Courts and Tribunals: Sitting Days

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Statement describes the Government’s inheritance from the last Administration on Crown Court capacity as little short of disgraceful. It was worse than that: it was an utter disgrace. Sadly, even with the measures announced in the Statement, an utter disgrace it remains. A once great system of criminal justice, admired internationally, has sunk to a level of service that has produced unpardonable delays; decrepit courts—and not enough of them; and underpaid and demoralised staff and lawyers. Offenders are in custody on remand for unacceptable periods and prosecutions are dropped on many occasions because victims and witnesses lose heart and abandon cases, lacking the confidence that they will ever see justice. When trials eventually happen, they are bedevilled by lapse of time and witnesses’ failing recollection. Overall, the level of public trust in our criminal justice system as a whole is rightly, abysmally low.

Furthermore, the system would be even worse were it not for the tireless commitment of those who work within it, mostly underrewarded staff, lawyers and, in particular, our committed, indefatigable and independent judiciary, who struggle to keep the courts working with some semblance of order against overwhelming odds.

This Statement represents a move in the right direction. To that extent, we welcome it, but it is not enough. The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor recognise that. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, she has acknowledged that, even with the funding and measures she has announced, the backlog will grow. She pins her hopes on more radical measures of structural reform that may or may not be proposed by the Leveson review. These will take place only when the review has reported and its recommendations have been implemented. Far more extensive measures are needed now to bring down the backlog.

There is, after all, no significant saving of resources in keeping people hanging around for long periods—often running to years—with their lives largely on hold because we cannot get cases to trial. I do not question the Government’s recognition of the seriousness of the crisis they inherited and we now face, but I do question the lack of urgency.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. Why is it that, at a time of catastrophic shortage of sitting days, a progressive Government, dedicated to the delivery of justice, should simply accept that the concordat process of agreeing a number of court sitting days should be a negotiation between the Government and the judiciary? The Lady Chief Justice, a judge widely admired for her level-headedness and good judgment, sought agreement to an extra 6,500 days a year. She advised the Government that that many extra days were available to address the court backlog of 73,000 cases within the system as it stands. Why have the Government not simply accepted that? Why have they not agreed to all the extra days for which she sought sanction and arranged to provide more? Those extra cases would make a significant difference.

In its report published last Wednesday 5 March, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee described the MoJ as

“tinkering at the edges, reacting to each new issue that affects the courts, without planning for long-term solutions.”

How is it that the Government have not made swifter progress with initiating a comprehensive programme of necessary repairs to our courts? Of course, the increased funding for repairs is very welcome, but why is the urgency lacking? This was a known problem way before last July’s general election. Might some of the Nightingale courts not have been retained in use to clear part of the backlog? Have the Government considered evening and weekend sittings for uncontested cases, leaving more court days available for trials?

I know that the Government are well aware of the disproportionate effect of long delays on cases of rape and serious sexual violence. Victims withdraw from prosecutions under the psychological pressure that these cases entail. The average wait for serious sexual offence cases, not from report or charge but from arrival at Crown Court to completion, is now 356 days. This is a shocking figure. Many cases wait far longer. Have the Government considered according an enhanced status to these cases because of the particular difficulties they face in order to get them on more quickly?

We agree that there is a need for long-term reform and we trust that Sir Brian Leveson’s review will make recommendations that will help restore our criminal justice system. There is much that we can do now and I invite the Minister to take back to his department an invitation to the Government to do much more, more quickly.

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

My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to his current role. This is the first time I have encountered him speaking from the Dispatch Box.

The Government inherited a record and rising backlog that now stands at 73,000 cases—twice the figure of five years ago. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, there is a human cost to these delays. Victims are waiting years for justice and the attrition rate in rape cases has more than doubled in the last five years, from 2.9% in 2019 to 7.5% now—so I recognise the figures he quoted. This Government are funding a record allocation of Crown Court sitting days to deliver swifter justice for victims—110,000 sitting days next year, which is 4,000 more than the last Government funded.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked me a number of questions. Basically, the question was why we were not maximising the number of sitting days and taking up the Lady Chief Justice’s offer, as he put it, of sitting at capacity in the Crown Court system. There are two simple answers to that. One is a cash constraint—and I think we need to acknowledge that the Lord Chancellor has wider responsibilities than the courts and has to balance how the money is spent on the whole criminal justice system. We acknowledge that there are serious issues, and we have increased the number of sitting days. The second point is that it is wise to keep some headroom within the Crown Court system. We saw the benefit of that when we had the riots last year and were able to deal with them really quite quickly, in part because of the policy of keeping some headroom within the Crown Court system.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, rightly said that trials are bedevilled by delays, and he was right when he said that victims drop out of the system and there are many problems because of the many delays within our system. The noble Lord mentioned the concordat process. It is worth noting that that process has been accelerated this year; it has been resolved much earlier in the year than in many previous years, which will give more certainty to the judges when they are planning and allocating their sitting days between the various courts. That is the benefit of the system that the Lord Chancellor has introduced.

I reject the charge that we are tinkering at the edges. The fundamental point, which I think the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Cameron, acknowledged, is that ever-increasing sitting days will not solve the problem. We need more radical reforms, and we are looking to Sir Brian Leveson to present reforms. A number of things are being constantly talked about in the papers. We do not know exactly what he is going to recommend, but we are absolutely clear that there needs to be a much more radical change in how we deal with trials in the magistrates’ courts and Crown Courts. We have obviously gone some way within the magistrates’ courts by doubling magistrates’ sentencing powers to 12 months—but, again, that is a marginal benefit, and there need to be other changes. We are looking forward to Sir Brian’s recommendations.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, spoke about repairs to the courts. As I think he acknowledged, there has been an increase in court maintenance, up to £148 million from £120 million—but of course we are trying to catch up on many years of underinvesting in our court estate. I have personally seen a number of courts that are in dire need of emergency maintenance. I acknowledge the point that the noble Lord made, but we are taking steps in the right direction to try to increase the quality of our court estate—and there are a number of Nightingale courts still operating, partly for that reason.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, made another point about the sexual offences or RASSO cases, and how people are waiting far too long. Some courts, including Bristol Crown Court, I believe, are using a different approach—I hesitate to use the word “specialist”—to how they bring on RASSO-related cases. I believe that a couple of other Crown Courts are looking at this as well. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the point that the noble Lord made about the importance of doing this—otherwise, you will get a higher victim drop-out, which is not in the interests of justice.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, before abolishing any element of trial by jury, does the Minister accept that the Government should prioritise improving the effectiveness of the Crown Court by swift progress of cases and by appointing a cadre of procedure judges to ensure that the number of hearings per case is reduced dramatically, thereby saving a great deal of time?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving me notice of that question. I absolutely recognise the point on the importance of cases coming on in time. One hears far too many stories of cases having to be abandoned, often because of poor administration of the case. We have a number of pilot courts—I think it is about 10—where we are introducing case co-ordinators. They are people whose only job is to go over the cases to make sure that all the different elements are in place and to make sure that the case gets on. I realise that that is not exactly the point that the noble Lord made, but it is acknowledging the importance of making sure that these cases get on and are not abandoned for any reason.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

I have a couple of questions. First, it is very clear that if you get a backlog in the system, people will plead not guilty. That was my experience with the magistrates’ court in Gloucestershire in 2006, and I do not believe that anything has changed. Therefore, my first question is: what are the Government’s projections, going forward over the next 12 months, as to the likely increase in those awaiting trial? The real problem is that if you do not clear the backlog, it makes it worse because it is always tempting to put off facing reality; it just gets worse and worse.

Secondly, in a court system time is always lost during the day. One problem that we have relates to prisons and the difficulty of bringing prisoners to the courts on time. What is being done to ensure that is improved? I remember this being a problem more than 20 years ago, and it really required extraordinarily tough contract management. I took some of the job on myself, as the Ministry of Justice did not seem capable of doing it. What is being done to manage the contracts so that they are managed as a commercial contract should be managed, and there are penalties or other stern action taken if a prisoner is late? I hope that the contracts are tough enough to ensure that.

