Cohabitation Rights Bill [HL]

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 17th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath) (Lab)]

My Lords, before we begin the debate, I remind the House that the advisory speaking time is four minutes for Back-Bench contributions. This is to allow all colleagues to participate fairly and the House to rise at a reasonable time around 3 pm.

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

My Lords, this is not the first time I have introduced a Bill in this form that closely follows the Law Commission recommendations for financial relief for cohabitants in 2007, and for improving a cohabitant’s position on the death of an intestate partner in 2011.

However, we now have a real prospect of achieving worthwhile reform for cohabitants. That is because this Government made a manifesto commitment to strengthen the rights and protections available to women in cohabiting couples. As part of fulfilling that commitment, on 5 June the Government opened a consultation on a set of proposals they were considering. It is due to close on 14 August and is very good news for those of us who have long sought reform in this area, including a majority of practitioners, judges and the specialist family law associations, including Resolution, the Family Law Bar Association and others.

Why is there a need for reform? The House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee reported in 2022 that there were an estimated 3.6 million unmarried couples cohabiting in the United Kingdom—roughly a fifth of all couples and well over double the figure in 1996, 26 years earlier. Yet, although cohabitation is so widespread and increasing so quickly, nearly half the public still believe that cohabitation over a period, or a couple’s having a child, gives rise to a so-called common-law marriage, bringing with it financial rights if they separate. This false understanding, the common-law marriage myth, is just that—a myth. There are, in reality, virtually no financial rights protecting cohabitants who separate.

It is true that couples can enter into formal cohabitation agreements to regulate their financial affairs, providing for ownership of assets and for the consequences of separation. But very few couples make them, and if they do not, they are thrown back on outdated and unwieldy trusts law, by which a partner can claim a share in the property that is in the name of the other, if—but only if—they can establish that this was the joint intention of the parties. Even then, the shares are difficult to determine. There is also an entitlement to child maintenance, but even that is limited in extent, and to secure more requires an application under the Children Act, which is costly and complex, and very few such applications are in fact made.

Currently, one cohabitant, who may have given up a career or home, or both, to live with the other, or invested all their efforts and resources into supporting their partner’s business, home life or childcare needs, is left, on separation, without any recourse. Then, if one partner dies without a will, current intestacy rules provide nothing for the surviving partner. The deceased’s estate, often including the couple’s home, goes to the relatives of the partner who died, often children from a previous relationship who may have no good will towards the surviving partner. So, unless the surviving partner’s name was on the deeds, they get nothing and may be left homeless. There may be a right to apply for some provision under legislation passed in 1975, but that requires proof of dependency.

Both the Bill and the Government’s consultation proposals seek to address this unfairness by providing for financial relief on the breakdown of cohabitation and by reforming what happens on the death of an intestate partner. The two sets of proposals have much in common. Both would require either three years of cohabitation as a couple, whether same sex or opposite sex, or the arrival of a child, before any claim could arise. Both would require that any claim be brought within two years of separation. Both would exclude couples who would be prohibited to marry because of close family relationships. Both would permit couples to enter into formal opt-out agreements, excluding applications under these proposals. Both would allow a broad range of remedies, including property adjustment orders, lump sum orders and pension-sharing orders. The consultation proposals would also allow for maintenance for a limited time in exceptional cases. My Bill would not provide for maintenance orders, although a lump sum could be payable in instalments.

Importantly, neither set of proposals would treat cohabiting couples as if they were married or in a civil partnership. Marriage and civil partnerships have a special status in law and conscience. The consultation considers separate proposals to develop, simplify and clarify financial relief on divorce or dissolution, but those are irrelevant to the Bill. They recognise that marriage embodies a commitment to mutual support and sharing, hence the provision on divorce for continuing maintenance, where income dependence is established. The proposals in my Bill for relief for separating cohabitants are intended to address unfairness and exploitation. Contributions by one partner, who makes financial sacrifices for the other, should carry recompense.

My Bill reflects the Law Commission’s proposals for what it called “retained benefit” to be removed and for any residual economic disadvantage to be shared between the parties. That may seem to some a complicated approach, but it addresses equitably the unfairness of one party profiting from a cohabiting relationship and walking away the richer from it, leaving the other party correspondingly poorer on separation. That is unjust. At worst, it is exploitative, and it needs addressing.

There are, however, two differences of substance between the proposals in my Bill and the thrust of the proposals under consideration in the consultation paper. First, the Government’s proposals expressly mark a step towards fulfilling their manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. I applaud and share that aim. I agree that financial relief for separating cohabitants would support that aim in cases that involve violence or coercion, but these proposals need to be of general application: whenever separation after cohabitation would lead to unfairness and less relief were granted, whether or not domestic abuse is a feature.

The second difference is more significant. Although the concepts of reversing retained benefit and showing economic disadvantage may be overcomplicated—I would readily consider amendments to simplify them—I am concerned that the Government seem to have rejected compensation as a basis for relief on cohabitants’ separation. Their proposals are based only on the financially weaker party’s financial needs. However, the requirement for relief often arises because one party has unjustly benefited from sacrifices made by the other, so that the benefiting party ought, in fairness, to disgorge benefit achieved at the expense of the other. This injustice arises irrespective of need.

To pose an example, a man gives up his lucrative career to look after the party’s child and to work on renovating his partner’s house, all to enable his partner to pursue her acting career. She becomes a successful actor, partly on the back of his efforts. Why should she keep the house and all the benefits of his contributions, for which he gets no recognition? The injustice does not arise from his needs—he may be able to earn a living himself; it arises from his sacrifices for her benefit.

