Criminal Court Reform

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:

“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement on criminal court reform.

As the House is aware, the first part of the independent review of criminal courts was published in July. I am grateful to its chair, Sir Brian Leveson—one of the foremost judges of his generation—and to his expert advisers, Professor David Ormerod, Chris Mayer and Shaun McNally. In this review, Sir Brian has produced a blueprint for once-in-a-generation court reform. That is desperately needed, because the Government inherited an emergency in our courts: a record and rising backlog currently standing at 78,000 cases, and victims face agonising delays, with some trials not listed for years. All the while, defendants bide their time. The guilty plea rate has decreased every year since the year 2000. In the year to June, 11,000 cases were dropped after a charge because victims no longer supported or felt they could support the case.

Behind the statistics are real people. Katie was repeatedly abused by her partner. She reported him to the police in 2017, but then had an unbearable six-year wait for justice. During that time, she lost a job because her mental health deteriorated. She became increasingly isolated, lived in fear and lost faith in the court system. That is not isolated; it is systemic.

We are all proud of our justice system, rooted in Magna Carta, but we must never forget that it implores us not to

‘deny or delay right or justice’.

When victims are left waiting for years, justice is effectively denied to them. That is a betrayal of our legal heritage and of victims themselves. Some will ask why we do not simply increase funding. This Government have already invested heavily in the courts, including nearly £150 million to make them fit for purpose, a commitment of £92 million per year for criminal legal aid solicitors, and funding for a record number of sitting days in our Crown Courts—5,000 more than those funded last year by the previous Government.

Today, I can announce up to £34 million per year in additional funding for criminal legal aid advocates, to recognise the vital support that they give to those navigating the system. I will also accept Sir Brian’s recommendation to match-fund a number of pupillages in criminal law, to open a career at the Criminal Bar to more young people from across society. I will also negotiate sitting days with the senior judiciary through the usual concordat process, aiming to give an unprecedented three-year certainty to the system. I am clear that sitting days in the Crown Courts and magistrates’ courts must continue to rise, and my ambition is to continue breaking records by the end of this Parliament.

However, as Sir Brian has made clear, investment is not enough. The case load is projected to reach 100,000 cases by 2028, and without fundamental change it could keep rising, meaning that justice will be denied to more victims and trust in the system will collapse. To avoid that disaster, I will follow Sir Brian’s bold blueprint for change.

First, I will create new ‘swift courts’ within the Crown Court, with a judge alone deciding verdicts in triable either-way cases with a likely sentence of three years or less, as Sir Brian recommends. Sir Brian estimates that they will deliver justice at least 20% faster than jury trials. While juries’ deliberations remain confidential, judges will provide reasoning for their verdicts in open court, so this will hard-wire transparency into our new approach.

Sir Brian also proposes restricting defendants’ right to elect for jury trials—a practice not found widely in other common-law jurisdictions, and let us be honest: it is a peculiar way to run a public service. Our world-leading judges should hear the most serious cases, and I agree that they and the magistracy should decide where a case is heard. That will prevent defendants from gaming the system, choosing whichever court they think gives the best chance of success and drawing out the process, hoping victims give up. I will limit appeals from the magistrates’ courts so that they are only allowed on points of law, to prevent justice from being delayed further.

Alongside those changes, we will increase magistrates’ court sentencing powers to 18 months, so that they can take on a greater proportion of lower-level offending and relieve pressure on the Crown Court. I will also take a power to extend that to two years, should it become necessary to relieve further pressure. When it comes to exceptionally technical and lengthy fraud and financial trials, judges will be able to sit without a jury where appropriate. While those cases are small in number, they place undue pressure on jurors to sit for months—a significant interference with their personal and professional lives.

These reforms are bold, but they are necessary. I am clear that jury trials will continue to be the cornerstone of the system for the most serious offences—those likely to receive a sentence of over three years and all indictable-only offences. Among others, that will include rape, murder, manslaughter, causing grievous bodily harm, robbery and arson with intent to kill.

I would like to clear up some misconceptions that colleagues unfamiliar with this area might hold. In England and Wales, magistrates have long done the vast majority of criminal cases. That was true in the Victorian era, right through to Winston Churchill’s time, and today magistrates hear about 90% of criminal cases. In fact, only 3% of trial cases in England and Wales will ever go before a jury, and almost three quarters of all trials going to the Crown Court will continue to be heard by one under our changes.

Conservative Members talk about the Crown Court as if it were an ancient institution. I should remind them that it was established in 1971—the year before I was born—to replace a patchwork of part-time courts unable to cope with a rising case load. Parliament acted because the country needed a more efficient system that could command public confidence. We now face an emergency in the courts, and we must act. As Lord Chancellor, my responsibility is to ground reform in the rule of law and the right to a fair trial. We will ensure cases are dealt with at the right level, proportionate to their severity, and deliver the swifter justice victims deserve.

I am also clear that we must future-proof our approach. Technology is changing almost every aspect of our lives, and the courts can be no exception. That means we must modernise. We have asked Sir Brian to write a second report, focused on efficiency and how we can make much better use of technology to deliver the modern and effective courts the public rightly expect.

We will also continue to support victims, to make sure they have the confidence to come forward and see justice through to its conclusion. I announced this week that I will provide multi-year funding for victim support services, including specialist emotional and practical support for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, and increase budgets to reflect rising costs. That will give providers the certainty to plan for the next three years. It amounts to a total record investment in victim support services of £550 million—more than half a billion. I want those victims to stay the course.

Finally, we must also be honest that this is a problem that has taken years to build up, so it will take years to fix. The changes I am proposing will require legislation, which will take time to implement. Our investment will also need time to have an effect, but we are pulling every possible lever to move in a positive direction, and my ambition for the backlog to start coming down by the end of this Parliament remains. I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, at the heart of this Statement is a wholesale attack on the jury system. The Government intend first doing away with jury trials in all but indictable-only offences or offences where the likely sentence is three years or less and, secondly, doing away with the defendant’s right to elect for jury trial altogether.

On the first, a radical restriction of jury trials, do the Government accept that they propose going far further than the Leveson report suggested, both on which cases would be tried by a jury and on the make-up of the new courts? Two fundamental questions arise. Importantly, since, apart from robbery and some other offences generally involving violence, offences under the Theft Act are not indictable only, would not all but the most serious cases of dishonesty be triable by judge alone?

Do the Government really think that the likely length of a prison sentence is the only true measure of severity? Is that not a fundamental mistake? Let us take the Horizon scandal. Almost no postmasters received a sentence of more than three years. Harjinder Butoy received the longest sentence—three and a quarter years—only to be released after 18 months when his conviction was overturned, leaving his life in ruins. Most sentences were between six and 18 months, yet those cases destroyed hundreds of lives, driving many to a breakdown or suicide. Those defendants would have no right to a jury trial.

What about the public servant or the professional who stands to lose career, income, reputation and family when charged with minor shoplifting, and who wants the defence of honest mistake or absent-mindedness determined by a jury? What about the teacher or health worker charged with indecent exposure, who will never work with children again if convicted but who is denied the right to a jury trial to decide on a defence of false identity?

The proposal is for judges or magistrates to decide on the likely length of the sentence and the mode of trial, apparently to prevent the defendants gaming the system. In the Statement, the word “gaming” is in bold. Does that give a clue to the Lord Chancellor’s thinking? That is an absurd preconception. Do not many defendants elect jury trial precisely because they want a trial by their peers, with no preconceptions or predetermination of their guilt? The public believe that jury trials are fairer. They recognise that 12 heads are better than one. They know instinctively, as advocates know from experience, that judges vary, one from another, in their prejudices and judgment. Does the Minister not agree? The public trust juries, and public trust in the fairness of our justice system is severely threatened by these proposals.

How are judges or magistrates to assess the likely sentence before a case has even started or any evidence been heard? Does the Minister believe that that would be either possible or fair? At the very least, should defendants not be entitled to a proper hearing to put their arguments for having a jury trial before the court? Should not these measures be temporary or provisional until waiting lists are reduced? In the Commons, Kim Johnson, a Labour MP, suggested a sunset clause, but the Lord Chancellor rejected that.

Jury trial has been a fundamental right of citizens in this country for more than 800 years. Lord Devlin described it as

“the lamp that shows that freedom lives”.

