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.

Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, the creation of a Crown Court bench division, as recommended by Sir Brian Leveson, must be seen in light of his related recommendations. One of the most critical to arrest the growing crisis in our criminal justice system is to provide a further 20,000 Crown Court sitting days. Do His Majesty’s Government accept that clear recommendation? If not, why not? If they accept it, what immediate steps are they actively taking to implement it?

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

My Lords, the Government already have more sitting days than any previous Government. The central observation of both Sir Brian Leveson’s review and the earlier view of David Gauke is that one cannot sit oneself out of this crisis or build oneself out of it by building more prison places. There needs to be a systemic review encompassing both Sir Brian’s recommendations and the Gauke recommendations to stop the ever-increasing amount of people being sent to our prisons. It is that in that spirit that we will review Sir Brian’s recommendations. We will publish our review some time in the autumn, with a view to legislating on the matter in due course later this year.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, we are not short of jurors; the whole adult population can serve in a jury. We are short of judges, of prosecuting and defence barristers and of courts that are fit for purpose. Leveson suggests that his new bench courts would give rise to a mere 20% savings in time, and he admits there is no evidential basis for what is simply a guess. If the Government are minded to accept that recommendation, will they introduce pilots to test his hypothesis? What are they doing to address the delays for victims, and for defendants on remand in prison, that are staring them in the face now?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for those questions. He is absolutely right that we are not short of jurors. We are also not short of magistrates and there is no shortage of applicants to become magistrates. Sir Brian’s suite of recommendations included increasing the role of the magistrates’ court, as well as introducing the new bench division within the Crown Court, to which the noble Lord alluded. He said that Sir Brian said there will be a 20% saving in time with the new bench division. That is his estimate. I have to say, I think that is very conservative. We already know that for similar cases magistrates’ courts are two or three times quicker than Crown Courts, so I think it is conservative to estimate that we will see only a 20% saving in time with the new bench division courts.

