Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 9th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I wish to speak to Amendments 25 and 120 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to which my name is attached. They are amendments which I believe go to the very heart of the Bill. It is vital that if the Bill eventually comes into law the system set up for approving requests for assisted dying should have the trust of the general public. We have to bear in mind that although people generally trust one another, trust in institutions is now at a record low; to put it another way, there is in our society now a deep distrust of official bodies.

However, having said that, there is one exception: the judiciary. Between 70% and 73% of the public trust judges to tell the truth, which is why we need a court-based system. The Member in the other place, when she introduced the Bill, argued that having a High Court judge would give the system an extra layer of protection against coercion and pressure, making it the “most robust” and safest system in the world. She was right in saying that. As we now know, however, she changed her mind, and the Bill comes to us in a very different form, with panels instead of a judge.

The main reason for the change was the view that the High Court did not have the capacity to meet another set of demands; hence the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that requests should be dealt with by the Family Division. As he pointed out, although there are only 20 High Court judges in the Family Division, there are 40 other designated judges trained to hear serious cases; with this cohort there would be enough people available to hear requests for assisted dying.

The other reason for having a court-based system, which I find persuasive, is that a court has the legal powers to summon witnesses and order documents. If a judge had a concern about financial pressure being involved in some way, he or she could summon relatives or others involved to help him or her reach a decision. I am not aware that the proposed panel currently in the Bill will have a similar power. In Clause 17, “Determination by panel of eligibility for assistance”, the word “may” is mentioned eight times in subsection (4). The panel “may” call for this or that, but so far as I can see, it has no powers to make people comply.

We heard a very powerful defence from my noble friend Lord Pannick of the panel system with its experts and its other people. But I remind my noble friend that at the Second Reading of his Assisted Dying Bill in 2014, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, accepted an amendment from my noble friend to add a review of the Family Division of the High Court. He pointed out, rightly, that the Family Division deals with very difficult cases such as the Bland case or the separating of the Siamese twins, and he argued that they could deal with very difficult cases speedily and in time.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, also told us that he disagreed with alternative proposals for the panel, which was, at that time, a panel of magistrates, not the kind of panel we have now. He said then:

“I think that you need the highest-quality judges to decide these issues”.—[Official Report, 7/11/14; col. 1881.]


The Times, in its leader on 15 December, described the move away from a court-based system to a panel as an “ill-advised about-turn”, and it was.

The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, pointed to, quite rightly, the extra pressure that will be put upon the Family Division. But on the assumption that the Bill will go through—it has, after all, been voted on by the elected House—we have to ask ourselves: which is actually safer? Is it safer to have a court-based system or to have the panel? I believe that given that it is judges who are trusted in society, we should go for a court-based system, and I strongly support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I am the only person in this House who was President of the Family Division. I did the final part of the Bland case, to allow him to die. I very much prefer the idea that we should have a court-based decision, for the reasons that have already been given. I am rising only to answer some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge.

First, judges try extremely difficult and emotional cases. I really do not think it is necessary for this House to consider the emotional impact of those cases because that is our job. If it is our job, we do it, and then we hope that we can cope with it. I tried endless life and death cases; I have to tell your Lordships that deciding that a baby should die was even worse than deciding that an adult should die, but it has to be done.

Secondly, I come to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that not only the 20 Family Division judges should make these decisions but deputy High Court judges and the designated family judges; indeed, there are other judges in the family centres who are equally good. When I was President of the Family Division, I ticketed those family judges who were suited to try adoption cases. I see no problem in the President of the Family Division deciding on those judges and the KCs who are Section 9 deputy High Court judges to work out who would be suitable to try these cases. That would increase the number of judges available from 20 to all the part-time and other judges around the country. That is not the best solution—the best solution is the 20 judges—but the reality is that it would be necessary.