The Statement mentions Magna Carta and it prioritises ending delays over jury trials. But Magna Carta does not do that. King John was not asked to take his pick between Article 39 on jury trials and Article 40 on justice delayed or denied—the Barons insisted on the right to receive both jury trial and timely justice, and we should do that now.

Will the Government not take further steps to reduce delays? Steps should and could be taken, including having many more court sitting days, repairing the courts, having more efficient listing, and using more and smarter technology. Do the Government really insist that the delays could not be cut over time with greater investment? Possibly in some long, technical fraud trials—where the points taken are genuinely not jury points, such as dishonest intent or who knew what and when—the mode of trial might be changed. More generally, do the Government really want to sacrifice the right to jury trial because they admit defeat on cutting delays?

I have a final but entirely unrelated question on the Statement. The Lord Chancellor said that £550 million extra was to be spent on victim support services over three years, but said not a word on how it was to be spent. Can the Minister give us more detail, either now or in writing later?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for the points they made on these reforms. I have a great deal of respect for the insight that both bring and their observations about the Statement.

I begin with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord. Many people may think that it a bit rich of the party opposite to complain about this, when everybody knows that this is a situation created by them due to the consistent cuts in the criminal justice system over many years. Victims are now reaping what the party opposite sowed. We on these Benches have to try to put this right.

Many matters were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks; I hope he will forgive me if I do not respond to them all in my short response now. However, there are answers to almost all of them. For example, he asked how we estimate the likely sentence. That it is done using the sentencing guidelines. It is done all the time at the moment; magistrates do it day in, day out in the magistrates’ courts, when they decide where someone should be tried. It is a task that can be undertaken.

One of the things I want to say from the Dispatch Box is that I have changed my mind. I have been a criminal barrister for many decades. When I practised as a criminal barrister, I too felt that any attempt to touch what happens with jury trials was fundamentally wrong. However, I then became a judge in the Crown Court and saw what was actually happening. Every judge in the Crown Court up and down this country will have experienced sitting with other judges at lunchtime and saying, “I cannot believe that this case I am trying here and now is actually in the Crown Court. It shouldn’t be here”.

We are not sacrificing jury trials—of course we are not. It has never been that every criminal case was tried by a jury; 90% are currently tried in the magistrates’ courts. The question is, where do we draw the line? That is why this Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to conduct an independent review, and we will accept his conclusions. It would be frankly irresponsible not to do so; we cannot ignore what he is saying. We are not going far further, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, implied; we are doing exactly what Sir Brian suggested: having a Crown Court Bench Division to deal with cases where the likely sentence is three years or less.

This is a package to deal with the problems we face with the criminal justice system; it is not about cutting jury trials. There are three limbs to it. The first is about investment: record investment is being made in the criminal justice system in sitting days and legal aid payments to the criminal Bar and criminal solicitors, whose fees went down for ages. The second is about structural reform, which is what we are discussing now; that includes the removal of the right to elect, the reform of appeals in the magistrates’ courts, the Crown Court Bench Division and some reforms to fraud trials. The third is about efficiency, and that is what Sir Brian is considering in the second part of his report.

Gaming the system is a real problem. I am afraid that there are rumours out there that some people are less than scrupulous once they get arrested by the police. Some of those people know that the delays are such in the Crown Court that, if they elect trial by jury and decide to sit around and wait, particularly if they are on bail, they will have not just one Christmas at home, but at least two or maybe three. They will probably be tagged, and when they come back to the Crown Court when their trial date finally arrives, many of them plead guilty there and then. That means that the time they spent on the tag then has to be taken into account and offset against any available sentence, so they walk away with time served. I have seen that, and that is gaming the system. We cannot have it. It cannot be right that victims of serious offences wait for years for their cases to be heard—possibly dropping out—meaning that unscrupulous defendants can do that. These are real people’s real lives. If tradition is going to survive, it has to adapt.

Timeliness is an essential ingredient of fairness. Sir Brian estimates that juryless trials would be at least 20% faster than those conducted with a jury. It makes sense—of course it does—because you do not have to swear in a jury; such things take time.

Governments must make sure that public services are able to meet the demands of the day and to deliver for the public and the most vulnerable. This means that every generation may well face the prospect of significant reform in order to make things better.

One of the things that the Crown Court is having to contend with is that trials have become more complicated. There is good news: the police are arresting more people, and more of them are coming through the courts. That is what we want to see. But things such as advances in science, such as DNA, advances in techniques, such as the prevalence of CCTV evidence, and social media make proving a case, and, indeed, defending a case, much more complicated than it was. That is why we simply have to move the line to a slightly different place.

For the courts, there is no single thing government can do to resolve this crisis that would not require the system to deal with some change. The delays to justice faced by thousands of victims across the country are unacceptable. They cannot be allowed to grow unchecked. There is no quick fix. The changes we are proposing to make will require legislation. We are intending to fix the system so that it is good for the next generation. That is why we are not intending to impose a sunset clause here. These are meant to be lasting reforms, not an unstable system where nobody is quite sure what is happening. These are lasting reforms to make the system fit for purpose.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, would she kindly answer the question: is it intended that these proposals will be retrospective? If not, how on earth are they going to impact upon the present backlog?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

At present, there are no plans to make them retrospective, but that is why it is going to take time. That is why it will take time to work its way through. But if we do not do this, not only would we not be tackling the current backlog, we would be letting it grow. That is why it cannot continue.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, was the Minister as surprised as I was by the terms of the attack made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on these proposals. He suggested that these proposals involve the “destruction” and “dismantling” of jury trials and an “act of constitutional vandalism”? Does she agree that these proposals are nothing of the sort? There has never been an absolute right to jury trial. Pragmatism has always determined which prosecutions are to be heard by a jury and which are to be heard by judges or magistrates.

Does the Minister agree that these proposals shift the dial but that they shift the dial for very sensible, pragmatic and practical reasons? She emphasised the impact of delay on victims, and she mentioned defendants who game the system. Would she agree that the scandalous delays that occur at the moment in the Crown Courts also have an appalling impact on a defendant who is innocent? The man who is accused of rape and has that charge hanging over him for years cannot get on with his life. That is also outrageous. It is outrageous for the victim and for the defendant. I support these proposals.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the points that he made. It will not surprise him to hear that I will not respond to most of them other than by saying yes. But in relation to the defendants, it is a point very well made. I was a defender for much of my career, and I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said. There will be people within the system waiting for their trials who are unable to get on with their lives because they are on bail for an offence. We need to think about them as well.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Statement. I congratulate the Government on having the courage to confront a really difficult issue. The status quo is quite unacceptable. I would rather hope that this House and Parliament in general could treat this on a non-party-political basis. There are a lot of reasons why there were delays; some of them were due to Covid, which is a non-party-political issue. But I have long thought that fraud trials, for example, are very often wholly unsuitable for juries. I am glad that the Government acknowledge that.

As to the question of judges and reasons, I have just two questions I would like to ask the Minister. I would have thought that judges, when they do determine these things, might well give reasons. That would be consistent with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There would be a considerable advantage to potential appellants, because they would know the reasons why they had been convicted; whereas at the moment, with jury verdicts, you have the board verdict of guilty or not guilty. You do not know whether they have taken into consideration relevant consideration or irrelevant considerations.

My other question is this. The Statement reads:

“Our world-leading judges should hear the most serious cases”.


Standing back, does it occur to the House and, indeed, to the Minister that it is slightly odd that the 90% or so of the trivial offences are tried by those with professional experience, and yet we give the most serious cases to 12 conscientious but random people taken off the street?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his observations. As far as reasons are concerned, yes, absolutely: judges sitting alone will give reasons. Not only is it useful for appellants to know why but it can be useful for witnesses as well.

One often hears victims who have been through the system say that if the case results in an acquittal, that is bad enough, but not knowing why the defendant was acquitted is really hard for them. Transparency is important in the criminal justice system, as it is in all systems. That is one of the reasons why we are now going to make the magistrates’ court a court of record. All proceedings in the magistrates’ court will be tape-recorded, and we are going to use artificial intelligence to provide transcripts so that people can get transcripts of what has happened much more often and can follow and read at their leisure.

