Burial Provision in England and Wales
Debate between Lord Meston and Baroness Levitt(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Humanist Weddings
Debate between Lord Meston and Baroness Levitt(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Age of Criminal Responsibility
Debate between Lord Meston and Baroness Levitt(3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
With the greatest respect to my noble friend, that is quite a lot of questions in one. I can confirm that the UK complies with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Making international comparisons in this area can be imprecise, and some of our international partners are lowering their age of criminal responsibility. For example, Sweden is proposing to reduce its from 15 in response to an increase in gangs recruiting children to commit serious offences precisely because they know they cannot be prosecuted. We make every effort to keep children out of the criminal justice system unless it is absolutely unavoidable.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, have the Government made any assessment of the carefully considered change enacted in Scotland in 2019, when the minimum age was raised to 12 with the intention of protecting younger children from earlier criminalisation and exposure to the criminal justice system? Does the Scottish experience not increase confidence for similar reform in England and Wales?
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, there are certain cases where the offending is so serious that a criminal justice response is required. For example, everybody in your Lordships’ House will remember the case of the killing of James Bulger, in which two 10 year-olds were involved. The important thing is that every effort is made to keep children out of the criminal justice system unless it is absolutely necessary to monitor them and to contain them in the public interest.