Finally, if Parliament passes this legislation and tells the Family Division and the other family judges that it is their job to deal with somebody who is likely to die within six months—although we all know how inaccurate that six-month figure can be—the judges will do it. They will then have to give priority to life and death cases, which they do anyway, even if it means that other important cases are kept waiting. Therefore, the delays in all the other cases have to give way to the requirement of Parliament that judges try the cases.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I am diffidently following the noble and learned Baroness, with her experience both as a legislator and as a very senior judge. I am very pleased she intervened when she did, because her contribution has been most helpful, There is always a difficulty for someone like me, who is not a family law practitioner, to draw a distinction between the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—I broadly support what he advanced—and the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in his construction of the Bill as it stands. There is merit in both, but as a House, we have to try to produce a practical solution. Irrespective of whether one supports the principle behind the Bill, if it goes through, it might as well go through in a way that works.

Putting to one side for the moment the very sensible arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, one of the advantages of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is that we will be producing answers through a court of record, and it will create a form of precedent. I do not know, and maybe the noble and learned Baroness will tell me differently, but I have a suspicion that to start with there will be a rush of factually different types of case under this application system. At least one or two of the lead cases will be grouped and go to the Court of Appeal, where perhaps the president, with two other highly experienced Lord Justices of Appeal, will set out a legal rubric for judges of first instance to deal with. If the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has a moment, it would be interesting to hear what he has to say as an experienced family law circuit judge.

From the Court of Appeal, a case or a group of cases will go to the Supreme Court. I suspect that will all happen reasonably quickly within the early part of the life of the enacted Bill. Once we have done that, the system will settle. Senior circuit judges, Family Division judges, will be able to deal with these cases—difficult, hideous or contentious as some of them may well be—with the permission of Parliament, of course, but with the guidance of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. That is a system to be preferred, because the panel system in the Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, described, does not necessarily provide that legal authority, albeit that there could be a judge on the panel. It will not have the imprimatur of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court in its assessment of what has happened—I may be wrong about that.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

To pick up on what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has just said, he is absolutely right. In the Bland case, that was exactly what happened. This was a permanent vegetative state. No one had ever had that case come before the courts. A High Court judge dealt with it; I was in the Court of Appeal, where we approved it. The Supreme Court—then the Judicial Committee—approved it. I then tried the first case. Then, it was understood by other judges how it should be dealt with. So, the noble and learned Lord is absolutely right.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for her approbation of what I just said.

My final point concerns what happens if there is a lack of High Court judges in the Family Division. We are told there are 20, and there are 40 circuit judges who specialise in family work. It may well be that when the noble and learned Baroness was in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, a commercial judge from the Queen’s Bench Division was appointed as the President of the Family Division. There are plenty of very bright and capable judges in the other divisions who, if required, could apply themselves to these sorts of cases. So, we are not going to be short of personnel; what we are short of is a decision of this House to agree with the position of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, or something like that. It may well be that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will come up with a way of dealing with the gap between him and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, as one of these 10 thematic discussions, so we get a workable, just and publicly respected system which, if we are to have a Bill, allows the public to feel confident that it will work properly.

Sentencing Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

My second amendment, which the House may prefer, would establish a review of all these arrangements and complexities, with a report to Parliament within six months after the establishment of a committee for the purpose and annually thereafter. Again, that would be a driver for change. I prefer that to an independent advisory panel, as proposed in Amendment 71, which would not get things done in the same way. Given the degree of concern expressed on this subject in Committee and the new contribution from the independent monitoring boards, I hope that the Minister will agree to come forward with a government amendment on these lines or to make appropriate undertakings to get something done. Otherwise, I will be minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 64.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, some years ago I visited a local prison twice in about three years. The first time, I heard that local businesspeople had put together a workshop so that prisoners could learn how to make furniture and do a lot of other similar jobs. I went back three years later. It was closed. I asked why and was told that they were too busy taking prisoners to and from the courts.

The amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate would be a push towards the requirement that prisoners do not spend 23 hours a day banged up in their cells or doing something which is of not the slightest use. We have a Minister who really cares about this, so I am interested in whether he sees that this sort of thing should require every prison to do something effective—which clearly they are not—and if not, why not?