As far as the point about serious cases is concerned, I have been very careful not to talk about seriousness but to talk about length of sentence. Every case is serious to those involved in it, particularly to the victims, and it would be wrong to downplay that. It is also important to note that the magistrates’ court consists of not just lay justices—justice by your peers—but professional magistrates, known as district judges these days. It is a combination who deal with these matters.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, at the end of the day, are not random and conscientious people taken off the street the best safeguards of our civil liberties against an overmighty and oppressive state? If any one of us here were to be charged with a criminal offence, would we not rather put our trust and confidence in a jury rather than in a state appointee? Are not juries the best way of linking ordinary people to our criminal justice system?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My noble friend might have a point if it were not for the fact that 90% of cases are currently being dealt with in the magistrates’ court. They are not dealt with by juries.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

By lay people.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

They are not all dealt with by lay people at all; they are dealt with by district judges as well. They are state appointees. They used to be known as stipendiary magistrates—my noble friend knows this perfectly well; he has practised in those courts. Stipendiary magistrates have a part to play and so do lay people. The important thing is that they have to give reasoned rulings. We have to have a system that is proportionate and fair and deals with everybody’s interests, not just those of a few.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, my question follows on very clearly from that of the noble Lord, Lord Boateng. I declare an interest, since a number of my friends and colleagues have been acquitted by juries of charges against them relating to actions of political protest. My question focuses on democracy. Does the Minister agree that juries are not just part of our legal system but important defenders of our right to protest, something our democracy is built around? Given the repressive anti-protest legislation passed in recent years under the previous Government, which it appears this Government have no intention of repealing, are these plans not a serious threat to our democracy as well as our legal rights?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I will repeat what I have already said. Over 90% of criminal trials are already heard in magistrates’ court, which does deal with some protest cases without a jury. It is likely that many protest-related offences are dealt with there. The important thing is that no one group of defendants is more important than any other. Everyone is equal before the law. We cannot have a carve-out for a particular group of offences or a particular group of people. We have confidence in a professional judiciary, highly trained in things such as diversity. They will do a good job.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, the Justice Secretary repeatedly emphasised the lengthy waiting times in bringing cases to court. I am not a lawyer—I am one of the non-lawyers in the Chamber today—but I was disappointed that the Statement did not acknowledge the difficulties that had been brought about by the Covid lockdowns, across two or three years, which should be acknowledged. Notwithstanding that, the Minister pointed out that all the evidence, including from social media, that now has to be collected for any trial these days takes an inordinate amount of time to collate. Nevertheless, when it comes to unnecessarily lengthy waiting times, this is pure hypocrisy, given that the same Justice Secretary supports bringing to court former British soldiers who served in Northern Ireland 50 years ago. In addition, the Government have certainly managed to find time recently to bring to court, pretty quickly, people who had maybe put not very nice posts on social media. Neither the public nor, I think, many in the judiciary support the steps that the Government wish to take—certainly from what I have heard. I therefore urge the Minister to reconsider this ill-judged proposal and defer bringing it forward.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

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

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, as a former criminal barrister, albeit nothing like as successful as the noble Baroness was, I put on record my support for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and for the noble Lord, Lord Boateng. The Minister talked about the Government going ahead with “heavy investment” in courts and legal aid, and I certainly support both those initiatives. The Minister in the Commons said that to bring down court case backlogs:

“We need investment, structural reform and modernisation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/25; col. 20.]


However, has the noble Baroness seen the OBR report which states that after last week’s Budget, the MoJ’s capital budget is going to be cut by 3% per annum in real terms? Was she aware of that, and, in spite of that cut, can she confirm that this investment will still go ahead?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The answer to the noble Lord is yes. These are the matters of expenditure to which my right honourable friend committed himself in the other place, and they will go ahead.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I should declare that my daughter is a recorder. Very many people have put to me a lot of points, and there is just one that makes me want to ask my noble friend a question. I should say that all absolutely recognise the primacy of dealing with the backlog and that there is a clear case for complex, time-consuming fraud cases to go to the judge alone, and for low-level offences to go to magistrates alone. Indeed, I remember from my time as a magistrate that it was in that area where a certain amount—not a huge amount, but some—of gaming of the system went on. My noble friend has outlined a lot of measures which will improve courts, which is one of the problems; I would have hoped that that would solve the problem of the backlog, but clearly the Government think not. Because of the representations I have had, could my noble friend say what consultation there has been on these proposals with judges and with the criminal Bar?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I can reassure my noble friend that the consultation has been extensive. That does not necessarily mean that they agree with us or that all of them agree with us, although I observe—I say this as a practising criminal barrister myself—that it is a profession known for its caution; it is not always, shall we say, ready to adopt new ideas in particular ways. I am confident that once this system has had an opportunity to bed in, everyone will see the advantages.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the director of the Free Speech Union. If the Government are serious about wanting to reduce delays and backlogs in the Crown Courts, they should stop creating so many new criminal offences. In the Crime and Policing Bill alone, there are 65 new criminal offences. At the Free Speech Union, we have analysed Ministry of Justice data from 2017 to 2025, comparing the acquittal rates for those charged with speech crimes in jury trials with those for non-jury trials. The results are quite startling. For all offences, Crown Courts have acquitted 21.6% of defendants in the last eight years, compared with just 11.4% in magistrates’ courts. However, for speech-related offences, the acquittal rate in jury trials rises to 27.6%, compared with 15.9% in the magistrates’ courts. In the last three years, juries have been even more likely to find defendants not guilty of speech crimes—32.1%, compared with 14.1%. To protect free speech, will the Minister urge the Justice Secretary to retain the right to trial by jury for those accused of speech offences?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord and pay tribute to his work in relation to freedom of speech, which is important to all of us. However, as I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, we are not having carve-outs for particular kinds of offences or defendants. It would create a raft of unfairness and make the system so complicated that it would not be possible to run it.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, a question was asked about three months ago, and my suggestion was that, to meet the delays, the Government might encourage recently retired judges to help out. The Church of England could not do its ministry, particularly in rural areas, if retired clergy were not doing the work. It is quite possible to persuade some judges; whether or not they could come back immediately, it would ease the work. I tried a lot of cases alone and found it a very lonesome experience. I came to this country and thought that trial by jury was one of its greatest gifts to fairness and justice. Reduce it with great sensitivity so that it does not look as though it does not work.

Topol in “Fiddler on the Roof” has been shouting in my ears: “Tradition! Tradition!” Do not change tradition too quickly, because we may live to regret it.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

That is why we are adapting it and have done so after great thought, and it is why it is not a wholesale attack on the jury system. I can see entirely why the noble and right reverend Lord makes the point about asking judges to come out of retirement, but the point that Sir Brian has made is that investing in things such as the number of sitting days, which we already have done—we are sitting a record number of days—is not going to solve the problem alone. Structural reform is needed to make the system fit for the 21st century.

Child Grooming Victims: Compensation Awards

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure compensation awards to victims of child grooming scandals are made in a timely way.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, there are three routes by which victims of child grooming may be awarded compensation. First, following a criminal conviction, a court can order compensation to be paid to the victim, but the criminal courts cannot embark on a detailed inquiry as to the extent of any injury, loss or damage. Secondly, victims can bring an action for damages for personal injury in the civil courts; the Government are abolishing the three-year limitation period so that it no longer operates as a barrier to compensation for such victims. Thirdly and finally, victims can apply to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. These awards are assessed on a case-by-case basis, and the majority are decided within 12 months.

