asked Her Majesty’s Government:

When they expect to respond to the Law Commission’s report on murder, published on 28 November 2006.

My Lords, we announced the next stage in the review of the law on homicide on 12 December last year. The Law Commission’s recommendations and ambitions were wide-ranging. We will therefore proceed on a step-by-step basis and look first at its proposals for reforms to the law on diminished responsibility, provocation, complicity and infanticide. We are now seeking views on these issues. We will publish draft clauses for consultation in the summer.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. The House will be glad to hear that the Government have at last begun to consult on at least some of the aspects of this important report. Does the noble Lord agree with the Law Commission that the law of murder as a whole is in a mess? If so, when will the Government consult on the central recommendation in the report that there should be two degrees of murder, only one of which will carry the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, and when will they consult more widely on the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment on which so many of the difficulties turn and on which so many injustices occur?

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is right to point to the core conclusion of the very important Law Commission report which has made it clear that the law governing homicide has developed over centuries. It has not kept pace with modern society and the current definitions are not the product of legislation enacted after wide consultation. It is a very persuasive and important report. I do not apologise for the time the Government have taken to announce the first stage in their review. We will want to work on the matters that I have just discussed. I will take account of the points the noble and learned Lord has made and we will come back to the core recommendations on offences at the end of the review that I have just announced.

My Lords, the Law Commission was not permitted to look at the mandatory life sentence at all. Are consultees being permitted to look at the mandatory life sentence and will we be able to discuss it in the parliamentary seminar which the Minister has promised us?

My Lords, it is not for me to dictate to consultees what issues they wish to raise with the Government but I ought to make it clear that the Government are firmly committed to retaining the mandatory life sentence for murder. They believe that murder is such a serious offence that that is required and indeed is what the public would support. That is why that matter was not put in the terms of reference to the Law Commission. This matter was fully discussed in your Lordships’ House during the passing to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and was disposed of. We are not minded to change it but of course we will always listen to comments that are made in any consultation.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that your Lordships’ Select Committee on Medical Ethics, which I was privileged to chair, reported in 1993 and strongly recommended amendment of the law in this particular area? It did so because 23 cases had been reported to us in which a family member had deliberately ended the life of a loved one, and since the act was deliberate, the Crown Prosecution Service thought that this demanded a life sentence or a charge of murder. In every case but one, the charge was amended either to manslaughter or to attempted murder because the Crown Prosecution Service knew that, with a mandatory life sentence, no jury would be likely to convict. It is not the case, therefore, that on that occasion the law was being manipulated, and is it not time for a change?

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. It is one of a number of matters that fall to be discussed and debated within the context of the Law Commission’s review. As I have said, the Government have decided to take a step-by-step approach. I have already indicated the areas that we will look at first, but we will come back at the end of that process to some of the more general important issues that noble Lords are raising.

My Lords, does the Minister recollect that the report of the very distinguished commission described the law of homicide as “a rickety structure” that was standing on uncertain foundations, and that recasting the law of homicide to first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter would accord with the overwhelming majority of informed opinion in England and Wales, as well as with the systems of countries whose track record in the administration of justice is meritorious?

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. I confirm that the Law Commission described the current law governing homicide as “a rickety structure” and made it clear that some of the rules have remained unaltered since the 17th century. That is why we take the matter seriously. The fact that we are taking this incremental approach does not undermine the importance of the overall thrust of the Law Commission report or the fact that the Government are very much prepared to engage with noble Lords in discussing the wider implications.

My Lords, the Minister has repeated on behalf of the Government their commitment to maintain the mandatory life sentence, for which I thank him. On the original Question, which was about the timing, does the Minister not accept that it is now 14 months since we had this report, during which time the Government have only partially responded by offering consultation on one small aspect of it? Do they not think that they could proceed with slightly greater speed and produce consultation on more aspects of the original report?

My Lords, I have discovered since taking on this particular responsibility that most noble Lords think that the Government are too ready to bring criminal justice legislation to your Lordships’ House. I would have thought that the law on homicide, which is such a serious offence, warrants very careful preparation, time and consideration. That is why we have decided to take this step-by-step approach.

My Lords, following on from what my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd said, does the Minister not agree that it is entirely wrong that, as things stand, someone who in the line of duty kills another person because of a perceived split-second error of judgment can, if found guilty, be guilty only of murder, with an inevitable mandatory life sentence?

My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord raises a very important matter. The Law Commission argued that the law should make provision for those whose killings are judged to be an over-reaction in self-defence, and that a partial defence should be available in such cases to reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter. The commission proposed to address this by widening the provocation defence to include cases where the defendant killed in response to a fear of serious violence. That is one of the matters that we will be looking at very carefully.