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to support what my noble friend has said, and, indeed, to support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester’s amendment. I come, as it were, from a prison background, in the sense that I was Prisons Minister, God help me, 40 years ago. Also, until relatively recently—by which I mean 10 years ago—I was on the monitoring board of one of our local prisons. I agree entirely with my noble friend, and indeed with the right reverend Prelate, about the importance of out-of-cell purposeful activity. I agree too with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that far too often the prison workshops are not functional. That is a very great misfortune.

There are just two points I will make—a proviso and a question. The proviso, in a sense, is self-evident: if a condition is going to be imposed, it can operate only if the purposeful activity is actually provided within the Prison Service. Although that may be implicit in my noble friend’s amendment, it is not explicit. If the Government, in due time, come forward with an appropriate amendment, I hope that the provision is made explicit.

There is a different question, which I would like guidance on, perhaps from the Minister. I suppose it really reveals my own ignorance. If there is a condition that a prisoner is compliant with the requirement for purposeful activity, what is the consequence of non-compliance? My noble friend has addressed that, at least in theory, by her proposed new subsection (2)(b) in Amendment 66, because she contemplates, very sensibly, a report which might lead to the provision denying a prisoner early release for non-compliance, but if there is no consequential legislation to that effect, are there any existing statutory or other binding provisions which would penalise a prisoner who is deliberately not complying with purposeful activity that is made available? There should be, but if there is not any such requirement which can be enforced then my noble friend’s aspirations may prove to be ineffective.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

I too support all the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, but I shall speak particularly to Amendment 298.

As other noble Lords have pointed out, these nudification apps are horrific and bring untold harm to the women and men who are victims of them. They are so prevalent in schools that they are effectively normalised, shocking and shaming thousands of children on a daily basis, as my noble friend Lady Boycott has just pointed out. This week, Ofcom fined the app Nudify for failing to implement the mandatory age-verification measures under the OSA. Amendment 298, if accepted, would increase the pressure on Ofcom and the Government to close down all nudification apps, for children and adults alike.

As with the AI companion amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Kidron, which was debated last week, this is yet another new technology that was not foreseen in the Online Safety Act. Despite your Lordships’ best efforts to future-proof protections for users, new functionalities and technologies will always be created that will need your Lordships’ attention. Nudification apps are just the latest in what will be a long line of new tech harms.

The problem is that, at the moment, there is a voluntary agreement for the big app stores not to sell nudification apps, but they are still being downloaded and are freely available on smaller app stores. Unfortunately, I do not believe voluntary protections by the tech companies work. Your Lordships have to look only at the Bletchley summit agreement in which tech companies signed up voluntarily to publishing the safety testing of new AI models prior to their release. Unfortunately, this has not happened in many instances, and in some egregious cases there is a failure to comply with this commitment.

Some AI models appear to have mundane uses but can subsequently be adapted for the purpose of nudification. These need to be safety tested to ensure that they cannot create harms—in this case, nudification—and, as has just been explained, the present voluntary agreement is not creating adequate protection. This amendment would go a long way to remedy this lacuna in the law and make the digital space safer for millions of people. I hope that it will be the first step in the Government bringing forward far-reaching AI safety legislation. I hope that the Minister listens to the voices from across the Committee and responds favourably to the proposal in the amendment for the creation of an offence of possession of nudification software.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I support all these amendments for the reasons which have been given, and do not propose therefore to go through them. I want to give one extreme example of what happens when people watch a pornographic film and go on and carry out what the film did. I happen to have dealt with the case of one of the Bulger killers. I was told that they had watched a pornographic film belonging to the father of one of the two boys and then went out immediately and did exactly what the film did. That is why they killed the Bulger child. They followed the pornographic film. It did not, of course, stop them being convicted of murder. If that can happen to 10 year-olds then a large number of people are absolutely vulnerable to doing exactly what they watch. That is yet another reason why we should support these amendments. We have on the Front Bench, among the Ministers, those who are really caring. I hope, therefore, that they will not only listen to us but do something.