These are interesting issues, on which there may be competing answers. I have not sought to go through all the provisions of my Bill in detail, because what is now important is for the Government to collect and consider the consolation responses. However, I much look forward to engaging with the Minister and the Government on these proposals, and to making progress on this difficult area, where there is now widespread recognition of an unmet need. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has contributed to this debate on a Private Member’s Bill. It is an unusual position that we find ourselves in, with my Private Member’s Bill, which was introduced just after the King’s Speech, and the consultation, which was announced on 5 June. The two are proceeding in parallel, which is unusual, and which is why I did not go into the detail of my Bill. We nevertheless had a very interesting debate, with some very important points being made.

I should start with my friend—he is a chambers colleague as well—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. I welcome his support for this legislation, and his urging the Government and me to see whether we cannot get together to produce a single Bill that perhaps has the best and avoids the worst of the proposals on either side. In so doing, I should make it clear that I see a great deal of merit in almost all the consultation proposals. My doubts about the needs-based scheme and the compensation-based scheme, which the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, explained, can be capable of resolution where there is some case for righting injustice and unfairness, where there is a need for compensation, where one party has been exploitative of the other. That is a real danger; unlike the needs-based regime that the Government are consulting on, this involves addressing the needs of cohabitants who are left.

I also take the point about the other difference that I mentioned between us: the role of abuse and violence in relationships, where the weaker partner is coerced by the stronger partner into accepting a position whereby they have very limited rights. They do not get married, and they are left without resources and often with children. That is, of course, a very powerful argument for the needs-based approach. I hope that we can achieve most of our objectives. The very fact that there is this consultation and that we are going to get legislation is the most important aspect of this debate.

I particularly welcome the support of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, which has been consistent since I first introduced this Bill. I welcome it particularly because, as a member of the Marriage Foundation who is committed to marriage—as indeed I am, and I think all the supporters of this Bill are—she has considered carefully whether there is a risk of an adverse impact on the institution of marriage from proposals for cohabitation support. I agree with and am warmed by her belief that there would be no adverse reaction.

I thought that the noble and learned Baroness and the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, raised a very important point, which the Government are going to consider, about religious-only marriages. I quite understood the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that the United Synagogue may have got it right in insisting on a dual marriage, but there are nevertheless many cases where a religious-only marriage, in a Muslim context, can result in serious injustice to women who are later left.

I turn to the central point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, on autonomy. I accept that autonomy has an important place in English law, but relationships and marriage both develop over time. Many relationships start with cohabitation and then move into marriage, of course, then they adopt the regime that we apply to marriage or to civil partnership. But it is a gradual process, and people sometimes fall into cohabitation without considering either a cohabitation agreement or whether they should opt out of such legal protections as we introduce.

Then children come along, not always entirely expected and not always intentionally, but nevertheless they change the dynamic of a relationship. I believe it is incumbent on society and on the law to keep up with that and to recognise that injustices and unfairnesses can follow and relationships then break down—it can also happen when one partner dies—if the law has not made sure that there are protections in place.

I am very grateful also to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for her reflections on this Bill and her support for it. It is indeed Liberal Democrat policy to have this kind of reform, although I should say that I moved the conference motion that brought that about, so I may take some responsibility for that.

I am hopeful. I heard everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, said in reply. We have had conversations and I hope we will have many more during the course of the consultation. We need to go forward with both for now, and I hope there will be a time when we may come to an amalgamated position.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Early Release Prisoners: Preventing Homelessness and Rough Sleeping

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this debate on a very serious issue that involves a very real tragedy. We have heard that every month about 1,000 prisoners are released from prison directly into homelessness. The Question from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, appears to start from the proposition that early release is an important contributor to homelessness. It may be, but I am not sure we have the evidence on that issue. We do know, however, that any release into homelessness has a very severe impact on released prisoners achieving reintegration. Indeed, it is almost self-evident that they will not, and the stark evidence that there is calls into question our whole strategy.

As my noble friend Lady Bakewell pointed out, the risks of release without a home to go to, away from warmth and company—such as it is in prison—are severe. Prisoners on release risk mental health breakdown and relapse into alcohol or drug abuse, and their risks of reoffending are magnified. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester referred to the “cycle of reoffending”. The noble Baroness, Lady Gill, also reminded us of the cyclical issues that follow unplanned release. Worse still, the risks of self-harm and early suicide are seriously increased by homelessness and rough sleeping. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle emphasised the regional differences on that.

The 31 May article in the Guardian by Jessica Murray, to which both the Library briefing for this debate and the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, referred, told the story of a young man released after serving a 19-month sentence for assault. He was found dead in a house after taking prescription medicines and smoking crack cocaine because nowhere to live could be found for him by the local authority.

Another man of 48 with no known mental health problems could not be found even emergency accommodation on release and was found dead in a woodland after having to sleep in a tent. Another 49 year-old died of a drug overdose five days after release from HMP Swansea with nowhere to live. It is vital that accommodation be found. My noble friend Lady Bakewell is right to emphasise the importance of local authorities in the improvement of release as part of the improvement of rehabilitation. The account from the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, of Hayley’s experience shows how arrangements made by local authorities can fall far short of good practice.

I do not recite all these cases because they are dramatic, but because they are, or should be, at least in part avoidable. As we have heard, under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, prison and probation officers have a duty to refer anyone to local authorities if they are likely to be made homeless within 56 days. That means that preparing for prison release should happen early, as has been stressed by several speakers. There is a requirement for prisoners to give permission for such an approach to a local authority. I ask the Minister: what effect is that requirement having on the proper working of the scheme?