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply and for our earlier meeting, but might I request a further meeting? These young ladies, who may not all have the strength of Madame Pelicot, will still be living in a highly corrupted community in terms of the activities that were perpetrated upon them earlier. Some of them may not be relevant for an award; none the less, the entire community does not seem to be honouring British law with regard to respect for women, young women and children. Would the Minister be willing to have a meeting, to discuss not the award but the wider implications which perhaps we might manage to do something to help?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to speak to the noble Baroness, and the answer is yes.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, will the Government set up a unit to start assessing the numbers of the victims of the grooming gangs, and in particular their distribution and their personal situation, and then start learning from the problems of the previous schemes, such as the Post Office Horizon and infected blood schemes, so that when the inquiry is complete, the victims do not have to wait years for their compensation?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, knows, it is a top priority for the Government to appoint the chair of the national inquiry as quickly as possible, and we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, for supporting these efforts. Once the chair is in place, the terms of reference for the inquiry will be settled, and we will take it from there.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, we discussed criminal exploitation of children last night. I know from my experience that a young woman was denied any compensation because of the way the trial was conducted. She was in the position where, when the third barrister had been appointed by the defendant, she was told that she had to go through her third cross-examination. She went out that night and did things she should not have: she got drunk, and maybe had other substances—I do not know—and ended up in the police station overnight, and then any compensation was denied her. We are in the position that because these young women are extremely vulnerable, the way we operate our court system retraumatises them in many ways. I hope that the Government, in thinking about the compensation, take these issues into account.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises a number of points in that question. Many of those will be for the national inquiry to deal with, so I will simply deal very quickly with the question of convictions and their effect on compensation. It is right to say that it is a condition of applying to the criminal injuries compensation scheme that the applicant does not have unspent criminal convictions. The difficulty with waiving that for one group is that it undermines the universality of the system. We are very anxious not to create a hierarchy of victims where some are seen as more worthy of belief or compensation than others, and we will do everything we can to avoid that.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, it has been widely reported that four victims of the grooming scandal have resigned from the liaison panel of the national grooming gangs inquiry, describing a “toxic, fearful environment” and accusing the process of being manipulated away from the central issue of the grooming gangs. Will the Minister commit to publishing a proper timeline, including a fixed timescale for the appointment of a chair, and a clear start date for this important inquiry?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The Government were extremely saddened by the resignation of those victims, and they are always welcome to rejoin and re-engage with the process—we very much hope that they will. The process of appointing the chair is well under way. As I have already said, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is assisting with this. It would not be helpful to give a running commentary on what is happening, but it is important to the Government to get on with this.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned three possible avenues for compensation. I think she would accept that the largest award is likely to be if there is a civil claim, rather than the other two avenues. Can she help the House with who the potential defendants in such a claim might be? I am not asking for her legal advice but for some general guidance if this is to be a realistic remedy.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

Of course, we are speaking generically about victims of grooming, but they may fall into a number of different categories. There are the grooming gangs, about which a great deal has been heard, but there are also, for example, victims of online grooming. So I cannot really give an answer as to who the potential defendant is going to be that will actually deal with all the victims. That is a case-by-case decision to be made.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

Have the Government consulted the Independent Public Advocate about the new inquiry? As the system threatens yet again to overwhelm the voices of victims and survivors, would not her guidance and support for this group be really valuable in this instance?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I recognise, of course, her ongoing interest in the Independent Public Advocate, which is very welcome. I do not know the answer, so I shall write to her.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, on the wording of her Question, which for once does not put the word “Pakistani” in front of “child grooming scandals”? Does the Minister agree that the problem is to be laid at the door not of our Pakistani men but, very largely, of our Muslim men and that, therefore, the problem is religious, not ethnic?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am afraid I am absolutely not going to agree with that. It is going to be a matter for the new national inquiry, and I am not going to pre-empt that.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Walmsey did not necessarily ask about the terms of reference of the inquiry; she asked about the mechanisms of the payments of the compensation scheme. Have the Government learned from what has happened in the infected blood and Post Office Horizon schemes, and are they now working on the mechanisms of the compensation scheme so that fast payment will flow once the public inquiry has reached its conclusions?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The difficulty with that question is that it presupposes the existence of a compensation scheme for these victims. There is no such compensation scheme in existence. Whether or not that is something that is recommended by the national inquiry, we will wait to see. As I have already said, there are a number of different categories of victims in these cases, and not all the same conditions apply to all of them. But I take the point that if there were to be a compensation scheme, it would be important that it paid out quickly.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

Given the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, surely a very specific compensation scheme would deal with those issues. I suggest to the Minister that she looks at the scheme that we set up in Northern Ireland to deal with institutional child abuse. The way in which that scheme worked meant that it was very quickly operated and that victims were able to access it. It is something that the national inquiry could very much benefit from looking at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness very much for that. Obviously, that is something that will be very useful to look into once the inquiry is set up.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, the perpetrators of these crimes are men from all backgrounds, but many of them are not from upstanding backgrounds in the sense that some are involved in criminal activities such as drug dealing. So what action are His Majesty’s Government wanting to take against those convicted, looking at the Proceeds of Crime Act? These people were able to groom some of these young ladies—women—and girls because they had flash cars, et cetera. How do we ensure that those monsters have all the criminal assets from their ill-gotten gains taken away from them after conviction?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

It is a very good point. Every judge at the end of a criminal trial has the ability to make a confiscation order, and these are being pursued with rigour because it is really important to ensure that criminals do not profit from that kind of illicit activity.

Hillsborough Law

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, it would be customary to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate, but I am sure he will agree with me when I say that I should open my reply on behalf of His Majesty’s Government by paying tribute to the victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families. In doing this, I want to make it clear that I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Wills that the victims and the bereaved must always be front and centre of the Government’s mind as this Bill makes its long overdue way through Parliament.

I hope that all noble Lords will understand what I mean when I say that the Bill is not just about justice for the Hillsborough victims and their families and those of the other disasters—which, for reasons of time, I will not name individually, but many of which have been listed by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton. The Bill is more than just that; it determines what kind of society we are and want to be. Do we protect vested interests, or do we believe in the importance of the rights of and protections for our fellow citizens as individuals?

At this point, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, not just for securing this debate but for his tireless work to see justice done for the Hillsborough families. In his powerful and moving opening remarks, the noble Lord referred to wanting to be convinced that the Hillsborough law will tip the balance away from the behemoth against whom the small battalions are pitted. I suggest nothing speaks more powerfully to this Government’s commitment to this than the fact that not only did my right honourable friend the Prime Minister make a personal promise that he would bring forward a Hillsborough law but he delivered the opening speech himself at the Second Reading debate in the other place.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said some kind words about me and my life in the law, for which I thank him. I can honestly say that my proudest moments as a lawyer, and latterly as a judge, have been when I have been able to make a decision which puts the individual citizen’s rights first. It is my profound wish to continue to do so.

I shall do my best to respond to all points made by noble Lords, but if time does not permit today, I will write to those I was unable to answer here.

Perhaps I may also say a few words of thanks to my noble friend Lord Wills for the important role he has played in bringing us to where we are today. He and I tried to meet before today’s debate, but time pressures did not allow it. I have already made arrangements to meet him as soon as possible after this debate. I would be delighted to meet other noble Lords, if they wish to do so, before Second Reading in your Lordships’ House. We need to get this right.

I now turn to matters raised by noble Lords: first, and perhaps most obviously, the duty of candour, raised by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lord Wills, among others. I agreed with my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton when he said that it is not just about the duty of candour. All the elements of the Bill are intended to work together as a catalyst for change. Reflecting on the experiences of local government, we intend to bring forward an amendment in the other place to extend this duty to local authority investigations in England, capturing the local grooming gang inquiries and the Kerslake review into the Manchester Arena attack.

I reassure noble Lords that although this duty focuses primarily on the public sector, some private bodies will be captured. Private bodies which deliver public functions, have a relevant health and safety responsibility or are relevant public sector contractors will be subject to the duty. My noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton raised an important point about the scope of it. Financial consequences really matter too, and it will cover, for example, the Horizon inquiry or events similar to that.

My noble friend Lord Wills brought up the discrepancy between the maximum sentence available for breach of the duty of candour and for substantive offences such as gross negligence manslaughter, and whether that might have the unintended consequence of creating a perverse incentive to cover up rather than to be frank. It is an interesting point, on which I will reflect and about which I would welcome a discussion with my noble friend.

Whistleblowing was raised by many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Wills and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. The new mandatory ethical codes of conduct must set out a process through which employees can raise concerns internally and to ensure that whistleblowing procedures are clear and accessible. Noble Lords will almost certainly think that that does not go far enough. This matter can be discussed during the passage of the Bill. At present, the Government believe that any significant reform to whistleblowing needs to be considered as part of a broader assessment of the framework, but we are happy to discuss this matter.

Legal aid, support at inquests and parity were raised by many noble Lords. Under the Bill, people bereaved as a result of a public tragedy will never again have to face the inquest process unsupported or the grotesque spectacle of having to raise money from friends and family to ensure that their voices are heard. It will be funded by the individual public authorities; in effect, the legal aid will be clawed back from the public authorities when they are an interested person.

My noble friend Lord Wills asked: why for only one member of a family? This is considered to be a reasonable and proportionate use of public funds. However, where there are exceptional circumstances, individuals can apply to the exceptional case funding scheme and be considered on a case-by-case basis. We intend for this to help foster proportionate participation and spending behaviours among interested public authorities, including in the use of their own legal representation at inquests.