In connection with prisons, when I chaired the Commission on Justice in Wales, it was obvious that there was a problem in funding the criminal justice system. I do not think that there can be any real doubt that the financial problems arise from the overall fiscal constraints, which I completely understand, on what money is available for justice—but you are driven to the conclusion that if the Exchequer will not provide more money, the only place it can come from is reducing the prison population. When are we going to find out not how we avoid the crisis that will come in the early part of next year but what is being fundamentally done to reassess our policy of sending people to prison for a very long time? That, I believe, is at the heart of the problem.

The Lord Chancellor spoke very eloquently—and I commend her on this—of dealing with the question of an intermediate court, but the much more difficult political question is dealing with the sentiment that was impressed on us some years ago that “prison works”. I do not believe that is true, but it works to undermine all the rest of the justice system by there not being enough money for paying lawyers to do their job properly and funding the administration of justice.

I am sorry—I took my second question in two parts. I commend the Lord Chancellor on what she has done, but there are other problems to which we need to face up.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I agree with the concluding sentence of the noble and learned Lord—there are indeed other problems which we need to face up to, and reducing the prison population is one of the most fundamental of them. In many ways, that problem goes hand in hand with the problem of the Crown Court backlog. The noble and learned Lord will know that my noble friend Lord Timpson went to Spain to see their prison system, and my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor went to Texas, looking constructively at other ways of dealing with these issues. Of course, as he said, reoffending rates are crucial in trying to reduce the backlog and there will be legislation on this coming forward in due course.

The noble and learned Lord opened by talking about the incentive to plead not guilty because of the lengthy backlogs. That is undoubtedly true; I have heard that point made many times. It is an added incentive for us to try to reduce the backlogs. There will be a number of benefits to this, and the noble and learned Lord has pointed to one in particular.

Regarding intermediate courts or giving magistrates more sentencing powers, it is my understanding that magistrates’ courts work about five times more quickly than Crown Courts. I do not know what Sir Brian is going to recommend, but, if more work could be done within magistrates’ courts, that would help as well.

The noble and learned Lord spoke about bringing prisoners to court in a timely way. I of course agree with that point. The last mini-campaign I did when I was still a sitting magistrate was to try to allow prison vans in London to use the emergency service lanes to get people to court. It was a minor battle I had with the Mayor of London and I am afraid that I lost it. Nevertheless, the point he makes is a good one. It is very important that everybody gets to court on time, so that the whole process can be properly managed, which is of benefit to everybody involved in it.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

Perhaps I could ask a supplementary question. Has the Ministry of Justice got a really tough contract manager? All of one’s commercial experience shows that, if you contract out a service, you have to be tough in the performance of it. I need not raise the problems that have arisen. In the past, contract delivery companies did not have a good record, if one might say this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

What I can say is that I have been in meetings with the Permanent Secretary and the Lord Chancellor and I would not like to be on the wrong side of them when they are talking directly to contractors—which they do every now and again.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, following the points made by the noble and learned Lord, does the Minister agree that it is about not only contract management but the design of the contract from the very beginning, so there can be break clauses or a contract may be terminated if it is not properly performed? Also, following the noble and learned Lord’s comments, does the Minister agree that what will be far more helpful to justice proceeding more speedily is to suggest not that pre-sentence reports are a bad thing but that well-designed pre-sentence reports can assist in the appropriate sentences being applied as part of the attempt to reduce reoffending?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Yes, I agree with the points the noble Baroness makes. The aspiration is to move towards a greater proportion of offenders having pre-sentence reports before they are sentenced. To me, that seems an obvious state of affairs. So, I agree with the point that the noble Baroness made on that. Regarding the contracts, I understand that they do have break clauses and can be terminated: that is a possibility within current contracts, as far as I understand it.

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group and note my other interests in the register.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to tackling SLAPPs. Our immediate focus is on implementing the anti-SLAPP provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, and their operation will inform any future action. We are determined to take the necessary time to consider this complex issue carefully and ensure that we do not risk upsetting the delicate balance between access to justice and free speech.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, SLAPPs are an unacceptable infringement on free speech; their sole purpose is to empower the powerful and corrupt to silence journalists and bloggers and to shut down legitimate scrutiny. In opposition, the Prime Minister and the Government strongly backed legislation to end their continuing abuse, but now they have gone back on that commitment and said that changes to civil procedure rules will be enough. Is the Minister aware that free speech campaigners such as Article 19 and Transparency International, backed by studies from the universities of Birmingham and Leeds, have said that these rules will be wholly ineffective in stopping pernicious lawsuits and that what is needed is full-throated legislation? Rather than hiding behind piecemeal legal tweaks, will the Government look at this again, stick to their unequivocal promises and set out a timeline for the development of a robust anti-SLAPP Bill?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the statutory definition of an economic crime SLAPP was within the previous Act, and the Civil Procedure Rule Committee has introduced rules. My honourable friend Minister Sackman signed the rules to come into law in January this year, and those measures will be implemented later this spring. The Government want to see how those measures will work before deciding on more legislation.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, in 2023 the Conservative Government formed a task force to deal with SLAPPs under the direction of DCMS, with a wide representation of government officials, solicitors, barristers and journalists, and with terms of reference requiring bi-monthly meetings. Four reports were produced, the last in March 2024; there has been nothing since. Have the current Government abolished the task force? If not, what is it doing, and how and when will we hear from it?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I do not know the answer to the noble Lord’s question, so I will write to him.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I had quite a lot to do with getting a SLAPPs element into the economic crime Act as a beachhead, but it was always seen as just that: a beachhead. A far more comprehensive law was to follow, covering all the other sectors beyond economic crime. Why have we not seen anything further? Will we see something further during this Parliament to cover the other areas? I am sure the Minister will be aware that law firms that profit from this will be lobbying hard against it. I hope he will resist that.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I remember the interventions from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, in the debates on that Act, in which I took part as well. I am going to give the noble Lord the same answer as I have just given. We want to see how the changes to the rules will change the actions of the courts. SLAPPs are covert and they need to be identified. We want to enable the judges to identify them appropriately.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I too am concerned that this is slipping down the legislative agenda, because this issue is serious. Whistleblowers in the Post Office scandal, for example, were silenced early on when they wanted to go public and received letters telling them that they would be sued for defamation if they pursued their claims. We have seen many journalists being silenced and intimidated with expensive lawsuits by the rich and the powerful. It is identifying those cases and having specific legislation that is effective.

I remind the Minister that a lot of these cases are directed against women, often exposing things to do with powerful men misbehaving and their conduct towards women being highly concerning. Those women are silenced. Given that the Government have committed to protecting women and girls, are they going to do something to protect those who are most vulnerable in this area?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I absolutely recognise all the points my noble friend made in her question. We do not believe that this issue is slipping down the legislative agenda. We want to see how the 2023 Act will work in practice. That will be happening imminently. The new rules will become active later this spring. The point my noble friend makes about intimidation through this procedure is absolutely right. Women, journalists and women journalists are all victims of this, and it is something we will certainly keep an eagle eye on.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that we should not confuse the issues surrounding non-disclosure agreements, which can be pernicious in themselves, with the issue of strategic lawsuits against public participation? Does he also agree that because the public profile of SLAPPs has so increased recently, regulators have taken a far more positive approach to dealing with the matter, as recent evidence from the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board illustrates? It might be better to see how the civil rules implement the perception against SLAPPs and allow those regulators to discharge their functions with regard to the legal profession.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for that question, and I agree with the points he made. It is indeed true that non-disclosure agreements can be pernicious in themselves, and they are not to be confused with SLAPPs. The new regulations will come into place imminently, and we should see how they go before considering future legislation.