The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, asked about the new duty for prisons and local authorities to collaborate. How will it work in practice? What planning has been done to ensure that the collaboration is real and effective? Will that collaboration be sufficiently resourced? What steps are being taken within the Prison Service and by probation officers to ensure that foreseeable homelessness can be avoided? How much is done before release to ensure that all prisoners have somewhere to go?

The Prison Reform Trust advises prisoners to seek advice from housing advisers or offender managers in good time before release. Given the incapacity of some prisoners, their unwillingness, or even a misplaced optimism when they are soon to be released, what steps can we take to ensure that that advice is tendered in time? Is enough advantage taken of the option for governors to help prisoners pre-release, with payments made directly to accommodation providers for short-term accommodation when that is all that is available?

I will add two points that have come out of this debate. First, there seems to be unanimity that Friday releases must end. They are impractical, dangerous and cause many of these problems. Secondly, I know that the noble Lord is interested in seeking to find arrangements whereby the location of prisoners is suitable for their release. It is no good being released in the north-east if all your family contacts and prospects are in the south-west. Proximity of prisons to family contacts is of crucial importance.

Imprisonment for Public Protection Prisoners

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Noble Lords who know me will know that I do not lack ambition. Although I cannot put any figures on it, I can say that we are doing all that we can. I work with incredibly professional and dedicated teams within the Ministry of Justice. Whenever I go round a prison, I always meet an IPP prisoner; I sit in their cell and talk to them about where they are up to. I sense their hope as well as that of the staff who work with them, because it is very much a team effort.

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

My Lords, the House understands the need to balance risk to the public from release against the injustice to IPP prisoners of their continued detention long after they have served their tariffs. Granted that we are making progress, does the Minister think that we yet have the balance right—even now, 13 years after the IPP sentence was abolished—when, every day, we release prisoners who have served determinate sentences and now need to do so to relieve pressure on space without the need for determination that their release is risk-free?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Release is never risk-free, but we need to balance the opportunity and the risk. I am seeing a much more stable Prison and Probation Service. By that, I mean that we have the right number of people in the right places with the right resources. I have been going round the country doing probation roadshows, talking to probation staff up and down the country about what our plan is to get through to next April, when we will have supply matching demand. Even though the focus of many of these conversations is on prisons, if we do not sort out and support probation—that is where the heavy lifting in the justice system is done—we will never make the progress that we all want to achieve.

Employment Tribunals

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

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

Prisoner Early Release

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

First, I would like to express my sincere sympathy with the victims of all these appalling crimes. Convictions for child sex offences are at a record high, and we as a Government have made grooming an aggravated factor so that perpetrators face longer sentences. Without the Sentencing Act, the courts would be at risk of grinding to a halt, preventing sex offenders and others from being brought to justice. We have acted to avert that crisis. We are delivering the largest prison expansion since the Victorians, with 14,000 extra places by 2031, and we have already delivered 3,100 since taking office. But if we do not tackle this problem of prisons running out of space, we will be back to where we were again. Two years ago, when I first took on this job, there were some very dark days in the Ministry of Justice. When you have fewer than 100 prison places left, that is dangerous for victims and future victims.

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

My Lords, these issues are very difficult, but we share the Government’s determination to ensure that we do not run out of prison cell space as a result of past serious underprovision. However, I have two questions on early release. First, can the Minister say how effectively victims notified of the impending release of their perpetrators are signposted to victim support services, and how such provision can be improved? Secondly, the Minister has often stressed the importance of technology in the context of early releases. How far away are we now from having details of prisoner release arrangements available online in all prisons, including release dates, release locations, tagging arrangements and intended addresses following release, where those are available?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to raise the point about prison building, because we have to keep building these prisons. There is a role for them but there is also a role for technology. I have been keen on pushing technology in all parts of the justice system. I am pleased that we have £82 million going into the justice ID project, for example, and there is a load of AI work going on. In fact, if you walk into the Ministry of Justice and see someone who looks about 19 in jeans and a T-shirt, they are probably one of our amazing AI team, who are making a very big difference.

But it is very important that victims are notified as soon as we know. We work closely with those who sign up for the victim liaison scheme. We have the highest ever amount being invested in victim support services, over half a billion pounds, because we want to work with victims to make sure that they get transparency and all the support—for example, making sure that the exclusion zone is right, and explaining what the electronic monitoring provisions will be. It is important that we work together in the interests of victims, and that we keep investing in technology to improve accuracy and improve speed.

Youth Justice

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome any measures that genuinely and effectively prevent young people falling into a life of crime. Every young person diverted away from violence and offending is welcome. The continued reduction in the number of children held in custody is welcome. The fall from around 2,800 children in custody in 2003 to approximately 1,400 today reflects significant progress across successive Governments. We also recognise that the nature of offending has changed. Cases involving county lines, online exploitation, organised gangs and serious violence are often more complex than those faced by the justice system a generation ago.

However, while some of the Government’s individual proposals in this White Paper may sound reasonable in isolation, a deeper concern runs through the paper. Once again, the Government are at risk of confusing rehabilitation with the dilution of accountability. The White Paper is right to identify young people not in education, employment or training as being at heightened risk of offending. But, if the Government are serious about prevention, they must confront the economic conditions affecting young people across the country. The most effective intervention for many young people is not another review, another pilot scheme or another bureaucratic framework; it is to deliver an economy that can provide them and their families with stability.