We understand the concern about this allowing inquests to turn into a battle of the lawyers, not only enriching them—that offends many people—but extending the time taken. So we are requiring public authorities to use legal representation only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and we will crack down on any poor conduct by public authorities and their legal teams at inquests. We want to ensure that they are focused solely on supporting the fact-finding nature of investigations.

The Independent Public Advocate was at the forefront of my noble friend Lord Wills’s speech, but was also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton. As your Lordships’ House is aware, Cindy Butts has now started as the first Independent Public Advocate. She is an excellent appointment and has recently been deployed to support the victims of the horrific attack at Heaton Park synagogue. The Victims Minister met Ms Butts last week to discuss her early experiences in post, and we will continue to engage with her on the nature and delivery of her role, and to better understand the experiences of victims. We are keeping an eye on this. The Government will update the House if we feel that there is further to go in these respects, and reports written by the Independent Public Advocate about her functions will be laid before Parliament as per the Victims and Prisoners Act.

The national oversight mechanism was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton. We agree that, too often after inquiries have concluded, lessons are not learned—whatever anybody says—and mistakes are repeated. This Government have already taken steps to improve the transparency of government responses to inquiry recommendations through a new online database, and we are considering how we can improve scrutiny and accountability to ensure that inquiries lead to lasting change. This work will continue alongside the Bill.

Inquiries reform was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. Public inquiries can effectively investigate serious concerns, address past injustices, give voices to victims and help to implement change, but they often last a very long time, meaning that victims, their families and the public are waiting too long for answers. Therefore, the Government have been exploring ways for public inquiries to deliver findings more quickly and in a way that facilitates public trust. It is a substantial piece of work, led by the Cabinet Office, that will aim to improve how we identify wrongs and get to the truth. This important policy work is in its early stages, but we will continue to keep Parliament updated.

I turn briefly to the application of the duty of candour to the security services, raised by the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, who has great experience in this area. We are grateful to him for saying that he thinks it is a workable model. We believe that we have got the balance right, but we will be interested in what is said during the passage of the Bill by others.

It may be the Government who are bringing forward the Hillsborough law, but the credit is not ours. That belongs to the campaigners who have devoted their lives to the pursuit of justice. We have worked closely with those campaigners to develop legislation, and we will continue to do so throughout the Bill’s passage. I look forward to meeting all victims, survivors and their families. I repeat: we are in listening mode and we are determined to get this right.

Trials: Timeliness

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Austin of Dudley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the length of time between charging suspects and trials taking place.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, as of June 2025, the average time from charge to the main hearing in the Crown Court, whether that is a guilty plea or a contested trial, for all Crown Court cases is 241 days. That is 14 fewer days than in the corresponding quarter last year, a drop of 5%, so there is some improvement, but overall the Crown Court backlog that the Government inherited continues to rise, which means that victims are waiting too long for justice. The Government commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to propose reforms. We are carefully considering his report and will respond in due course.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer, but defence companies, the MoD and businesses they work with were attacked by Palestine Action almost 400 times before it was proscribed. This is an industry of huge strategic importance; it keeps our country safe and is helping to defend Ukraine. These attacks intimidate workers and put jobs at risk. Police have been injured. These cases were already straining the justice system. Trials are taking years to reach court. That creates a perception that serious offences go unpunished, and that could encourage more attacks. What can the Government do to speed things up in these cases?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this important issue. Palestine Action has conducted an escalating campaign involving alleged criminal damage to Britain’s national security infrastructure, intimidation and violence. This Government unreservedly condemn any crimes of this kind. That said, as the noble Lord will understand, it would be wrong for me to comment on individual cases that are awaiting trial. In relation to when trials take place, in the same way that no Government can tell the Crown Prosecution Service which cases to prosecute, this Government do not tell courts which cases to prioritise when listing trials. These are decisions for independent judges to make, free from political pressure.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will remember from her time as a Crown Court judge that the time between a case first coming before a Crown Court and being listed for trial has got longer and longer. Now, perhaps in her old court, trials are being listed for 2028 and 2029. This is unacceptable for victims, for witnesses and even for the defendant. It requires some will and leadership to crack this. What are the Government intending to do about it? The 1,250 extra days promised to the system by the Lord Chancellor just the other day could be taken up by her old court alone in one year. Please let us have some action.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the basic premise of the noble and learned Lord’s question. It is simply unacceptable, and behind every one of those statistics are human beings waiting for justice. Our immediate reactions are that we intend to fund a record high of 111,250 sitting days in the Crown Court, to free up an additional 2,000 days in the Crown Court by extending the sentencing powers of the magistrates’ courts from six to 12 months, and to make some capital investment. But it is obvious to everybody that simply making efficiencies and putting financial help into the system will not deal with the problem. The backlog is now twice what it was before Covid, which is why the Government asked Sir Brian Leveson to look at fundamental reforms of how the system works. We are considering those and will respond in due course.

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

My Lords, we all accept that there is no magic bullet to reduce trial delays to acceptable levels, but does the noble Baroness agree that the most important factor is indeed the number of Crown Court sitting days? Unless prosecutions have to be abandoned—which does happen because of delays—all these cases need to be tried eventually, so there is no saving of resources by delaying trials. What steps do the Government have in mind specifically to increase the number of court sitting days much further and so to reduce these shameful court backlogs?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a very important point, and once again I agree with his fundamental premise. The difficulty is that any court in the Crown Court is a complex system. It is not just a room or just a judge; it is also things such as numbers of court staff, advocates and prison cells available in that court system. Currently we are funding 111,250 sitting days, as I said, and the Lady Chief Justice has said the maximum available is 113,000. But that is just rooms and judges, not all the rest of the infrastructure. That is why we are looking at Sir Brian Leveson’s reforms and will respond in due course.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, I accept the pretty appalling inheritance with which the Government have been dealing over the past year or so. Nevertheless, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Austin, some—perhaps a small number—of these cases are related to terrorism offences. Considering the small number of those offences, and the way in which lengthy delays in terrorism-related cases could affect public confidence in the court system, is there some way that such cases could be expedited?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that, and I can understand why that seems like an obvious solution. But the separation of powers between the Government and the courts is one of the fundamental protections of any citizen. Therefore, putting pressure on judges to alter a judicial decision would be wrong and is something that this Government will not do. What I can say is that all judges—I know this because I was one—do not just take cases in the order in which they come into the system; they prioritise certain categories. For example, those with vulnerable victims and witnesses, particularly children, will always jump the queue. Where the Lady Chief Justice and her judges put these particular cases is a matter for them, and I am sure that she will look at them with the attention they deserve.

[Lord Walney (CB)]

I of course accept what the Minister says, but there can be a dialogue with the Government. We saw that last year in Southport, where the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister worked with the prosecution system to ensure that a message was getting through that crimes would have quick consequences to deter further action. Is there not a case for doing this with politically motivated crimes, such as Palestine Action and other politically motivated areas, where the lack of deterrence is increasing the prospect of the ringleaders being able to recruit more people into the net?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises an interesting point. I can understand why it could be seen that the responses to the riots had been prioritised, but there are many reasons why those prosecutions took place very quickly. The first is that many of the cases were straightforward and could be dealt with in a magistrates’ court; the second is that, in relation to many of them, the evidence was very strong and people pleaded guilty; and the third is that the decisions involved were made by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the independent judiciary. The Government made sure that they had the resources if they needed them, but no pressure was put on them to decide how to do it.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

Recent data from the Criminal Bar Association shows substantial regional variations in trial delays. What specific steps are being taken to reduce these geographic disparities in trial delays?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is an interesting point. For example, the delays are much worse in central London than they are in Wales. There can be all kinds of reasons for that. I have already said that a trial, as the noble Lord knows, is a complicated factor. There are difficulties because you cannot just, for example, ship cases out to somewhere else; we cannot send a whole lot of London’s cases out to Cardiff because of the effect on victims, witnesses and defendants and the movement around of people within the prison estate. But it is important to look to see where lessons can be learned from other parts of the country and to see whether they are doing things that could be imported to other parts of the country so that we can do better there.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, the Minister has said a couple of times that the response to the Leveson recommendations will be delivered in due course. Can she possibly tell us what “in due course” looks like, because it has been quite a long time already?

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

That is another good question, as one would expect. The right reverend Prelate would not expect me to give a precise date, and I cannot. I am sure that noble Lords will understand that the recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson, to whom we are extremely grateful, are robust and far reaching. They will have a potentially radical effect on our justice system as we know it, and it is right that the Government take time to consider them and make sure that there are no unexpected effects on other parts of the system—for example, on the prison estate. If more people are sent to prison, can the prison estate cope with it? For that reason, impact assessments are being undertaken, and we will respond as soon as we are sure that what we are recommending will actually work.