The noble Lord made the point about delays for victims. Of course, that underpins the concern and the reason we are introducing these systemic changes in the first place. It is my understanding that there are about 100 cases in London booked for 2029. I think they may be mainly sex-related cases; I am not sure. That is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for the victims and the defendants, and it is a systemic problem we are trying to address.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend the Minister for his long public service as a lay magistrate, as I do to Sir Brian for his long public service as a judge and, post-judiciary, on various inquiries for Governments of both persuasions. I know the Government are considering how to respond to this review and the Gauke review. May I ask my noble friend to take into account that we cannot have one class or one group of people permanently sitting in judgment over another? The lay magistracy, for all its commitment to public service, is not as representative as juries and that needs to be taken on board.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a fair point. I would say that magistrates are more diverse than judges. Judges already sit in certain types of cases as single judges deciding people’s guilt; they do it in youth courts and family courts, and there are other examples within the civil jurisdiction as well. I think it is also fair to say that in the big conurbations—London and the big cities—there is greater diversity in the magistrate base. I take the point my noble friend makes, but I think that magistrates are respected and we are starting from a strong base if we want to build on the work they are doing.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that it is a scandalous disgrace that in this country some victims and people charged with offences have to wait months and sometimes years before a trial can take place? Does he therefore agree that, in those circumstances, the Government have no choice but to accept as quickly as possible the excellent recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson, because I hear of no alternatives? Will he undertake that they will not take too long reviewing and considering these matters? This should proceed as rapidly as possible with the full support of everybody who has the interests of the rule of law and justice in this country at heart.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his support. I agree with everything he said. Data published last month showed the backlog stood at nearly 77,000 cases. That is an increase of 2,300 cases over the previous quarter. If we were not to take any action, it is projected that the outstanding caseload would be 100,000 in 2028. Clearly, that is unacceptable, and I absolutely take the point he made. As I said in answer to an earlier question, it is the Government’s expectation that we will respond to Sir Brian’s recommendations in the early autumn with a view to legislation.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, it was my privilege this lunchtime to be with a group of young legal students with very diverse backgrounds except that they had all been through the care system—a group of people who are more likely than anybody else to be charged and prosecuted for behaviours that others might be treated more favourably over. The same often applies to people from minority-ethnic backgrounds. Does the Minister agree that dealing with that disproportionality in how people are treated for the same behaviour by the legal system will be a good way to reduce some of the waiting lists of courts?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I absolutely recognise what the right reverend Prelate has said. As he may know, I sat as a youth magistrate for 17 years and as a family magistrate for a long period as well, and I recognise the general problem of disproportionality. There is not a single way of solving that problem, but a number of agencies within the criminal justice field and the MoJ are looking at the different aspects of disproportionality. He opened by pointing at the care system in particular. Probably well over 50% of all the youths I saw in youth court had come from the care system in one way or another, so I recognise what he is saying, and it is something that we take very seriously.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in addressing the very serious problems faced by the criminal justice system, it is important not to romanticise the jury, given that 90% of all criminal trials in this country are heard without a jury and relatively speedily—not as speedily as perhaps they could be, but relatively so—and they are heard effectively and with justice.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord—of course I would agree because, as a magistrate, I was among those who hear 90% of all criminal cases. There is no right to a jury trial; however, there is a right to a fair trial. For a fair trial, it must be heard in a timely manner. That is where we are failing. We need these systemic changes to address that fundamental problem, so that people—both victims and defendants—can get a fair trial in a timely way.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, can I ask the Government to take particular note of the recommendation in relation to fraud trials? This is not a new suggestion; it goes back to Lord Roskill about 50 years ago. These are very lengthy, very expensive trials, which are often very difficult for juries to understand—that is not in any way to patronise the jury system. It would save a great deal of time and money, and would help with the backlog, if we moved to a system of trial that does not involve juries.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. It was a recommendation of Sir Brian’s, and I am sure it is one on which the Government will reflect very carefully.

Humanist Weddings

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made to enable legal humanist weddings.

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

My Lords, the strength of feeling around legally recognising humanist weddings is clear. I assure my noble friend that the Government understand the issues, including the key importance not just of weddings but of marriage itself, and we are looking at them with the utmost care. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my honourable friend Alex Davies-Jones, said in the other place a couple of weeks ago, our officials are working on this issue “at pace” and an update “will come soon”.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that and I apologise to the House for the fact that I have persistently been asking this question for the last few years. I am channelling my noble friend Lord Rooker on folic acid, and I just hope it is not going to take me quite as long as it took him to win that argument. As my noble friend has said, the Minister responsible for matter in the other place said that

“officials are working on this at pace”,—[Official Report, Commons, 12/6/25; col. 454WH.]

but she said that they were working at pace on the position of wedding law reform, so while there may be the slightest glimmer of hope, I am rather worried that law reform looks like it may take years. Therefore, I re-ask my noble friend whether we are looking at months or years for humanists not be left at the altar any longer.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

As I think my noble friend acknowledges, this is indeed a very complex issue which goes far beyond humanist marriage. The Law Commission highlighted the complexities of the law in this area and concluded that exercising the order-making power, which is what I think my noble friend wants us to do, is not, in its view, a viable option. We believe, as a responsive Government, that we need to look at the wider picture. I say to my noble friend that when we say we are working at pace on this issue, that is indeed true: we do want to resolve the wide-ranging discrepancies within wedding law across England and Wales.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I am grateful. Has the Minister refreshed his memory as to what he said on this subject on 25 April 2022 when he was in opposition? This is what he said:

“My Lords, the Liberal Democrats clearly support this change; the Labour Party supports this change; the Government in Wales support this change; the Government in Scotland support this change … so why are the Government waiting for the Law Commission’s report?”.—[Official Report, 25/4/22; col. 9.]