There is a reference in the White Paper to reshaping the justice system. The paper records the Government’s proposal to undertake what they describe as a “fundamental look” at the role and purpose of the criminal courts for child defendants. This work will consider whether entirely different court processes should apply not only to children but potentially also to vulnerable adults and young adults. This raises material concerns. If the Government wish to reform sentencing policy to reduce reoffending, that is one debate, but gradually reshaping the philosophical foundations of our criminal justice system itself is quite another.

The Government appear to be intent on treating long-standing justice structures not as constitutional safeguards but as obstacles to be removed or redesigned. We have already seen proposals to weaken jury trial and other proposals designed to keep offenders out of prison. Now Ministers appear to be questioning whether traditional criminal courts themselves remain appropriate for wider categories of offenders. But where does such a process end? Accountability and punishment are being steadily downgraded within a system increasingly defined through the lens of vulnerability.

At this point, I turn to the issue of victims and public confidence. The Government proposed further consultation on the victims’ code, including consideration of a separate code for children. Once again, this Government are drawn towards creating new frameworks and pursuing new consultations rather than improving the operation of an existing system. If there are gaps in protections for child victims, strengthen the existing code. If the Minister believes the current code is unfit for purpose, why was that not addressed during the passage of the Victims and Courts Act just a matter of weeks ago? We must break from a constant cycle of consultation and restructuring. Improving outcomes is not synonymous with endless consultation and the expansion of bureaucracy.

The Government’s underlying philosophy of justice is perhaps laid bare in the sentencing proposals in this paper. For example, they explicitly reject vehicle theft as deserving of a custodial sentence, no matter how many vehicles an individual may have stolen. We do not argue that custody should follow in every case, but sentencing in all cases, youth and otherwise, must reflect individual circumstances. The issue before your Lordships is whether the Government still believe that custody serves any meaningful deterrent or punitive function. The message increasingly appears to be that more or less all young offenders should remain in the community. Once they remain in the community, the Government now stipulate in their White Paper that they

“do not intend on making electronic whereabouts monitoring mandatory”.

So offenders are not to be placed in custody, but nor are they to be monitored. The public are right to ask in these circumstances where the balance is between rehabilitation and public protection.

The White Paper also touches on the issue of remand in respect of young offenders. But the average number of children on remand in England and Wales at any time is now about 183, and some of those may be on remand for their own protection, so I wonder to what extent it is really a major or material issue for consultation at this stage.

The White Paper then turns to the age of criminal responsibility, and it is a concern to see that there is a specific section in the proposals on this issue and the idea that it should be a raised age. The Government state that they will consider a wide evidence base before making a decision on this important issue.

I wonder whether the intended consultation will consider the opinion of the Minister, who declared less than two months ago: “Raising the age risks removing an important safeguard in those exceptional cases where serious offending does occur”, and “setting the threshold too high may have unintended consequences, including the potential for older offenders to exploit younger children who fall below the age of responsibility”. We look forward to considering the scope of the consultation that is to follow.

The fact that this issue now appears in the White Paper inevitably raises questions about the Government’s intention. Ministers may try to present this as a neutral review of evidence, but many may recognise that this is the soft launch of yet another policy reversal. Once again, under the veil of consultation, the Government are moving further away from the important issue of accountability within the justice system.

In conclusion, of course we support the objective of reducing youth offending and preventing young people entering a life of crime—early intervention and diversion have important roles to play within any functioning justice system—but rehabilitation cannot come at the expense of accountability. This Government appear to view punishment, deterrence and public protection as outdated concepts to be eroded, rather than as essential pillars of a justice system. A system in which offenders are neither placed in custody nor monitored when out in the community, where courts themselves are the subject of constant redesign and where accountability is repeatedly softened under the language of reform is not a system in which the public will be able to retain confidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

King’s Speech

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, for his brilliant valedictory speech. He will be greatly missed, both for the warmth of his company and for his combination of erudition and deep understanding, in contributions not only here but to our national debate. He warns us to take care to protect and nourish our constitution—and how right he is.

We also enjoyed two excellent maiden speeches: the philosophical approach of the noble Lord, Lord Case, to the working of our constitution, and the clear commitment to fairness and justice of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, who also reminded us that the sun rises first over Suffolk. Both demonstrated the qualities they will each bring to our future debates.

The Hillsborough law Bill has been a long time coming, but we fully support it. At last, public officials will have a specific duty to tell the truth about mistakes made, unchecked faults and tragedies suffered in consequence. The offences of misleading the public and misconduct in public office should reinforce accountability and reduce the culture of cover-up and self-exculpation that is its very opposite. The increase in legal aid for inquests should also help level the playing field between bereaved families and those allegedly responsible for their loss. We support the principles of the national security Bill and the tackling state threats Bill, though we will always take care to protect individual liberties.

Central to today’s debate has been the emphatic recognition of the scourge, even in our still overwhelmingly tolerant and inclusive country, of widespread antisemitism, so powerfully expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and echoed by the noble Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Pickles, and very many others. The noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, also reminded us of the appalling prevalence of anti-Muslim hostility. The proscription of the IRGC—long demanded by us but resisted in the Crime and Policing Act through three rounds of ping-pong, but now at last promised by the Government—will demonstrate our commitment. As the noble Lords, Lord Cryer, Lord Sherbourne and Lord Stevens of Birmingham, and others have said, the evidence of Iranian involvement in antisemitic attacks in the UK is overwhelming and now unchallengeable.

On SLAPPs, we will support the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, on her Bill to restrict this abuse, and we urge the Government to support her too. We have long called for control of the bullying use of threatened or actual litigation to close down legitimate criticism. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford previously introduced a Bill on SLAPPs.

