Prisoners for Palestine: Hunger Strikes

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Viscount is correct. This is a clinical decision, and that is why the work with our prison staff and health partners is so vital.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, to build on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, can my noble friend say something more about continuity of care when prisoners leave prison, whether they have been on remand or been sentenced? I am not talking just about drug addicts, but a whole range of medical issues which need that continuity. Can my noble friend say something more about how he is building on that care?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. It is vital that, because so many people leave prison with drug, alcohol and mental health issues, we carry on that care with our health partners when they leave. I am really pleased that we are rolling out four new NHS neighbourhood hubs working with the probation team. These are based in probation offices so the teams can all work together. I hope to roll that out further. In some ways, it is a bit like the intensive supervision court model—to address someone’s complex needs, you need more people in the room than just probation staff, even though they do a fantastic job. It is where health partners, DWP partners and so on work. On Thursday last week, I was in Southampton meeting the probation teams there. It was clear from what they were telling me that, apart from needing lots more technology and support, it is about being joined up with other government departments, especially health and housing. That joint approach is vital to ensure that when people leave prison, we keep the support around them so they do not come back.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I open by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for so fully setting out his and the other amendments in this group. I agreed with his opening points, and I support all the amendments—I suspect all the speakers in this short debate will support them too. In a sense, they offer a range of possible changes, from a broad review to addressing specific anomalies, which the noble Lord did.

I am absolutely confident that our Lord Chancellor would be very sympathetic to these amendments. I know that he has said in recent speeches that he wants to look at criminal records, and those for young people in particular. That is an excellent starting point, and I hope that the Minister can reinforce that point when she comes to sum up.

Touching on the amendments in my name, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and my noble friend Lord Spellar, who will speak on these matters as well. My Amendment 476 seeks to prevent the automatic disclosure of childhood conditional cautions in a DBS check by amending the definition of a criminal conviction certificate in the Police Act 1997.

My Amendment 477, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, addresses a clear anomaly in the law as it stands. The amendment seeks to ensure that the criminal record for a juvenile is dated from the offence rather than the conviction date. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, these could be really quite far apart, so the way the conviction is treated will be different, because the young adult will be convicted even though the offence was committed when he was a youth.

Amendment 478 seeks to ensure that custodial sentences, except for the most serious sentences, will be removed from an individual’s criminal record after five and a half years if the offence was committed before the age of 18.

Sitting here earlier today and at previous Committee sittings of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, drew something to my attention which I was not aware of involving non-crime hate incidents. He pointed out that, for youths, a non-crime hate incident is treated the same as for an adult, and that means a six-year retention of the information. That is another example of an anomaly, and I hope, when the Home Office comes to report on non-crime hate incidents, it can ensure that that is tied up with the Ministry of Justice considering the way youth convictions are looked at for DBS checks.

I also want to say something about Amendment 486D, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. That is specifically about transport-related convictions of young people. I support what he is going to say, I am sure, but I have to say that, as a youth magistrate for nearly 20 years, I cannot remember ever seeing a young person in court for evasion of a fare. If he has figures—he is nodding his head—I will listen to them with interest, because it is not my personal experience of what I saw in youth court. I tend to see much more serious cases, but nevertheless I will listen to and support what he says with interest.

The overarching point is that this is a difficult area. It is very easy to point out anomalies. I am sure that we have a very sympathetic Lord Chancellor, and I really hope that the Government seize this opportunity to address the overarching issue of the way we treat our young people, so that they are not held back when they go into the adult world and the world of work.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I have been arguing for some years in the House of Commons that the DBS scheme has, frankly, run out of control. I can quote from June 2020, when I said to the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson that it was

“a major obstacle to people turning their lives around. It is inefficient, unfair and, frankly, discriminatory. The Lammy report dealt with this in some depth nearly two years ago, so we do not need any more … inquiries. We need action”.

Reference has been made to the impact in different parts of the country. In smaller police forces, not only are cases often not taken to court but cautions are not issued, and instead people are very informally told to mend their ways. In cities, it can often be very different, and this also still lies on the record. The then Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in his reply to me:

“Any MP will have had very hard cases caused by the DBS system”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/6/20; col. 1309.]


I think there is a general recognition at the political level that this is a problem. I have to say from all my experience that there is deep inertial resistance inside the Civil Service to changing this, and I urge Ministers vigorously to overcome it, particularly given the report done by David Lammy, who was commissioned by the then Conservative Government to look into this area.