Financial Provision on Divorce

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by joining all other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for securing this debate. The noble Baroness has, as other noble Lords have said, been unceasing in championing reform in this area, and I was very grateful to her for meeting me before the debate so that I could be sure I understood the issues she was going to raise. I also thank the Law Commission for the scoping report which has formed the basis for today’s debate, and indeed for its wider contribution to law reform.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and other noble Lords said, she and others have long campaigned for a change in the current law, because they are of the view that there is not enough certainty about it. The reasons are that it leaves too much to judicial discretion, and, because most of the principles are contained in case law, it is very difficult for couples to understand without consulting a lawyer. It was in this context that the previous Government asked the Law Commission to review financial remedies law, examining whether the current framework in England and Wales delivers fair and consistent results.

The report identifies not merely technical issues but matters that affect real families, often at times of great vulnerability and distress. Its conclusions go to the heart of the family justice system: namely, is the system fair, and can we and our fellow citizens have confidence in it? The Law Commission’s verdict is clear: the existing law lacks cohesion and fails to give parties the certainty they need. That is of course a troubling conclusion for any Government to absorb. I was particularly struck by its finding that the law can sometimes not only fail to resolve disputes but may even actively encourage continued conflict. That is a sobering conclusion and it underscores why this debate is timely.

As many noble Lords have made clear, because this was a scoping report, rather than setting out its conclusions, the Law Commission offered four possible models for reform. Each of these offers a different balance between judicial discretion and legal certainty. These have been described in the speeches of others, principally that of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and I shall not rehearse them further.

This brings me to the Government’s plans. Your Lordships will be aware of the Government’s manifesto commitment to strengthen the rights and protections for those in cohabiting relationships. Today, over 3.5 million couples live together, more than double the number 30 years ago. One of the reasons why the Government are so concerned about this is that, when such relationships come to an end, women and children are often left without financial security. Many of them do not even realise that they are left financially insecure until it is too late. They do not realise it because there is a widespread myth that the law recognises common-law marriages. In fact, it does no such thing, and the children of such relationships are frequently left unprotected.

Earlier this year, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby confirmed that we will be consulting on cohabitation reform. I repeat that commitment today, but I want to go further, because I have listened carefully to your Lordships’ concerns about uncertainty and conflict in the current system of remedies on divorce. The Government share those concerns and are determined to look more at these issues and address them. I therefore confirm that our consultation will not only consider cohabitation reform but will also explore the challenges identified by the Law Commission in relation to the current law on financial provision on divorce.

I realise that this may disappoint many noble Lords. I particularly bear in mind that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, gave such a charming and persuasive invitation to me to say exactly today what we are going to do, but I am afraid I am going to have to resist it. Some noble Lords may wonder why we have not simply asked the Law Commission to continue its impressive work, plumped for the one of the options, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, suggested, and told the commission to get on with it. However, as has been made clear in this Chamber tonight by the speeches of noble Lords, many of whom have great expertise in this area, there is disagreement even among them as to which option we should be going for.

So the answer is that, when we consult on cohabitation reform, we have a real opportunity to examine the question of break-up and financial remedies in tandem; we are not going to do it piecemeal. Consulting on financial provision alongside cohabitation will bring consistency and fairness across marriage, civil partnerships and cohabitation, recognising that reforms in one area may have implications for the other.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

I hesitate to interrupt, but does the Minister not appreciate that marriage is a status but non-marriage is not a status, and that the time has come for the two to be looked at separately: divorce on the one hand and how you look after those in other relationships on the other? The Law Commission has done a lot of work and the ground has been laid. We can go down parallel paths, but they should not be linked and heard at the same time. I see everyone else in this Chamber nodding.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am afraid I am going to have to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, because our assessment is that looking at these matters piecemeal will run the risk of creating new disputes and injustices. In the end, it is about making sure principally that children are protected when the relationships from which they are born end up dissolving.

I assure the noble and learned Baroness—

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Perhaps I might point out to the Minister that the consultation on cohabitation was carried out very thoroughly by the Law Commission. It did it some years ago and, as far as children go, you cannot protect them if the splitting couple—which is very often the case with cohabitants—have no money, and we are not enforcing child maintenance in this country. So do not do the work all over again—it has been done.

[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.

[Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. To what extent does a prenuptial agreement influence the protection of children? We cannot legislate in a prenup any rights in relation to them. It is open to the court—every single avenue is open to the judge. Someone simply cannot contract out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. One of the issues that the Government need to consider when deciding what to do about nuptial agreements is whether—and, if so, how—such agreements provide certainty and fairness for both parties while protecting the interests of any children. That is why they will all be considered as part of one piece.

I turn briefly to the points made by other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, raised a number of questions, including how conduct will be treated in financial remedy proceedings. I have listened carefully to the matters raised about that. The Law Commission examined it closely, and as we prepare for consultation, we will carefully consider what it has said. Challenging violence against women and girls is a priority for this Government and will be central to our consideration about the issue. On the matters he raised about religious courts, I will have to write to him.

The noble Lord, Lord Patten, raised the issue of children. Very often, as I have already said, those are the children of cohabiting partners. We are concerned to ensure that children are prioritised at all points.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, raised many issues; the noble Lord, Lord Meston, agreed with some but not all of them. Again, I make the point that, even with the experience in this House, not everyone is agreed on the right way forward. The noble Lords, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Sandhurst, could not agree on the right way forward either, which is why we will consult.

The points raised in the debate go to the heart of fairness and certainty for thousands of families at a time of great personal difficulty. I therefore thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for tabling this Question for Short Debate. I thank noble Lords for their contributions; I have listened to them very carefully and they have given us a great deal of food for thought as we move towards the consultation.

Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 (Extension of Operative Period) Regulations 2025

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2 September be approved.

Relevant document: 36th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 October.

Motion agreed.

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the positive and constructive debate on this important subject, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bach on bringing forward the Bill. I have been particularly struck by the emphasis of all those who spoke, including the noble Earl, on the fact that these are children and not just mini criminals.

It is the sad reality, however, that a small number of children commit offences so serious that there is no option other than to deprive them of their liberty in order to protect the public. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that these children receive appropriate support in order to prepare them for their eventual release. We want to go further and ensure that when they leave a custodial setting, they are in a position to make a better life for themselves.

Secure 16 to 19 academies, also known as secure schools, offer an opportunity to transform the experience of children who are detained by the state, having been sentenced or remanded in custody by the courts, giving them the opportunity to gain skills and qualifications which will enable them to return to the community and lead successful and crime-free lives, thus protecting the public from them reoffending in the future. This is part of the route for damaged children—damaged usually through no fault of their own—to lead a better life, which is better for children and better for the public.

As noble Lords have observed, secure schools were already established by the Academies Act 2010, and the previous Government deserve credit for that. This Bill is necessary to ensure specific provisions in the Act are relevant to these new custodial settings. The Government support the Bill because these amendments will create better services and thus strengthen the impact of secure schools on the lives of those children within our justice system.

I turn briefly to why we need secure schools. The good news is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, said, the number of children in custody under the age of 18 has fallen drastically in recent years. He said 80%. I wish I could agree with that—the figure may be a little lower, at 60%—but the point is still an important one. That is 60% fewer children in custody than there were a decade ago. I say that is good news because this Government agree with the last—that we should deprive children of their liberty only as a last resort. This decline in numbers has rightly been commended as a success of the youth justice system.

However, for children who commit the most serious crimes, there is often no alternative but to protect the public by detaining them in custody. These children, now in custody, are among the most complex and vulnerable in society. They also present with very challenging behaviour, and the majority have committed offences of violence. It is a sad and depressing fact that children leaving custody have some of the highest reoffending rates in the justice system. The latest statistics show that 66% of children released from custody go on to reoffend within a year.

The children in custody are much more likely than their peers to have had a disrupted education. Government analysis shows around 90% of children sentenced to custody had a record of persistent absence. This means these children have lost out on months or years of learning. As the noble Lord, Lord Bates, said, many of them have not been at school for the last years that they were required to be there, and therefore they have lost out on that.