We welcome the commitment to increased investment in criminal justice, but the proposed restrictions of jury trials are wholly out of kilter with that commitment. The Government claim that the right to jury trial would be only minimally affected. Certainly, 90% of criminal trials are heard by magistrates, including nearly all motoring offences. But the Government’s proposals are concerned with serious offences, however Ministers may try to underplay them. How can the Government justify denying citizens of unblemished record a jury trial for almost any offence of dishonesty? On what criterion is that based? It is based on an arbitrary assessment that a three-year sentence is likely.

As such, a seasoned criminal with a long criminal record is to be permitted a jury trial, while a person of good character—who stands to lose career, family, friends, self-esteem and mental health if convicted of theft—is not. What is the reason? It is because the seasoned criminal is at risk of three years plus, whereas the person of good character is not.

Judges differ. A hearing before a prosecution-minded judge is a world away from a hearing before a different, more sympathetic judge. These differences between judges cannot be eliminated in the essentially human world of judicial decision-making on guilt or innocence. Judges cannot leave their leave their differing classes, lifestyles and racial prejudices outside court, so in these proposals we have the perfect recipe for unfairness and widespread resentment.

The virtue of jury trial is precisely that human differences are largely ironed out by the collective decision-making of a jury of 12 in the privacy of the jury room. Rightly, we never get to know how jury decisions are reached, but we do know that both criminal lawyers and the public at large respect and trust the jury process far more than they do the individual decisions of judges.

Juries are an essentially democratic institution, bringing lay decision-making into our justice system—a point powerfully made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Chakrabarti, and others. Public trust in juries is further enhanced by the racial and gender diversity of juries, and these proposals represent the most extraordinary about-turn by David Lammy, who, in his 2017 review, described juries as a major protection of defendants against racial disadvantage.

The Government rely on the need to reduce the backlogs and waiting times for trials caused by years of underresourcing by previous Governments. Certainly, we must radically cut the backlogs and waiting times to trial. The delays are intolerable, but attacking the system as a response is a desperate counsel of despair. In reality, there is no convincing evidence that these restrictions would indeed reduce waiting times. The Criminal Bar Association has demonstrated that the Government’s impact assessment overstates the cuts in waiting times by a factor of two. The Institute for Government assessed the reduction to be achieved as negligible. Furthermore, no one has been able to cost the extra time to be needed by judges to write reasoned judgments for every verdict, and no one has assessed the likely number of extra appeals from disputed judicial convictions or the extra time they would involve.

We have done so little to tackle the waiting lists by other, more sensible means. We have had an artificial cap on sitting days. That is now thankfully abandoned. As the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, pointed out, that step is already reducing waiting times. Then successive Governments have allowed the court estate to fall into dreadful disrepair, leaving courts unusable and shuttered. We have failed properly to resource sufficient judges or lawyers of high quality to deal with cases efficiently. As Kirsty Brimelow KC, the Bar Council chair, trenchantly argues:

“Priority listing of cases comprising vulnerable witnesses is an approach that’s already been shown to reduce delays in those cases. There is growing evidence that the Crown court backlog is being brought down simply by the action of opening up closed court rooms”.


Then we have pre-trial systems that are inefficient and often paper-based when they should be digital. We regularly have cases adjourned and days wasted for lack of counsel to represent the parties because the work is paid too little to be viable. We still have the absurd position that defendants in custody are being brought to court late or not at all, causing lost court days. The combination of all these inefficiencies has brought judges’ average sitting times per day down from 3.8 hours to 3.2 hours since 2016-17. Restoring that to 3.8 hours, an increase of 18.75%, would massively outweigh any possible cut in waiting times from these proposals.

Furthermore, all these trials have to be paid for eventually, so the cost of accelerating trials is only deferred by delays, not avoided. The exception is that it is sadly true that some victims feel driven by despair to abandon cases because the waiting for trial is interminable, but that is clearly not an acceptable way of saving money.

The Liberal Democrats propose for courts to sit on two trials in a day, with different judges and juries in two sessions, for 3.5 hours or so in the morning and the same in the afternoon. The current sitting day of 4.5 hours or so is about the maximum length for witnesses’ and juries’ concentration, and lawyers’ preparation for the next day. With two sessions a day, juries would work half days, so jury service would be less of a burden. Court staff and buildings would be better used. About 50% more trials could be heard. The increase in immediate cost would be offset by savings later. Two-session days were successfully trialled during Covid and greatly increased the throughput of trials. So-called Maxwell hours—single-session, four-hour days—worked for the Maxwell fraud trial in the 1990s.

There is much else we can do. Some minor offences could be redesignated as summary-only, triable only by magistrates. Some complex fraud cases could possibly be tried by judge alone if the defendants consented, which in some cases they might. But there really is no argument for hacking away at the jewel in the crown of our criminal justice system in a fruitless exercise that will be profoundly damaging when there is so much else that could be done.

Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

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

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am going to intervene very briefly to say that it is good that an agreement has been reached on the difficult issue of the processes and arrangements relating to private prosecutions. As with many of the other issues we have discussed during the passage of this Bill, private prosecutions are a complex issue, and not one that can be resolved swiftly or even with a clause or two on the face of the Bill.

I thank the Minister for meeting my noble friend Lord Marks and me on a number of occasions during the Bill to discuss how we can set in place mechanisms to ensure that the Government’s changes will not have surprising or unintended consequences. My noble friend Lord Marks will talk about the details of those changes, which he proposed to the Conservatives at the previous stage of ping-pong; their amendment then reflected his proposal, for which we thank them.