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

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I think the Minister is aware that the Council of Europe has done a great deal on this matter, particularly the parliamentary assembly committee on culture, media and sport. I think the Minister said in a previous exchange that he would look at the Council of Europe recommendations and take account of them in taking action on this. Has he had the opportunity to do this yet? If not, will he do so soon?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Yes, I remember our previous exchange on this matter, and I have looked at the work done within the Council of Europe, the parliamentary assembly and its culture, media and sport committee. This is a cross-Europe issue. There are groups measuring attempts at SLAPPs across European jurisdictions. We will continue to look at how legislation is developed across Europe. We will keep an eye on this within the UK. The point that my noble friend makes is a good one.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the Minister to the letter from the SRA, which it sent me this week and I have published on X this morning, detailing why it has not taken action against the lawyers representing Yevgeny Prigozhin, who pursued the journalist Eliot Higgins for tweeting that he was a Russian mercenary and the leader of the Wagner Group. In that letter the SRA is clearer than it has ever been that, in its view, legislation is needed to prevent SLAPPs. Can the Minister please think again about the urgency of this matter? What with not moving on this, yesterday’s complacency on the Telegraph and the Government’s position on copyright, there needs to be a different kind of response from the Government on matters concerning the freedom of the press.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for sending me a copy of that letter yesterday. The first point to make is that it is for the courts to decide whether a case is indeed a SLAPP. The second is that the case referred to in the SRA letter preceded the legislation that is now in place. The focus of the Government is to see how the new regulations will bed down before we consider new legislation.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister may not be aware that the Georgian oligarchy is introducing SLAPPs laws into its own country now, justifying that by saying that they are British laws. Is the Minister not embarrassed that this is being used to suppress the press and protest in Georgia? Does he not understand that we need to take this out of our laws so that people are not using it as justification elsewhere?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I was not aware of the point that the noble Lord has just made, but of course there is a balance to be struck between Article 6 rights of access to justice and Article 10 rights of freedom of speech, and it is very important that we get that right.

Non-Consensual Sexually Explicit Images and Videos (Offences) Bill [HL]

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, has had to run a gauntlet online of Corbynite malcontents, misfits and misogynists. Her courage in taking this forward with such persistence and skill should be commended additionally in that context. Those people ought to give a public apology to her today; they will not, of course, but that is on them, because the country is with her on this.

When I came into this place, I was a relative youngster. It is appropriate to note that this place does not simply require people of my generation—free bus pass people—bringing great wisdom and experience; it can benefit equally, and sometimes more, from younger voices bringing a different and more modern perspective. Perhaps that points some direction for the future of this place.

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

My Lords, I personally agree with all the speakers so far. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, that I absolutely agree that the Government should and do stand with the victims; it is the victims who are the main beneficiaries of the changes we plan to put through. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that this is part of a wider battle, which we will continue to fight through other pieces of legislation that will be before us. I also agree with my noble friend Lord Mann that the country, as he said, supports the noble Baroness, Lady Owen. It is worth noting that I joined this House when I was about the same age as she is now. You can make changes, and the House is a welcoming place. The noble Baroness has certainly used her seat in this House for the benefit of victims, and I think there is no higher compliment that I can make.

The Government have set an ambitious target of halving violence against women and girls within a decade. We know that the majority of victims of intimate image abuse are women and girls, and we will do all we can to tackle it. Although we cannot support the Bill, I assure your Lordships that we continue to work tirelessly to tighten our laws to give women and girls the protection they need. As the House knows, we are bringing forward a package of offences to tackle the taking of intimate images without consent in the crime and policing Bill, which will be in the other place very shortly.

Our provisions tackling the creation of purported intimate images without consent, as amended on Wednesday, have now moved to the other place for further consideration. We intend to table further amendments there to strengthen the provisions and ensure that they can be applied effectively. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, is concerned about further issues, such as the definition of “intimate image” and the inclusion of wider types of images, such as semen images, and I confirm that we are looking closely at these issues as our provisions progress. So I thank the noble Baroness for her work on this matter.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

2: After Clause 139, insert the following new Clause—
“Creating purported intimate image of adult(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).(2) After section 66D insert—“66E Creating purported intimate image of adult(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—(a) A intentionally creates a purported intimate image of another person (B),(b) B does not consent to the creation of the purported intimate image, and(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.(2) “Purported intimate image” of a person means an image which—(a) appears to be, or to include, a photograph or film of the person (but is not, or is not only, a photograph or film of the person),(b) appears to be of an adult, and(c) appears to show the person in an intimate state.(3) Subsections (5) to (9) of section 66D (person in an intimate state) apply for the purposes of this section as if references in those subsections to a photograph or film were references to an image.(4) References in this section to creating a purported intimate image of a person do not include doing so by modifying a photograph or film of the person where what is created by the modification is an image which—(a) appears to show the person, but(b) does not appear to show—(i) something within section 66D(5)(a) to (e) (read with subsections (6) and (7) of that section) which is not shown in the photograph or film, or(ii) a person who is not shown in the photograph or film.(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for creating the purported intimate image.(6) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine.66F Creating purported intimate image of an adult: further definitions etc(1) This section applies for the purposes of section 66E.(2) “Consent” to the creation of a purported intimate image includes general consent covering the particular act of creation as well as specific consent to that particular act.(3) Whether a belief is “reasonable” is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.(4) “Photograph” includes the negative as well as the positive version.(5) “Film” means a moving image.(6) A reference to an “image”, “photograph” or “film” includes data stored by any means which is capable of conversion into an image, photograph or film.(7) An image of a person appears to be an image of an adult if—(a) the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is aged 18 or over, or (b) the predominant impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is aged 18 or over (even if some of the physical characteristics shown are those of a person under 18).”(3) In section 79(5) (meaning of references to image of a person), after “a person” insert “(except in sections 66E and 66F)”.(4) In the Sentencing Code, after section 154 insert—“154A Purported intimate images to be treated as used for purpose of certain offences(1) This section applies where a person commits an offence under section 66E of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (creating purported intimate image of adult).(2) The purported intimate image to which the offence relates, and anything containing it, is to be regarded for the purposes of section 153 (and section 157(3)(b)) as used for the purposes of committing the offence (including where it is committed by aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring).””Member’s explanatory statement
This clause makes it an offence to create a purported intimate image of an adult without consent and provides that deprivation orders can be made under the Sentencing Code in connection with the offence.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to continue this debate on the intimate image deepfakes within the context of this legislation. We have heard the concerns raised by Members of this House and, as I committed to on Report, I am pleased to move a government amendment that will ensure that those who create an intimate deepfake of an adult without their consent, or a reasonable belief in their consent, are held accountable under the criminal law. This is an important step forward in itself, and one which shows how carefully the Government have listened. However, as I made clear last week, and as I will come on to, we will table further amendments as the Bill progresses through the House of Commons.

Before turning to the specifics of the amendment, I take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen of Alderley Edge. She has shown unwavering commitment to supporting the victims of online abuse, which has been invaluable. Her tireless efforts have significantly shaped policy in this critical area. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton, who have given much of their time to support the noble Baroness and meet me and my ministerial colleagues and officials as we work through the policy on this important issue.

Technological advancements have progressed at such a tremendous pace, making it increasingly easy for individuals to create a realistic intimate image of a person without their consent. This is unacceptable. We recognise the risk posed by the creation of these images, both to the individuals depicted in them and to society more widely. Victims report feeling embarrassed, violated and unsafe, and the images undermine the fundamental principle of consent—something we as a society hold in the highest regard. As such, we must act now.

As noble Lords will recall from last week’s debate, the Government committed to tabling an updated amendment at Third Reading reflecting the views heard in this Chamber. Amendment 2 will make it an offence to intentionally create

“a purported intimate image of another person”

without their consent or reasonable belief in their consent. Importantly, there will be no additional mental elements for this offence, which adopts a consent-based approach to better protect victims from harm. This recognises that creating such images, whatever the perpetrator’s purpose, should be considered a criminal violation of a person’s privacy. The scope of this offence will be limited to images of adults, as existing legislation already provides for a number of very serious offences involving similar images of children.

We have carefully considered the concerns raised regarding the types of images involved. We are grateful to the noble Baroness for her constructive collaboration. We have defined the images in the amendment more broadly than originally proposed, by reference to Section 66D(5) to (9) of the intimate image abuse framework in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This offence will therefore cover the creation of the same types of images as are covered by the sharing intimate images offences, an approach which we intend to replicate in the proposed taking offences. Consequently, the criminal law will be comprehensive and consistent on this issue.

It will be a criminal offence to create, take or share an image which shows, or appears to show, someone engaged in sexual acts, or where the most intimate parts of the body are exposed or covered with underwear, or where the person is, for example, using a toilet.

The Government’s amendment includes a defence based on reasonable excuse, which would apply in the exceptional circumstances where there is a reasonable excuse for creating such an image. The defence places the legal burden of proof on the defendant, so it will be for the defendant to convince the court, on the balance of probabilities, that they had a reasonable excuse for creating the image, rather than for the prosecution to prove that they did not have such an excuse.