We also saw similar problems with the first elections for police and crime commissioners. Unwisely, a requirement was put in that someone should have no criminal conviction. We had a candidate who had to stand down as he had been convicted for possessing an offensive weapon when he was 13. We had another candidate who had committed a minor offence 22 years previously. These are people with long records of public service, and in no way should that have been held against them.

Whatever steps we take should also relate to proportionality and relevance. When I was a Transport Minister, there were proposals to introduce DBS checks at airports—I fully understood that—but if somebody had a conviction for an assault outside a nightclub in Southall on a Saturday night, I was not really worried if he was throwing my bags around in the luggage section. I would have been concerned if he had had a conviction for theft or for dealing in stolen goods. That also needs to be taken into account and be put right.

As a constituency Member of Parliament, I also had a woman who had been given a suspended sentence for an assault, age 18, in an argument with another girl over a partner. In her 40s, this was still preventing her. This does not just affect young people; it blights people right the way through their lives—and not just their lives but their children’s lives, as they are not able to provide support for them and have all the frustration of not developing their skills of life. It does not let people move on but also deprives the workforce of talent.

We are told sometimes that DBS checks and the ongoing system are fine, and that employers will look at them and take proportional action. They do not. Once a DBS check comes back with anything on the record, the fact is that people automatically get dropped. What is even more outrageous is that those same employers then go bleating to government, saying, “We can’t get workers here”, and so we have to bring them in from abroad. That was one factor that led to the huge surge of care workers being brought into this country in recent years—a considerable amount of exploitation and fraud accompanied it, by the way. At the same time, people were being kept off work, on benefits, not able to provide for themselves or their families.

My plea to the Committee is to support change and give people hope that they can turn their lives around, to take the opportunity to reinstate what I would argue were the principles of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act when it was first brought forward, and to make some progress. We may need to make further changes in the future, but these amendments provide a very good start.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to support my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Sater. We sat together as youth magistrates for many years at the old Hammersmith youth court. She has fully set out what must be an anomaly. I have not heard any explanation in defence of the current situation. She gave the example of two offenders who have committed the same offence at the same time but, because of some geographical issue, were sentenced at different times on either side of their 18th birthday, with different outcomes. They would not have had access to referral orders or youth rehabilitation orders, which are, in our experience, better at rehabilitating young people.

There would also be the problem with the DBS checks. If somebody was subsequently to get or apply for a job, they would get different results in the DBS check depending on whether they were sentenced before or after their 18th birthday. This is an anomaly. I look forward to what my noble friend can say, because this is part of a wider look at how youth DBS records are kept. Nevertheless, this example is a true anomaly. I hope that the Government can be as sympathetic as possible to this amendment.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, in the spirit of friendship, I acknowledge the charming but highly persuasive way in which my noble friend advanced her amendment, which I am only too pleased to support, and recognise the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who is also my friend. I will embarrass him further by saying that he is my very distant kinsman, which will completely ruin his credibility for anything further in his parliamentary life; it is a cross that he will have to bear.

The noble Lord and my noble friend bring to the Chamber years of experience as sitting and sentencing magistrates. Very often in England and Wales, it is magistrates who deal with youth offenders. We should listen to what they have to say and to their experience. I very much to support all that they have said. I urge the Government to pay close attention to what has been said and come forward with proposals of their own, if they do not accept what my noble friend advanced in her amendment, so that we can get rid of this injustice, which is, as the noble Lord said, a most extraordinary anomaly.

Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this Bill aims to enhance the rights of victims within the criminal justice system, introducing measures to ensure that their voices are heard and offenders are held accountable. As we have heard, it is a brief Bill at only 18 clauses long. As we have also heard in today’s debate, in a number of ways it is not a party-political Bill, because everyone taking part wants to get the best out of the Bill and to move as constructive amendments as possible.

The first point I want to discuss a little more widely is compelling offenders to attend sentencing hearings. For the first time, judges will have the statutory power to order offenders to attend their sentencing hearings. Those who refuse without reasonable excuse may face additional custodial sentences of up to 24 months and additional meaningful sanctions. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and as anyone who has sat in a court knows, it is frequently very difficult to find a balance between making sure that the interest of victims is properly catered for, with the reading of the victim personal statement, and making sure that the offender does not kick off and make the situation much worse. The changes put forward in the Bill are a better framework within which judges can operate, but we need to be frank that judges need to be given discretion where it may not be appropriate, and there should be suitable sanctions if offenders are not turning up for the sentencing hearings.