--- Later in debate ---

Although every case will turn on its own facts, where someone spikes another person as a joke or part of a prank, we consider that this is covered by the new offence, as that person will have the intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy. In criminal law, there is a difference between the legal concept of intention and the different, non-legal concept of motive. The motive of the defendant might be to play a joke, but we anticipate with confidence that the courts will readily find that the intention was to injure, aggrieve or annoy. We are fortified in this by the fact that there is case law—

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I was spiked at the age of 16 at a dance by a cousin of the hosts where I was staying. He said afterwards, “I don’t know why I did it. I didn’t intend to hurt anyone”. So there are such situations—having listened to what the Minister said, I note that no one could prove that he had been anything other than rather silly. He was in his 20s and was probably drunk. He filled an orange juice jug with gin, and I spent two days in bed.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am extremely sorry to hear about that experience. As ever, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, for whom the entire Committee has great respect.

As I was about to say, the Government are fortified in our belief that the concept of intention would be proved by the fact that there is case law that establishes that, where ecstasy was administered to another to “loosen them up”, that amounted to an intent to injure—intention being separate from the motive. The fact is that defendants say all sorts of things about what they did or did not mean; it will be for the tribunal of fact, looking at what happened, to see whether it can be sure that the intention was as specified in the statute.

We are confident that the types of behaviour that should be criminalised are already captured. Once again, I go back to the important point I set out at the beginning of this group: this new spiking offence aims to simplify the legal framework and to make enforcement straightforward. We do not want to do anything that risks undermining that by overcomplicating the offence.

Amendment 356B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, proposes to expand the scope of prohibited conduct under domestic abuse protection orders. Although I appreciate the motive underpinning this amendment, these orders already allow courts to impose any conditions that they consider both necessary and proportionate to protect victims from domestic abuse. Put simply, setting out a prescriptive list risks narrowing the flexibility and discouraging conditions that are tailored to the conditions of the offender. The police statutory guidance already includes examples, such as prohibiting direct or indirect contact and restricting online harassment, but we are happy to update this guidance to include the additional behaviours mentioned.

This has been a long speech, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me. My intention has been to explain to the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and all other noble Lords, for whom I have great regard, why the Government cannot support these amendments today. For the reasons I have set out, I invite them not to press their amendments, but I hope they will join me in supporting government Amendments 300 to 307, which I commend to the Committee.

Sentencing Bill

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene on this matter, but I wonder what thought has been given by the Ministry of Justice to simplification. The Sentencing Code is now a very lengthy document. The way in which the title of the clause has been put is very sensible: it says that there is a presumption for a suspended sentence. However, one goes on to read the entirety of this text, with the words “the court must … unless”, and then there is a whole series of exceptions to that order. Why do we have to have complexity?

There are two strong reasons against it. First, there will not be parliamentary time to alter this if we get it wrong. Secondly, it is much better to leave this to the guidance of the Sentencing Council. If the Bill could say “the Sentencing Council will provide guidelines to bring about that there should be a presumption against short sentences”, would that not achieve what we want without language? I heavily criticise the parliamentary draftsmen for this unnecessary complexity. Can we go not go back to the Victorian age and do things simply? I know these words are likely to fall on deaf ears, but it would be so much better if we had simple sentencing legislation and left it to the Sentencing Council, which can adjust it as we see whether it works, because one thing experience shows is that we try one type of sentence and, a few years later, we want to tinker with it.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, as a judge who did not sit very often in crime but had to do it from time to time, I have been listening with increasing dismay to what has been discussed in these increasingly elaborate proposals. I hope that the Minister will listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, because that was the first bit of absolute good sense, whether we need to call it Victorian or just remind ourselves that the Victorians did a lot of things extremely well. At the end of this discussion and throughout this Bill, could we not do three things: simplify, trust the judges, and trust the Sentencing Council to do a lot of what is going to be, at the moment, in primary legislation?

