Youth Justice

Debate between Baroness Levitt and Baroness Brown of Silvertown

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

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

Burial Provision in England and Wales

Debate between Baroness Levitt and Baroness Brown of Silvertown

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[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.

Court Reporting Data

Debate between Baroness Levitt and Baroness Brown of Silvertown

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I reassure your Lordships’ House that all journalists can access the information in exactly the same way as they could through Courtsdesk—it is just a slightly more complicated method: they have to go through HMCTS. The point about Courtsdesk was that it provided a slightly more convenient method, but there is no material that journalists could get then that they cannot get now.

Secondly, the agreement with Courtsdesk, which was a licensing agreement rather than a contract, was entered into by the previous Government as a pilot, which is why it applied to magistrates’ courts only. This Government decided that it might be better to make it available to more than one commercial company. We are in the process of looking at new licensing agreements, which lots of companies can bid for if they wish to, including Courtsdesk if it would like to do so. Anybody who can reassure us that they will treat our data with the respect and dignity that victims and defendants deserve will probably get that licence.

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

My Lords, I know my noble friend the Minister will agree that it was utterly unacceptable for the company concerned to release personal information about vulnerable victims and witnesses without their permission or the permission of the department. As she knows, I am not a lawyer, but does she consider this to be a breach of the contract made with the previous Government by the company concerned?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. In fact, there was no contract; it was a licensing agreement. Our view is that there was a clear breach of the licensing agreement, and that is why we were concerned. The real issue is Courtsdesk’s lack of candour with us when this came to our attention. If there was no problem, why did Courtsdesk not ask us about it or even tell us that that was what it was doing?