The powers of the Victims’ Commissioner will be enhanced, allowing them to investigate individual cases, request information from local authorities and publish annual reports on compliance with the victims’ code. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s question about whether the Victims’ Commissioner may be able to intervene in Court of Appeal cases, or something like that, was very interesting. I will be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say about that suggestion. Like all other noble Peers in this debate, I want to pay my tribute to Baroness Newlove; I hope she would see some of the fruits of her work in this Bill. I have no doubt that her successor, Claire Waxman, will do a sterling job as well.

On expanding victim support, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we have all received letters from 16 organisations working in this sector. As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, they are asking for specific things through this Bill: first, requiring local statutory agencies to commission sufficient specialist support services; secondly, ensuring that victims with specific needs, such as women and children, receive high-quality specialist services; and, thirdly, guaranteeing that agencies commission support in line with local victims’ needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, put these points with her usual passion, and I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to say something about those specific requests.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised a very interesting point when she talked about the dovetailing of the Bill with the Government’s VAWG strategy. This is something that I know my noble friend and her colleagues in the Home Office will be talking about a great deal. It is resource intensive, of course, but it really goes to the heart of the Government’s intent in trying to halve the level of violence against women and girls over the next 10 years.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about transcripts of sentencing remarks. I really fail to understand why this is such a difficult problem to get over the line. I understand that there is a cost to it and that there are sensitivities, but it is something that the Government should be able to sort out.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, raised a subject that he has raised on other Bills—that is, effectively encouraging some sort of restorative justice at the international corporate level, if I can put it like that. I look forward to him pursuing that, because it is a very interesting idea. To be frank, there was not much take-up of that idea by the previous Government; we will see whether the current Government are more interested in his ideas.

I want to say something about the issue of addressing parental responsibility. The Bill automatically restricts parental responsibility in cases where a child is conceived through rape or where a parent is convicted of serious sexual offences against any child, ensuring that perpetrators do not have a say in critical decisions regarding the child’s welfare. I noted the point that my noble friend made—that up to 20 offenders may be captured by this change in the law, after it goes through. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, gave a number of examples, which I know from my own experience as a family magistrate, where parental responsibility has not been given in the first place or has been withdrawn, usually from fathers. This takes the existing provisions a step further, which I welcome, specifically in cases where the father has been convicted of serious sexual offences. Nevertheless, I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pursuing the practical difficulties of doing this in Committee.

The Bill also seeks to improve transparency and accountability. It introduces measures to modernise the criminal justice system, including flexibility for the Director of Public Prosecutions in appointing Crown Court prosecutors and updating sentencing powers in magistrates’ courts. I have only one point on this, regarding the CILEX members to whom my noble friend referred in her introductory remarks. We should be very clear about this: CILEX members are from more diverse backgrounds than lawyers who are either solicitors or barristers, and that is to be welcomed. I am sure there is an ambition to have more diverse people acting as prosecutors, and this is a route to achieve that. It is not just about increasing the numbers, which of course is welcome in itself; it is also a route to achieve greater diversity. I noted my noble friend’s assurance that there will be no dilution in standards, so it is a welcome move by the Government.

In conclusion, this is a good Bill, and I hope that it will increase trust and confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole. I look forward to taking part more constructively when we move to Committee.