The evidence is clear about the importance of education as a factor preventing children offending. Secure schools offer an opportunity for these children to re-engage with education and to make the most of their potential. The secure school model has been developed in accordance with the best available evidence for what works in addressing the underlying causes of youth offending. That is why secure schools will offer children small environments, as homelike as can be achieved, with healthcare and education at their heart. As has already been said by others, including by the noble Lord, Lord Bates, these are not “prisons with education”; they are primarily schools, but within a protective, secure environment.

In them, children and young people will engage with integrated care, health and education services, which—most importantly—will be tailored to their individual needs. On entry, each young person has a full assessment of their needs, which will establish a baseline against which progress is measured and ensure that any hitherto unmet health and special educational needs are identified.

As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, many studies, including recent reports, have shown that, among children in the youth justice system, a disproportional number have special educational needs or are neurodivergent. Each child will therefore receive a personalised programme to build on their strengths and develop their potential, with the use of evidence-based interventions to help them build resilience and develop vital life and social skills to help them in the future. Education will take place in appropriately sized groups, including one-to-one where needed.

Children in secure schools have the opportunity to make educational progress on a par with their peers in mainstream schools, but, self-evidently, that will have to be proportionate to the length of their sentence. Secure schools work closely with youth offending teams, education, health and other community service providers, as well as young people’s families where appropriate. Planning for resettlement will start when a young person enters a secure school and be adapted to support transition to the adult estate where appropriate.

I turn briefly to why the Government support the Bill. Secure schools are a key reform in youth custody that best fit the evidence of what works to reduce reoffending and, ultimately, to protect the public by ensuring that there are fewer victims of youth crime. As noble Lords have heard, the first secure school was opened in August 2024. Your Lordships’ House will be aware—the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and the right reverend Prelate alluded to this—that, unfortunately, the school is temporarily closed while repairs are being made to a number of doors on the site to ensure the children’s safety. We take this matter extremely seriously, and officials are working as hard as possible so that the site can reopen in early 2026.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and the noble Earl for their acknowledgment that these early problems do not invalidate the whole system; they are issues from which the Government can and will learn to ensure that, when this is rolled out further, they will not be replicated. These early operational issues do not detract from the need to ensure that we have the most effective legislative basis for secure schools to operate in the future. By ensuring that secure schools function well, with proportionate termination measures and efficient processes for opening new schools, we can achieve that goal.

As my noble friend Lord Bach said, through the Bill we have an opportunity to enable government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer while having more flexibility should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. As other noble Lords have pointed out, engagement with local communities is a key part of the Ministry of Justice selection procedure for new custodial sites. Should there be a need to open new custodial sites, that will be dealt with through the normal planning procedure. The point is that we will be able to talk about how the delivery is managed rather than whether the site should be opened at all. I take on board the right reverend Prelate’s observations about the importance of faith communities.

This Bill will give providers the opportunity to engage with their local community, ensuring a more constructive consultation process that will seek to consult on how the secure school should work with local partners. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, asked about the cost of that. I am afraid that I do not have the figures with me but will, if I may, write to him with them.

I reiterate my thanks to my noble friend Lord Bach for bringing the Bill before the House. I thank the noble Earl for the characteristic generosity and good humour in his response from the Opposition Benches. I confirm, with great pleasure, that the Government support this important Bill, and I look forward to its passage through this House. I urge colleagues across the House to give it their full support.

Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 (Extension of Operative Period) Regulations 2025

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 (Extension of Operative Period) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 36th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, the purpose of the instrument before your Lordships is to extend the powers to make regulations to implement private international law agreements for a further five years from 13 December 2025. This instrument may not have a very snappy title, but it is an important one because, if these powers are not extended, they will permanently lapse.

As your Lordships are doubtless aware, private international law rules are applied by courts and parties involved in legal disputes that raise cross-border issues. They generally apply in the context of civil and family law. In other words, private international law agreements help govern how we live, work and trade across borders. In the past, the domestic implementation of new private international law agreements generally required primary legislation, but most domestic provisions implementing private international law agreements concern technical matters and are limited in scope: therefore, implementation can appropriately be handled via secondary legislation. This is because policy issues are often settled when the private international law agreement is negotiated, so the implementation process focuses largely on the procedural changes needed to give effect to the policy decisions reached during negotiations.

The Committee will be interested to know that the Government have carried out a consultation with experts from across the UK. The vast majority of respondents considered that these powers have been used properly to date; that the safeguards are effective; and that the continued use of the powers is in the public interest because they provide a single, clear means of implementing private international law agreements and make proportionate use of parliamentary time.

The purpose of this instrument is to extend the powers to make regulations under Section 2 of and Schedule 6 to the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020. Section 2 allows the “appropriate national authority” to make regulations for the purpose of implementing international private international law agreements; to apply those regulations to the UK’s different jurisdictions; and to extend these regulation-making powers for a further five years. The Scottish and Northern Irish national authorities can grant permission to the Secretary of State to make regulations on their behalf, including regulations extending the five-year operative period in their jurisdictions, as they have done in this case.

I very much thank those noble Lords who sit on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for their review of this instrument and for their clear, concise summary in their 36th report, which I commend to the Committee.

I turn now to the reasons for extending the powers. We suggest that these powers provide a single, clear method for implementing private international law agreements. They protect the public interest by ensuring that parliamentary time is used effectively, and they retain the effective safeguards and limits on the powers provided by the Act. The powers are vital in ensuring the UK’s credibility with its international partners by reassuring them that private international law agreements can be implemented in a timely way.

By way of example, the powers were used to implement the Hague Judgments Convention of 2019. Without the powers granted by the Act, primary legislation would have been needed, thereby delaying implementation. Our ratification of Hague 2019 was warmly welcomed by the legal sector—and, indeed, by Members of your Lordships’ House—as an important step for international, civil and commercial co-operation.

The Government are now proposing that the powers would be used, for example, to implement the Singapore Convention on Mediation, which would allow cross-border commercial mediation settlements to be recognised and enforced more easily before the UK courts. Furthermore, in July 2023, the Government confirmed their intention to implement two model laws that had been adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law—UNCITRAL—of which the UK is a member state.

I will say a brief word about the consultation. The Act imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to consult such persons as he or she considers appropriate before using the powers. As your Lordships will be aware from the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government consulted targeted experts on whether to extend the powers for a further five years. These experts included academics, lawyers and professional bodies, some with very large memberships, from all parts of the UK; the vast majority agreed with the extension of the powers, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

On safeguards, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, doubtless remembers from his involvement in the passage of the Act, several noble and learned Lords raised concerns about the extent of the powers, which led to amendments introducing various safeguards. These include the prohibition on granting legislative powers, the banning of the creation of imprisonable offences and the establishment of a five-year extendable time limit, which is the subject of the instrument before your Lordships today.

In addition, most regulations made using the powers will be subject to the affirmative procedure or equivalent processes in the devolved legislatures. Therefore, Parliament and, where appropriate, the devolved legislatures retain the ultimate say regarding the use of the powers. I would like to take this opportunity to reassure noble Lords that this instrument does not affect those safeguards. I should also add that several consultees noted the proportionate use of powers to date, as well as the effectiveness of the safeguards, and judged that the benefits outweighed the concerns raised during the passage of the Act.

I thank the noble and learned Lord in advance for his contribution, as I cannot see anybody else present who looks as though they want to say something; I very much look forward to working with him. I beg to move.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction of the regulations, which extend the powers conferred by the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 in order that Ministers may implement private international law provisions contained in international agreements in accordance with our dualist system of law.

Private international law is, of course, a vital extension of our domestic legal framework. It enables businesses, individuals and families to operate confidently and lawfully across borders. That is why the previous Conservative Government championed the 2020 Act. It expands the sphere in which reciprocal legal treatment can be upheld, with flexibility and indeed a degree of agility, as indicated by the Minister.

The Act is also one of several measures introduced to address the legal and legislative gaps following our departure from the European Union, filling the gaps in a way that minimised the burden on parliamentary time while continuing to promote the UK’s commitment to international legal co-operation. At the time, concerns were raised, as the Minister indicated, by the then Opposition about the potential for executive overreach. In practice, however, the power has been used very sparingly—only twice, I understand, since 2020—and the requirement for parliamentary renewal every five years provides an important check on its use. Far from becoming a tool of unchecked executive authority, it has functioned within very clear and indeed limited boundaries.