Can he now answer his own question?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I remember that debate very well, and I did indeed say those words. The answer is that it is a very complex question. There are many idiosyncrasies across wedding law in England and Wales, as there are in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Government believe that we need to take our time to address this issue properly.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister refers to this as a “complex question”. The fact is that Ministers may make this into a complex question by extending it beyond the simple question: should humanist marriages be legalised? If one sticks to that simple question, it is not complex and it could be agreed now, today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I think it was the previous Government who asked the Law Commission to do its report. The Law Commission came up with 57 recommendations for changes to marriage in England and Wales and we want to take our time to look at those.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I understand that reforming marriage laws is a complex business, but in terms of removing discrimination against humanists who wish to get married, as their religious counterparts do, why do the Government not lay an order, just as an interim measure, which would enable humanists to marry?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. I think the answer is the same as that I have given to others, which is because solving this anomaly for humanists would create other anomalies. That is why we want to take our time, although we are working at pace, to resolve the anomalies with weddings in England and Wales.

[The Lord Bishop of Guildford]

My Lords, noble Lords will not be surprised to hear from these Benches that I am thoroughly in favour of marriage. I want to stress the many benefits of getting married in church, but I am also in favour of encouraging more people to marry wherever, provided that the ceremony reflects the seriousness of the commitment being entered into and the love that lies at its core. To that end, does the Minister agree that if adjustments were to be made to our current premises-based system to enable legal humanist marriages, the door should not be opened so wide that it brings in a free market in commercial celebrants that will cheapen and devalue what is such a vital and foundational institution?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question, and I agree with his point that marriage should be a serious statement of love between two partners for the rest of their lives. It is not just about marriage; it is about the weddings that lead into that lifelong commitment. He raises an interesting point about whether, in England and Wales, we should move away from a premises-based system, which is what we have at the moment. Scotland, for example, has an officiant-based system, and there may be arguments for making that move; that is what the Government want to look at based on the recommendations of the Law Commission.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, there is no question—to argue with the right reverend Prelate—that a commercial aspect is part of a humanist wedding; it is a very strong and serious undertaking that shows humanist couples love each other. I recommend that he might want to come along and reassure himself that humanist weddings are a lovely thing.

However, I have a different angle on this. Arguably, LGBT humanists feel even more discriminated against, because they are significantly more likely to identify as non-religious. Therefore, what consideration have the Government given to humanist marriages from this equalities perspective? What advice do the Government have for humanist LGBT couples who want to get married in line with their beliefs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I agree 100% with the opening remarks of the noble Baroness. I recognise what she said about that. However, it is worth reflecting on the case of Harrison, where the High Court found that there was a difference in treatment in weddings law towards humanists, but it went on to say that the Government were justified in taking their time to review the recommendations from the Law Commission, which is what we are doing. I appreciate the frustration, and I appreciate that this affects disproportionately the gay community. Nevertheless, the Government’s point stands that we need to get this right because there are other anomalies in the system that also need to be addressed.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, we are outliers. You can have a humanist marriage in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Ireland, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and a host of other countries, but, but as everyone else has said, you cannot have one in England or Wales. I agree with the Minister that it is right that the Law Commission fundamentally reviews the totality of our extraordinarily antiquated and outdated marriage laws. I hope the Minister will make haste on that. In the meantime, what could possibly be lost by the Government immediately triggering the power that I understand they hold under the 2013 same sex marriage Act and enabling humanist marriage in England and Wales now?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I can certainly give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, that we are making haste, and we will make an announcement soon. I know I have said that on previous occasions, but I mean it and a statement will come soon.

I have made this point before, but I will make it in a different way. There are people who have humanist marriages in Northern Ireland and Scotland. People can and do have humanist marriages in England and Wales, but they also have to go to a town hall or something to get the state to recognise the status of their marriage. It is that anomaly which needs to be addressed when we review the 57 wider recommendations of the Law Commission.