matters that are for the sponsor.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that respecting the settled will of the legislatures of the Isle of Man and Jersey on matters within their domestic competence strengthens the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the Crown dependencies? Will the Government therefore commit to publishing clear criteria and timeframes for the granting of Royal Assent?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
The most recent communication from the Isle of Man—the latest information—was received at the end of January. Officials are now preparing advice for the Lord Chancellor. It would be completely inappropriate for me to comment on either the timing or the content of that advice.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
My Lords, notwithstanding the Government’s determined position of neutrality, which the Minister has rightly said she has repeated many times, would she not accept that, once Royal Assent is given to the procedures and the Acts in Jersey and in the Isle of Man, there will be an extraordinarily unsatisfactory patchwork of provision across the United Kingdom for assisted dying, and therefore it is particularly important that the Government should make sure that the Bill before your Lordships’ House is properly completed?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
I still cannot think of another, better way of saying it. I think it would be rude to my noble friend to say that I refer her to my previous answer, but I am afraid I do.