If the instrument is to continue serving our interests, we must be confident that it is both effective and proportionate. I therefore ask the Minister whether the Government will consider undertaking a formal impact assessment to provide clarity on how they see the instrument being used in the coming years. Clearly, we must ensure that the instrument becomes neither a dormant provision nor a vehicle for unchecked executive action. I thank the Minister for her introduction.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his contribution to this debate. He is a lawyer of great distinction, and his comments were listened to carefully by me.

He made an important point about the necessity of ensuring that all legislation of this sort does not succumb to overreach or indeed become dormant but must remain both effective and proportionate. He asked whether we would consider an impact assessment. I may have to come back to him on that and write when there has been an opportunity to consider this. I will take it away and think about it carefully, because it seems that the points made are important.

As I set out, these powers are an important tool that will support a clear and effective implementation mechanism for private international law agreements. In turn, these agreements will provide greater clarity and confidence for UK businesses, families and citizens who work and live across international borders.

Motion agreed.

Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice (Alteration of Overall Compensation Limits) Order 2025

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 15 July be approved.

Relevant document: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

Considered in Grand Committee on 17 September.

Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice (Alteration of Overall Compensation Limits) Order 2025

Baroness Levitt Excerpts

Wednesday 17th September 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Levitt]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice (Alteration of Overall Compensation Limits) Order 2025

Relevant documents: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)]

My Lords, miscarriages of justice have a devastating impact on those who suffer them. It is no exaggeration to say that such people are in fact victims of the state, so it is right that the state should support those people in rebuilding their lives.

Although miscarriages of justices are, thankfully, rare, they do occur. When they do, it is vital that the criminal justice system learns lessons in order to minimise the risk of them happening again and that we support those people whose lives have been affected. Justice for the wrongly convicted is vital to the Government’s ambition to restore confidence in the criminal justice system as part of their Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government.

With the introduction of this instrument, we are taking action to ensure that victims of miscarriages of justice will continue to be appropriately compensated, while keeping in mind the wider financial context. There are two compensation schemes: one relates to convictions in the civilian justice system, while the other relates to convictions by a court martial. Both have caps on the maximum compensation that can be paid for a miscarriage of justice. They have not been changed since their introduction in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

The purpose of this instrument is to increase the maximum amount under both schemes by 30%. This means that where an individual has spent at least 10 years in prison, the maximum amount that they can receive will increase from £1 million to £1.3 million. In all other cases, the maximum amount will increase from £500,000 to £650,000. The Government consider this a substantial increase. Of course, these compensation schemes are just one route by which an individual can receive compensation for a wrongful conviction; for example, applicants can also seek further compensation by bringing civil claims against public bodies if they have been at fault in such a way that it has caused the miscarriage of justice.

I am now going to deal with each scheme in a little more detail. For those who have suffered a qualifying miscarriage of justice in the civilian criminal justice system, the payment of compensation is governed by Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Applications for compensation under this scheme are determined and the compensation will be paid by the responsible devolved Government.

In practice, this means that the Secretary of State for Justice is responsible for cases in England and Wales, Scottish Ministers are responsible for cases in Scotland and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland is responsible for cases in Northern Ireland. This reflects the position that miscarriages of justice compensation are a transferred matter. There is a small number of cases in Northern Ireland involving sensitive national security information for which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has responsibility.

For those who have suffered a qualifying miscarriage of justice following conviction by a court martial, Section 276 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 provides that applications are determined by, and that the compensation will be paid by, the Secretary of State for Defence. To be clear, compensation payable under this scheme is also subject to the caps.

The proposed instrument will increase the caps that apply to compensation payable by the Secretary of State—that is, eligible England and Wales cases, eligible Northern Ireland national security cases and eligible cases under the Armed Forces Act scheme. It will have no effect on the caps that apply to compensation payable by the Northern Ireland Department of Justice as it has a separate power to amend its caps.

The Government are aware that there are some aspects of the entire compensation scheme that remain controversial. However, the Law Commission is consulting on a wide range of changes to the laws relating to criminal appeals, including compensation for miscarriages of justice. We look forward to receiving its final report and remain committed to ensuring that any changes we make will promote fairness and justice for all involved in criminal justice proceedings.

I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its consideration of this instrument and its report. We are laying the instrument now as part of our mission to improve the Government’s response to miscarriages of justice. We believe that it is crucial to ensure that victims of miscarriages of justice continue to be appropriately compensated, while being mindful of the Government’s wider financial context. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box on her first appearance. I welcome the fact that such an experienced lawyer now holds this position.

I turn now to the substance of the debate; the Minister has explained everything in such lucid detail that I can go straight to the two points that I want to raise, without going into the background. The limit was fixed in 2008 and, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, on which I sit, observed, the limit is being raised by only 30% whereas, unfortunately, inflation has been very much higher. We have the privilege of having the Financial Secretary to the Treasury here in the Room, and he will no doubt be very pleased to see that the Ministry of Justice is taking such good care of the scarce resources of the country.

When the previous Labour Administration were in power in 2008, they thought that the limits set out then were fair and reasonable and reflected the public position at the time. Is there a reason why we cannot have the same position today and therefore raise the amounts? As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was told, there has never been a payment of the maximum amount, and only very few payments of the lesser amount. Is there therefore a real difficulty in being parsimonious—which is no doubt appreciated by His Majesty’s Treasury—in relation to these amounts? Could this be looked at again?

That takes me to my second question. The Ministry of Justice is in the unfortunate position of having a number of instruments and other pieces of legislation where limits are set, and it is very important that these are kept under regular review. There have been occasions when the ministry has failed to do so. Does the ministry now have a proper schedule for reviewing this and making certain that we do not have a very long period of time, such as that which has elapsed since 2008, before this kind of limit is reviewed? It may be that the Minister will want to take some time to investigate this, but I hope that there is a system in place for such limits to be looked at.

Those are my two observations. I again express what a great pleasure it is to see the Minister in her place and dealing with such an important subject.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I take the opportunity that today offers to raise the issue of the test that applicants must pass to qualify for compensation at all. As the Minister said, they are, after all, victims of the state. It is not enough that their conviction has been quashed, particularly when they have spent many years in prison, with the loss of their liberty, their family and their reputation—everything. Yet, having had their convictions quashed on the grounds of a miscarriage at the trial itself, they are required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were innocent. But if the original trial had been fair, it goes without saying that they would have been acquitted and not imprisoned, because the Crown would have failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they were guilty. So, at present, someone who should not have been in prison at all has then to prove that they are innocent by applying a test and standard that is the opposite to that which would have applied if the trial had not been a miscarriage. I invite the Minister to say something about what the Government will do to remedy this lamentable state of affairs.

[Baroness Levitt (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this debate. I shall start with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. The last time that I was answering questions from the noble and learned Lord, I was in the Court of Appeal and he was the Lord Chief Justice, and I have to say that I rather quake at the sound of his voice. I am very grateful to him and I appreciate the importance of the points that he makes.

As to whether there is a proper schedule relating to reviews of this, I am afraid I am going to repeat what I said in my opening remarks about the fact that the Law Commission is looking at this and it would be unwise of the Government to commit themselves to anything, or indeed to start considering it, until they have seen what kind of a package the Law Commission suggests. If noble Lords will forgive me, that is going to be my answer at this stage.

On why a decision was not made to increase the amount by the rate of inflation, I shall deal with that in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, in a moment. I am afraid I am going to disappoint him in relation to his first point about the test, as it were, the gateway for eligibility, and say to him again that the Law Commission is looking at it, and I am not going to pre-empt what it is going to say. We are very much looking forward to its report. It has asked for views on compensation for those who have had their convictions quashed. It will be interesting to see what it says. Its initial findings are due in 2026.

On the point about inflation made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and I have known each other for a very long time and therefore I am going to make this point in as gentle a way as I can. He made the point that for 17 years, there has been no increase in payments for miscarriages of justice. I think he knows what I am going to say. For 14 of those years, the party opposite was in power, and it did not raise them by any per cent, far less the rate of inflation. We have done so, and we say that it is a substantial increase.

It says in my brief to make the point that we inherited a broken criminal justice system, but because of my great respect for the noble Lord, I am going to put it this way: it is a system that is under great stress. I do not think that anybody would disagree with that. The fact is that this Government have to consider our obligation to limit the financial exposure that we take on, certainly before the Law Commission reports. This instrument is an important part of Government’s work to ensure that people are appropriately compensated following a miscarriage of justice, and I commend it to the Committee.

Motion agreed.