I welcome the government proposals in Motion A. Amendment 4D includes the two key elements of any effective organisation: that there is data to inform decisions—in this form, an impact assessment that would be published—and that the Lord Chancellor must consult the Law Society, the General Council of the Bar and others considered appropriate. I hope that the Lord Chancellor will not use these methods just once. My noble friend Lord Marks has identified core action that will work elsewhere in the court system, where reform may well be needed.

As we come to the end of this Bill, I also want to put on record the support and help of Elizabeth Plummer in our Whips’ Office, and the many individuals and organisations who have worked with us, especially the offices of the London Victims’ Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman. We would not be where we are today without them, and I thank them.

Finally, I want to return to the discussions with the Minister. During the passage of the whole of the Bill, her officials have been enormously helpful and her personal willingness to discuss, both publicly at the Dispatch Box and privately in meetings, speaks volumes about her approach. I thank her for that and look forward to working with her again.

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

My Lords, I repeat and echo all the thanks that my noble friend Lady Brinton has just made to the Minister, her officials and all the others who have helped with this Bill. I was going to say this at the end, but I shall say it now—I am also enormously grateful to and in awe of the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, during the course of this Bill. Her dedication and thoroughness on issues that have concerned her and on which she has worked for many years has been awe-inspiring. Principally, I echo her thanks to the Minister for meeting us and, in particular, for meeting me after the first round of ping-pong last week to discuss our concerns. Notable has been the way in which she has recognised the risk of deterring private prosecutions by introducing inappropriate regulation of costs, and the way she and her officials have framed government Amendment 4D to Clause 12, laid in the Commons, which government Motion A today addresses.

Last Wednesday, we sought consultation on the regulations proposed by Clause 12 and an impact assessment and, as the noble Baroness rightly points out, a response to that impact assessment was also sought. On consideration, and after the discussions we have had, we are completely content that the consultations proposed involving the Law Society, the Bar Council and anyone else the Lord Chancellor believes should be consulted, meet the need for consultation on the regulations proposed.

Importantly, the Government have agreed to publish an impact assessment, and I accept the assurances that that will be thorough and worked-through. The fact that we originally sought a response to an impact assessment may have reflected a procedural misunderstanding. I take the Minister’s point, however, that the response will be apparent when the regulations, such as they are proposed, are in fact made and the response to the impact assessment will be reflected by the Government’s laying of the regulations.

I also take the point—as do the Government—made last Wednesday by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that there may be some urgency to the introduction of such regulations, and that insisting on a government response to an impact assessment beyond publication of the proposed regulations may delay them. So we are quite content with the steps taken, or to be taken, by the Government. Crucially, however, no regulations will be made before the consultation and the impact assessment are complete. That is the most important point. This is going to be a meaningful exercise in consideration of what needs to be done.

Granted, the Government have not conceded the affirmative resolution but, following a favourable consultation and a positive impact assessment, I accept that that is a secondary consideration. I also accept the points made by the Minister on proportionality. We are content that the Government have met our concerns and we will support Motion A.

Having mentioned my thanks to my noble friend Lady Brinton, I also extend my thanks to others in this Chamber, including those on the Conservative Front Bench, who have been helpful in achieving what is now a much better Bill than the Bill that came to this House.

[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.

Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

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

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion D1 as an amendment to Motion D. I begin by thanking the Minister for Motions E and F, which are an important step forward for victims. They provide for more time to submit an unduly lenient sentence application and create an exceptional circumstances clause when it is in the interest of justice to do so. Motion F will ensure that the victims’ code is amended to ensure that victims are notified of their right of access to the ULS scheme—an issue that unfortunately has acted as a barrier to the scheme in previous cases.

I must confess I am a little surprised to see Motion E in the name of the Minister. She said in response to my own amendment on Report:

“The victims asked us not to bring forward our amendment extending the time limit to 56 days, and so we have not done so”. —[Official Report, 10/3/26; col. 244.]


I wonder whether that is still the view of the victims now that we have an extension to six months.

Motion D1 in my name concerns the issue of private prosecutions and, while it is not my intention to repeat the debate in Committee and on Report on the importance of private prosecutions for charities or for dealing with the scourge of shoplifting, we on these Benches continue to harbour serious concerns about the manner in which Clause 12 is drafted. It was therefore unfortunate that the Government have not acted on any of the arguments raised by me, my noble friend Lord Sandhurst or the noble Lord, Lord Marks, with regard to these issues.

The Government have stated that, before any rates are set, there will be extensive engagement with stake- holders and a full public consultation, yet Clause 12 as drafted will give the Government the power to cap the amounts payable for prosecutors for their costs prior to any consultation actually taking place. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said on Report,

“that is the wrong way round”.—[Official Report, 10/3/26; col. 224.]

We on these Benches agree with that sentiment entirely.

However, as the Government have cited financial privilege as a reason for opposing our amendment to leave out Clause 12 from the Bill, I have instead tabled Motion D1, which contains two amendments in lieu. The effect of these amendments is threefold and seeks to mitigate the consequences of Clause 12. First, they would ensure that an impact assessment is launched on the potential effect of Clause 12, with particular regard to its consequences for charities and victims regarding access to justice. That need is underlined by the observations that the Minister made about there being some reservation about the way in which private prosecutions are being pursued. It is only appropriate, therefore, that these matters should be addressed. Secondly, my amendments would ensure that the Government publish a response to that impact assessment before they exercise the regulatory-making powers under Clause 12. Thirdly, the amendments would ensure that such regulation is subject to the affirmative procedure of both Houses, which is entirely appropriate in these circumstances. The Government have said that they have no intention of exercising the regulatory powers under Clause 12 until after their own public consultation, so I see no reason why they should oppose these amendments. They have been drafted with transparency and open justice in mind. If it is the Government’s intention to resist these simple amendments, then I will seek to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

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

My Lords, I turn first to the issue of private prosecutions, which is the contentious area in this group. I say at the outset that we on these Benches agree with Motion D1, and the Amendments 4B and 4C in lieu, proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen.