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Foster, that I was not a co-author of this Bill; it is entirely the responsibility of the Government. I was merely saying I had a similar view: that prison numbers could come down and we could be safer. That was the discussion I had with the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, after the Bill was announced. If it had been my Bill, there would have been something in it about a 10% or 20% reduction in the Sentencing Council guideline targets for maximum or minimum sentences. In my view, there have been two causes of prison numbers going up: the lack of the ability to get parole, which has been addressed by the Bill, and the grade inflation in sentences, which has had nothing done to it. Unless someone would like to correct me, no political party has gone into any election promising lower sentences. Has anybody ever said that?

Separation Centres: Terrorist Offenders

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My noble friend is right to raise this question. One of the things that surprises me going round prisons now compared with 25 years ago is how much more violence there is on our wings. That is probably due to a combination of the amount of drugs in our prisons and the number of people with severe mental health issues, but also people serving very long sentences.

We are investing in protecting our staff. As my noble friend said, our staff do an amazing job, often in very difficult and dangerous situations. That is why we have invested £15 million in 10,000 personal body armour jackets and suits. We are also training 500 staff in how to use Tasers. Every other week, I speak to prison leaders. Last week, I spoke to the governors of the long-term high-security estate, who told me how much reassurance the staff have had from the fact they are now getting investment in this extra protection.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Does the Prison Service have sufficient resources for the mental health issues it has to deal with?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I am not an expert in healthcare, but I am an expert in prisons. I see prisoners getting incredible levels of support, often in regimes that are running hot. My personal assessment is that prisoners are getting very good care within a system that is struggling, so we need to make sure that we have a much more stable prison environment. That is why it is very difficult to run everything, to get people out of their cells and to give people the support that they need when we literally have no space left.

It is also important to have the right facilities. The medical facilities in some of the new prisons we have built that I have seen are excellent and appropriate. We are dealing with people who are often very ill. The life expectancy of someone in a prison is much lower on average than someone who has not been to prison. We need to do all we can to support people with their mental health and other health issues.

Financial Provision on Divorce

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I too am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has put forward this Question. I support much of what the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said about the importance of children and the fact that they are, in many ways, not properly recognised when we look at financial provision.

I spent most of my life at the Bar and in three tiers of the judiciary, in family disputes over children and the division of financial assets. I was a divorce registrar when the 1973 legislation became law—see how long I have been in this. Most of the financial disputes I tried were with couples either, if lucky, with a house and a few other assets or with no property owned and only debts. One important aspect of financial dispute cases that do not settle is often the high degree of emotion in the background. Rather like in child disputes, the parties are fighting the issues of the broken relationship in the context of the court cases.

The Law Commission’s excellent scoping report correctly identified the extent to which big-money cases have distorted the approach to the usual divorce case. I am largely out of touch, having retired many years ago, but I recognise in the scoping report much of what I dealt with. The issues have not changed very much. It seems clear—from the report, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Shackleton, and from what I have heard from practitioners—that some substantial adjustment to the existing law now needs to be provided by Parliament. I was attracted to some extent by the Law Commission’s “codification-plus”, but I fear it would need “plus, plus, plus” to achieve enough certainty, together with a residual discretion.

Both the Scottish and the New Zealand legislation would, with additions—many of which are proposed by academics—probably meet what is needed. I do not entirely support the divorce Bill proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, because in my view it is too rigid. There are frequent situations that her Bill, if it became law, would not provide for; there is not sufficient flexibility. I would like to see more certainty, with enough discretion for the judge to meet the more unusual needs of certain spouses and partners. I very much support prenups, so long as a judge can retain a discretion to help a spouse or partner, male or female, who develops a serious medical problem such as MS, Parkinson’s or indeed dementia.