It is right that such a defence is available. The law in this country regularly includes a range of defences, including defences of reasonable excuse, and this defence is also available in many other offences, including intimate image offences. This is particularly so with such a new type of offence, where we simply cannot know all the circumstances, now and in the future, as technology develops, where it may be committed. That is another reason for the reasonable excuse defence.

We are confident that the courts would consider very carefully evidence of any such excuse, and how reasonable it was, on the facts of every individual case. That is something the courts are used to considering, and the CPS is used to interrogating, in many offences, and we believe this strikes the right balance between protecting victims and respecting individual rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I too support my noble friend Lady Owen in her amendments. Thanks to her tireless and frankly inspiring work, we have an opportunity to make a real difference now—today. She made a powerful and disturbing case for her amendments, and we have heard in Committee, on Report and now today how important these changes are to the many women who have already been victims of deepfakes. This is clearly something we need to address urgently to protect others from being victims in future and to bring perpetrators to justice. Deepfakes can ruin lives, and now is the time to act. In this, my noble friend has our full support.

I congratulate the Government on having travelled some way in tabling their amendment today. We are disappointed that they have still not been able to deliver including solicitation in the proposed offence. My noble friend’s amendments would ensure that it is an offence to solicit—I, too, rather prefer that term—or commission the creation of these kinds of images, and we support her inclusion of solicitation in the new offence.

Of course, I understand that the Government plan further amendments, but for now we are also disappointed that they have decided not to give the courts the option of imposing a custodial sentence on those who commit this new offence, and have chosen not to remove the “reasonable excuse” defence when a defendant has intentionally created an image of this type. Given the seriousness of the new offence and its significant impact on the lives of victims, this new law must have more teeth. We support my noble friend in bringing Amendment 6 to the House, and we will vote with her on this and her other amendments if she chooses to test the opinion of the House. Like others, I rather hope she will.

I conclude by once again paying tribute to my noble friend, who has assembled such a distinguished and respected group of signatories to and supporters of her amendments. Her approach to the Bill is in the highest traditions of your Lordships’ House, and I am proud to support her today.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been both a wide-ranging debate and a specific debate on the noble Baroness’s three amendments. I will deal first with the solicitation point. We have heard the strength of feeling, and the Government will not oppose the noble Baroness’s Amendments 3, 4, 7 and 10. As I said, we had wanted to do it another way, but we recognise the strength of feeling expressed in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him about the aspect of deterrent? You may have someone—or a company—who is inordinately rich, or someone who is extremely poor, for whom, as he knows, a fine will not work because they do not have any money. There will be instances where a fine would not do but the deterrent would be the possibility of prison.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness makes a fair point. In practice, this offence is very likely to be charged with the threat to share and other offences, which are of course imprisonable in their own right. As I said, there is no limitation to the number of offences that can be charged. We think it more appropriate that this be a fine-only offence, given the plethora of other offences which can be charged in this field.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

It is important to clarify that someone can be in a relationship with a partner who creates a sexually explicit deepfake, which presents a very real threat to that person even if their partner has not actually threatened to share it. That is what campaigners and victims believe: if you are in this kind of relationship and you know that someone has developed these sexually explicit deepfakes without your consent, that presents a very real threat. We believe that should be imprisonable.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, in a sense, this will be tested in the courts. If the woman knows that the images have been created, the threat is there; that is what she is worried about. Of course, that is a separate offence, as I have already said. On the offence where there is no threat and it is just the creation of the image, we believe that a fine-only sentence is appropriate.

Amendment 3 (to Amendment 2) agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

8: Clause 142, page 174, line 22, at end insert—
“(c) section (Creating purported intimate image of adult) (creating purported intimate image of adult) extends to England and Wales only.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new Clause “Creating purported intimate image of adult” extends to England and Wales only.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

9: Title, line 18, after “services;” insert “to make provision about the creation of purported intimate images;”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment inserting the new Clause “Creating purported intimate image of adult”.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Amendment 10 (to Amendment 9)

Moved by

Humanist Weddings

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what is the timetable for legalising humanist weddings in England and Wales.

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

My Lords, I am aware that humanists have long campaigned to be able to conduct legally binding weddings and fully appreciate why my noble friend is asking this Question. However, I am afraid I must repeat my previous Answer. As a new Government, we must take the time properly to consider our marriage law and the Law Commission’s review on weddings before publicly setting out our position, which we will do in the coming months.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I had two responses prepared: “hurrah” and this one, which basically says that my noble friend the Minister has disappointed those who see this as a priority and who have for the last 11 years been asking the previous Government and now my own Government to take action. I would be grateful if he could meet me to discuss how best to take this matter forward; then, perhaps, I will not need to keep asking this question—which I will do until the matter is resolved.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am very happy to meet my noble friend—any time, any place. As I said, I am aware that a number of noble Lords have extremely strong views on this matter. The Government want to do this in a measured way. Other factors are in play, about which I have informed my noble friend; nevertheless, I am very happy to meet her.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, more Scots now choose a humanist wedding than those who marry in all other religious ceremonies combined, yet we deny that option to those who wed in England. The Minister emphasised, as he has previously, that England’s centuries-old legal framework is more complex. If we want to align England’s framework with contemporary belief and manifest social demand, can he identify any impediments in the way that cannot be easily and speedily overcome?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question and the letter he wrote to me recently, which I answered. Complexities were identified in the Law Commission report a number of years ago which are real and need to be taken seriously. The Government are set on doing that, and on giving themselves the time so to do.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I have previously raised with the Minister another issue with our marriage law with which he is familiar. There are cases where people—mainly women—go through a religious ceremony thinking that they have got married but they have not actually done so under UK law. They find that out only when things break down. Can the Minister outline the solution to that? Are the Government considering making it an offence to conduct such a ceremony without first having seen a civil certificate of marriage?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I do not know the answer, but I will write to her, because she raises a very important point. When she asked a similar question a few weeks ago, I made the point that I regularly came across those types of scenarios when I sat as a family court magistrate. I add that the myth of common-law marriage exists not just in particular sectors of our society but across it. It includes the idea that women—it is usually women—get rights, but that is absolutely not the case. That is why the Government are undertaking to look at how the rights of people who have been in long-standing, cohabiting relationships can be addressed when those couples split up.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to various difficulties, but Liberal Democrats and humanists do not see them. I echo the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton: can those of us with a special interest in this area meet and put some new ideas forward, to make sure that we can move this along?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am very happy to meet the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

When this House heard the last of the very frequent and not very satisfactory Questions on this topic, my noble friend the Minister committed to conducting an equality impact assessment to evaluate the impact that this current ongoing delay is having on different groups. When will the Minister be able to share this with the House? Will he bring it to the meeting which has just been agreed?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I cannot remember making that commitment, so I will need to write to my noble friend about that matter.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, the House should recognise that the Minister’s answer of “in the coming months” is rather better than we have had before. Humanists and others simply want a marriage ceremony that reflects their beliefs, whether religious or not, and that will be legally recognised without unnecessary obstacles. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are now actively looking at comprehensive reform, in line with the Law Commission’s 2023 recommendations, to help not just humanists but other similarly disadvantaged groups, even if that may take more time than we would want?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. The Government are indeed looking at comprehensive reform. There are many anomalies within our current marriage law and a number of disadvantaged groups. We believe that we need to take our time on this matter to get the answer right, so I thank the noble Lord for his question.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

Can the Minister explain to those of us who do not know what either of them are like the difference between a registry office wedding and humanist wedding?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I can answer that for the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. A registry office wedding is legally binding in the eyes of the law in England and Wales. A humanist wedding which is not conducted in a registry office would not be legally binding in that sense. A humanist getting married in England or Wales would essentially have to go through a two-stage process to be married in the eyes of the law in England and Wales.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on dropping the rather meaningless phrase “in due time” and telling the House that this is going to be done in the coming months. By that, I assume that it will be within 12 months, because he said in the coming “months” and not in the coming “years”. Can he assure the House that we will have legalised humanist marriages within the next year—in other words, in 12 months?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am very glad that noble Lords have noticed the change in wording since the last time this matter was discussed at Oral Questions. The commitment is that in the coming months we will review the situation in the light of the Law Commission submission, and we are well aware of the Labour Party’s commitment in the manifesto.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

The Minister must be feeling that it is Groundhog Day yet again, and it will continue, as the noble Baroness says, until we get a response on this—please. The Minister keeps talking about the complexities of these issues, but it is a complexity which has been resolved in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Jersey and the Isle of Man. It is not as though government should have come as a great surprise to the party opposite—it had plenty of time to plan for it. What is required is not more discussion and more complexity but a decision. Will the Minister please bring forward a decision at the earliest possible moment?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I have to disagree with the noble Lord. There is genuine complexity here, and there are other groups who are not bringing their cases to this House who are also disadvantaged, and we want to look at the complexities in the round. He talks about Scotland, but there is a different system in Scotland, and there are anomalies within Scotland as well. This all increases the complexity of the overall situation in England and Wales. We have taken a very small step forward, and I hope that we can fulfil the commitment to look at this matter as we said that we would.