I start with a brief general point that we have made before. Private prosecutions are important, particularly against a background that police and other prosecuting authorities often have insufficient resources, or in some cases insufficient will, to investigate and prosecute offences themselves. It is wrong that decisions to invoke the criminal law should be exclusively in the hands of the state and its agencies. Private prosecutions offer a way for commercial organisations and for charities and others to bring prosecutions. That is important in the cases of shop theft in particular, but also in cases of fraud against charities and in other criminal matters. It is essential, however, that those who bring such prosecution successfully should be able to recover their reasonable costs. Otherwise, we risk their being deterred from doing so by having to bear the whole cost themselves without the prospect of objectively reasonable reimbursement.

As it stands, Clause 12 looks like an attempt to give the Government power to bring in regulations to limit the costs to be reimbursed. It may be that there are some private prosecutions where lawyers are overcharging for those prosecutions, and if that is the case, and there is evidence to establish that, then there may be some need for further regulation. But as a general rule it is unwise for Parliament to give Ministers the power to make regulations without their first establishing that such regulations are necessary. In this case, there is no hard evidence that we have seen to establish that regulations limiting the recoverable costs of private prosecutions are necessary. Ministers should not be able to bring such regulations into effect to limit recovery of such costs without their first establishing the necessity for such regulations.

Hence, the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord are right, I suggest. They are right to insist that an impact assessment, considering the likely effect of the regulations, and a response by the Government to that impact assessment, are made public before any regulations can be brought into effect. That would mean that Parliament can be properly informed of the need for them. The accompanying amendment, requiring an affirmative resolution, is entirely consistent with that principle, so we will support those amendments in lieu.

I turn next to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. We fully support the Government’s amendments in lieu, and we are very grateful to the Minister for meeting my noble friend Lady Brinton and me to consider our concern about the rights of victims and their families to refer sentences for consideration in circumstances where they have not been informed about the detail of the scheme or have not had reasonable time to consider making such a referral, at a time when circumstances for those victims are traumatic in the extreme.

Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

8: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—
“Compensation for victims of fraud and other economic crimes(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, report to Parliament the findings and recommendations of a review of victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences.(2) The purpose of the report under subsection (1) is to inform Parliament how the Secretary of State will provide for victims of such economic crimes to be compensated without such victims needing to pursue civil action.(3) The Secretary of State must conduct a public consultation on the review, the terms of which must be published no later than 1 June 2026, and which must open on that date and close on 1 September 2026.(4) In this section “victims of economic crime” includes United Kingdom and overseas victims of complex corruption cases where the harm caused by the offending is not easily quantifiable.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires a review to explore how domestic and overseas victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences could be better compensated without the need for civil proceedings to recover their losses or compensation and for the Secretary of State to report his conclusions to Parliament without undue delay.

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

My Lords, noble Lords will remember an amendment in these terms from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, who moved it in Committee. He is the lead tabler of this amendment on Report but cannot be here today, so he has asked me and its other co-signatory, the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, to present the case for it.

The amendment seeks a review of the issue of compensation for victims of economic crimes such as fraud, bribery and money laundering without the need for civil proceedings. Noble Lords will no doubt remember the frustration that the noble and learned Lord expressed in Committee that, after all his years campaigning on this issue and for all the warm words of support he has received from successive Governments, he has not made progress in getting acceptable provisions enacted. The arguments in favour of this amendment are extensive and were extensively canvassed in Committee, so I hope that I will be forgiven for setting them out in reasonably staccato form, without the academic support they received in Committee.

First, the present arrangements for the victims of economic crime are unsatisfactory, and in the vast majority of cases of serious fraud, bribery, money-laundering and other economic crime, very few victims receive compensation. This is particularly true of overseas victims.

Secondly, resort to civil proceedings is difficult and expensive; the costs are often prohibitive. Potential claimants inevitably have difficulties in finding and calling evidence on economic crimes, for a host of reasons—again, which is particularly true of overseas claimants. Successful claimants, even after winning cases, face serious difficulties with enforcement of judgments against fraudsters and other economic criminals—again, particularly overseas victims. Then, fines which are levied as a result of prosecutions in the UK go to government, and a derisorily small amount is awarded to victims in the form of compensation. That is also true in the case of deferred prosecution agreements and arrangements made pursuant to them, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, was active in introducing when he was Solicitor-General.

It was agreed around the Committee—this is the reason for the form of this amendment, both then and now—that it is not yet clear what the best arrangements for providing adequate compensation for criminal cases involving economic crime might be. That is the reason why a review is essential and why the amendment calls for a review. Then, it may be that a new scheme to enable compensation to be awarded in cases involving overseas victims might just involve arrangements to award compensation not only to the direct losers who might qualify as claimants in civil proceedings, but also, or alternatively, to some Governments abroad, some NGOs, or some other organisations which may not be claimants in civil proceedings or even entitled to be so, but may well nevertheless be substantial actual and identifiable losers and victims of such crimes.

It is certainly the case that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, successive Governments have reacted to the call for sensible and fair compensation arrangements for victims of economic crime with warm words but no action at all. So, the need for a review of what should be done to fill this gap is urgent. This is why the amendment has a tight timetable for public consultation, for undertaking the review itself and for a report to Parliament.