Criminal Court Reform

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her observations, which echoed what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said. I did my best to try to keep this non-partisan as far as possible until provoked into it by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. It is true that Covid had an effect on the backlog, but that is not the only element; a lot of it is due to the cuts in the criminal justice system. For example, one of the questions that I am sure somebody will ask me at some point is why we simply do not open up all the unused courtrooms. The reason is that a court is much more than just a room. It is staffed by a lot of people, which includes the barristers and the solicitors, and we do not have enough criminal barristers any more because of the cuts to legal aid—about which the party opposite was warned at the time they made them. That is why we are going to increase funding for legal aid and the match funding for pupillages to try to grow back up that venerable body of practitioners. I will not comment on individual cases or categories of cases; this is a systemic problem that requires a systemic solution.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement and I welcome almost everything in it. I wanted to raise one point which I am less happy about. Brian Leveson recommended for the Crown Court Bench Division that it should be a judge and two magistrates but the Statement said it would be a judge sitting alone. Brian Leveson in his review was very clear why he thought magistrates should be involved in the Crown Court Bench Division. First, it retains an element of community involvement and the judgment of one’s peers, by the lay magistrates sitting with the judge, and one could argue that three heads are better than one. Secondly, there is greater diversity within the magistrate cohort than there is within the judge cohort, so that would go some way to creating diversity within the three people sitting making those judgments. The third point which Brian Leveson made was on the safety of the judge sitting alone. It is safer if there are three people making that decision, because there is not a single identified decision-maker. Since we are all concerned about the safety of judges, that was a factor in keeping the decision-making for three individuals in the new Crown Court Bench Division. Will my noble friend keep an open mind about adopting the recommendations of Sir Leveson?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend very much for the question he raises. It is an important point and I am sure the rest of your Lordships’ House will want to pay tribute to my noble friend for the work that he did when standing where I am now, as well as for his long service as a magistrate. He speaks from great experience.

There are two reasons why the Crown Court Bench Division will not include lay justices. The first, as my noble friend will know, is that we do not have enough to staff that at the moment. We have enough justices to run the magistrates’ court and make sure that we do not then end up with a lot of backlogs there. We are running a recruitment programme and hope to recruit 2,000 more, but, at present, we do not have sufficient numbers. The second reason is about speeding up the process. Any judge who has sat on an appeal from the magistrates’ court always sits with two lay justices. It takes a lot longer because of the fact that consultation is required, whereas the point here is to make things faster and quicker. For those reasons, we are not going to adopt that recommendation of Sir Brian—and they are principled reasons.

As for the perfectly proper point about diversity, the judiciary is becoming more diverse. It is not where we want it to be but it is getting there. What it does have is extensive training in matters to do with issues of diversity, fairness and disproportionate impacts on particular sectors of the population. We do not really know what juries think about this because they do not have that kind of training, but we are satisfied that those issues can be dealt with within what is proposed.

Sentencing Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 1st December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, in the amendments they have spoken to in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, was quite right to draw attention to gambling and how that can be an addiction, like other addictions which are so prevalent within the prisons. My noble friend Lord Bach made a very interesting point on the right to representations about the proportionality of licence conditions when prisoners leave the custodial bit of their sentence.

I really want to concentrate my comments on what my noble friend Lord Brooke said about the addiction of many people in our prisons—to drink, gambling and drugs, as we all know. He talked very persuasively about the continuity of care that needs to happen within the prison and as prisoners leave prison. With the previous Government, it was called a through-the-gate approach. Although the aspiration was clearly there, it has not been managed very well.

I want to talk about my own experience on the street I live on in Wandsworth, where we have a residential centre and I occasionally, not infrequently, come across men—usually—who attend the community events I go to in my immediate vicinity. Invariably, they tell me about the importance of the various programmes they are going on, whether they are able to be directed to them from within prison or from the residential centre they attend.

I reinforce the points my noble friend made. I was glad that he said he has had ongoing discussions with our noble friends on the Front Bench. I look forward to hearing what they will have to say about his amendments.

Prisoner Releases in Error

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for speaking to me after the debate a couple of days ago. He quite rightly asked me to phone him. I will phone him as soon as I have that correct information. I am very aware of the need—I get told this regularly by officials—to make sure that I get it 100% right.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a great deal of expertise demonstrated in the questions we have heard today, from the MoJ and from people dealing with offenders. I want to pass on my own experience as a sentencing magistrate. When I started 20 years ago as a sentencing magistrate, when I sent someone to jail I said that they would be released at the halfway stage. That was something I was unable to say as the complexity of the various sentences that were available grew. Instead, towards the end of my period as a magistrate, I said that they would be released when the governor said they could be released after the calculations had been made. Does my noble friend agree that it is a reasonable aspiration, with all this technology and trying to review the system, that at the point of sentencing, the sentencing judge or magistrate should be able to say what the release date is?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend, and former room buddy, for that question. One conversation that we have a lot in the Ministry of Justice is the tie-up between the courts and prisons. I am hoping that the Sentencing Bill will make the whole process much simpler, because it is important not just for offenders to know when they are going to be released but for victims and their families. The clearer we can be, and the more quickly that information can get to magistrates, judges, offenders, victims and their legal teams, the better.