Office for Students

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, what a genuinely engaging debate—I am also going for “joyful” today. I thank noble Lords for their congratulations. I am having a very good day, even if my husband-to-be’s credit card is probably not.

Moving on to the debate, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for opening the debate and, moreover, for the significant role he has played in shaping our world-class higher education. I never for a moment thought that I would ever be responding to “Two-brains” in an education debate, but I am delighted to do so. I agree with him on the joys of being a Whip at this end of the building. We are allowed to speak; the Chief Whip will decide whether that is for good or ill. The noble Lord’s ongoing contribution to the broader debate about the future of our universities is deeply valued.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, for requesting this debate. I know that he, having been instrumental in setting up the Office for Students, continues to have a keen interest in the future of our universities and in securing the future of our higher education system for the benefit of our students, the taxpayer and the economy. Higher education is vital to the future of our country. Our universities are revered globally for excellence and act as one of the country’s greatest enablers of two of this Government’s missions.

First, higher education is the engine for growth. It ensures that we have a highly skilled workforce and delivers world-class research that underpins long-term innovation and economic growth. In many communities, it acts as an anchor for local economic development and civic impact. It adds billions of pounds of value to our economy each year, supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and generates over three-quarters of all our education exports.

Higher education also provides opportunity. It enriches the lives of learners, regardless of their background, and how they access education—including at the Salvation Army, which, for the record, is where my mother was born. For many, it is a truly transformational experience. Graduates have better choice, better paid employment and are better able to contribute to the economy and society as whole, challenging understanding and developing new ideas. This contributes to a healthier, more cohesive society for us all. I have first-hand experience of this. I am the first person in my family to have gone to university. My grandmother, from the East End of London, would have been somewhat confused by where I ended up, but I know only too well how higher education can transform lives to ones of aspiration and achievement.

Secondly, higher education is an engine not only for the economy but for social mobility. This lies at the heart of the Government’s commitment to build skills for opportunity and growth, so that every young person can follow the pathway towards a better future that is right for them, whether at university or elsewhere. Technical education and further education are also key to ensuring that people have the right role for them and are able to find joy and happiness at work, which is what we are doing today.

The Office for Students is fundamental to all this through its effective and independent regulation of the sector. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, touched on the fact that there was no regulator in place when some genuinely challenging elements came into being. It is vital that we now have one, making it work in a way that delivers for the sector and the country.

The primary purpose of regulators is to protect the public. At the point when most students enter higher education, through tuition fees, they make the single biggest investment that they are ever likely to make. These fees are, of course, largely underwritten by the taxpayer through the student loans system. Therefore, it is vital that our universities and colleges offer high-quality provision that ensures a good return on that investment for students and the country, and it is right that independent regulation should seek to ensure this, while protecting and promoting the student interest.

What is the need for stronger regulation and the new strategy? We need to take a step back. Noble Lords will recall the report from the Industry and Regulators Committee on the Office for Students, published in September 2023, which provided a stark assessment of the regulator’s past performance. Indeed, it was entitled Must Do Better.

Last July, the Government published the report of Sir David Behan’s review of the OfS. The review sought to be forward-looking and create a platform for change, but Sir David was very clear that the environment within which the OfS operates has changed considerably since the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, first made the case for the regulator in 2010 and, indeed, since the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, articulated his vision for higher education in the 2017 White Paper Success as a Knowledge Economy.

The current situation is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. Navigating this uncertain terrain will be a challenge for many providers, their students and, as it has proved, the OfS itself. Sir David found that the case for regulation was clear. He recognised the improvements the OfS had made since the publication of the Industry and Regulators Committee report but recommended that the OfS should focus on the key priorities of quality, financial sustainability, acting in the student interest and protecting public money. In short: do less but do it better.

Following the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Wharton, as chair of the OfS, and while a permanent replacement is recruited, the Secretary of State has appointed Sir David as interim chair to oversee the implementation of his review. The OfS has begun this work, setting out a proposed road map for the next five years in the consultation currently running on its strategy, which are discussing today. However, while this important long-term work progresses, immediate priorities and risks must be assessed and addressed.

Central to Sir David’s analysis was a focus on the financial sustainability of the sector. Concerns about the sector’s finances have continued to grow, even appearing in the news this week. In November, the OfS published analysis of the higher education sector’s financial health for the 2022-23 financial year and forecasts for the next four years. It made for troubling reading, finding that both domestic and international recruitment are below the sector’s expectations; that by 2025-26, income could be £3.4 billion lower than provider forecasts; and that up to 72% of providers are expected to be in deficit if they do not take significant mitigating actions.

As a result, the OfS made the decision to temporarily pause the processing of applications regarding the OfS register, degree-awarding powers and university titles, to refocus their resources on managing the critical risk of financial sustainability in the sector. I reassure noble Lords that Education Ministers and officials meet with the OfS on a regular basis, and this specific issue was discussed with the OfS in November and again in December.

Of course, this is not the ideal decision for the OfS to make, and I do not underestimate the impact on those providers whose business models rely on achieving registration or progressing with degree-awarding powers, but it is a decision for the OfS as an independent regulator, not for Ministers. Furthermore, it is in line with the recommendations of the independent review and with expectations set out in the regulator’s code to prioritise resource to manage the greatest risk.

The pause is limited to new and early-stage applications. The OfS expects to restart the process in August, or earlier if possible, and will review every three months until then. Affected providers have been contacted individually and will be informed of progress and changes. I recognise the concerns that this stifles growth, but it is about keeping the show on the road while we deliver our long-term strategic ambitions for higher education. On that note, I will answer some of the specific questions put to me by noble Lords.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, there are unlikely to be more than 100 applications from franchised providers. We require only those with over 300 students to register for the new franchising model, and the largest 10 unregistered providers account for 58% of all franchised students at unregistered providers. This will work quite quickly and effectively with the largest suppliers.

With regard to the “Strengthening oversight of partnership delivery in higher education” consultation, we think that it is important to make progress towards strengthening the regulation of franchised higher education. The OfS has currently paused the registration of new higher education providers in order to support the sector with financial sustainability concerns, as I said, but this is being reviewed every three months.

With regard to institutions that are already in process, which the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, touched on, the OFS has said that it will process applications that are already well advanced. If the noble Lord has knowledge of where that is not happening, I would be grateful for the information. It will also review that every three months. Given what we are talking about between now and August, that seems proportionate, but, if there are specific concerns, I would like to hear from the noble Lord.

On global chains and the pause, I think it is fair to say that education is global. The best of education, as we discuss regularly in the House, allows people’s brains to flourish. Universities are cathedrals for learning, whether they are here or elsewhere; the more exposure we have to more people, the better position we are in to move society forward.

On global change, it is for providers and universities to make decisions about business models, including international investment. However, I can reassure noble Lords that this is temporary to address a critical risk. If there are people with whom we need to engage in the interim, we will endeavour to have those relationships to reassure those institutions. The OfS will consider such applications as soon as the process restarts but will, I hope, seek to work with partners as the pause is ongoing.

I believe that I have answered on the next bit. We are getting through the questions.

All three noble Lords asked: why so much regulatory burden now? Individuals and the taxpayer have invested hugely in higher education. It is right that this should be regulated. However, regulation has to be proportionate and not stifle growth. I agree that the Chancellor’s speech yesterday was excellent. We must also make sure that we are all contributing to the delivery of growth in order to continue to invest in the public services that I, for one, care so much about.

