Information between 31st March 2026 - 30th May 2026
Note: This sample does not contain the most recent 2 weeks of information. Up to date samples can only be viewed by Subscribers.
Click here to view Subscription options.
| Division Votes |
|---|
|
15 Apr 2026 - Victims and Courts Bill - View Vote Context Lord Meston voted No and in line with the House One of 32 Crossbench No votes vs 12 Crossbench Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 209 Noes - 260 |
|
20 Apr 2026 - Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - View Vote Context Lord Meston voted Aye and in line with the House One of 31 Crossbench Aye votes vs 9 Crossbench No votes Tally: Ayes - 276 Noes - 169 |
|
20 Apr 2026 - Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - View Vote Context Lord Meston voted No and against the House One of 22 Crossbench No votes vs 17 Crossbench Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 259 Noes - 180 |
|
20 Apr 2026 - Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - View Vote Context Lord Meston voted Aye and in line with the House One of 39 Crossbench Aye votes vs 5 Crossbench No votes Tally: Ayes - 284 Noes - 158 |
|
23 Apr 2026 - English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill - View Vote Context Lord Meston voted Aye and in line with the House One of 16 Crossbench Aye votes vs 15 Crossbench No votes Tally: Ayes - 220 Noes - 143 |
|
23 Apr 2026 - English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill - View Vote Context Lord Meston voted Aye and in line with the House One of 8 Crossbench Aye votes vs 12 Crossbench No votes Tally: Ayes - 197 Noes - 144 |
|
23 Apr 2026 - English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill - View Vote Context Lord Meston voted No and against the House One of 14 Crossbench No votes vs 6 Crossbench Aye votes Tally: Ayes - 199 Noes - 146 |
|
23 Apr 2026 - English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill - View Vote Context Lord Meston voted Aye and in line with the House One of 17 Crossbench Aye votes vs 10 Crossbench No votes Tally: Ayes - 208 Noes - 138 |
|
27 Apr 2026 - Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill - View Vote Context Lord Meston voted Aye and in line with the House One of 52 Crossbench Aye votes vs 7 Crossbench No votes Tally: Ayes - 316 Noes - 165 |
| Speeches |
|---|
|
Lord Meston speeches from: Burial Provision in England and Wales
Lord Meston contributed 1 speech (74 words) Wednesday 22nd April 2026 - Lords Chamber Ministry of Justice |
| Written Answers |
|---|
|
Civil Proceedings: Third Party Financing
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary) Tuesday 7th April 2026 Question to the Ministry of Justice: To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have to (1) implement the findings of the Civil Justice Council's Review of Litigation Funding (2 June 2025), and (2) legislate in response to R (PACCAR Inc and Others) v. Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28, and by when. Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice) As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions. |
|
Civil Proceedings: Third Party Financing
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary) Tuesday 7th April 2026 Question to the Ministry of Justice: To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of increased third-party funded collective actions on (1) court capacity, (2) judicial workload, and (3) case duration. Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice) As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions. |
|
Civil Proceedings: Third Party Financing
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary) Tuesday 7th April 2026 Question to the Ministry of Justice: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to publish data on the total costs of third-party funded collective actions to the public sector. Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice) As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions. |
|
Civil Proceedings: Third Party Financing
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary) Tuesday 7th April 2026 Question to the Ministry of Justice: To ask His Majesty's Government what steps what they are taking to ensure that any policy they have on litigation funding does not lead to any inappropriate use of court time or resources. Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice) As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government intends to accept the two key recommendations of the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review:
We will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment by clarifying that Litigation Funding Agreements are not Damages-Based Agreements and will introduce proportionate regulation of Litigation Funding Agreements.
We intend to legislate to implement these changes when parliamentary time allows. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations in more detail.
We recognise the importance of maintaining access to justice, whilst avoiding issues stemming from speculative or unmeritorious claims. The new regulations will take a balanced and holistic approach; this involves appropriate consideration of the position of claimants and defendants and the courts, as well as the legal and litigation funding sectors.
The regulations will complement existing safeguards preventing speculative and disproportionate litigation, such as the power, provided in Part 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for the court to dismiss any claim which has no reasonable grounds.
The Government is confident that the CJC has appropriately reviewed litigation funding and thus we have not found it necessary to make our own formal assessment of the potential impact of third-party funded collective actions on court capacity, judicial workload, or case duration. We also do not hold data relating to the costs to the public sector of third-party funded collective actions. |
|
Legal Costs: Reviews
Asked by: Lord Meston (Crossbench - Excepted Hereditary) Wednesday 29th April 2026 Question to the Ministry of Justice: To ask His Majesty's Government, in the context of the Civil Justice Council's review of litigation funding and the Government's plans to regulate litigation funding, (1) what definition of litigation funding agreements they propose to adopt; (2) whether portfolio funding will be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority as a form of loan in line with the Council's recommendation 28, or under any proposed litigation funding regulations; and (3) what steps they are taking to ensure that both forms of funding are subject to appropriate and distinct regulatory oversight. Answered by Baroness Levitt - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Justice) The Government welcomes the Civil Justice Council’s (CJC) review and is carefully considering all its recommendations. As announced on 17 December 2025, the Government’s priority is to accept the CJC’s two primary recommendations and legislate to clarify that Litigation Funding Agreements (LFAs) are not Damages-Based Agreements and introduce light-touch regulation of LFAs. As we determine the appropriate form of regulation, we will consider the most suitable definition of a LFA. We will continue to engage with stakeholders as we develop this policy to ensure that any future framework provides for proportionate and effective regulation. Once this work has been completed, we will consider the CJC’s remaining recommendations, including those relating to portfolio funding, in more detail. We will provide further information in due course. |
| Select Committee Documents |
|---|
|
Tuesday 28th April 2026
Formal Minutes - Formal minutes Session 2024-26 Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee) Found: Atkinson Lord Beith Lord Chartres Mark Ferguson Claire Hughes Charlie Maynard Gordon McKee Lord Meston |
|
Tuesday 28th April 2026
Special Report - 3rd Special Report - Scrutinising Statutory Instruments: Departmental Returns, Session 2024-26 Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee) Found: Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench; Life peer) Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Labour; Life peer) Lord Meston |
|
Tuesday 28th April 2026
Report - Fifty-fifth Report - 2 Statutory Instruments Reported Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee) Found: Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench; Life peer) Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Labour; Life peer) Lord Meston |
|
Friday 24th April 2026
Report - Fifty-fourth Report - 2 Statutory Instruments Reported Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee) Found: Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench; Life peer) Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Labour; Life peer) Lord Meston |
|
Friday 17th April 2026
Report - Fifty-third Report - 2 Statutory Instruments Reported Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee) Found: Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench; Life peer) Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Labour; Life peer) Lord Meston |