Accidental Prison Releases

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord and I know each other very well. I hope he knows that I have my own view on this, because, like him, I visit lots of prisons all the time. It is clear that our prisons need investment and that we need to build new prisons. Only last week I went to a new prison which will be opening in 2028. These are modern, highly efficient prisons that are there not just to keep the public safe but to rehabilitate people. The problem that we are trying to fix is a long-term problem. It is not just about buildings; it is about people and how we support our staff to deliver an amazing service in rehabilitating people so that when they leave prison they do not come back.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I visited HMP Wandsworth last Thursday and was told that there are about 2,000 releases every year from there. I was visiting the independent monitoring board. One of the issues that it raised with me was a review that is going on into the IMB process and the secretariat that supports the IMB. Does my noble friend agree that IMBs are vital? They tell truth to power, truth to Ministers and truth to the inspectorate. Will my noble friend write to me to tell me about the process of review of IMBs which is under way and assure me that the IMBs are fully valued?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right that the independent monitoring boards in our prisons do a really vital job. In every prison I go to, I try to meet the IMB leaders—the chair—and last week I met the national chair of the IMBs, Elisabeth Davies, to talk through how their plans were going. I know they struggle on recruitment in certain prisons as well, but the work they do, walking the wings, speaking to prisoners and speaking to staff, is absolutely vital.

“Hillsborough Law”

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Thursday 24th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in introducing the proposed “Hillsborough Law”.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, we remain committed to delivering a Hillsborough law, as set out in the manifesto. It is vital that we get this landmark legislation right and that, when introduced, the Bill achieves the change expected by those who have campaigned so hard for change. Since March we have listened to stakeholder feedback to ensure that we deliver the best Bill possible; this engagement has been constructive and progress has been made. Engagement is ongoing and will continue over the summer.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, the tragic events at Hillsborough will always be etched on our minds, as will the appalling establishment cover-up that followed. The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, when he came to Liverpool, promised that his Government would introduce draft legislation, including a duty of candour with criminal sanctions. This was published on 15 April, the anniversary of that fatal crowd crush at Hillsborough football stadium in Sheffield in 1989. The Minister rightly says that it is important to work with families to get this right. Will he give a clear commitment that there will be no watering down of that duty of candour intent when the Bill is published?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I agree with the way that the noble Lord has framed his question. There was an establishment cover-up, which must never happen again. The Prime Minister has made a personal commitment to the affected families to work with them constructively to come up with an appropriate law. Regarding the duty of candour, the Government are clear that what happened following the Hillsborough disaster must never happen again. Under the Hillsborough law, public officials will be bound by a duty of candour with criminal and professional consequences. We are committed to achieving a true cultural change. The Bill cannot change culture on its own, but it can and should act as a catalyst, and we remain committed to launching a programme to encourage cultural change alongside the Bill.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, as always, for repeating the Government’s commitment to introduce the Hillsborough law, but I am afraid that the families and their representatives feel a little less positive about the engagement that they have had so far. Some worry that they have been briefed against to the newspapers and, generally speaking, they worry about the dilution that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has warned against.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am sorry to hear that from my noble friend. I am aware of very recent interaction with the families in Liverpool. My understanding is that those talks have been going positively, and it is very much hoped that we will be able to reach some form of agreement in the coming weeks and months.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, Andrew Devine was my constituent. He died in 2021, the 97th victim of Hillsborough, 32 years after his chest was crushed and he was deprived of oxygen. We owe it, as the noble Lord has said, to his memory and to many others in that disaster and others, such as the Manchester Arena bombing and Grenfell, to fully implement the manifesto commitment of a Hillsborough law; I greatly welcomed it when it was made a manifesto commitment. Before the Minister appears before the Joint Committee on Human Rights in the autumn, will he go back and reread the findings of the committee, which called two years ago for “stronger measures” to be put in place

“to prevent a repeat of the failure to uncover and acknowledge the truth of what happened at Hillsborough”

and the subsequent promise to the committee by the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor to proceed at pace? Will he spell out to the House what that means and what the proposals are for a duty of candour, as well as an equality of arms in legal representation and an independent advocate? Will he commit that that will not be, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has said, watered down or diluted in any way? Do we not owe that to the memory of Andrew Devine and the many others who suffered?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The noble Lord asked a similar question when we last spoke about this very serious issue. As I shared then with the House, I also have a personal connection in that the brother of a friend of mine was killed at Hillsborough. The noble Lord asked about parity of arms. Our manifesto commitment was to