The Office for Students must, and does, abide by the Regulators’ Code and should not impose unnecessary burdens, but students’ experience and outcomes are critical. We need to ensure that students are getting what they pay for.

With regard to further education colleges, as raised by the noble Baroness—am I okay for time, Mr Whip?

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

Yes.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

Thank you. It is quite nice to be on the other side.

FE colleges form an essential part of the HE landscape. We are very aware of the burden on colleges that are regulated by a number of different bodies. That is why, for example, we are proposing to exempt FE colleges from the new proposed requirements for franchising. I emphasise again that the pause is temporary. If FE colleges wish to register, they will be able to do so from this summer.

On the wider education strategy, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, the Secretary of State has been clear and has announced five priorities for the reform of higher education. Given the time, I will not outline them but will write to the noble Baroness with the details.

I am very grateful for the thoughtful contributions that noble Lords have made during this debate. There is a great deal of higher education expertise in your Lordships’ House—some of which is a little terrifying—and I welcome this opportunity to benefit from it. I conclude by commending the efforts of the OfS. The Government continue to maintain their strong support for the regulator and its important work in protecting the interests of students. I also recognise the risks that universities and, by extension, students are facing. I assure noble Lords that both the Government and the OfS maintain a keen focus on overcoming these challenges to ensure that we maintain the secure, stable and world-class higher education that we are all so rightly proud of.

Rape: Prosecutions

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate, particularly, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for bringing this debate here today. One main theme in the debate has been the issue of trust: trust within the criminal justice system and, particularly, trust in women when they report rape. That underlies all the speeches made here this afternoon.

Rape and other sexual offences are among the most serious crimes that can be committed. It is right that we work hard to ensure that survivors receive the swift and compassionate response from our criminal justice system that they deserve. This Government were elected on a clear, landmark pledge to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade. Improving the criminal justice system’s response to rape is central to that pledge. Although our pledge necessarily focuses on the disproportionate impact of these crimes on women, we recognise that men and boys can also be victims of sexual offences, including rape. Noble Lords might note that I introduced the relevant amendment for male rape in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and that has changed the perception of male victims of sexual offences.

As we have heard, if you are a victim of rape in this country today, your chances of seeing your case reach trial are low, despite the courage it takes for survivors to come forward. Only a fraction of reported cases end in prosecution and, if charges are brought, it may take years for your case to come to trial. While the number of rape prosecutions has increased over recent years—now at the highest level since 2010—they continue to fall short of what victims, and the wider public, would expect. This Government are determined to transform the response to rape in this country, so that victims are supported and perpetrators brought to justice swiftly. That is our goal. It is a simple one, even if the task itself is not.

Let me set out the factors that have led us to this point. In 2019, charges and prosecutions for rape had fallen to an historic low, prompting the previous Government to carry out an end-to-end review of the criminal justice system’s response to adult rape offences. This review found that the system had, in fact, faltered from around 2016 onwards—a year that saw a sharp decline in rape prosecutions, coupled with a decline in convictions. The reasons for this drop are varied but well documented.

The first concerns systemic issues. When this Government took office, we inherited a justice system under intense pressure and a growing backlog of cases in the courts. The volume of outstanding cases in the Crown Court now stands at over 70,000—a record high. When the justice system is under this level of strain, everyone feels the impact; it is a sad fact that this includes victims, particularly victims of sexual offences. For many victims, the wait they might face is simply too much to bear. As it stands, around 55% of rape complainants, despite coming forward, eventually withdraw from the criminal justice process. Understandably, they want to focus on their own mental health and rebuilding their lives.

Rape cases also require specialist expertise; this point was made by both previous commissioners, who gave, if I may say so, some interesting ideas. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, talked about group police work as the way to tackle this issue; he compared it to terrorist offences and the like, and I found it an interesting idea. Of course, this is a resource issue. These resource issues include the challenge of having enough specialist barristers, both prosecuting and defending, willing to take on these highly sensitive and difficult cases.

For prosecution volumes to improve, victims must also have the confidence to come forward and report what has happened to them, knowing that they will be taken seriously and, crucially, be given the support they need. Sadly, this is not always the experience of rape victims. This means that improvements in training, culture and local policing practices must all come together in a seamless and consistent manner. Victims will have confidence in the system only if they see it working effectively and compassionately.

I have set out some of the systemic issues. Now let me briefly highlight the challenges particular to this category of offences. First, many rapes are committed by someone known to the victim—often a current or former partner. Estimates suggest that more than 40% of adult rape victims are, or have been, in a relationship with their attacker. This complicates the investigative process.

Secondly, it is widely acknowledged that sexual offences, in particular rape, are often under-reported. Many victims fear the stigma of speaking out. Others lack confidence in the criminal justice system itself, feeling as though they are not being listened to or taken seriously—and, indeed, that they are the ones under scrutiny, not the perpetrator. During an investigation, it is not unusual for the police to request a victim’s personal records. Noble Lords will know that these requests have, at times, gone too far, causing unnecessary upset to victims, compounding their trauma and causing them to drop out of their case altogether.

I have outlined some of the challenges; now let me set out some of the commitments that this Government have made to begin addressing them. First, we have committed to ensuring swifter justice for victims and reducing the wait times that contribute to so many withdrawing from the process. One of the most vital steps in addressing this is reducing the time it takes from a charge being laid to the actual trial; we are working with the judiciary on how we can best fast-track rape cases through the courts.

More broadly, we have taken decisive action to drive the outstanding case load down, such as funding extra sitting days, which will see courts sit for a total of 108,500 days this financial year—the highest number in almost a decade. We have also increased the sentencing powers of magistrates’ courts from six months to 12 months for a single triable either-way offence. We expect this to free up around 2,000 sitting days and allow judges to deal with the more—indeed, the most—serious cases.

However, if victims are going to see justice done more swiftly in this country, we cannot simply do more of the same. We must go further. It will take once-in-a-generation reform, which is why the Lord Chancellor has commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to carry out an independent review of the criminal courts. Sir Brian will consider the merits of longer-term reform, as well as how our courts can operate more efficiently. I am sure that noble Lords will await the review’s findings with interest.

The Government’s second commitment is that every victim of adult rape should have access to a free, independent legal adviser. Later this year, we will introduce new independent legal advisers, who will offer free legal advice to victims of adult rape at any point from report to trial. These advisers will help victims understand their rights, including in relation to the use of personal information, as well as offering clarity about the court process, timelines and what to expect. These advisers will not undermine the right to a fair trial or prevent evidence coming to light. They will simply help victims understand and, if needed, take steps to protect the rights that they already have.

Our third commitment is that specialist rape and sexual offences teams will be introduced into every police force, ensuring that the right capabilities are in place properly to investigate these offences. Victims must have a positive experience when dealing with the police, which will in turn increase reporting and deliver better outcomes for victims. We are working closely with policing partners to make this a reality.

Encouragingly, the volume of rape cases being reported to the police has followed a significant upward trend in recent years despite the prevalence of rape remaining flat, as measured by the Crime Survey for England and Wales. This means more brave victims feeling confident to report their offence to the police without increases in the number of incidents of rape.

Those are just three of our commitments. They will be underpinned by a new strategy to combat violence against women and girls, to be published later this year, which will help us transform how government, and the justice system as a whole, responds to these horrific crimes.

Let me emphasise again that rape is an abhorrent crime. It has no place in our society, and far too many survivors have suffered without seeing justice or receiving the support they so desperately need. A combination of factors, including strained court capacity and inconsistent resourcing, have contributed to the level of rape prosecutions we see today, but it is not enough simply to reel off the complexities. We must act, and that is what the Government are doing. We are under no illusion about the scale of the challenge before us, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this issue for debate.

I shall now answer some of the specific questions asked by noble Lords. First, education is a cross-government endeavour that starts with prevention. My colleagues Ministers Davies-Jones and Phillips are leading on this issue, as are colleagues in the Department for Education. Relationship, sex and health education is now a statutory part of the curriculum, and within that, people are learning about domestic abuse and consent. So there is a cross-departmental approach to this important part of the solution to the problem.

