Westminster update: lord chancellor on vital ECHR reform

SRA to refocus core functions

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is consulting on its 2025/26 business plan.

Read our response in support of its commitment to refocus core functions, which will help rebuild public trust and confidence in the regulator.

Lord chancellor on “vital” ECHR reform

The lord chancellor Shabana Mahmood said in a recent speech that reforming the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is vital to prevent its misuse by those breaking the rules.

Addressing the Council of Europe, she stressed that the UK remains firmly committed to both the convention and the council.

Referencing a recent letter from nine European leaders, Mahmood said that it demonstrates a desire for open conversation about the future of the convention.

She noted that the convention was never meant to be “frozen in time”, urging council members to consider how to best amend the convention in response to new threats, rights and realities.

The UK is not just open to the conversation of reform. The lord chancellor and home secretary are actively considering how to implement the convention domestically.

The lord chancellor used the UK’s respect for the rule of law to justify why the ECHR needs to be updated.

She noted that there is a growing perception that human rights are no longer a shield for the vulnerable, but a tool for criminals to avoid responsibility.

She said that modern threats to justice and liberty are more complex, and in the UK these come from criminal justice and immigration.

Mahmood ended with a call to action for the council – questions over the ECHR should not be left to the courts alone: “if judges are being asked to solve political problems that parliaments avoid, we weaken both institutions”. 

She presented reform as a political endeavour shared between Council of Europe member states to renew the ECHR's moral and democratic foundation.

Children’s Wellbeing Bill: legal aid access under debate

On Tuesday 17 June, committee stage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill saw peers debating legal aid access for children subject to deprivation of liberty orders (DPOs).

Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour) moved an amendment suggested by the Law Society to provide legal aid to children and parents involved in these orders.

He argued that while children can receive legal aid without means testing, parents and individuals with parental responsibility are limited to means-tested legal aid.

He referenced the Law Society's research, which found that even families in poverty may not meet the current financial eligibility criteria.

He raised this issue alongside concerns of a 120% increase in DPO use and increasing placement of children in unregistered accommodation, further using our research to highlight the need to ensure that all affected families can access legal advice and support.

Lord Watson argued that access to legal advice should be a human right for parents of a child at risk of deprivation of their liberty. 

Responding for the government, education minister Baroness Smith said that where an application to deprive a child of their liberty is made as a result of any measure from the bill, the child will be eligible for state-funded legal aid representation.

This will use the same criteria that currently apply to all children subject to orders under section 25.

This means that children will be able to access legal aid without means testing.

However, she did not address the point about parents having access to non-means tested legal aid.

Mental Health Bill: MPs debate court investment

As committee stage debates continued for the Mental Health Bill on Tuesday 17 June, MPs debated the need for increased investment in the justice system if mental health cases are to be automatically referred to tribunals.

Minister for care Stephen Kinnock emphasised the importance of regular judicial review when detaining vulnerable individuals.

We have been actively engaged in ensuring that this point is backed by suitable investment.

Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Conservative) highlighted similar concerns, noting the likely increased workload on the tribunal system.

Dr Ben Spencer (Conservative) spoke to his amendments 54 and 55, proposing that a nominated person for patients under 16 must have parental responsibility.

He balanced this against the need for flexibility in diverse family situations.

The minister objected to the amendments, arguing that children with the ability to do so should be able to choose their own nominated person.

He emphasised that this aligns with the recommendations of the independent review and principles of choice and autonomy.

Dr Marie Tidball (Labour) and Jen Craft (Labour) supported the bill's measure to remove autism and learning disabilities from the definition of mental disorder under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

They stressed the need for clear criteria and safeguards to prevent inappropriate detention.

Coming up:

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