“provide legal aid for victims of disasters or state-related deaths”

at inquests. That is a commitment that we will fulfil. We are currently exploring how best to deliver on that commitment and the House will be updated in due course when we reach that stage. I can say to the noble Lord that the Government have accepted the inquiry’s recommendation to make it a legal requirement to maintain a publicly accessible record of recommendations made by Select Committees, coroners and public inquiries. There is now an up and running website where the infected blood scandal recommendations and the Grenfell Tower phase 2 recommendations can be seen, and where the Government’s progress in meeting those recommendations can be monitored.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I ask in plain terms: what will be the obligations of candour imposed under this new law? What will be imposed on public servants? In short, what will they be obliged to do and say that they are not currently? If the Minister cannot answer today, will he please write to me and place a copy in the Library?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

As I think I said in answer to an earlier question, the Government have been quite clear that, under the duty of candour, public officials will be bound by that duty, with criminal and professional consequences—the noble Lord is shaking his head. What I also said is that we think there needs to be a wider cultural change and there need to be other programmes put in place to achieve this. If I can provide more detail, I will happily write to the noble Lord, but I think that we are being very genuine and explicit in the ambition that we have set forth, that a duty of candour will be at the core of all public officials’ roles.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, we will shortly be hearing a Statement, yet again, on the infected blood compensation scheme. Last week, we heard about the continuing problems with the Post Office Horizon scheme. Both scandals were made much worse over decades because of the lack of candour by officials. In opposition, Labour—including the Minister, many of whose amendments on the duty of candour I signed—said that it would introduce that duty to prevent scandals such as these in the future. But the press are reporting that the delay is caused by officials watering down the details, including the level at which officials are bound by the duty of candour. Can the Minister confirm that there is no truth in this?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I think that is, if I may say so, a similar question to that from my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I have heard that the ongoing discussions are in fact reasonably positive, and we are very hopeful of reaching an agreement in the coming weeks and months. It is certainly not the intention to water down recommendations; however, it is our intention to come up with a workable Bill that forms part of a wider work programme. As I think I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we have also put in place this website where people can monitor how the Government are making progress on other recommendations on other scandals, such as the infected blood scandal and the Grenfell scandal.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm—I think he said this in answer to my noble friend Lord Alton—that the Bill will guarantee funding for legal representation for families who participate in inquests and other inquiries? Without such funding, families cannot effectively participate.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said before, it is a manifesto commitment to provide legal aid at inquests for victims of disasters or state-related deaths.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the right-wing press had a role to play in this scandal. Will this Bill, or any other legislation, address the issue that the media played a major role in Hillsborough and many other scandals?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not think that this Bill, which has not been published yet, will address that issue. However, I take the point that my noble friend makes. Really, he is raising a far wider concern and if there is anything more that I can say to him, I will write to him, but I think his question goes far wider that the Question itself.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent on public inquiries following deceitful conduct by police officers at Hillsborough and Orgreave and in the spy cops inquiry. Would we not save a lot of money, and help to restore confidence in the police, if officers felt that they might lose some of their pension if they failed to observe a duty of candour and, for example, doctored evidence again?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I take the point that the noble Lord makes, and we will see what the recommendations are. As I have said in answer to earlier questions, it is foreseen that, under the duty of candour, the professionals involved could be subject to criminal and professional consequences with the full might of the law.

European Convention on Human Rights

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to propose amendments to the European Convention on Human Rights.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government are fully committed to the protection of human rights, domestically and internationally, and remain unequivocally committed to the international human rights framework. As the Lord Chancellor set out in a speech to the Council of Europe, we encourage a constructive dialogue between contracting parties to the European Convention on Human Rights on how the convention can respond to developments in our societies.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. Will he confirm that a Labour Government will never withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights? Will he say that, instead, we will discuss with our partners how it can evolve, through new protocols, new rights and new interpretations—not to weaken rights but to update and strengthen them?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I agree with the sentiments behind my noble friend’s question. The ECHR has achieved 75 years of success, but we cannot shy away from developments in our societies. The ECHR and our relationship with it need to change. We are committed to engaging constructively with our friends within the ECHR.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that the Government’s proposal, spelled out in its immigration White Paper, to legislate to tell the courts how to interpret the European Convention on Human Rights as it affects immigrants destroys the whole rationale for the ECHR? That rationale is based on the belief that only judges—unaffected by political considerations and unaccountable to Parliament or the electorate—can determine the true meaning in detail of the vague, abstract rights listed in the convention. Once Parliament takes back control of spelling out our rights in statute—as it should, as it did for 700 years and as the Government now propose it will in future—the original case for adhering to the ECHR will evaporate.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