Other noble Lords asked about attrition—women dropping out of the process. The answer to that is in the three specific promises I made: to support women through legal advice, to speed up the process, and to ensure that women understand the reality of the court process they will go through.

Other noble Lords asked about the experience in court. Trauma-informed training has already been delivered at Snaresbrook, Leeds and Newcastle Crown Courts, with over 400 professionals trained so far, including court staff, CPS staff and the police. In addition, witness waiting rooms and in-court technology have been upgraded in selected courts, and Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act also addresses the way victims are treated as they go through these types of cases.

I might say that I have dealt with these matters myself. Very unusually, I have dealt with a youth rape. Magistrates would not normally deal with rape, but on appeals in the youth court a magistrate would sit as a winger. I dealt with one at Harrow Crown Court, and I thought it was handled as well as it possibly could be. Interestingly—I will close on this because I am being looked at by my Whip—the young woman concerned chose to be in the courtroom while the case was proceeding because she wanted to be part of the whole process. The technology was available for it to be done in a different way, but that was her choice, and I thought it was a very powerful one on her part.

If I have not answered noble Lords’ questions, I will write to them.

Asylum Seekers: Legal Aid

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his Question. We are committed to improving the experience of all users and providers of civil legal aid. The Government are determined to improve and stabilise the civil legal aid sector, which was neglected for many years. Civil legal aid fees have not increased since 1996 and were cut by 10% by the previous Government. As an important first step towards this and having considered the evidence from the review of civil legal aid, we will consult on uplifting legal aid fees for immigration and asylum and for housing and debt this month, two sectors which we believe are particularly under pressure.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. The Public Accounts Committee determined last year that there is a supply crisis in the immigration and asylum legal aid market. As a result, increasing numbers of asylum seekers are removed from the UK before being able to evidence their claim properly or mount a meaningful appeal. It cannot be right for justice to be sacrificed on the altar of cost saving. Given that in the year ending June 2024 48% of asylum appeals were successful, what support can the Government provide to those unable to lodge an appeal because they simply cannot find a legal aid representative to assist them?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we are working within the sector to try to build up the support for people able to provide support for those making potential appeals. We are working with and funding the Law Society to enable it to fund the accreditation of suitably qualified people to enable this work to be undertaken. We are increasing the base of lawyers and others who can take on this work.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, what provisions are in place when an asylum seeker is refused their initial asylum claim and NASS, the National Asylum Support Service, records only their refusal decision and not that the asylum seeker has submitted their appeal, with their accommodation and subsistence allowance therefore not reinstated?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for giving me notice of his question and I will write to him. I hear similar questions in my other private life, and I will ensure that a proper answer is provided to my noble friend’s question.

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

My Lords, most research suggests that about 60% of eligible asylum seekers cannot find a legal aid lawyer. The announced increase in legal aid rates should help but will not deal with the advice deserts across the country. Given the language difficulties and the complexity of these cases, online remote lawyers cannot cover the deficit. How will the Government encourage more solicitors to take on this work, and does the Minister agree that the review of civil legal aid has already demonstrated that urgently reducing the bureaucracy and complexity of legal aid contracting is at least part of the answer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question; I certainly agree with the second part of it. Regarding the first part, the answer is very similar to the one I gave to the right reverend Prelate. The Government are funding the Law Society to help build up the base of lawyers and other legal professionals who can provide the advice to which the noble Lord has referred and to get rid of the “advice deserts”. I take his point about people not always giving their advice face to face; nevertheless, there has been a big change in remote advice for people seeking to make applications which we think has been beneficial. Nevertheless, there is the underlying issue of getting more people to work within the sector.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, we know that civil legal aid is now available in very limited circumstances and the disposable income threshold is little more than £3,000, so very few of our fellow citizens could ever qualify. An asylum seeker who has paid thousands of pounds to a people smuggler can reasonably argue upon his arrival at Dover that he has no disposable income and qualifies for legal aid, but the result is that we are now spending tens of millions of pounds on asylum cases from the Legal Aid Fund. Is there not a better and more efficient means of dealing with claims and the advice required by those seeking asylum in this country, including the suggestion of a government-supported and centralised legal representation unit for asylum cases, rather than this dispersed disposal of legal aid into what has been an advisory desert?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I was not aware of the suggestion of a centralised legal aid representation facility. If that is still being actively considered, I will write and confirm that to the noble and learned Lord. Nevertheless, he makes a reasonable point about building up the resources to be able to process these cases effectively, efficiently, fairly and humanely.

One other factor is that Duncan Lewis, the well-renowned law firm, has written that it believes that the new rates, which are very likely to be agreed, will help it to do more work in this area.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, anyone who reads the newspapers can see the huge gulf between the Rolls-Royce justice system available to those with bottomless pockets and what is available to those who have no legal aid and no money. Justice is not done if it is not affordable. I have in mind family law, which has a claim as great as asylum seekers, where people are left at the most stressful moments in their lives with no legal aid. Will the Government commit to some evening out of legal aid across all cases so that every citizen can get the legal aid and advice that they need?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am very sympathetic to the question and the point that the noble Baroness raises in it. As she may know, my personal background was as a magistrate in the family law space, and I saw many hundreds of litigants in person when dealing with those cases. It is true that they very often were not adequately able to put their case forward. We are looking at various initiatives in that space, such as mediation vouchers and possibly early legal advice, and different approaches, but the fundamental point the noble Baroness makes is fair.

Courts: Backlogs

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Government remain committed to bearing down on the Crown Court backlog, but the challenge in doing so is significant. The Lord Chancellor has commissioned an independent review of the criminal courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson, to recommend long-term reform. Sir Brian has been asked to specifically consider the merits of hearing more trials outside the Crown Court. Jury trials will always remain a cornerstone of our justice system for the most serious cases, but we must consider bold action to tackle the backlog in our courts.

[Baroness Hazarika (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. He is right that, because of the terrible inheritance of these court backlogs, we have to think radically and challengingly. We have to think about the victims. Some victims now are having cases listed as far away as early 2028. Is it right that a class C drugs offence sits in the Crown Court queue, while a vulnerable rape victim has to wait five-plus years from report to court? That often risks them walking away and allowing a potential rapist to escape. Does he agree that justice delayed is justice denied?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Yes, I agree with my noble friend that justice delayed is justice denied, and I agree with the sentiments she expressed in her question. But that is the argument for bold and ambitious reform—and we very much hope and expect that that is what Sir Brian will deliver. The review will consider the merits of longer-term reform, as well as court efficiency. Sir Brian will consider court reform options that would reduce demand on the Crown Court, including reclassification of offences, consideration of magistrates’ sentencing powers and the introduction of an intermediate court. The review will provide findings on court reform by spring this year, and its findings on efficiency will come forward by autumn this year.