One major issue came up again and again in the cases I tried. With couples with children owning a flat or a house and no other assets, what should happen to the house after the mother—generally the mother—and the children have had it during the childhood? I do not know the answer to this. We used to say that, after the children reached 18 or 21, it was sold. Nowadays, that is said not to be a good idea, but I am not sure what is better.

I am particularly concerned about the longish marriage: the wife who does not work—the husband says she does not need to—or who takes a very small job, and he then leaves her. She is middle-aged or elderly; how does she cope? Quite simply, to cut off maintenance after five years or so would not allow for that sort of case.

I am interested in the idea of cohabitants, but I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that we should not start on that line until we have dealt with divorce and financial provision; it would disturb that.

I would very much like to see any legislation that this Government are brave enough to introduce being treated as all-party. Pre-legislative scrutiny would help, in my view, and I hope that it would reduce the number of amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am afraid that I will disappoint the noble Baroness. This is a manifesto commitment, and it will happen. We will issue our consultation by spring next year.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I am very grateful to the Minister. The one thing that the House has agreed on this evening is prenups. It would be very simple to introduce prenups, and it would not cause any difficulty for anything else. It would not stop the Government looking at cohabitation with divorce. Prenups is a special situation, and I have become convinced that they would be entirely sensible.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

It is very difficult to resist the noble and learned Baroness, with all her experience, but I am afraid that I will have to do so.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, who is greatly admired and respected, not just because of her expertise and experience. The points she raised were supported across the House by almost all noble Lords. It is frustrating that the previous Government did not give a full response to the Law Commission’s 2014 recommendations on nuptial agreements. As we are working towards our consultation, we are carefully considering this issue. It will be taken into account, to ensure that we have a consistent framework, which will be designed mainly to put children at the centre of what happens when relationships break down.

Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Lord is part of the IPP team, and we have a meeting later this week where we will be able to discuss things in detail with a number of noble Lords from across the House. One topic that is very dear to my heart is IPP prisoners. Whenever I go to a prison, I always seek out an IPP prisoner; I sit in their cell, and I ask them why they are there, what they are doing to get out and what we can do to support them to get out. But their risk is often far more complex. The reasons why they went to prison in the first place, while it may have been far too long ago, often mean that we need to manage them very safely in the community too. It is something of which I am well aware, and I look forward to further conversations with the noble Lord.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, as a result of the right reverend Prelate’s question, can I ask the Minister to what extent probation officers are trained to understand the distinction between minor matters that may not need recall and those that do?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness asks a very good question because, in my view, probation officers do the heavy lifting in the justice system. For too long, they have had too much work in their case loads. Some of that is to do with training and some with introducing technology to ensure that they have more time face to face with offenders. I have an internal review on training going on at the moment, similar to that which I did on prisons before I came into the House, and I assure all noble Lords that, if we are going to fix the problem in our prisons, we need to support our probation staff to do the job that they signed up to do when they joined the service.

Criminal Cases Review Commission

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The Ministry of Justice has increased the CCRC’s budget year on year since 2020-21. The budget for 2025-26 has been set at £10.1 million, which is an increase of 38% since 2021-22. We recognise the need for increased resource, a recommendation made by the report to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, put his name. That report made other recommendations, which will be taken into account in the review that will be undertaken.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, someone who works for me may have been unjustly sent to prison well over 10 years ago. Is it not time that the entire commission is set aside and new people appointed, with everything done as a matter of some urgency?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The noble and learned Baroness is right to say that there is concern with the CCRC. The Lord Chancellor has recognised that and has put in place the framework, if I can put it like that, to consider change, which may be radical change—we wait to see. There certainly are concerns with the operation of that body.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for his wise words and his analysis. Of course I acknowledge the point he made about resources. I earlier pointed to the discrepancy between youth and adult pre-sentence reports. The fact of the matter is that it is a resource issue. This is one very specific example, but the noble and learned Lord’s general point is absolutely right.