As the noble Lord rightly points out, there has been an immigration White Paper. In it, we have said that we will look to deliver a new framework to consider Article 8—the right to family life—and will bring forward legislation to clarify Article 8 rules so that fewer cases are treated as exceptional. This is a modification that we have committed to taking forth within our own domestic legislation. However, the more general point that the noble Lord makes is fundamentally misguided. We have hugely benefited from the ECHR in the 75 years of its existence. It needs to evolve. Of course, there are issues, which we acknowledge, but one point that many European and domestic judges have made to me is that the margin of appreciation, the latitude that individual states have within the existing rules, is wider than many of the states acknowledge themselves.

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

My Lords, in our view, trying to change the ECHR, which would require unanimity, would be as futile as it would be undesirable. However, on the Government’s immigration White Paper, particularly the Article 8 right to respect for private and family life, the margin of appreciation does, as the Minister mentioned, enable states to differ in how they implement the convention. Will the Minister confirm that UK legislation will seek to curtail reliance on exceptional circumstances only for legitimate and recognised convention aims such as national security, crime prevention, economic and social interests or protecting democracy?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Yes, I can give the confirmation that the noble Lord seeks. He sets out the case, as I think I did in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, but the reality is that this is just one aspect—it is the relationship with the ECHR that we are talking about—but there need to be a number of ways of tackling irregular immigration, which is a profound and difficult issue. We are doing that in parallel, as well as addressing the Article 8 issue.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

My Lords, it is helpful that the Minister acknowledges that the convention needs to evolve and that there are issues with it. However, given the truth of what was just said about the difficulty and slowness of achieving unanimity in any negotiation, and if the Minister accepts that there is a significant problem, should not the Government reserve the right to withdraw if a negotiation cannot achieve what is needed for the country?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I just do not think we are in that position at present. We can amend our own legislation regarding Article 8. There is the margin of appreciation which noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to. As I said earlier, there is more discretion within that than is widely acknowledged or used—within not just the UK but Europe as a whole.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, there have been gross distortions in the right-wing press in this country with respect to the right-to-family-life decisions. Nevertheless, some of those decisions have been astonishing. Is the remedy therefore not in our own tribunal’s interpretation, which perhaps needs some form of clarification, rather than in the difficult process of amending the convention?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a good point and is right. I think that we are repeating the same question in different ways, if I may say so. We have committed to addressing Article 8 rules within our own domestic legislation and there is the issue about the margin of appreciation, which I have referred to in answer to earlier questions.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has acknowledged today that the convention on human rights needs to evolve. Nine EU member states recently called for reform of the European Court of Human Rights—not the convention—and the court’s approach to the application of the convention. Will the Minister confirm that the United Kingdom will join those states in calling for such reform of the court’s operations? If not, why not?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I can quote from my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor’s speech in Strasbourg in June, where she acknowledged the letter—which was of course signed by EU members; the UK Government were not invited to sign that. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend said that there should indeed be an

“open conversation about the future of the Convention”

and that the UK wants to play its full part in that.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, are His Majesty’s Government at all concerned about the diversion of interpretation of ECHR rights between the courts in Northern Ireland the rest of the United Kingdom—particularly in relation to Article 2 rights concerning veterans?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has laid a draft proposal for a draft remedial order to set out his intention to introduce primary legislation when parliamentary time allows. The Government are engaging with victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland and all interested parties to fulfil the commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that because the ECHR is committed to upholding the right to free and fair elections, those who advocate leaving the convention should understand that it would send a strong negative signal about the UK’s commitment to strengthening democracy and would undermine the work of election monitoring by international bodies such as the Council of Europe and the OSCE?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Winterton for that question. As she said, she has been an election monitor with the OSCE. I have been an election monitor with the Council of Europe and the OSCE. Both bodies do extremely valuable work, and it would be wrong to undermine that work in any way.