Humanist Weddings

Debate between Baroness Levitt and Baroness Whitaker

Monday 16th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Criminal Court Reform

Debate between Baroness Levitt and Baroness Whitaker

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The answer to the noble Lord is yes. These are the matters of expenditure to which my right honourable friend committed himself in the other place, and they will go ahead.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I should declare that my daughter is a recorder. Very many people have put to me a lot of points, and there is just one that makes me want to ask my noble friend a question. I should say that all absolutely recognise the primacy of dealing with the backlog and that there is a clear case for complex, time-consuming fraud cases to go to the judge alone, and for low-level offences to go to magistrates alone. Indeed, I remember from my time as a magistrate that it was in that area where a certain amount—not a huge amount, but some—of gaming of the system went on. My noble friend has outlined a lot of measures which will improve courts, which is one of the problems; I would have hoped that that would solve the problem of the backlog, but clearly the Government think not. Because of the representations I have had, could my noble friend say what consultation there has been on these proposals with judges and with the criminal Bar?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I can reassure my noble friend that the consultation has been extensive. That does not necessarily mean that they agree with us or that all of them agree with us, although I observe—I say this as a practising criminal barrister myself—that it is a profession known for its caution; it is not always, shall we say, ready to adopt new ideas in particular ways. I am confident that once this system has had an opportunity to bed in, everyone will see the advantages.