The other point the noble and learned Lord made about the interdependence of judges and the political leadership, if I can put it like that, as well as the independence, was also right. Protecting that is very important. Nevertheless, we believe that this example of the way different ethnic groups should be addressed within sentencing guidance is a policy issue. That is why my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor has acted as she has in introducing this specific and targeted Bill. Nevertheless, the more general point that the noble and learned Lord makes about the importance of partnership and discussion is right. I thank him for making those points.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, may I respectfully agree with every word that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, and ask a practical question? We have heard that there are likely to be more probation officers and more resources. Does that mean that judges and magistrates will have the opportunity to ask for more pre-sentencing reports?

Prenuptial Agreements

Baroness Butler-Sloss Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I too am a patron of the Marriage Foundation and a former family judge who tried a lot of financial cases. I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, that I am one of two Court of Appeal judges who managed to persuade them that there should be leave to appeal in family cases. But my experience in the past was that Court of Appeal family judges fairly regularly disagreed with High Court judges. So it is not a question of marking your own work: you are marking the work of somebody else in the same subject—therefore, with a great deal of experience.

I am very much in support of the idea of prenups becoming part of legislation. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has brought this debate. It is useful that we discuss this, and I hope it will put some degree of pressure on the Government to start thinking seriously about doing something useful. I entirely agree with the suggestion that there is no reason why this relatively simple part could not become part of the law without waiting for a much more complex situation in relation to the rest of family financial affairs—which, as has already been said, can be very complicated.

However, I have two concerns. I respectfully disagree with the right reverend Prelate on the idea that there should not be legislation, but he has made a significant point. There are two issues about which I would be concerned if prenups became part of the law without a degree of discretion for the court. Perhaps, as a judge, I have more faith in the judiciary than either of the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Shackleton: that does not entirely surprise me.

The two issues are these. The first is the point so well made by the right reverend Prelate: when the agreement is made, there has to be transparency. You have to put on the table what you have and what you do not have because, from cases I have tried, I know that debts can be as important as assets. Before you enter an agreement, you need to know the state of affairs of both the intending spouses. If one side does not come clean, and it becomes obvious on divorce that there has been non-disclosure and a serious lack of transparency—I am talking not about £10,000 but about millions—or, in a family that does not have much money, that one has money stowed away somewhere that has only just come to light, in such a situation, the judge must have a discretion to put the matter right.

I do not see that discretion being applied in a case where the judge is satisfied that the prenup was entered into with both sides understanding what they were going into and with sufficient transparency for it to be fair at the moment of the agreement. As has been said, it is a contract, but it has to be a contract that can be put right by the judge in extremely unfair circumstances if one of the two spouses has not played fair. So I am looking not at fairness generally but at fairness in a lack of transparency.

The second point that I am concerned about comes at the moment of divorce, or generally just after. There are circumstances which change dramatically: that was my experience when I tried cases. A couple starts marriage in a particular situation and, at the point of divorce, one of the spouses has an extreme change of circumstance. I am looking at illness. You may have a prenup that says that both of them have jobs with relatively equal incomes and neither of them has much in the way of assets, but then you get to a point, 30 or 40 years later, when one of them has multiple sclerosis and is unable to work. At that moment, are you to say that the prenup should apply to the wife, or indeed to the husband—because there is no shortage of wives who earn as much, more or even much more than their husbands? I happen to be one of those.

I can see a situation in which my husband and I made an agreement, when we both started at the Bar with relatively similar incomes, and then I made much more money and became a senior judge and he got a serious illness and could not work. Would it be fair that he should not get a penny because that is what we agreed at the moment of marriage? In my view, there has to be some possibility for this to be looked at. I also look at another situation: if a couple had had reasonable assets when they married but then one of them went bankrupt. There are extreme situations.

I am asking that the judge have a residual discretion to deal with those two instances: the moment of going into the agreement, and the moment when the agreement comes into force. I therefore do not entirely agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech, or indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, in wanting a prenup never to be changed. But I do see the idea that for the majority of people who enter into such a prenup, that should be the beginning and end of what their financial affairs should be.