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

My Lords, will this Government distance themselves from the Conservatives, who blamed the backlogs on Covid and on criminal barristers, who had no option but to strike to secure proper remuneration? Will the Minister tell the House what immediate steps they propose to address the real causes of these record backlogs, which delay trials and frustrate justice—in particular, too few judges, lawyers and court staff; a wrong-headed cap on court sitting days, severely criticised by the Lady Chief Justice, which has led to unplanned courtroom closures; and trials adjourned through listing and prisoner transport mistakes?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the two factors to which the noble Lord referred are real factors—Covid and the action by barristers. However, there is an underlying problem of increasing cases coming to Crown Court, which overlays the other problems to which the noble Lord referred. The Government have increased the number of allocated sitting days to 108,500, the highest level in almost a decade, and increased the sentencing powers of magistrates’ courts from six months to 12 months. Nevertheless, with those two increases, there needs to be further radical reform to address the problem to which the noble Lord referred.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister noted, much of the Crown Court backlog can be traced back to the effects of the Covid epidemic. Indeed, I acknowledge that there has been an increase in the number of sitting days for the Crown Court. However, the Lady Chief Justice has indicated that there are a further 4,500 sitting days available. We are in a situation in which many major Crown Court centres are sitting at only half capacity, with many of the courts simply empty. There are courts and judges available, but I am repeatedly advised that there are not suitable defence counsel available, many having been driven out of criminal practice due to the absence of a sustainable fee income. A recent increase in legal aid fees has been granted to solicitors in criminal practice. Is it not time for this Government to address a similar increase for barristers in criminal practice?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is right to draw attention to the 12% increase in fees for criminal aid solicitors. That is a substantial amount of money. The Government are exploring options to incentivise the early resolution of cases, which includes the remuneration of everyone in the criminal justice sector. The Government are informed by the 2021 report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and considerations are ongoing on this matter.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, sitting with two assessors, I tried a brutal rape and GBH case. The perpetrator was found guilty. Had we had trial by jury, it would have added weight to the conviction and sentencing. Is not the best way to deal with the court backlog that we request the Lord Chancellor and the Judicial Appointments Commission to appoint more judges and persuade retired judges, including the noble and learned Lords, to put all hands to the pump? They are sprightly.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his observations. We are taking a different approach, which is to look at the overall working efficiency of the court system. I acknowledge that there are substantial backlogs, particularly in rape cases, because they are often very complex cases. There is also the added distressing fact that many rape victims drop out of the process because of the lengthy delays. I acknowledge that that is a problem, but we believe that the best way to address this is to look at how the system operates as a whole. We are looking forward to receiving Sir Brian’s recommendations in due course.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope my noble friend the Minister knows that I have a lifetime of respect for professional tribunals, lawyers and judges, including Sir Brian, and their fair remuneration. Notwithstanding concerns about the backlog, which are considerable, I hope he agrees with me that there will always be benefit in jury trial for the most serious cases. That benefit is about public confidence, legitimacy and participation in the legal system on which the rule of law depends.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I completely agree with my noble friend: public confidence is absolutely paramount. That is one reason why jury trials were persisted with—quite rightly—during the Covid period. Having said that, there are certain types of cases where it is maybe not appropriate that a jury trial should be available. I anticipate that Sir Brian is looking at those sorts of cases.

[Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)]

My Lords, the current outstanding backlog in the Crown Court is a little over 73,000; it was only 40,000 when Covid struck. The Minister has already indicated that the volume of cases coming into the Crown Court continues to increase. Has any solution occurred to him or his colleagues other than to restrict the right to jury trial for the relatively low-grade cases of the sort that the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, spoke of, which clutter up the Crown Court?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord makes a very fair point. It is regrettable that the numbers are so high and are increasing—that is the underlying problem with which we are grappling within the Ministry of Justice. It is interesting that in the family court system we are back down to the pre-Covid numbers; that is good, and we are trying to bear down on that further. Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord makes a very good point and I am sure that Sir Brian Leveson will address these points.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of considerable concerns articulated by the Magistrates’ Association, among others, on the single justice procedure and the impact on vulnerable people, such as those with dementia or cancer, who have been brought to court. As he knows, that system is a magistrate with a lay expert supporting him. Will those issues, which are long standing since the establishment of the single justice procedure in 2015, be part of the ongoing review, as articulated by his right honourable friend Heidi Alexander two months ago?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I have sat as a single justice on certain types of cases. I understand that there are concerns about the single justice procedure, but I am not sure of the answer to the noble Lord’s question about whether it is part of Sir Brian’s review. I will write to him on that question.

European Convention on Human Rights: 75th Anniversary

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights.

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

My Lords, this year marks the 75th anniversary of the signing of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, known as the ECHR. This Government are proud that the UK was one of the original drafters of the ECHR and will use the anniversary to illustrate our renewed commitment to the international human rights framework and the rule of law.

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

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that excellent reply—eventually. Will he and the Government involve my noble friend Lord Touhig, the leader of our delegation, and other Members in the plans? Can he confirm yet again that our Government believe in the integrity of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and particularly that, unlike the previous Government, we will not renege on our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am happy to give my noble friend the assurances he is looking for. We would be happy to consult him and my noble friend Lord Touhig on the events which we will organise during the coming year for the anniversary of the signing of the ECHR. My noble friend may be interested to know that I was chairman of the celebration of the ECHR’s 50th anniversary, and it is something that I am very pleased that I did.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

Does the Minister accept my concern that the court is becoming increasingly interventionist and is making decisions in areas which should properly be left to national Parliaments, and that where this is happening national Parliaments have very limited ability to modify or reverse those decisions?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The Government support the European convention, but we want to work constructively within the convention as laws develop within it. We want to have a constructive, long-term approach that we can properly celebrate in this anniversary year.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Ending the ban on gay people in the military, ending teachers hitting children in schools in Scotland, ending the retention for life of DNA samples of innocent people, ending the persecution of gay people in Northern Ireland because of their sexuality, and ending the practice of imprisoning and hospitalising autistic people are all areas in which campaigners have had to fight, but they are rights provided by virtue of our membership of the convention. Does the Minister agree that perhaps some of the people who now believe most strongly that it has been interventionist take for granted the benefits that it has provided for citizens of the United Kingdom?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question and agree with everything he said. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been clear that this Government are committed to the international human rights framework and that we will never withdraw from the ECHR. The noble Lord’s points are well made.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, last year, the European court ruled that Switzerland violated the ECHR by failing to adequately address climate change. This was just the latest example of judicial overreach by the court. I am pleased to say that there was an excoriating dissenting opinion from the UK-appointed judge. Does the Minister agree that this is a dangerous precedent to set? Will he commit to working with other democratic European countries that have also expressed concern to ensure that substantive reforms to the system are progressed?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the incoming Secretary-General of the Council of Europe is a Swiss national and former Swiss president. I am sure he will be very well versed on the issue which the noble Lord raises. It is right that we want to work with the European convention in trying to address environmental problems. That is a body of law that is currently being developed. The Government are committed to that, and we will work within the various European agencies to develop that body of law.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, Articles 10 and 8 of the convention protect our rights in respect of family life and private life and freedom of expression. The Minister will be aware that the former Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, Professor Fraser Sampson, and the European court itself expressed grave concern about mass surveillance in the United Kingdom by Hikvision cameras and about the increase in surveillance generally. Will the Minister take the opportunity of this anniversary to undertake to look again at whether we are sufficiently compliant with Articles 8 and 10?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. I remember dealing with those types of questions while I was an Opposition Minister in the Home Office. Whether Articles 8 and 10 are indeed breached by these cameras is a very live question; they are everywhere and they are being used in ways that we do not always understand. The noble Lord makes a good point.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, in the interest of cross-party amity—an ambition that I know my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock shares—it is important when celebrating something as significant as the ECHR’s founding to assign credit where it is due. Given that Churchill called the ECHR into being, David Maxwell Fyfe and Harold Macmillan were instrumental in its drafting, and Margaret Thatcher described our membership as “common sense”, will my noble friend the Minister strain every nerve to ensure that the Conservative Party is given due prominence and credit as we celebrate this anniversary?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am happy to agree with what my noble friend said. I want to mention one other name, that of my former honourable friend Terry Davis MP, who has died, and whose funeral is at the end of this month. He was Secretary-General of the Council of Europe between 2004 and 2009.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the anniversary would be a good opportunity to dispel the myths just promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that this was a purely British or Conservative invention, and to recall that the Attlee Government reluctantly agreed to sign the ECHR only on the basis that the court would not have jurisdiction in the UK as British citizens would not be allowed to take cases to it? It was a policy continued a few months later by Winston Churchill, when he came into power. Both were presciently advised of the risk to which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, recently pointed: that it was inconceivable that any Government would take the risk of entrusting to an international court legislative powers that Parliament would never entrust to the courts of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The original Treaty of London was on display at Blenheim Palace on 18 July when European Ministers were meeting. We were proud that that treaty was on show. It is a symbol of the originating nature of the British Parliament in the founding of the treaty and something of which we should be very proud.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that one of the really important virtues of the European court is that it protects the human rights of people in member states with poorer records than our own?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am very happy to agree with what my noble friend has said.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, Article 9 of the ECHR guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The impact of the Saturday pro-Palestinian marches on central London synagogues has been severe, leading to dropping attendance, intimidation, disruption of services and the forced cancellation of events. The next march is scheduled for 18 January, close to the Central Synagogue. Will the Minister work with police to move the start location of the march far enough away so that families can go to and leave synagogues in safety?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is a matter for the Metropolitan Police. If appropriate, I will draw his comments to the Met’s attention.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the benefit of ongoing membership of the ECHR is, among other things, that it is vital for the continuation of the Belfast agreement?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. He is right that the Good Friday agreement is underpinned by the convention, and it is important that that should continue.