Finally, a set of sensible and respected arrangements for providing such compensation would enhance the reputation of this country as a financial centre. We are already leaders in many fields: in insurance, in legal services—including arbitration—the quality of our courts and judiciary, and banking, to name to just a few. Arrangements for proper compensation for economic crime could raise our international standing even further.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to say that I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Marks—not something I perhaps say terribly frequently in this Chamber.

There is one material distinction between the proposed new clause the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, brought forward in Committee and the proposed new clause before the House today. That is in proposed new subsection (3), which requires that

“The Secretary of State must conduct a public consultation on the review, … which must be published no later than 1 June 2026, and which must open on that date and close on 1 September 2026”.


Members of the House might ask why that is so specific. The reason is a simple one: I know that the noble and learned Lord met the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Hanson, to discuss this issue, and was told a review was going to be conducted, but that it would not report until 2028.

Given that this campaign has been going on for some time, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, had a justifiable point in trying to bring forward that date through this amendment. As he rightly said in his Second Reading speech and in Committee, it is important that the United Kingdom Government make it possible for victims of fraud, bribery and money-laundering offences, both here and overseas, to recover compensation from the offending person or company, rather than the fines simply going into the system here in the UK.

There is one final point from the noble and learned Lord’s Second Reading speech that warrants repetition here:

“The African Union estimated in 2015 that 25% of the continent’s gross domestic product was lost to corruption. Every company convicted of overseas corruption in this jurisdiction should be ordered to compensate the communities it has harmed”.—[Official Report, 16/12/25; col. 689.]


Can any of us disagree with that?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 29, which has been placed in this group and is in my name, would exempt sex offenders and domestic abusers from being eligible for early release at the one-third point of their sentence under the new sentencing regime. Across the House, we have already discussed the seriousness of sexual offences and domestic abuse and the need to improve the way these crimes are handled. In Committee, noble Lords were told that most offenders would not be eligible for early release at the one-third point; unfortunately, this is not the case. The vast majority of sexual and domestic abuse offenders will not be serving extended determinate sentences and will therefore be eligible for early release under the present scheme. In these circumstances, unless the Minister can provide appropriate and sufficient assurances, I will be minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendments 20 and 29.

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

My Lords, I will express support for Amendment 20 moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen; my noble friend Lady Brinton will address the other amendments in the group. Amendment 20, to remove Clause 12 from the Bill, may be technical but it is important because the regrettable fact is that, as is now well known, the relevant authorities and the police lack the resources to prosecute all crime reported to them. As a result, a significant proportion of reported crime goes insufficiently investigated and, too often, unprosecuted.

That is true across a whole range of offences, from shop theft to some offences of violence and many cases of fraud. There is therefore a practical need for private prosecutions, and that practical need is complementary to the traditional—and we would say justified—view that it is not and should not be solely for the state to prosecute breaches of the criminal law. It is also open to private citizens and organisations to bring private prosecutions, and that is an important aspect of access to justice.

It is certainly true that there are some cases where prosecutions require the consent of the DPP or the Attorney-General, but those tend to be special cases where Parliament has decided that that restriction is appropriate. An important feature of private prosecutions in this jurisdiction, and of their successfully being brought, is that the prosecution is entitled to recover the bulk of the prosecution costs from central funds by payment at a reasonable rate; the noble and learned Lord has stressed the importance of the reasonable rate.

The noble and learned Lord is right to say that a significant proportion of such prosecutions are brought by charities, including Macmillan and Help for Heroes. Those charities are often the victims of fraudulent schemes. Other private prosecutions are, of course, brought by commercial organisations, notably retailers which suffer substantial losses as a result of theft from shops. They may be commercial organisations, and they may have a commercial motivation for the prosecutions, but as a matter of simple and instinctive justice and a matter of principle, it is not and should not be the sole responsibility of the state to initiate prosecutions. Nor should the state fail to assist financially those who bring meritorious prosecutions against those who transgress the criminal law. When I say assist financially, I mean bear the costs of successful prosecutions, in large part.

The fact is that organisations may be deterred from bringing private prosecutions if their costs recovery is capped at a level that makes them unaffordable or uneconomic. Furthermore, if frauds against charities or offences against others, whether not for profit or commercial, cannot be prosecuted, the prevalence of those offences may be increased, to the general detriment of society as a whole. Yet, Clause 12, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said, would introduce a mechanism for capping the amounts payable to prosecutors for their costs and cannot be read in any other way.

My understanding is that the Government say they will consult on this proposal to cap prosecution costs recovery but want to see a reserved power in this Bill first. We think that is the wrong way round. The Government should carry out their consultation and then, in the light of the consultation, abandon, as we would hope, the idea of a cap on costs recovery or introduce any necessary legislation, following and taking into account the results of the consultation. It follows that Clause 12 is an utterly undesirable clause. It is not worth saving and cannot be saved, and we therefore support Amendment 20, which would remove it from this Bill.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on Amendment 29. During the passage of the Sentencing Act, we discussed the concern about early release schemes for those categories of offenders in some detail. As a result, about two weeks ago, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, kindly had a meeting after the passage of the Act. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner and the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, were there to talk to the Minister about our concerns.

The outcome of that—had I thought of it, I would have spoken to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, to inform him—is agreement by the MoJ to form a working party with the offices of both the commissioners and their teams to review the scheme and the training of the Probation Service and start using some of the expertise of the third sector and its knowledge of the perpetrators and experience of the victims. That will be fed into the training of the Probation Service. There is a very positive move going on within the MoJ which I hope and think will directly address the concerns the noble and learned Lord mentioned when he was speaking to Amendment 29.