Westminster update: legal aid and court capacity debated in Renters' Rights Bill

Leveson review: criminal courts backlog

Sir Brian Leveson's independent review highlights why urgent reform and investment are vital to fixing the criminal courts backlog and restoring timely access to justice.

Read our response to the Leveson review.

Renters' Rights Bill: Peers debate legal aid and court capacity

The Renters’ Rights Bill completed its report stage in the House of Lords on Tuesday 15 July. The third reading begins on Monday 21 July.

The debate highlighted critical concerns over court capacity and legal aid. Peers urged the government to properly prepare the judicial system to absorb the new demands brought by the legislation.

Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat) proposed an amendment for a formal review of the bill's impact on the judicial system, which was backed by the Law Society.

She cited input from housing legal practitioners who questioned whether the courts were ready to implement the reforms effectively.

Housing minister Baroness Taylor acknowledged this and confirmed ongoing collaboration with the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). She declined to commit to a new review due to existing evaluation plans.

Baroness Thornhill withdrew her amendment as a result.

Debate also focused on access to justice, particularly the sharp drop in legal aid support for illegal eviction and harassment cases since 2012.

Baroness Kennedy (Labour) proposed easing the burden of proof for rent repayment orders. She argued that the current criminal standard cancels out the remedy for most tenants.

Baroness Thornhill also highlighted the lack of legal aid and the difficulties for tenants representing themselves.

The minister responded by referencing new data collection requirements for local authorities.

She pointed to the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service, which offers free legal advice in urgent housing cases.

Some proposed amendments were pushed to a vote.

Among the divisions, the lords agreed to amendments imposing a consistent standard of proof for financial penalties and extending the Decent Homes Standard to family housing.

The bill will return to the Commons for consideration of these amendments after the summer recess.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): domestic interpretation and reform

On Thursday 17 July, Lord Foulkes (Labour Co-op) tabled a question on any MoJ plans to propose ECHR amendments.

He asked the justice minister Lord Ponsonby (Labour) to confirm that a Labour government will never withdraw from the ECHR and will instead focus on new protocols, rights and interpretations – “not to weaken rights, but to update and strengthen them.”

Lord Ponsonby repeated the government's ECHR commitment, acknowledging the need for reform, not withdrawal.

He stressed that the framework needs to evolve to reflect modern developments through dialogue with other states.

Much of the discussion was on article 8: the right to family life.

The government confirmed plans to reform how this right is interpreted domestically, aiming to rely less on “exceptional circumstances” in immigration cases.

The minister noted that new legislation will clarify the application of article 8, aligning it with legitimate aims such as national security and public safety.

However, he provided no timeline for this.

Lord Lilley (Conservative) argued that the government’s proposal in the Immigration White Paper to legislate how courts interpret the ECHR, particularly in immigration cases, risks weakening judicial independence and the convention’s original rationale.

He warned that allowing judges to define rights and override parliamentary decisions shifts law-making power away from elected representatives, eroding the rule of law.

Lord Ponsonby rejected this critique and stressed that the convention allows flexibility that many states do not make full use of.

Crossbench peer Lord Walney asked whether the UK should reserve the right to withdraw from the ECHR if reforms stall.

Lord Ponsonby stressed that this was not the position at present. He claimed that the UK remains well placed to make domestic changes under the current framework.

Conservative peer Lord Sandhurst pressed the government on its position on nine EU member states calling to reform the ECHR's functioning rather than the convention itself.

Lord Ponsonby said the UK was not invited to participate, but reiterated their commitment to meaningful dialogue on the ECHR's future, citing the lord chancellor’s recent remarks in Strasbourg.

MPs on legal ethics and outside interests

On 15 July, the Committee on Standards hosted an oral evidence session for their inquiry into MPs' outside employment and interests.

This session focused on the legal profession, with the panel providing insights across the legal spectrum of solicitors, barristers, and the judiciary.

The panel members were:

• Paul Philip (chief executive of the Solicitors Regulation Authority)
• Mark Neale (director general of the Bar Standards Board)
• Dr John Sorabji (associate professor at UCL Laws)

Discussions focused on ethical standards within the sector.

Carys Williams, an independent lay member of the committee, raised concerns of how legal professionals can understand and appreciate ethical rules when standards evolve.

She was particularly interested in the Solicitors Regulation Authority's (SRA) measures to make sure practitioners both recognise the importance of new regulations and apply them effectively.

Paul Philip highlighted that ethics are woven into solicitor training from the start. Firms play a central role in ethical development and the SRA complements this with guidance.

Notably, Philip credited us for our work with the SRA and legal firms to provide resources that reinforce ethical standards.

Paula Barker MP (Labour) questioned the lack of regulation and monitoring on legal professionals' outside interests.

She asked whether solicitors are required to document hours worked or earnings from external roles, and whether regulators can access related records, such as employment contracts.

Philip explained that while the SRA doesn't require this documentation, many firms keep internal registers of interests.

He noted that our guidance encourages transparency as ethical best practice.

However, unless financial details are directly related to misconduct allegations, regulators generally wouldn’t access personal income or employment contracts.

Panel members noted that because ethics are established early in legal training, a “light-touch” regulatory model is possible across the profession.

The session highlighted a collective commitment to ethical integrity — backed by our vital role in promoting practical resources and guidance to embed ethical competence across the profession.

Coming up

We are working closely with MPs and peers to influence a number of bills before parliament: